House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Frazer)
The hon. Member’s question is about the Government’s support for those who are struggling with the cost of living. The Government recently announced an additional £15 billion-worth of additional support, targeted particularly on those with the greatest need. Government support for the cost of living now totals £37 billion this year.
Neale Hanvey
VAT on domestic fuel continues to be levied on rising fuel bills while one in three Scots households live in fuel poverty. With 8% of the UK population, Scotland has 96% of the UK’s crude oil reserves, 63% of the UK’s natural gas reserves, 90% of the UK’s hydropower and 25% of Europe’s offshore wind and tidal resources. Scotland’s vast energy potential far exceeds the needs of our people yet we receive no revenue. Can the Minister tell me the true value of Scotland’s energy to the UK Treasury, and set out how the Government will service their massive debts when they can no longer fleece Scotland of its energy resources following a vote for independence in 2023?
Lucy Frazer
We of course recognise Scotland’s contribution to energy across the country and the fantastic industry that we have in Scotland, but the hon. Member will know that Scotland has a record sum this year in terms of money that comes through the Treasury, through the Budget and through the Barnett formula.
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
The original question was about heating fuel, and I wonder if the Minister could let us know the proportion of people in London who use heating oil compared with those out in rural areas such as Lincolnshire or even in Scotland?
Lucy Frazer
My hon. Friend is right: more people use heating oil in rural areas, and the Treasury and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy are looking at energy across the board to ensure that all people are protected.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Frazer)
The 2025 UK border strategy sets out the Government’s vision for the UK border to be the most effective in the world. We are investing £180 million to build a UK single trade window, which will streamline how traders share information with the Government, making it as straightforward as possible for business to comply with customs requirements.
Dame Nia Griffith
We all understand the need to protect revenue and to prevent fraud, but some alcohol exporting companies find that their exports are being hindered by HMRC’s refusal to accept standard invoicing as proof of tax paid. HMRC, in requiring additional letters of confirmation, is therefore causing companies considerable hindrance to their exports. Will the Minister agree to meet me to find a way forward that can both protect revenue and facilitate exports?
Lucy Frazer
I would be very happy to meet the hon. Member and look at the specific issues that she has raised, but I reassure her that HMRC is currently in a programme to ensure that traders have to fill in fewer forms and that forms are prepopulated, so that customs can be streamlined for the trader.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that a trade agreement with India would be a huge boost to our exporters, including our alcohol exporters?
Lucy Frazer
The Government are very much committed to trade agreements across the globe and would welcome a trade agreement with India.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rishi Sunak)
The UK Government are providing £37 billion-worth of support to help families with the cost of living, and most of that support is being provided directly to households across the United Kingdom. Indeed, we are legislating to ensure that our one-off payments to those on welfare that are worth up to £650 can be paid directly to households and families in Northern Ireland.
Stephen Farry
As the Chancellor will be aware, the energy bill support scheme cannot currently be extended to Northern Ireland due to the absence of the Northern Ireland Executive, so can he update the House on what steps he is taking to put in place measures to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland can avail themselves of that support? I appreciate that it is not due until October, but there is a long lead-in time required in that respect.
Rishi Sunak
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we want to ensure that equivalent support is provided to all Northern Irish families, and that it will be of the same value. We are currently in discussions with a variety of organisations to see how best to deliver that support, but I can give him the reassurance that it will be there in the same quantity, in the same value and at the same time.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
The combined impacts of the £37 billion package that my right hon. Friend has referred to, plus tax reductions such as the cut in fuel duty, are providing really significant support to people in Northern Ireland. Does he agree that that is an illustration of why people in Northern Ireland are better off as a result of the Union and of the fact that we are stronger together as a group of four nations?
Rishi Sunak
My right hon. Friend speaks with authority and experience on this topic, and of course she is absolutely right: the UK Government are ensuring that families across the United Kingdom are benefiting from the support we are putting in place. More broadly, we will do everything we can in government to protect and support the United Kingdom.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Many of the fiscal levers the Government could use to support Northern Ireland are not available, because we are under the EU VAT regime and still subject to EU state aid rules, which would rule out many of the measures the Government would take. Is that not a reason why the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill that is going through the House of Commons is essential, in order to enable the Government to use fiscal levers across the whole UK to benefit all of the people, be they Unionists, nationalists or any others in Northern Ireland?
Rishi Sunak
The right hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. As I said from this Dispatch Box at the time of the spring statement, we were unable to extend our VAT cut on energy-saving materials to Northern Ireland because of some of the provisions in the protocol. He will know that the legislation we have put before this House, which I am glad received support last night, will address exactly those issues.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Helen Whately)
Small and medium-sized businesses are at the heart of our economy, creating jobs and prosperity across the UK. We continue to give substantial support to SMEs by raising the employment allowance; extending the £1 million annual investment allowance; providing business rates relief for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses; and with the Help to Grow programme.
Saqib Bhatti
A couple of weeks ago, I met people from a number of hospitality businesses at Nailcote Hall. They expressed not only their gratitude for the support the Treasury gave during the pandemic, but their concerns about the cost of living and about supply-chain costs, which they cannot necessarily pass on to consumers. What assurances can my hon. Friend give the businesses in my constituency, especially those in the hospitality sector, that the Government will keep them in mind in terms of future support?
Helen Whately
It is good to hear that my hon. Friend has been speaking to the hospitality sector in his constituency, no doubt drawing on his expertise in those conversations. As he said, we provided substantial support to that sector during the pandemic. We recognise the ongoing challenges for businesses as we recover, which is why we are giving thousands of hospitality, leisure and retail businesses a 50% cut in business rates this financial year—worth up to £110,000 per business.
Mr Mohindra
There are more than 7,000 businesses in my constituency, producing excellent products and services in a range of industries. I have held several informative high street walkarounds in towns across my constituency, hearing at first hand from local entrepreneurs, many of whom are worried about competition from online businesses. Will my hon. Friend explain what steps the Department is taking to support our high street businesses in the face of online competition?
Helen Whately
I commend my hon. Friend for his campaign in his local high streets and for the work he is doing with local businesses. I agree with him on the importance of high streets and the businesses on them, which is why we are supporting high street businesses with our 50% business rate cut for thousands of retail, hospitality and leisure businesses; our freeze to the business rates multiplier; and funding through the community renewal fund, towns fund and levelling-up fund.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I hope the Minister is aware that one problem facing small and medium-sized employers in Cumbria and elsewhere, certainly in rural Britain, is a serious lack of workforce. Cumbria Tourism reported that 63% of its members last year had to operate below capacity because they could not find sufficient staff to keep going and so they missed out on vital demand. Does she agree that the two key areas are a lack of affordable housing so that people can live close to the place where they need to work in rural communities, and the fact that the Government have yet to come up with adequate visa provisions to allow employers to supplement a local workforce with an overseas one? What action will she take to support small and medium-sized businesses, especially in hospitality, in Cumbria and elsewhere?
Helen Whately
There was a great deal in that question, but broadly it was about access to the workforce for businesses. We have a really successful story on jobs, with record numbers of people in payroll employment, but I also hear about the work that businesses are doing to fill vacancies. We are supporting businesses, for instance, with our successful Way to Work scheme and the investment we are making in people’s skills to ensure that they align to the vacancies that employers are looking to fill.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
A big concern for small businesses in my constituency, especially those in construction and engineering contract work, is that they finish the job, the main contractor gets paid, but the people who did the work sometimes wait months to get paid. If the main contractor fails during that time, the money disappears with it. Will the Minister agree to meet me to discuss the possibility of making sure that those moneys are kept in a protective bond, so that if we cannot prevent the main contractor from going bust, we can at least stop it dragging down hundreds of small businesses with it?
Helen Whately
I do have conversations with the construction sector and more widely about infrastructure investment in this country. I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to talk about the specific suggestion he has to help the construction sector.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
If the Chancellor really wanted to help British businesses, he would back Labour’s plan to scrap business rates and replace them with a fairer system. He could reverse his tax on jobs and scrap the national insurance hike, and he could use public procurement and other tools to buy, make and sell more in Britain. He has imitated Labour’s policies before: why not follow Labour’s lead again and help struggling businesses?
Helen Whately
Business rates and national insurance are an important contribution to paying for public services, which I am sure the hon. Lady’s constituents, like mine, feel very strongly about. I remind her of the scale of support that we are providing to businesses, including a business rates cut worth £1.7 billion this year.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
I appreciate that the Chancellor cut fuel duty by 5p per litre, but that did not really touch the sides. I urge him to be bolder and cut fuel duty by at least 20p per litre, as requested by FairFuelUK, which would make a huge difference to individuals and businesses in my patch, not least hauliers for whom the cost of running a single truck has increased by 17% in the past year.
Helen Whately
I hear my right hon. Friend’s request. The combination of the freeze on fuel duty in the Budget and the cut in the spring statement is essentially a £5 billion tax cut. That is substantial support with the cost of fuel for businesses. As I have also said, we are taking further steps to support businesses with business rate cuts. I also remind her of our cut to national insurance, increasing the employment allowance by £1,000, supporting around 500,000 smaller businesses.
Mr Speaker
I call Clive Efford.
We have a slight problem. Can the Chancellor answer the question as if it has been asked?
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rishi Sunak)
We are not immune to the global inflationary shocks that many countries are experiencing. Indeed, eurozone inflation is north of 8%, and inflation in the United States is closer to 9%. We have the determination we need to combat inflation and reduce prices, and we have the tools at our disposal, namely strong and forceful monetary policy, responsible fiscal policy and supply-side reforms.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
One of the really insidious effects of inflation is that it imposes more costs on the poorest in society. What steps will the Chancellor take to make sure not just that we protect people today, but that inflation expectations are not locked in, locking in high inflation for the future, which would be the worst thing we could do for the poorest in our society?
Rishi Sunak
As ever, my right hon. Friend makes an excellent and thoughtful point. He is right about the regressive nature of inflation, which is why our recent announcements have been specifically targeted at those on the lowest incomes—the most vulnerable in our society—to help them manage through the challenging months ahead. He is also right that inflation expectations are critical, and I know that the Bank of England will act forcefully, in its words, to restrain inflation and inflation expectations, because the quicker we get through this the better for everyone, particularly the most vulnerable.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
It is true that inflation is affecting a number of countries, but why does the Chancellor think that the UK has the highest inflation in the G7, and why is UK economic growth forecast to be lower than in any country in the G20 next year, with the sole exception of Russia?
Rishi Sunak
When it comes to inflation, there is a variety of reasons. [Interruption.] I was very clear with the House at the time of the recent announcement that we are experiencing not only the energy shock that Europe is experiencing, but the tight labour market that the United States is experiencing. The fact that we have very many people in work and low unemployment is something to celebrate, but, obviously, that contributes to inflationary forces. Beyond that, there are smaller technical things, such as the timing of how the price cap works here and the degree of interventions in energy being upstream or downstream. When it comes to growth—we have had this debate multiple times—the Opposition seem to cherry-pick the figure that they like. Let us look at the period since the pandemic and at our growth performance. Indeed, on the OECD’s most recent figures, which the right hon. Gentleman cherry-picked, where were we in that table? We were the second highest in the G7.
Mr McFadden
The Chancellor said “celebrate”. I am not sure that there is much to celebrate in the figures that I quoted to him. Does he accept that the weakness of the pound, which increases the prices of our imports, is a major contributory factor to the inflation being experienced by our constituents, along with a continuation of the trade frictions caused by the Government’s Brexit deal? Does he have any plans to address that? I am not talking about rerunning the Brexit argument. He could take one step, which is to reach an agrifood agreement with the EU, as New Zealand has. That would reduce costs and bureaucracy for our farmers, for our businesses and, most of all, for our constituents.
Rishi Sunak
What the right hon. Gentleman said was very telling. We on the Conservative Benches do celebrate people being in work. It is critically the most important thing that we can do to help manage the cost of living, so every week in this place, we will champion those who are working and we will get others into work and support them. When it comes to the EU and our trading relationship—it is nice to hear from the Labour party that it does not want to rerun the Brexit arguments—it is very clear that there is now a growing faction on the Labour Benches that wants to do one thing and one thing only, which is to take us back into the single market.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Both Labour and the Tories are Brexit parties now—a Brexit that Scotland did not vote for and wants nothing of. This year, the Scottish Government have faced more than a 5% real-terms cut in resource funding compared with last year’s Budget, and the spending review took place when inflation was at only 3.1%. It has now tripled and continues to rise. That increase will impact on Scotland’s recovery from the pandemic and place severe pressures on public services and public sector wages. Will the Chancellor increase funding to the devolved Governments in recognition of this record inflation over which he presides?
Rishi Sunak
I am so pleased to have a chance to answer Treasury orals for the first time since we saw the Scottish Government’s spending review, which was a couple weeks ago. It was interesting to read through that, because in spite of the largest increase in public spending in the United Kingdom for some decades—record increases in public spending—it is clear that the Scottish Government are now imposing austerity in local government, in education, in justice, and in the environment. All budgets are growing slower than inflation, and that is not happening elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The health budget, the people’s No. 1 priority, is now growing in England two or three times faster than it is in Scotland. Scotland is not passing on the income tax cut. We might ask: why is this? Why are these choices being made? It is because, in Scotland, the welfare budget is being increased by 50%. That is why.
Alison Thewliss
The Chancellor knows fine well that the Scottish Parliament, along with the other devolved Administrations, operates on a fixed budget. We do not have the levers that he has to increase budgets, yet we operate on that incredibly well. [Interruption.] We have a balanced budget in Scotland every year, which says a lot about the Scottish Government than his Government.
Inflation is a global problem, but individual Governments can make it easier for people to make ends meet. Ireland, for example, has cut public transport fares to allow people to save money on ticket and petrol prices, while those have soared under this Chancellor’s Administration. That is an independent country using its powers to ease the burden on commuters. The Scottish Government have already made bus travel free for under-22s, but we are at the limits of what we can do, because of that fixed budget and because of those real-term cuts to the block grant. If the Chancellor will not provide more money to the Scottish Government, will he give us the full powers so that we can do that?
Rishi Sunak
We all have to operate with fixed budgets—that is news to the hon. Lady—but there have been record Barnett settlements for Scotland of £4.5 billion a year. Beneath that, however, are the choices that Governments make. On the Conservative side of the House, we choose to support the NHS and public services; in Scotland, they are choosing to impose austerity on public services. That is the difference between us and the SNP.
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
Following the welcome launch of Help to Build yesterday, fulfilling a commitment that the Chancellor made to me when he was still Chief Secretary to the Treasury in the early part of 2020, does he agree that making it easier for more people to commission their own houses will result in more, better, greener and cheaper houses that cost less to run, thus making a significant contribution to battling inflation?
Rishi Sunak
My hon. Friend is without doubt the House’s expert on that matter. I am pleased that the Government have listened to him. I still have the brochure he first gave me with the marvellous pictures of the custom self-build—in Switzerland, I think. There is a £1.8 billion fund, I believe, within the home building programme, and a good chunk of that will go to support exactly what he said: more homes, quicker homes and cheaper homes for all our citizens.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
The Government understand that millions of households across the UK are struggling to make their income stretch to cover the rising cost of living. As part of the £15 billion support package being provided by the Government, almost all the 8 million most vulnerable households across the UK will receive support of at least £1,200 this year, including a new, one-off £650 cost of living payment.
Dan Carden
The Economic Secretary will know that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs payroll data shows that the pay of the top 1% rose three-and-a-half times faster than the pay of those in the bottom 10%, whose meagre pay increases have already been wiped out by inflation and price rises. When we look at wealth, during one year of the pandemic each UK billionaire saw their wealth grow by £630 million on average. While the rich get richer, the working-class communities I represent get poorer. When will the Treasury look at raising taxes on the highest incomes and taxing the wealth of billionaires in order to invest in communities and UK infrastructure?
John Glen
Most mainstream understanding of how the economy works recognises that we need wealth creators, but we also need a Government who recognise the strains that the country is facing. That is why three quarters of the support will go to vulnerable households, including specific additional top-ups such as the £12 million going to Liverpool for the household support fund. This Government will stand by wealth creators and innovators, however, because we need growth in the economy and a more productive economy.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)
One way to tackle regional economic inequality is to ensure that our regional businesses are able to attract investment. Will my hon. Friend outline what more we can do to ensure that we unlock more private investment into Britain’s firms of the future?
John Glen
The Government are constantly looking at new ideas. The regional angels programme and our reforms to financial services to make FinTech and banks more accessible to regional businesses are at the core of this Government’s agenda, and I will bring further measures to the House in the next few weeks.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) highlights, the handouts from the Government to support families are already being wiped out by the rise in inflation and cost of living. One in two children in my constituency live in poverty. From what the Minister just said, he believes in trickle-down from those billionaires to help those people, but they are on low wages and, for many of those who are working, universal credit has been cut. That is not doing enough to support them. What further steps will the Treasury take?
John Glen
What I believe in is a Government who make targeted support available to the most vulnerable. The Chancellor and this Government have on a number of occasions used fiscal events and bespoke interventions to support those vulnerable people. We have always been clear that we will not be able to ameliorate the full extent of the challenges facing the country, but we will continue to strive for greater growth and productivity that will bring us back to where we need to be.
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Simon Clarke)
The levelling-up White Paper set out a clear plan to level up every corner of the United Kingdom by 2030. At the spending review last autumn, the Government showed how we would deliver our ambitious plan by delivering over £600 billion in gross public sector investment over this Parliament. That includes £4.8 billion in increased investment in local communities through the levelling-up fund, £1.6 billion for the next generation of the British Business Bank’s regional investment fund, and £2.6 billion for the shared prosperity fund.
Sarah Atherton
Wrexham’s levelling-up gateway bid has been supported by a 16,000-signature petition to create the first international sporting stadium in north Wales. Does my right hon. Friend agree that people are at the heart of the Government’s levelling-up agenda, and that the amount of people who have signed that petition demonstrates the need for such a scheme in places like Wrexham, which has been ignored by the Welsh Labour Government for 20 years?
Mr Clarke
My hon. Friend is a fantastic champion for Wrexham. I remember her coming to see me to talk about the merits of this particular bid, which obviously has enormous popular support; the number of people who have signed her petition testifies to precisely that.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
Real levelling up requires money, and that means everybody paying all the tax they owe. So why did the spring Budget allocate three times more additional funding to the Department for Work and Pensions than to HMRC to deal with fraud, when we know that every £1 spent on fraud in the DWP recovers £6, but every £1 spent on fraud in HMRC recovers £18? Why are the resources not prioritised to bring the greatest reward?
Mr Clarke
This is undoubtedly an important issue, and the hon. Lady is right to raise it. Clearly, we are at a very important moment in the fight against fraud. Only next month, the new Public Sector Fraud Authority reporting to this Department and the Cabinet Office will go live, backed up by an additional £25 million over the spending review period. This represents increased resources for further support in terms of active measures on data, intelligence, risk and enforcement—all the things we need to do to crack down on fraud and to pursue the perpetrators.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Helen Whately)
We are driving economic growth through investment in infrastructure, innovation and skills. The Budget and spending review confirmed £100 billion of public investment in economic infrastructure to benefit every part of the UK. We are launching a UK infrastructure bank with a financial capacity of £22 billion to crowd in private finance to support more than £40 billion of investment in infrastructure over the next five years.
Chris Green
It is clear that when done right, the Government’s levelling-up programme can make a real difference to people’s lives. Does my hon. Friend share my enthusiasm for the proposed Atherton, Leigh and Tyldesley cycling upgrades that will connect local people to job opportunities right across the area, especially because there is such local support for it and it is not an anti-car programme?
Helen Whately
Yes, I do share my hon. Friend’s enthusiasm for helping his constituents to access jobs and for cycling as a way of getting to and from work. At the spending review we announced £710 million of new funding for schemes like the one he described, but Bolton is also receiving £30 million through the towns fund and the shared prosperity fund, and work on the electrification of the Wigan-Bolton line has begun, supporting economic growth for his constituency and the wide area.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
In the integrated rail plan announced just six months ago, the Government promised to invest in the east coast main line—a vital route connecting London, Newcastle and Scotland and bringing high-skill, high-wage jobs to our area. However, Ministers are already backtracking on some of these investment promises in other parts of the country, so will the Government make a firm commitment today to fund the delivery of east coast upgrades to provide much-needed confidence and resilience in our line?
Helen Whately
As the hon. Lady points out, with our investment in infrastructure—particularly rail, in the £96 billion integrated rail plan for the midlands and the north—we are showing how the Government are supporting the growth of the economy, including through providing the transport infrastructure that we need for that.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
Labour welcomes the principle of a UK infrastructure bank moving to a statutory footing, but it is crucial to make sure that public money supports decent jobs that people can raise a family on. Will the Minister therefore support our proposals for all projects funded by the infrastructure bank to come with a good jobs plan and for working people to be given a voice on its board?
Helen Whately
We have many measures in place to support people’s jobs. We know about the figures for record levels of payroll employment and also the increase in the national living wage earlier this year. I am glad to hear the hon. Gentleman’s support for the UK infrastructure bank that we are currently legislating for, which is a really important part of our determination to drive regional and local growth across the UK.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
The Government support the credit union sector and recognise the contribution that they make to our financial services sector more broadly and to the communities that they serve. The Government have released £100 million of dormant assets funding to Fair4All Finance to support the financial wellbeing of people in vulnerable circumstances.
Simon Fell
I should declare an interest as a former chair of a credit union. Credit unions are some of the largest providers of low-cost credit and are more important than ever given the cost of living issues at the moment, but there are significant barriers hindering their growth, not least legal restrictions on the size of their common bond area. I know that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary is amending the Credit Union Act 1979 soon, so what plans does he have to look at issues such as this to support credit union growth and to give as many people as possible an opportunity to stay away from doorstep lenders and loan sharks?
John Glen
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He is an expert in this area, given his role in Barrow. We will be amending the Credit Union Act 1979 shortly, which will allow credit unions to offer more services such as hire purchase, conditional sale agreements and so on. With respect to the common bond—that being the link for all credit union members—we will need to see evidence that it supports the needs of the sector, but I have been working closely with the Association of British Credit Unions Limited, the trade body for 70% of credit unions, on its “Vision 2025” document. I visited its conference recently, and we will bring measures forward shortly in the financial services and markets Bill.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
Further to the excellent question from the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell), I say gently to the Minister that Ministers have always had warm words for credit unions, which I welcome, but have been somewhat slow to give them or other mutuals, such as friendly societies, the Whitehall and parliamentary support for the legal reforms to drive significant expansion. Will the Minister now back the private Member’s Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Sir Mark Hendrick) and require all public bodies to promote credit unions going forward?
John Glen
Over the years, we have had considerable dialogue on many of these measures. As I said, the legislation that the sector is looking for will be introduced in the next few weeks. I am aware of the Bill of the hon. Member for Preston (Sir Mark Hendrick), and I am seeking to have a meeting with him imminently—in the next few days or next week—to discuss it and to see what we can support.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Lab)
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rishi Sunak)
The Government understand that many families are struggling with rising prices. That is why we have announced £37 billion-worth of support, with the bulk of that targeted on the most vulnerable in our society, and those families receiving around £1,200 of help this year.
Marsha De Cordova
The Government’s failure to increase social security benefits in line with the current rate of inflation has resulted in a real-terms cut. Many of my constituents who are in receipt of social security now face a shortfall of around 6%, based on today’s inflation rates. The Chancellor could take action now, for example by reviewing the rate of social security every six months, rather than annually in September, while we are in this cost of living emergency. Will he commit to an emergency in-year uprating in line with the rates of inflation?
Rishi Sunak
I gently point out to the hon. Lady that just a few weeks ago we announced £15 billion-worth of additional help, particularly for those on means-tested benefits, who are receiving a one-off payment of £650. The aggregate amount spent on that proposal is in fact more generous than simply uprating with inflation as she suggested, so those families will get more help under our plan than with her proposal, and that money will arrive first in July, with the second payment later in the autumn.
Joanna Cherry
The cost of living is affecting individuals and business, particularly small business, across our society. Many small cafe owners, who are important for the service sector in Edinburgh South West, are struggling. One small cafe owner wrote to me recently to say that over the past few months, every single one of her suppliers has put their prices up—from bread, to cakes, to bacon, to coffee, to waste collection and energy. My question for the Chancellor is this: is it not time that he looked at his options for further cuts to VAT to help small businesses, especially small cafes in Edinburgh South West?
Rishi Sunak
We have provided significant support to the hospitality sector over the past two years, and I am glad that the sector at least emerges from the crisis in a much stronger shape—in terms of employment, cash balances and insolvencies—than anyone had anticipated, which is something to celebrate. With regard to support at the moment, we have of course put in place a £1.7-billion business rates holiday—the 50% discount—for cafés and restaurants in England, and that money is being Barnett-ed to Scotland to provide similar support to restaurants there.
Mary Glindon
Public sector workers and care workers in North Tyneside say that the Chancellor’s package on the cost of living crisis does not address their daily financial struggles, because under his Government, their pay has not kept pace with inflation. What practical steps will he take to address that overriding problem for my constituents?
Rishi Sunak
As I said, we are providing an enormous amount of support—around £1,200—which is targeted at those who most need help. Of course, no Government can make the challenges go away completely, given the scale of the problem that we are facing, but I am confident that the support we have put in place is significant and will make a meaningful difference to those who most need it. The hon. Lady talks of the practical steps that we can all take to help with the cost of living. Perhaps her party could start by opposing the crippling rail strikes of the past week or two, which are doing nothing to ease the burdens of the cost of living on public sector workers.
Christian Wakeford
My constituents in Bury South have had inflicted on them tax and national insurance rises—the inadequate 5p cut to fuel duty barely touched the sides—by a Chancellor who has clearly run out of ideas, as we have just heard. With energy costs at record highs, and an expected further rise of up to 50% in the autumn that will mean the cap has almost trebled in under a year, what further assistance can be given to my constituents to ensure that nobody is cut off?
Rishi Sunak
I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that £37 billion of support is being targeted at the most vulnerable and will come over the next few months, from the summer through the autumn and winter, to help with the price cap. As we said, we do expect the cap to increase significantly in the autumn, which is why we have put the support in place. He talked about taxes, so he will be pleased to tell his constituents that in just a couple of weeks’ time, they will have their taxes cut when the national insurance threshold rises to £12,500, which will deliver a £330 tax cut to around 30 million people in work. That will start to put more money in people’s pay packets in July.
Mr Virendra Sharma
The tax rises that the Chancellor has introduced are making the cost of living worse for everyone. How can he defend raising taxes on working people and urging against pay rises for most people, while his colleagues recommend scrapping the cap on pay rises for FTSE 100 bosses who earn millions?
Rishi Sunak
Again, 70% of workers in this country will have a net tax cut. That is what the Government are delivering. In just a couple of weeks’ time, the first £12,500 that anyone in work earns will be free of any tax or national insurance. That will deliver a £6 billion tax cut for 30 million people. As I said, for 70% of all workers, excluding the most wealthy, it represents a net tax cut, because we are on the side of hard-working people.
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
The Chancellor knows that a significant part of inflation is not within this Government’s control, and indeed not within the country’s control; it is a result of international energy costs, particularly oil and gas. That is happening globally because there is an imbalance between supply and demand across the world. What is the Treasury’s approach, working with other countries and major energy companies, to try to bring down those prices overall in the coming years? Unless we do that, increasing energy costs will be inimical to the economic growth that everybody in this House wants to see.
Rishi Sunak
My hon. Friend makes a thoughtful point, and he is right. As the Bank of England recently pointed out, the bulk of the excess inflation that we are seeing is being driven by global inflationary forces. He is also right that in the long term, the best way to combat that is to increase the supply of energy. In particular, the Prime Minister’s energy security strategy sets out a plan to do exactly that, which will have an impact on bills next year and beyond. Between now and then, we have the support in place to help people.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
We all know that energy prices, such as oil and gas prices, are being driven by Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. I welcome the extra £37 billion of support for households and the cut in fuel duty. One thing that affects my constituents, particularly district nurses, is the differential between the terms and conditions for NHS workers and the normal mileage allowance, which means that an NHS district nurse in my patch doing 12,000 miles a year gets about £1,400 less than if they were on a normal mileage allowance. Will the Chancellor make representations to the Health and Social Care Secretary to try to improve that position for my district nurses?
Rishi Sunak
My hon. Friend, as always, is right on the point, and he makes a good observation. He knows from his discussions with me that the mileage allowance rates are advisory, and organisers and employers can provide whatever support they think is appropriate and justified under the circumstances. I would be happy to talk to the Health Secretary. As my hon. Friend knows, the NHS has received a record funding settlement. Where we can find efficiencies to support people, we should do so.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
Further to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey), may I urge the Chancellor to think again about the cut in fuel duty? Although the one he introduced was welcome, it has not really been noticed by many people, so will he consider a much more substantial temporary cut in fuel duty, as has been done in Germany?
Rishi Sunak
I am glad that my hon. Friend is supporting my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey). I will take all his recommendations under advisement. As my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary pointed out, a cut of £5 billion, together with the freezing of fuel duty, is significant, but we appreciate that that is not being felt at the pumps because of the rise in wholesale prices. I assure him that the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is in dialogue with the Competition and Markets Authority to ensure that the fuel duty cut is being passed on.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rishi Sunak)
In common with countries around the world, the UK is experiencing global inflationary forces. We are taking action to support the country through that, with £37 billion of support targeted at the most vulnerable, but also focused on the long term in combating inflation and reducing prices through supply-side reforms, responsible fiscal policy, and a strong and forceful independent monetary policy.
Philip Davies
Many people are grateful to the Chancellor for all the support he has given to help people with their energy bills, but many businesses are also struggling with very high energy bills. Will he consider giving further support to businesses to help them through that, preferably through cutting their taxes? It would be a tragedy if the Chancellor kept all those businesses going, at huge cost, through the pandemic, only to see them come a cropper after the pandemic because of the inflationary cost pressures caused by those lockdowns.
Rishi Sunak
My hon. Friend is a champion of all the small businesses in his constituency, and rightly so. They have endured the pandemic and are bouncing back strongly on the other side, and we want to support that. On tax cuts, I hope he can reassure his small businesses that this year they are benefiting from two specific tax cuts—a cut of about £5,000 in business rates for a typical pub; and with the increase in the employment allowance, a cut of £1,000 on national insurance contributions—and we will of course support them in the years to come.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
Consumer confidence is at its lowest level since records began because working people have less money to spend, but we are not all in this together. Pay for the top 1% of earners is increasing at 20 times the rate for the bottom 10%, and all the while the Prime Minister eyes up luxury tree houses instead of fixing the broken economy. Does the Chancellor realise that, to avoid a cost of living calamity, he must address the stagnant wage crisis created by Tory policies?
Rishi Sunak
On wage policy, this is the Government who introduced the national living wage and, this year, increased the national living wage by about £1,000 a year. Combined with the cut to the universal credit taper rate and the increase in the national insurance threshold, that is significant support to those on the lowest earnings. It is right that we increase people’s wages, but the hon. Lady should start in her own office, where, I heard, she is perhaps not quite paying her own staff properly.
Rachel Reeves
Some 4.8 million people in Britain are paid less than a real living wage. That includes cleaners, caterers and security guards employed by the Government. They work hard, they pay their taxes—in Britain, Chancellor—and they have been taken for granted for far too long. Will the Chancellor guarantee that all those who work for Government, whether directly or through a contractor, will be paid a real living wage from now on so that they can afford their bills, put food on the table and support their families?
Rishi Sunak
We want everyone to be paid the national living wage. That is the law in this country. I am proud that we have increased it by £1,000 this year, which, combined with our tax cuts, is putting more money in the pockets of the lowest paid. I say again that there are lots of people being paid less than the national living wage but they should not include people in the hon. Lady’s own office.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Simon Clarke)
My hon. Friend is a fantastic champion for his region and his support for a freeport on the Humber has been noted across Government. We are of course investing in our levelling-up programme, which has a direct bearing on areas such as the Humber. Crucially, we want to advance devolution within England to allow areas such as his to reap the full rewards and take full control of this exciting opportunity.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Frazer)
I am proud that HMRC is a leader in tax transparency, has a number of double tax treaties and co-operates with a large number of countries and international organisations to share tax information to ensure that people pay their fair share.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
Rishi Sunak
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the need to target support on those who most need it. I am pleased to tell him that the payments will be made for those on means-tested benefits in July, with the second of those payments following a few months later, in the autumn, for those on tax credits, so that deduplication can be done.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
Mr Simon Clarke
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out very clearly the choices the Scottish Government made at their most recent spending review, on which they can be judged. Let us be very clear: it is the Scottish Government and the Scottish Government alone who are wasting millions of pounds of this country’s and indeed their country’s citizens by pursuing a referendum. That is the last thing that Scotland or the UK needs, soaking up resources that should be spent on people who need them.
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Mr Clarke
This Government are determined to deliver for the people of Cambridgeshire. My colleagues at the Department of Health and Social Care will have heard my hon. Friend’s comments about the importance of this facility, and that is why we are investing £4.2 billion in new hospitals over the course of this Parliament.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Helen Whately)
The hon. Member makes an important point about people living in park homes—I also have constituents who live in park homes—and we are determined to ensure that people receive the help that they need with the increase in energy costs. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has been consulting on how we deliver support to people living in places such as park homes that do not have the same electricity or energy supply as others.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
Lucy Frazer
The Government recognise that accounting for VAT can be a burden on small businesses. That is why we maintain the highest VAT registration threshold in the OECD and as compared with EU member states. At spring Budget 2021, to give businesses certainty, it was announced that the VAT threshold would be maintained at its current level until March 2024. Although there are no plans to change the VAT threshold at this time, we keep all taxes under constant review.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
Last year, at the spending review, the Government announced that after years of austerity there would be a small real-terms increase in local authorities’ spending power—but that was when inflation was around 2% to 3%. Has the Chancellor seen the recent assessment from the Local Government Association showing that, with inflation at a somewhat higher level now, it will cost local councils £2.4 billion extra this year? What steps will he and the Levelling Up Secretary take to have talks with the Local Government Association about extra help for local authorities so that we do not get another round of austerity imposed on our constituents?
Mr Simon Clarke
Of course, we invested £1.6 billion in local authorities in each year of the spending review precisely to help them with all the responsibilities that they must discharge. I would say to all Departments and devolved Administrations that, if we are to live within the spending review, it is vital that they make responsible choices about how to deliver services at best value to the taxpayer. We cannot be in a situation where we chase after inflationary pressures as that will only worsen and prolong the crisis that we face.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
Lucy Frazer
The Chancellor set out at the spring statement that he would be cutting taxes. We have seen that already in the universal credit taper rate and in the increase in the national insurance contributions threshold to £12,570, which will come in just a few weeks. We have also seen the announcement that income taxes will be cut in 2024.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
Small businesses in Ceredigion have told me how increasing electricity and fuel costs are having a direct impact on their operating costs in addition to an indirect impact in reduced demand for their goods and services. They are concerned that those costs are being disproportionately felt in rural areas. Does the Treasury share that assessment? Will it consider bringing forward bespoke measures to support the rural economy?
Helen Whately
The hon. Member and I met recently to speak about the cost of fuel in rural areas. As I also represent a rural constituency, I appreciate his point. As he knows, the cut that we made to fuel duty is benefiting people in rural areas as well as those across the whole country. That, combined with the duty freeze, is £5 billion-worth of help for people. As we have discussed today, we are also providing targeted support to people: in particular, there is the £1,200 for 8 million households on benefits to help with the rising cost of living.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
Our country is facing its highest tax burden since the 1950s, although it should be acknowledged that, more recently, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has been bringing taxes down rather than putting them up. Does he agree that, with the elevated level of inflation, now is not the time for dramatic cuts, but that once inflation starts to recede—hopefully at the end of the year or into next year—that will be the opportunity to come forward with serious tax cuts to get growth and jobs going and to support our constituents?
Rishi Sunak
I thank my right hon. Friend, the Chair of the Select Committee, for his constructive and thoughtful dialogue with me on these issues. He makes an excellent point, and I direct him to the tax plan that we published at the spring statement to indicate the direction of travel on tax. There will be tax cuts in, I think, a day’s time to help people with the cost of living, tax cuts in the autumn to drive growth in business investment and innovation, and further cuts to personal taxation thereafter, once the situation stabilises.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
Unpaid carers have seen their bills soar during this cost of living crisis. Many carers find it impossible to reduce their energy use, because the person for whom they are caring relies on electricity to power a wheelchair, a hoist or other vital equipment, yet last month the Government decided to exclude hundreds of thousands of unpaid carers of state pension age who are not in receipt of a means-tested benefit from the £650 cost of living support package by leaving carer’s allowance out of the qualifying benefits. Will the Chancellor reconsider this unfair decision, which risks putting even more carers into financial hardship?
Rishi Sunak
The hon. Lady is right to pay tribute, as we Conservative Members do, to those who care for others. She should be reassured that of the 1 million people in receipt of carer’s allowance, 60% or more will be in a household that receives the £650 or, indeed, the disability payment. Carer’s allowance itself is not a means-tested benefit.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
Investment in clean, low-carbon energy infrastructure will be crucial to creating long-term, rewarding jobs in coastal constituencies such as Waveney. Has my right hon. Friend carefully considered the impact that changes to tax policy on electricity generators would have on investment in the UK?
Lucy Frazer
The Chancellor is looking very carefully at this industry, and he engages with industry stakeholders. My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) will know that there are a number of ways in which the tax system supports low-carbon energy infrastructure, including through the super deduction, research and development tax relief, our consultation on broadening the emissions trading scheme, and the £1 billion investment in the carbon capture and storage fund.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
The rural fuel rebate was introduced 10 years ago at 5p a litre and remains unchanged. With inflation and the cost of living crisis, what thought has the Treasury given to increasing the rural fuel rebate to at least 10p a litre?
Helen Whately
The hon. Gentleman is probably talking about the rural fuel relief scheme, which is specifically targeted at a small number of locations where fuel prices are much higher than the national average, perhaps because they are a long distance from the refinery. In proposing an extension to the scheme, he should consider the potential unintended consequences. For example, people might drive out of their way to go to a petrol station in these rural areas.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
Thanks to this Government, we have record low unemployment and more job vacancies than jobseekers, but almost 9 million people are economically inactive, including many who can work and many who have worked in the recent past. Does my right hon. Friend agree that getting more of this group back into work is key to filling the labour shortages that many Members have spoken about today, and to strengthening our economy for the longer term?
Mr Simon Clarke
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and he knows about this from his time as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. There is no doubt in my mind that the work we are doing, through the spending review, to provide more than £1.1 billion of measures to support disability employment and the effective management of health in the workplace will be important. The Government’s Way to Work programme is yielding fantastic results, and is a sign of our intention in this space.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Some £11.8 billion was lost to fraud during the pandemic, according to a plethora of organisations such as the National Investigation Service and the Insolvency Service. I know the Chancellor is keeping tabs on public money, but will he publish a real-time dashboard on the recovery of public money?
Mr Clarke
We provide regular updates on the amount of money lost to fraud because all Members on both sides of the House want action to pursue perpetrators. We have shown our intention in this space with a series of targeted interventions against fraud, the most recent of which is putting in place the new Public Sector Fraud Authority, which goes live in July.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
The laws around IR35 are loosely defined, and it looks as though Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is using the tribunals and courts to pin down the case law on it. The effect is that I now know of a number of people whose legal bills are many times what their original tax bill might have been. This is impoverishing them, and in some cases bankrupting them, and obviously it is terrifying them. Will the Chancellor institute a review of this procedure? Although it is important that HMRC raises all the money necessary, it should not do so by destroying lives.
Lucy Frazer
As my right hon. Friend will know, IR35 was brought in to ensure that people doing the same job paid the same tax. I understand that he would like to discuss some issues with me, and I look forward to doing that this afternoon.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
TaxWatch UK has just published research showing that on a like-for-like basis, the tax gap—or the money lost every year through unpaid tax—has gone up for two years in a row. That is before we include in the figures the estimated amount lost to error and fraud through the HMRC-administered covid-19 support schemes. The tax gap resulting from fraud is now 45% and stands at £14.4 billion. When will the Government do something about that? They could perhaps create a fraud Minister with the remit of tackling this growing problem, which takes money from other parts of the economy.
Lucy Frazer
The Government are taking a number of steps to tackle fraud, including coronavirus fraud, which the hon. Member mentions. The taxpayer protection taskforce was set up to do specifically that. I will have a cross-governmental meeting this afternoon to understand how we can we work across Departments to tackle fraud.
Rape: Criminal Prosecutions
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dame Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, if she will make a statement to the House on the incidence of rape cases not taken forward for criminal prosecution.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Victoria Atkins)
I thank my right hon. Friend for posing this important question. Last year, in the end-to-end rape review, the Government committed to more than doubling the number of adult rape cases reaching court by the end of this Parliament. We are under no illusions about the scale of the challenge, but we are starting to see early signs of progress. More victims are reporting cases to the police. The police are referring more cases to the Crown Prosecution Service, and the CPS is charging more cases. Rape convictions are increasing: there has been a 67% increase since 2020. Timeliness is improving; the time between a charge being brought and cases being completed continues to fall—it is down five weeks since the peak in June last year.
That is encouraging, but it is just the start. That is why we have identified eight levers that are driving the change. First, we are increasing victim support. We have quadrupled the funding for victim support since Labour was in power—it will rise to £192 million by 2024-25—and we are increasing the number of independent sexual and domestic violence advisers to more than 1,000 by 2024-25.
Secondly, we are rolling out pre-recorded cross-examination for rape victims to all Crown courts nationally. That will help to prevent more victims from being retraumatised by the experience of giving evidence in a live trial. Thirdly, suspect-focused investigations—this is known as Operation Soteria—are being rolled out nationally. That will be completed in the first half of next year, and it will mean that the police focus on the suspect’s behaviour, rather than on the victim’s credibility. Fourthly, we have reformed and clarified disclosure rules, and are working with the police to make sure that victims’ mobile phones are examined only where strictly necessary.
Fifthly, we are reducing the stress of intrusive requests for third-party information—for example, medical or social services records—and are working with the police and the CPS on ensuring that they are gathered only when relevant. Sixthly, we are boosting capacity and capability by increasing the ranks of our police and the number of specialist rape and sexual offences roles in the CPS. Seventhly, our efforts to expand Crown court capacity will continue with a £477 million investment over the next three years to reduce victims’ waiting time for trials. Eighthly, our criminal justice system delivery data dashboard is increasing transparency and giving Government and local leaders the information that they need in order to do better for victims.
We are going even further than the commitments that we made in the rape review, because we have listened to victims and those who work with them. We recently announced a pilot of enhanced specialist sexual violence support in three Crown court centres. This Government are on the side of victims. We want no rape victim to feel as though they are the one on trial. We want every rape victim to feel that they can come forward and seek support. We want to lock up the rapists who commit these abhorrent crimes. We want to protect the public. We will make our streets safer.
Dame Maria Miller
I thank my hon. Friend for her reply, for coming to the House to set out the additional measures that the Government are putting in place, and for allowing hon. Members to probe the effectiveness of those measures and what is being done to address the unacceptable decline in rape prosecutions in recent years.
The figures show that more than 67,000 rapes have been reported—the highest figure on record, but probably still only the tip of the iceberg. Despite the measures that my hon. Friend has announced, victims still face the trauma of knowing, when they report, that in the past, police, court staff and many others have not been properly trained to support victims—hence the high drop-out rate among victims taking cases forward. The measures that my hon. Friend has introduced will start to help, but rebuilding trust with victims cannot be done overnight. That is why it is so important that Ministers talk about the measures that they are introducing and come to this House to enable us to inquire about their effectiveness.
The Government’s independent adviser on the rape review said recently that
“no one involved thinks where we are is good enough—because it is not even remotely good enough”.
She said that a year on, we are
“doing better, but still pushing further.”
By coming to the House today, the Minister is enabling hon. Members to hear more fully what she and other Ministers are doing to rebuild trust among victims and, importantly, to deliver the Government’s ambition to double the number of rape cases that reach the courts by the end of this Parliament—an ambitious plan on which we need to hold the Government’s feet to the fire.
Victoria Atkins
I sincerely thank my right hon. Friend for asking this urgent question. She is absolutely right to identify the need to rebuild trust in the system among victims. The golden thread that runs through all our work is non-defensive transparency. That is why, in our forensic examination of each stage of the criminal justice system, we are working with the police, the CPS, the judiciary, as constitutionally appropriate, and all the agencies, as well as the vital victim support charities and agencies. We are working together so that at each and every stage we can measure the impact of our efforts and try to communicate it to victims.
I understand that people want us to do more and go faster, and that they want to see improvements. However, I ask colleagues across the House to please bear in mind that what we say in this place has a resonance with victims. We must ensure that we are being accurate about progress when it is happening, so that we encourage victims to come forward, and so that they know that change is happening in the system.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
This feels like groundhog day. Yet again, we are debating this Government’s appalling record on tackling rape. As the latest scorecard shows, court delays are still at near-record highs, rape convictions are still at near-record lows, and countless prosecutions are not being taken forward. The Government promised to restore 2016 charging levels, but they are still way off target. When does the Minister think that they will meet that pledge?
The Conservatives first commissioned the end-to-end review of record low rape prosecutions back in 2019. Two years after that, we got a report that recommended only piecemeal changes. One year later, little has changed and only a fraction of what was promised has been implemented. When does the Minister expect this to be delivered in full?
The typical delay in the completion of cases in court has reached three years. The number of rape trials postponed with a day’s notice has risen fourfold, and 41% of rape survivors withdraw their cases before they even get to court. Labour pledged to roll out specialist rape courts across the country, but the Government have produced just three pilots. When will they extend this to every Crown court?
Section 28 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 has finally been rolled out, but to just 26 courts. Why has it taken so long, and why only 26 courts, when 77 Crown courts already have the equipment and facilities to support this? Furthermore, the joint inspectorates’ report found that section 28 has not been used consistently by the police or the Crown Prosecution Service. Why is the necessary awareness and training not already in place?
Labour has a plan to tackle rape because we are serious about ending violence against women and girls. That is why we published, more than a year ago, a survivors’ support package containing detailed measures to drive up prosecutions, secure more convictions, and put rapists where they belong: behind bars. This is a Government who are still tinkering around the edges, three years after recognising the shocking scale of their own failure. This is a Government with no serious plan to bring justice for victims of rape, and no serious plan to tackle violence against women and girls.
Victoria Atkins
One of the disappointments of the hon. Lady’s responses, and indeed her advocacy last week, is that in the past we have been able to find cross-party consensus on matters that are of great interest to Members on both sides of the House, particularly in relation to the Bill that became the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. It is disappointing, to put it mildly, when Labour Members either insist on using figures that are not correct—not up to date, for instance—or seek to criticise the Government, perhaps not realising that in doing so they are also criticising the police, who are operationally independent—
Victoria Atkins
They are criticising the Crown Prosecution Service, which is operationally independent, and the courts, which are constitutionally and operationally independent. All three of those agencies in the criminal justice system are working together to make the difference.
On the national roll-out of section 28, the hon. Lady is wrong. We now have 47 Crown courts operating section 28, and we are rolling out section 28 recordings across the country, nationally, far faster than we anticipated in the rape review. On enhanced specialist support in courts for victims of sexual violence, again, we have worked closely with the judiciary. We are piloting it, as we are obliged to do, and I am sure that others in the House will understand why we have to tread carefully, but we hope and expect that the result will justify further rolling out. As for Operation Soteria and suspect investigations, we will have rolled that out in a further 14 police forces by September, and we will have rolled it out nationally, across all forces, in the first half of next year.
When the hon. Lady criticises this Government, she is, I am afraid, implicitly criticising those who are working on the frontline, making these changes happen.
Victoria Atkins
Day in, day out, this Government are focused on trying to improve results for victims.
Victoria Atkins
A male Member of the House is shouting at me across the Dispatch Box while I am trying to explain. This is a deeply serious subject, and it must be—I would hope—a matter on which we can find measured and constructive ways of working together in order to improve justice for victims, because that, surely, is what we should all be focusing on.
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
Support for victims of rape is essential to ensuring that more of these crimes are brought to prosecution, but rape victims often say that, having gone through the trauma of the assault, they are then dehumanised by being treated, effectively, as a piece of evidence when they report it, and then have to prepare themselves to be traumatised yet again when they appear in court. What discussions is my hon. Friend having with the Department of Health and Social Care to make good the NHS’s commitment to giving all victims of rape a lifetime care pathway, so that they can be confident enough to appear in court?
Victoria Atkins
I thank my hon. Friend for identifying not just the immediate impacts of sexually violent attacks but the lifelong impacts that they can have. The Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England are involved in all the discussions that the Deputy Prime Minister and I have on this. NHS England is particularly keen to roll out support to victims longer term as well as short term, and also to roll out the further provision of more independent sexual violence advisers, which we have committed to do by 2024-25, bringing the total to more than 1,000 ISVAs nationally. They will be critical as part of the recovery process. Having met many of them recently, I understand how valuable they can be for victims both in their recovery and in giving them the support they need to take these important criminal cases forward.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
I am sure the Minister will realise that the whole House welcomes any new measures, but could she say what is being done about some of the older cases that have been stopped in their tracks? Will she ensure that adequate resources are there for those legacy cases where justice has not been done?
Victoria Atkins
I thank the right hon. Lady for raising those historical cases. They are in the system and the injection of investment—£477 million in the overall Crown court system—will help with those particular cases. One of the reasons we selected the three pilots as we did—I should say that the Lord Chief Justice very much worked on this—is that we looked at the backlog of sexual violence cases within courts. For those courts with a lot of sexual violence cases—through no fault of anyone; we are not alleging that there is any fault within the system—and with these backlogs, we hope that this enhanced specialist support will give us some evidence as to whether these measures work, with a view to going further if need be.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
I have absolutely no doubt of my hon. Friend’s commitment and dedication to this cause, and I am grateful to her for that. A lot of the figures she quotes are encouraging, but the fact is—she says it herself—that we have a long way to go. As she said, key to this is confidence in the system. Victims need confidence to come forward in the first place and then confidence to stay the course through the process, which can be fairly punitive, as she would be the first to admit. What more can she do to drive that confidence among victims?
Victoria Atkins
There are many ways in which we can support victims. One is through specialist support such as ISVAs and the victims charities that do such a vital job of working with women and victims of sexual violence. Another thing that we are in the process of setting up is a 24/7 support line for victims of sexual violence, and I am extremely grateful to Rape Crisis for its help on this. We are testing it carefully over the next couple of months to ensure that we understand when peaks and flows will necessitate proper staffing, but we are absolutely committed to providing those services so that victims can get the help they need when they need it.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
On the basis of what the Minister said earlier, will the number of rape prosecutions be doubled by the end of this Parliament?
Victoria Atkins
We have measured it very carefully and we have committed to doubling the number of cases received in the Crown court by the end of this Parliament. This is a work in progress.
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
When we talk about this distressing subject, there is the potential to go into abstraction and talk about statistics when, in fact, behind every one of those figures is a shattered life. What is being done to ensure that people dealing with victims of rape and sexual assault understand fully the trauma that the individual going through the process is experiencing, so that they can help them to stay in the process?
Victoria Atkins
The focus of Operation Soteria, the police technique of focusing on the suspect rather than on the witness’s credibility, is critical to the increased understanding that my hon. Friend talks about. He is right to say that when we talk about percentage increases and so on, it can take away from the individual person or people who have been so hurt and traumatised. If I can just translate this into English, from October to December last year, 467 people were convicted of a rape offence. That represents a 15% increase on the previous quarter. Those 467 people were convicted and sentenced by the courts, thereby protecting the public from their violent behaviour.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
I would like to thank the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) for bringing forward this vital urgent question today, and to thank the Minister for her comments from the Dispatch Box and her update on what is happening. But given everything that is facing the Secretary of State—record court backlogs, appallingly low conviction rates for rape and women losing faith in the criminal justice system—is it not a bit odd that his main priority seems to be going on the media to defend the indefensible Prime Minister and overhauling human rights laws? What does that say about the priorities of this Government?
Victoria Atkins
I worked with the hon. Lady on the Domestic Abuse Bill and I know how committed she is to ensuring that victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence secure the justice they deserve. The whole of this Government are committed to this piece of work, from the very top. From the Prime Minister down, this is an absolute priority for the Government. I welcome scrutiny—I welcome hon. Members asking me questions at the Dispatch Box—but I also ask please that we acknowledge it when there are early signs of progress, precisely because I want to encourage victims to come forward and get the support they need.
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
Yesterday, I met the Chief Crown Prosecutor for Wales, who singled out my police force, Dyfed-Powys police, for its early engagement with the Crown Prosecution Service as it seeks to secure charging decisions. The CPS is urging police forces to be proactive and to seek advice as early as possible so as to improve the number of cases that can progress. Will the Minister join me in congratulating Dyfed-Powys police on this and urge other police forces across the country to adopt this practice?
Victoria Atkins
Very much so. My hon. Friend has enjoyed the success of ensuring that cyber-flashing will become a criminal offence when the Online Safety Bill is passed. In relation to her police force, this is precisely why we are publishing local data dashboards. I genuinely want Members across the House to scrutinise what is happening in their local area so that they can help us to hold the police, the CPS and others to account for decisions such as taking a police referral to the CPS. We will be trying to disaggregate that data even further, so that where there is a request for advice as opposed to a charge, for example, we are making that clear. This is a whole-system effort to improve at every single stage of the criminal justice system, and I would like to thank the police, the CPS and the courts for all their efforts.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I am pleased to see both the Home Office and the Department of Justice represented on the Treasury Bench for this urgent question. The Home Affairs Committee produced a report in April on the investigation and prosecution of rape, with several recommendations that I hope the Government will find helpful. Unfortunately we are outside the eight-week deadline for that report to be responded to by the Government, so could I raise two of the recommendations that I think will help the Government in their aim to sort this out? The first is to have specialist rape investigation teams in all police forces. The second is for the Government to ensure the publication of all specialist trained officers so that we know that there are sufficient officers in our police forces to do this important work.
Victoria Atkins
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee most sincerely for her Committee’s report. We will be responding, of course. I hope that she will bear with us. I am assured by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), who is sitting just behind me, that we want to ensure that our response is as thorough and positive as possible, so please watch this space. In terms of specialist police officers, I completely understand why this is a suggestion that people raise. My only caveat is that I want every single police officer in every single force to be trauma-informed and aware of how to investigate these cases, for the simple reason that when an officer first comes to the scene of a crime—on a busy Saturday night, let’s say—I want that officer to be an expert in how to treat victims in the aftermath of an attack. I want to be more ambitious than simply having a specialist in the force; I want every single officer to be aware of this, which is what we are trying to achieve through the roll-out of Op Soteria.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
Our tackling violence against women and girls strategy has set out our objective to make the streets safer for women and girls, but the need for confidence in the justice system has been mentioned time and again. Can my hon. Friend make it clear that this is a priority for the Government and also tell us how we can use technology to deliver the justice that is needed?
Victoria Atkins
I reiterate that this is a priority for this Government, from the Prime Minister downwards. It is also a priority for colleagues on the Back Benches from across the House, who have raised it. I am very grateful to Conservative colleagues who have raised issues such as cyber-flashing and the use of intimate imagery on the internet, which we will no doubt be discussing as the Online Safety Bill makes its way through this place. There is huge support on the Back Benches for ensuring that victims of domestic abuse get the justice and support they need, and I am extremely grateful to every Member of this House who can join us in our efforts to improve justice for victims of these horrendous crimes.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I have had too many cases where survivors of rape have not reached the evidence thresholds demanded by the CPS and, as a result, their cases have collapsed or not even been able to be taken forward. That clearly has an impact on confidence in the system, particularly on the issue of consent and with one word being played off against another even if there is forensic evidence,. What measures is the Minister taking to improve a victim’s opportunity to take their case forward in that context?
Victoria Atkins
The hon. Lady hits on a sensitive point, in that the “Code for Crown Prosecutors” sets out the tests that prosecutors must apply, not simply in cases of sexual violence but across all criminal cases, and the threshold of 51% or thereabouts for the evidential stage. This means that, as we know from speaking to victims, there are occasions when the CPS does not believe that test has been met, which is why the roll-out of Operation Soteria, both across police forces and across CPS regions, is so important. In this effort for non-defensive transparency, the CPS is looking at its own actions and ensuring that the right standards are being met, for example in the application of the test and in disclosure. All of this is being lined up to ensure that the law is applied properly and appropriately. We have also reformed disclosure guidelines recently, in order to help the police and the CPS make important decisions about whether material needs to be gathered at all and, if it does, whether it meets the very specific circumstances in which it falls to be disclosed.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
I welcome the increase in the conviction rates. Having worked closely with my hon. Friend, I have witnessed her determination to address the underlying issues and find solutions for victims of serious sexual offending throughout the country. The issue we have missed out of this debate is that the vast majority of cases are not even referred to the CPS by the police. My concern is that unless there is a slam dunk, an overwhelming case, victims are being penalised, so that those who have addiction or mental health problems are being viewed as unreliable witnesses by the police and their cases are not even being referred. How does she feel about that? What steps are being taken to address the issue?
Victoria Atkins
I thank my hon. Friend, who brings his professional expertise into this Chamber. He is right to say that the focus on a victim’s credibility has in the past meant that too many cases are dropped when they should not be. We have therefore had the roll-out of this suspect-focused investigation technique, Operation Soteria, across the first five forces, and that learning is being shared nationally ahead of the national roll-out next year. This is what will make the real difference, both to the police and to the CPS.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
The Minister will be aware that Warwickshire has the lowest conviction rate in the country and was one of the first forces to close its rape and serious sexual offences unit, doing so back in 2014. I have a case where an individual has been charged with two counts of rape. Originally, the plea hearing was back in December 2021. The court date was set for this August, but that has now been put back to May 2023, causing great distress to the victims, as the Minister can imagine. Beyond the dashboard she mentions, what is she doing specifically to address the issues in Warwickshire?
Victoria Atkins
I hope the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I cannot comment on an individual case. On local policing, the local CPS and the application of all the measures we have talked about in this urgent question so far, the point of the dashboards is precisely to give him, me and others that data, which otherwise has not been collated, so that we can start asking those questions about individual areas. For example, we know that West Yorkshire is doing better than the national average on the police referring cases to the CPS. My question is: why can we not replicate that nationally? We are having those sorts of conversations, with non-defensive transparency, which, I hope, will really begin to see results for victims.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I commend my hon. Friend for her emphasis on local facts. This morning, I was talking to Suzanne Llewellyn, the chief Crown prosecutor for Wessex, who told me that currently 12 people are being prosecuted for rape in Dorset, which is twice as many as in the same period of 2016, and that in three of the past four quarters the rape conviction rate in Dorset has been 100%, which obviously compares very favourably with the national average of 68%. So there is good news at the local level, and we need to do more to bring that to the public’s attention.
Victoria Atkins
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting that. I genuinely encourage every Member to look at the figures and have those conversations with their local police and CPS to understand what is happening in their local areas. I welcome this scrutiny; it is absolutely the right way to drive change. I thank him for his particular focus on his local area.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First, I thank the Secretary of State for her answers and her clear intention to address the rape criminal prosecution backlog—that is well done. What additional support can be offered to victims and their families, who can be intimidated by the perpetrator and their family connections? Does she agree that a case will often rely on a victim’s ability to testify well, and that that pressure can deliver opposite results and victims who feel that they are unable to cope or to challenge?
Victoria Atkins
I thank the hon. Gentleman for my temporary promotion.
The best way this can be dealt with is through the section 28 roll-out. For those who are unfamiliar with it, let me say that this is the provision whereby victims of serious sexual violence and modern slavery offences can pre-record their evidence—for examination in chief, cross-examination and re-examination—perhaps months ahead of when the case will be tried in the Crown court in front of a jury. That means, first, that the victim is not giving evidence in a live trial, which can bring its own pressures, and also that they give their evidence much sooner in the process, thus helping with our victim attrition rates. We are examining this very carefully and rolling it out as quickly as we can, but I very much hope that by the end of this Parliament we will really begin to see some dividends from it.
Women’s Rights to Reproductive Healthcare: United States
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if she will make representations to the Government of the United States of America about ensuring that women’s rights to access reproductive healthcare are protected as part of her Department’s work on promoting human rights internationally.
The Minister for Asia and the Middle East (Amanda Milling)
Access to abortion services in the United States is a matter for the US Supreme Court and for authorities in individual states. The US Supreme Court opinion of 24 June in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organisation does not make abortion illegal across America. Rather, it removes federal protection for abortions, hence allowing individual states to determine their own laws. Thirteen states have so-called “trigger laws” that will automatically outlaw abortion, seven of which are already active. We understand that in total 26 states are likely to ban or restrict abortion, or have bans that predate Roe still technically on the books. As the Prime Minister has said, this is not our court, it is another jurisdiction, but this is a big step backwards—I share his view. The UK’s position is that women and girls in the UK should have the right to access essential health services, including those relating to sexual and reproductive health, which includes safe abortion care. More broadly, the UK’s approach is to support sexual and reproductive health and rights, including safe abortion for women and girls around the world.
Dame Diana Johnson
I thank the Minister for her reply. It is because of our special relationship with America and the domestic and international importance of the Supreme Court decision that I made the application for an urgent question. I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for allowing it.
The United States of America leads the world in promoting human rights. Hillary Clinton famously said:
“Human rights are women’s rights, and women’s rights are human rights.”
America’s leadership around the world means that the overturning of Roe v. Wade sends a stark message that women’s reproductive rights, which are fundamental to their physical, psychological and social wellbeing, are not worth protecting. In effect, the state has taken control of women’s bodies and denied them bodily autonomy. As we all know, restricting access to abortion does not remove the need to end a pregnancy. One in four women in the United States will need an abortion in their lifetime. The decision will result in more dangerous abortions, a rise in maternal deaths and the criminalisation of women and clinicians. Those from marginalised communities will be most affected, as many will not be able to travel to states that will continue to provide that essential reproductive healthcare.
It is also clear that there is growing concern that the decision may lead to the overturning of rights in other areas, including access to contraception and same-sex relationships. Does the Minister believe that the decision is consistent with the declaration on the elimination of violence against women, of which the US is a signatory? Can the Minister confirm that the Government will continue to support and fund reproductive healthcare programmes, including access to terminations, around the world in light of the decision? With far-right American groups already organising on rolling back the Abortion Act 1967 in this country, the decision will give their work renewed impetus. Will the Government look again at protecting women attending abortion clinics through the introduction of buffer zones, as proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq)? Finally, will the Government confirm their commitment to women’s rights to access reproductive healthcare, including abortion? If the Government plan to change human rights legislation in the UK, will they completely safeguard the rights of women to bodily autonomy?
Amanda Milling
I reiterate the point that I made in my reply: the decision was made not by our court but by one in another jurisdiction. As the Prime Minister said at the weekend—and I share his view—it is a big step backwards. The UK is proud to defend and promote universal and comprehensive sexual and reproductive health and rights, including safe abortion, which are fundamental to unlock the potential agency and freedom of women and girls. We will continue to press for strong and supportive language in the UN and other international forums.
Dame Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
Experts have denounced the US Supreme Court’s decision to strike down Roe v. Wade as a dangerous roll-back of human rights and a monumental setback for the rule of law and gender equality. As we are co-signatories to the UN convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women, which includes sexual and reproductive health, can my right hon. Friend outline what she plans to do to hold the US Government to account at the UN, and can she confirm that the UK Government would view any change as a breach of its inalienable international obligations?
Amanda Milling
The judgment will be distressing for women in the US. As the Prime Minister set out, and as I have said, we also see this as a big step backwards. We are proud to promote and defend universal comprehensive sexual and reproductive health and rights, and we will continue to push for supportive language in international forums.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
I am sure the whole House is grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) for asking the urgent question and to you, Mr Speaker, for granting the application.
The great story of the 20th century is how different groups, who were historically denied their rights, won those rights for the first time through protest, organisation and democracy. Those groups included working people, and our party is partly a consequence of that; ethnic minorities, which brings me to the Chamber today; LGBTQ people, in the week in which we celebrate Pride; and women. Heroic leaders of the feminist movement, such as Emmeline Pankhurst, secured women’s right to vote after two major concessions, in 1918 and 1928. For decades, women could choose which political party to support, but did not have the freedom to choose what to do with their own bodies. It was a story of women criminalised, back alleys and a black market, illegal abortions, dirty implements, disease, prison and death. It is a plight that affected women across the globe, certainly in our own country, and it affected poor women particularly, including my late mother.
It was not until 1967 that women in Britain won the right to a safe and legal abortion. In 1973, the United States followed. It is an abomination that, almost 50 years later, 36 million women in 26 American states were stripped of their right when Roe v. Wade was overturned. In America, an organised hard-right and global political movement is seeking to overturn rights hard won in the 20th century. That is happening in our country too. In 2019, 99 Westminster MPs voted to keep abortion illegal in Northern Ireland, and the Minister for Brexit Opportunities and Government Efficiency, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) says he is “completely opposed” to abortion.
Will the Minister confirm that the UK will make representations at the United Nations? The UK is a signatory to the universal declaration on human rights, so why has the Foreign Secretary said nothing about this issue? Will the Minister confirm that as the United States Agency for International Development surely departs—
Mr Speaker
Order. I allowed the UQ, because I thought it was important, but the right hon. Member should not take advantage of the rules. Two minutes means two minutes. I keep telling both sides, but Front Benchers get carried away. I have all these Back Benchers, who matter to me, that I need to get in. I remind the shadow Secretary of State that I expect him to stick to two minutes, and just ignoring me does not help.
Amanda Milling
The Prime Minister was clear about his view at the weekend, including in an interview on CNN. It is clear where we stand on this. In terms of Northern Ireland legislation, the issue is a matter of conscience, and colleagues have an opportunity to vote based on that. The Prime Minister’s view is clear, and it is one that I share.
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
It is a failure of politics in the United States that, after all these years, it still relied on Roe v. Wade to guarantee abortion rights. The failure is to continue to allow the debate to be seen as an ideological pro-choice or pro-life position. We are not in a strong position to lecture the United States on that point, because we have done much the same ourselves. Is it not time that we led by example and reviewed our abortion laws, which are now more than 50 years old, and based them on a safe framework for terminating pregnancy in the interests of women, rather than their being characterised by absurd moral extremes?
Amanda Milling
In terms of our domestic policy on abortion, legislation in this House is a matter of conscience. Our policy is to ensure that women can access health services in a safe and secure way. That remains a key priority. We will work closely with abortion providers and other stakeholders on the provision of those services.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
I despair at the overturning of Roe v. Wade, because the undermining of women’s reproductive rights anywhere is a threat to women everywhere. The truth is that we cannot ban abortions—only safe abortions. I welcome the abortion care summit held by the First Minister earlier this week, and I pay tribute to Back Off Scotland, to Green MSP Gillian Mackay and to COSLA for their work in securing buffer zones to protect everyone accessing healthcare and staff from the hostile anti-abortion activists who have been causing such distress outside healthcare facilities, such as the Sandyford and the Royal Infirmary in my constituency.
What is the Minister specifically doing to prevent the creeping influence on these islands of US-based extremist groups, such as the Alliance Defending Freedom, which has been described by the Southern Policy Law Centre as a hate group, but which was shockingly given a platform by BBC Scotland on several occasions this week?
Amanda Milling
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. As we have said, it is important that legislation is in place enabling women to have an abortion. Women should have control over their own bodies. That is why we have the legislation we have in this country.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
I recognise the degree of distress and concern felt by many Members in the House over the Supreme Court’s decision. The fact is, though, that I probably disagree with most Members who have spoken so far on this matter. They think that women have an absolute right to bodily autonomy in this matter. However, I think that, in the case of abortion, that right is qualified by the fact that another body is involved. [Interruption.] We can disagree on that question. [Interruption.] We can disagree on that question, but I offer to Members who are trying to talk me down that this is a proper topic for political debate. My point to the Minister on the Front Bench is that I do not understand why we are lecturing the United States on a judgment to return the power of decision over this political question to the states—to democratic decision-makers—rather than leaving it in the hands of the courts.
Amanda Milling
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. As I say, this is a matter for the US. It is not within our jurisdiction, but the point is that we can rightly have a debate in this House and vote according to our own conscience.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) asks why we are discussing this decision, as it is a political debate. Fundamentally, for many of us, this is a human rights issue. Roe v. Wade gave American women a constitutional right to have an abortion. Currently, here in the UK, only women in Northern Ireland have their constitutional right to an abortion protected as a human right. But we can change that, and that is what this place and this urgent question can do today. I ask the Minister a direct and simple question. If an amendment is tabled to the forthcoming Bill of Rights to protect a woman’s right to choose for every single woman in the United Kingdom—by those of us who recognise that it will be a conscience issue, and therefore a free vote—will she join me in voting for it?
Amanda Milling
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. Actually, I wish to pay tribute to her for everything that she does to promote women’s rights, and for the work that she has done in relation to abortion services and the right to have an abortion. I will not pre-empt what will be in future legislation, but I will say that, as she well knows and as we have discussed, these are matters for our conscience.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
For me, the former First Lady, Michelle Obama summed this up in her open letter when she said that, when we do not understand our history, we are doomed to repeat its mistakes. As ever, it will be the young, the poor and the vulnerable who will be the biggest victims of this terrible, terrible decision. Our Prime Minister has said that it is a backward step, but to me it is a case of actions speaking louder than words. Surely there is more that we can do to use our so-called special relationship with the United States to push back against this decision, which is against reproductive rights, against women’s rights and against human rights.
Amanda Milling
I thank my right hon. Friend for her question. As I have said on numerous occasions and, indeed, as the Prime Minister has said, and as she rightly pointed out, this is a backward step. Over the weekend, the Prime Minister also said that it was a matter for the US courts and for individual states. None the less, at the same time, our personal views on this matter will have been heard loudly and clearly.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
I politely say to my right hon. Friend that this decision will not stop abortions. All it will do is make it very unsafe for women to go through that process, and we will end up with more deaths. Will she please tell the House what conversations she has had with international colleagues on this matter and on women’s rights to reproductive healthcare in general?
Amanda Milling
My hon. Friend raises an important point around safety and the importance of safe abortions. I can reassure her that we push for strong supportive language in relation to sexual and reproductive health and rights at the UN and in other international forums.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I know the Minister will be aware that abortion is not and has not ever been deemed a human right in any binding international law. In fact, almost the opposite is the case. Some internationally binding treaties reference a right to life, such as article 6 of the international covenant on civil and political rights, which states:
“Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law.”
Part 5 of the same article specifically excludes pregnant women from the death penalty. Does the Minister not agree that giving legal protection to the unborn is, arguably, a clear recognition of the unborn life? America has done just that, and I welcome the bold and courageous decision.
Amanda Milling
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question, but I am afraid that I do not agree with the decision that the US courts have made, and I share the Prime Minister’s view that it is a step backwards. However, importantly, in this place, we have a debate on these matters and we are able to vote according to our conscience.
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)
We are all agreed, as we have just heard, that actions speak louder than words. Can the Minister explain how Britain can continue to stand up practically for the rights of women and girls globally in light of the £1.9 billion cut to women’s aid programmes, or will she commit to reversing that cut today?
Amanda Milling
We have had many debates about our official development assistance spend. I can reassure the hon. Lady that, as she will be aware, the issue of women and girls is a key priority for the Foreign Secretary, as set out in the international development strategy last month, and sexual and reproductive health and rights are a key priority within that.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
The decision over Roe v. Wade is deeply distressing to women in America and throughout the world. The health consequences are absolutely appalling. It is an attack on human rights and an attack on women’s reproductive rights. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to speak with our friends in America to put forward our very strong views as a Government that this decision is not acceptable, and what more can we do to support women’s rights across the world?
Amanda Milling
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The Prime Minister was pretty clear over the weekend about our views on the matter. He recognises that this is a matter for the US courts, which is not our jurisdiction, but is very clear about his view, which I share, that the move is a step backwards. I reassure the House that the UK has a long-standing commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights across the globe. We also have a proud record in terms of defending and promoting universal and comprehensive sexual and reproductive health and rights.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
The House will know that 50 new clinics have been targeted by protesters in England and Wales since 2018. Will the Minister commit to speaking to her counterparts in the Home Office to legislate for the protection of those visiting an abortion clinic?
Amanda Milling
As I said earlier, here in the UK we as women have the choice over our own bodies, should we want or need to have an abortion—often in very difficult circumstances. It is important that women are able to access those clinics.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
In the past seven years that I have been in Parliament, I have joined with many across the House to ensure that a woman’s right to choose is not just protected but stands alone as a right rather than a defence to a criminal conviction. I agree with the Minister that this House stopped scrutinising the United States of America back in 1776, and to those who are trying to give oxygen to this debate, I would say that my daughters have asked me whether it could happen in this Parliament; whether there is a danger that we will reopen the debate. That gives the message that somehow we are going down the same path as the United States. We are not going to do that. Can the Minister remind this House that we have had majorities in the hundreds not only to protect a woman’s right to choose but to liberalise it further, and that we will not give up on that matter?
Amanda Milling
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is absolutely right. We have had many debates and many votes in this House on this matter. This is about a woman’s right to choose, and that is something that this House has supported on numerous occasions with large majorities, as he says. This place has been clear that women should have the right to choose in this country.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
Many women on the Labour Benches have worked with our sister parties across the world for many years to advance women’s reproductive rights, because they are fundamental to our economic rights. May I press the Minister on her response to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield)? The £1.9 billion-worth of cuts do indicate the Government’s approach to those rights and to women’s programmes, so will the Minister seriously urge her colleagues to look again at those cuts? This is a globally financed attack on women’s rights, and we need to respond in kind.
Amanda Milling
We have had many debates in this House about ODA. It was the impact of the pandemic that forced us to make tough but necessary decisions. I remind the hon. Lady and the House that in the international development strategy, women and girls are a key priority for the Foreign Secretary and sexual and reproductive health and rights are an important area.
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
The decision by the Supreme Court is utterly woeful. It is a disgracefully retrograde ruling. Unfortunately, we do live in a world where we can no longer legislate for other parts of the world—we have not done that for several hundred years—but we can use our influence. As my right hon. Friend the Minister pointed out, the position in this country is that women and girls should have full access to sexual and reproductive health. What are we going to do to ensure that the rest of the world knows that our position is the one that should be available to the majority of women and that the one taken by the United States is an outlier of the worst kind?
Amanda Milling
As my hon. Friend rightly says, we do not have the ability to legislate for other countries or jurisdictions, but I can reassure the House that this is an incredibly important matter and SRHR is something that we continue to promote and defend, particularly at the United Nations and in other international forums.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lefarydd. Yesterday, the UK Government confirmed that they would undermine both devolution and Welsh workers’ rights by scrapping the Trade Union (Wales) Act 2017. We in Wales have taken steps to protect women’s access to healthcare by making permanent the covid measures that allowed women to take early medical abortion tablets at home. In England, women’s access to such services has been reduced by allowing such provisions to expire. Will the Minister guarantee that this Government will never interfere with women’s reproductive rights in Wales?
Amanda Milling
I think the right hon. Lady will find that Parliament voted in favour of the amendment to the Health and Care Bill to make the temporary approval of home use of those pills for early medical abortions permanent across England and Wales.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
I thank Mr Speaker for allowing this urgent debate and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) for securing it. I want to follow up on the question about buffer zones, which the Minister failed to answer; given that they are about to be introduced in Scotland, could she say what the Government’s position is on that?
Amanda Milling
This is a matter for the Home Office but, as I understand it, they keep it under review.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Like many, I feel personally targeted by this attack on women’s bodily autonomy and deeply distressed by the impact it will have on women’s health in the United States. It is in part the consequence of a right-wing Government politicising women’s bodies in the pursuit of so-called culture wars, and I hope the Minister will take note. The ruling also means that whether a woman is pregnant becomes a matter of criminal liability. Therefore, insight into that, through health data, location data, what a woman buys, where she shops and who she visits, may become evidence for the prosecution. Yet that data is freely trafficked by multinational companies. Will the Minister set out how she will address that and the conversations she will have with her American counterparts to prevent that from happening? She looks confused, but this is a real issue for women, who will now be criminalised if they are pregnant and miscarry.
Amanda Milling
Let me be clear: I understand the distress about this decision, but it is a matter for the US courts and individual US states. We have no jurisdiction over them. However, we see this as a backwards step and both the Prime Minister and I have been clear about that.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
My absolute solidarity is with women across America as their rights are stripped from them, but this is a wake-up call to women across the world that our rights are under attack—including the rights of victims of rape and sexual assault. As many more millions of women feel oppressed and marginalised, can the Minister confirm that she will prevent moves to replicate that decision here and instead seek to protect and enhance access to abortions across the UK and elsewhere, so that all women can make their own free choice?
Amanda Milling
As I have set out, here in the UK we are able to make choices around our own bodies, but let me be clear: the UK is proud to defend and promote universal and comprehensive sexual and reproductive health and rights. We promote that and push for strong language at the UN and in other international forums. I am proud of our record in this area.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Does the Minister agree that our special relationship with the United States of America does not give us special interference rights to tell American people when they can or cannot terminate life in the womb of American women? Does she agree that the extreme abortion laws in the United States of America have seen the end of 62 million lives, and that they are now subject to state democratic controls and not to one single group of judges?
Amanda Milling
The key point is that this is a matter for the US court and for individual US states. I have been clear on my own position in seeing this as a backward move, but it is a matter for the US.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I hear the comments that it is not for us to interfere in US affairs, but thank God the US interfered in our situation with Ireland. This decision is relevant because it sends an important message to women and girls across the world. Women’s rights and human rights are under attack. I understand the Minister saying that she thinks it is a backward step, but will she be absolutely clear? Does she condemn the decision?
Amanda Milling
As I have said on several occasions—I am not sure how many different ways I can make the point—this is not a matter for us and we have no jurisdiction. However, I have been clear that it is not a decision that I agree with. I see it as a backward step. The Prime Minister was clear on that at the weekend as well.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
I agree with the Minister that this is a backward—a retrograde—step. Perhaps it is an opportunity for us to take a forward step and show leadership by looking at our own laws. At the moment, abortion is legislated for under a law that was brought in 50 years before women even had the vote—the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. What conversations is she having with her colleagues in Government about decriminalising abortions in this country?
Amanda Milling
We have a proud record in this country of being able to stand up for women’s rights and of having debates on all matters relating to abortion. As we have heard, we have debated, and voted, on a number of occasions in relation to abortion legislation in this country.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
I thank the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) for co-ordinating this urgent question and echo the solidarity with women in the US, particularly those with trigger laws who are worried about the consequences for their own lives and where the ideology of the Supreme Court goes next. It is not often that I commend this Government, but I want to acknowledge the positive action to address the lack of access to abortion services in Northern Ireland after MLAs—I was one of them—failed to address this issue in meeting the needs of women and failed to address consistent legal rulings. Will the Minister commit the Government to continuing to end the postcode lottery that exists for services in Northern Ireland?
Amanda Milling
As the hon. Lady will be aware, in July last year the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland directed Northern Ireland’s Department of Health to ensure the full provision of abortion services by no later than March this year.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) for securing this UQ and the Speaker for granting it. Constituents have written to me to deplore the treatment of women in the United States who need an abortion and with concerns about the fact that laws banning abortion also impact the safe obstetric and gynaecological care needed by pregnant women with some complications. In the UK, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists guidelines on miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy are based only on medical need. That will not be the case in the US states that ban abortions. My constituents ask that FCDO travel advice be updated to include advice regarding abortion and women’s health for pregnant women from the UK who might be affected if they travel to the States when their healthcare might now be compromised by the change in law on abortion.
Amanda Milling
Our consular team is looking at this matter in terms of providing updated advice.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
The striking down of Roe v. Wade is a tragedy with a global impact for women and girls seeking abortions and reproductive healthcare. It cannot be sane or sensible that in the US women’s reproductive organs are more heavily governed than guns. The creep of the religious right, its funding and its misinformation is seeping into other areas across the world in terms of equalities, same-sex relationships and trans healthcare. Instead of a Prime Minister who panders to their rhetoric, will the Minister and her Government do as our First Minister has done and be outspoken by joining groups such as Back Off Scotland to challenge this right-wing creep and put in buffer zones?
Amanda Milling
As I mentioned in a previous answer, this is a matter for the Home Office and it keeps it under review.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
I am heartbroken and furious at the backward decision in overturning Roe v. Wade in the US. As the Minister says, it is a decision for the United States of America, but it is an attack on women’s rights, an attack on human rights, and an attack on all our rights. I stand in solidarity with the women and girls in the US, in Northern Ireland and across the globe who are fighting for access to reproductive and sexual healthcare. With that in mind, what impact assessment has she made of what global funding streams will be impacted as regards accessing healthcare for women all over the world?
Amanda Milling
There are a couple of points in the international development strategy that specifically focus on women and girls—that is one of the four key priorities—but also on global health, and SRHR is a key part of that.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I would defend the rights of the woman but especially the rights of the unborn child. Some in this House tend to disregard that. Will the Minister outline whether she has any discussions regarding the provision of healthcare in terms of funded IVF, funded endometriosis treatment and funded access to birth control, or does she consider these to be outside the scope of the FCDO Minister dealing with one of our closest allies? Will she join me in condemning the acts of violence and death threats that have been made in the United States of America?
Amanda Milling
The FCDO’s remit in this regard is international, and we have a very proud record in terms of universal and comprehensive sexual and reproductive health and rights. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we pay a lot of attention to this and raise it in international forums.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
Rape victims, women facing a life-threatening ectopic pregnancy and children who are victims of sexual abuse are all among the women who will now be forced to carry a child to full term. This Government are never slow to condemn religious fundamentalism when it is among those countries that we consider to be hostile to us. Would it not be all the more powerful if the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister and indeed the Minister at the Dispatch Box were to condemn in far stronger language to one of our allies the rise in religious fundamentalism and the impact it will have on people many, many miles away who desperately want to know that they have someone on their side?
Amanda Milling
I have been pretty clear on my own personal opinion on this court judgment, but it is a court judgment in the US, which is not within our jurisdiction. The Prime Minister was very clear at the weekend on his view in seeing it as a backward step. One of the interviews that he gave was on CNN, so I think he has been pretty clear on our views.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
One consequence of the US Supreme Court decision is that more women will have to travel from one state to another to access an abortion. Here in the UK, due to the absence of fully commissioned services in Northern Ireland, we still have women having to travel from Northern Ireland to England and Wales to access their reproductive rights. This has a particularly serious effect on people who are in poverty or in coercive relationships. In that respect, will the Minister work with the Northern Ireland Secretary to ensure that these services are properly commissioned by no later than the end of July?
Amanda Milling
As I said in answer to an earlier question, in July last year the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland directed the Health Department in Northern Ireland to ensure full provision of abortion services there.
Elected Representatives (Prohibition of Deception)
Tuesday 28th June 2022
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Elected Representatives (Prohibition of Deception) Bill 2022-23 View all Elected Representatives (Prohibition of Deception) Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to create offences in relation to the publication of false or misleading statements by elected representatives; and for connected purposes.
This Bill represents an invitation to every parliamentarian to work together in the name of the betterment of democracy. When I ran for Parliament in 2015, I was under no illusions. I knew there would be challenges to my party, opposition to our views and hostility to our success. I knew that I would have to walk the line between exciting, rambunctious, attention-seeking rhetoric, and telling the truth. I would have to not let the story get in the way of the facts and to know the difference between facts and opinions, but at no point did I expect that I would one day be standing here before Parliament to defend a principle that I believe should be beyond question—that politicians should strive to be honest.
No doubt some Members will scoff or scorn in response to my saying that, and they will plead ignorance or innocence, and they will avert or divert, but they cannot outrun reality. Outside this Chamber, people are fast becoming disillusioned by the lies that have been told by some of those who sometimes sit within it. They are a public who stepped up to the challenge of defeating covid, while some of their leaders plumbed new depths of deception; a public who have grown weary of empty promises and false dawns; and a public who expect change. According to a survey by the think-tank Compassion in Politics, the No. 1 value that voters believe is absent in our politics is honesty.
Our choice now is either to fiddle while faith in democracy crumbles, or to act in the name of those we are meant to serve. Why do we need legislation? Why are our 19th century codes of gentlemanly honour not sufficient? Because we are no longer in the world of chivalry and words as bonds, if we ever were, and because doing so would finally bring our legislature into line with other 21st century standards.
No business can sell products or services through deception. There are two self-regulatory codes and in many cases three separate laws to guard against that. The Advertising Standards Authority and Ofcom exist to protect us. Doctors may not lie to their patients. Teachers may not lie to their students. Like them, politicians engage in the art of education and persuasion. Like them, we engage here in matters that impact on health, wellbeing, safety and, more than that, national security. Think of the responsibilities that we bear on our shoulders. We always have a vision, strategy, policy or idea to sell, but unlike others, we face no sanctions for doing so dishonestly. Previous Parliaments have recognised that truth and honesty matter and have legislated to ensure that in sectors beyond our own, such values are enshrined and codified. Now, our own profession must follow suit.
In terms of election communications, that point was recognised by the Electoral Commission in its review of the misinformation bandied around during the 2019 general election. In the 2020 report “Digital Technology and the Resurrection of Trust”, the Select Committee on Democracy and Digital Technologies, chaired by Lord Puttnam, recognised the risk posed by misleading electoral advertising. The Government responded by throwing up a cordon of shields emblazoned “freedom of speech”. I refer the Government to the New Zealand model. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 succeeded in incorporating freedom of speech, while latterly legislating against the freedom to lie. Why should parliamentarians act as if they are above these basic norms? How can we as elected representatives expect the public to follow, when our own standards lag so far behind?
We are elected to represent our constituents’ voices in this place. We should therefore be focusing on finding solutions to the cost of living crisis that is plunging thousands of people into historic levels of poverty. Thanks to this Government, we are held back by another crisis—a cost of lying crisis that undermines every aspect of Westminster political credibility. While I am here today to uphold the interests of the public, I am also here to uphold the good name of this Parliament, its Members—ourselves—and our staff, and the staff of Parliament, too. The lies of a few have tarred the reputations of us all. The legislation that our Parliaments enact, and the policies that we seek to carry out, are all the weaker for a lack of credibility. When people do not believe their leaders, those leaders’ words will carry less weight than a feather in an emergency. That matters, and therefore we must all act. If we do that, we will build a better democracy, and a better politics.
Honesty is not only the best policy, but is essential to the creation of policy. It is an honour to attend Parliament and engage in discussions and decisions that affect all our countries, to decide on policies that avert the climate breakdown and to legislate against hunger, homelessness and want, but we cannot do that from a position of bad faith, distrust or uncertainty. We cannot make good policies off the back of lies and misinformation, and we cannot expect the public to mobilise in support of the kind of transformative change needed to build a sustainable and just future if they cannot trust those who would lead them to do so.
And so to my Bill—my invitation. It is, as all good things are, extremely simple. I propose that we seek to put our house in order and that we borrow from the good practice that already exists. The Bill would make it an offence for an elected representative to wilfully and, when provided with evidence of their action, repeatedly lie to the public. After all, we are all mortal and we make mistakes, but at present politicians are effectively rewarded when the lies that they peddle garner political rewards. There is presently scant sanction for mistruths and the admittance of errors is seen as a weakness. We must create a culture here where we are rewarded for correcting our mistakes and chastised when we seek to profit from a lie. Arbitration should be carried out under the same procedures already used to determine whether a business or corporation has intentionally mis-sold or misled. Repeated offences should be sanctioned with a fine or ultimately with disbarment from public office temporarily.
For those who unwittingly repeat or invoke a falsehood, ample opportunity should be given to publicly correct the record and, in doing so, to reinforce the importance of honesty, humility and responsibility. False accusations would themselves be sanctioned in this Bill to prevent its misuse for political or other reasons. It also proposes effective checks and balances in its proposal to employ the judiciary as guardians of the good name of politics. There would be a rational defence when acting in the interests of national security.
This is a necessary Bill whose time has come, because its precedents in House procedure alone are no longer adequate. It is not only necessary, but it has public approval. A survey by Compassion in Politics found cross-party support for the Bill, with 71% of Conservative voters and 79% of Labour supporters backing the proposal. An ITV Wales poll this week asked whether it was ever acceptable for a politician to lie, and 85% responded saying no. At a time when unity and agreement are hard to come by, we ought to grasp this opportunity to change politics in a way that has consent and the approval of the majority.
In closing, I remind my friends what is at stake. No institution is indelible and no power irrevocable. Systems and structures that were once seen as being immortal have perished and been forgotten. I refuse to be passive when our parliamentary democracy is eroded and sullied. I choose instead to be an active and proud defender of the system, and the values it is based upon: selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. Those are not empty words—they are there for a reason. I know that in this Chamber, there are Members who like me are worried about the state of our politics. Many have spoken out, and others may well have been silent until now, but it does not matter—what matters is what we do next.
In closing, I will quote Jonathan Swift, who I believe was protecting the Tory party at the time:
“Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it”.
Surely now, several hundred years later, it is our job to give wings and power to truth, so that lies are overtaken and brought down before they can do their ugly work. Please support this Bill, and together let us work to defend democracy, serve the public and protect the basic standards by which we should all live.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Liz Saville Roberts, Richard Thomson, Caroline Lucas, Claire Hanna, Wendy Chamberlain, Bell Ribeiro-Addy, Stephen Farry, Hywel Williams and Ben Lake present the Bill.
Liz Saville Roberts accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 October, and to be printed (Bill 120).
Opposition Day
Community Payback
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
We now come to the first Opposition day motion, on community payback. Before we start the debate, I inform the House that there is a small error on the Order Paper. The first part of the motion should read: “That this House notes that the number of community sentences handed down fell by one quarter in the last three years”. The motion has been corrected online; I would be grateful if Members corrected it on their Order Papers.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House notes that the number of community sentences handed down fell by one quarter in the last three years; further notes that completed hours of unpaid work carried out by offenders has fallen by three quarters in the last three years; notes with concern that despite the end of lockdown restrictions in 2021, the number of offenders permitted to complete unpaid work from home has continued to rise; and calls on the Government to create community and victim payback boards to place communities and victims in control of the type of community projects that offenders complete to restore public faith in community payback.
Today’s debate will show the public which party is serious about stopping crime and antisocial behaviour, and the reoffending that they breed. After 12 years of Conservative Governments, it is clear to the public that the Conservatives have no answers when it comes to tackling the kind of crime and antisocial behaviour that make voters’ lives a daily misery. The public now know that the Conservatives are soft on crime and cannot fix the problems that fuel it. By contrast, the Labour party still believes passionately in being tough on crime, while being tough on tackling its causes.
That principle is still as important as it was when the last Labour Government took office, because the problems that the then incoming Labour Government had to contend with are the same problems that we see now. This dying Conservative Government have lost control of crime, just as they did in the 1990s. Despite the Prime Minister’s delusions, crime is up a fifth and rising, and police numbers are still thousands short of what they were before the Conservatives reduced the number, leaving the police less able to stop the antisocial behaviour that is blighting our communities. That might be news to Conservative Members, but the public do not need telling. They see it in their communities day in, day out—and they are sick of it. The graffiti, the vandalism and the drug dealing corrode communities and lead to more serious crime, which hurts those communities and victims even more, later down the line. Community payback has huge potential to stop that at source.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that community payback schemes should provide fitting punishment as well as rehabilitation, so that they are meaningful for the offender and the community?
Ellie Reeves
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I visited a community payback scheme in my constituency a few weeks ago where offenders were carrying out maintenance on a children’s adventure playground. They all said that they felt that they were giving something back and being rehabilitated. The reality is that there are not enough of those schemes because the Government do not resource them properly.
Done properly, community payback offers both just punishment and firm rehabilitation. Offenders understand that the unpaid work they do not only is visible retribution for what they have done to their communities and their victims, but offers them a chance to repay their debt to society. At the same time, if unpaid work is done well, it starts to fold offenders back into their community and gives them a sense of pride in putting back what they took away, which makes them less likely to offend again. What is more, communities see that the justice system is using its power to repair what has been broken, and victims see that, in the crimes committed against them, justice is starting to be done.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Of course, the beauty of community payback is that the communities that experienced the crime are the ones who see the crime redressed through the scheme. I am worried, though, that there is a trend in this country for the hours ordered by the courts not to be completed. For example, in my city region of Greater Manchester, there has been an 84% drop in the number of hours completed. That is not acceptable either for the perpetrator of the crime, who has a duty to pay back, or, more importantly, for my constituents and the communities who were affected by the crime.
Ellie Reeves
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point about hours not being completed and communities not seeing justice done. He talks about Greater Manchester, but that is a problem up and down the country. I will say more on that later.
Community payback should act as an alternative to short prison sentences, which, under this Government, create only more hardened criminals. That is because our prisons have become colleges of crime: drug abuse in prisons has gone up by 500% in a decade, while the take-up of drug rehabilitation programmes is down by 12%; last year, assaults on prison staff went up by a fifth, but the recruitment of officers was still down on 2010; and inmates’ discipline is low, which means that taxpayer-funded compensation for prisoner-on-prisoner violence is high—it was £4 million in the last two years alone.
Instead of properly punishing and rehabilitating offenders, getting them ready to re-enter society, and preparing them for the world of work, short sentences spit offenders out from prison more immersed in crime than when they went in. That is exactly where tough, effective community sentences and tough, effective unpaid work schemes that are accountable to communities and victims could make a difference—but they are not making a difference, because they have been set up to fail.
The Lord Chancellor knows that community payback does not work because of the mistake that his party made in 2014 in rushing through a privatisation that the probation service did not need. Probation officers work incredibly hard and do an extremely important job, but they are being let down by this Government. The fragmentation that followed privatisation in 2014 dangerously reduced staffing, increased workloads and meant less supervision for offenders. The results have been dire: 4 million fewer hours of community payback were completed in 2021 than in 2017.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (James Cartlidge)
It was a pandemic!
Ellie Reeves
The huge fall started years before the pandemic in 2017, and it has continued since. No one had heard of covid in 2017, so it is disingenuous to suggest that it is all because of covid.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
The Government Front Benchers are laughing and using the pandemic as an excuse, but does my hon. Friend not agree that during the pandemic, they should have been focusing on catching criminals, rather than giving them money?
Ellie Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for that point. It is right that this fall started years before the pandemic.
Some 25% fewer offenders finished community sentences in 2021 than did in 2017. Many community sentences were terminated because offenders went on to commit further offences, but others ended because the lack of supervision meant that they could choose not to turn up with impunity. By the end of November last year, more than 13,000 criminals had not completed their allotted hours of unpaid work within 12 months of being sentenced by a court, but the Government do not even know how many unpaid work hours have been written off because the resources were not in place for them to be completed within 12 months.
The most embarrassing statistic is that there has been a threefold rise in “independent” unpaid work since the end of lockdown. In case Conservative Members are unclear about what that means, I will spell it out for them. While Ministers have been hounding civil servants back into the office, they have been letting thousands of offenders work from home. The Prime Minister wanted to see streets full of hi-vis chain gangs, but instead his Lord Chancellor decided to let criminals finish their sentences on Zoom. What next—flexitime for burglars? Season ticket loans for bank robbers? Yet again, the Conservatives are letting criminals off and letting victims down.
Working from home defeats the whole object of community payback, which is supposed to be visible to communities and victims. That is part of the reason why trust in our criminal justice system is at rock bottom. The public cannot see police on the streets because the station has been shut and officers have been sacked.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
I am glad the hon. Member has raised the issue of closing police stations. Does she agree with me on the subject, and will she join my calls for the Labour police and crime commissioner for South Yorkshire to reopen the police stations on Maltby and Dinnington high streets, which were closed despite the police and crime commissioner underspending his budget by £2 million last year? Perhaps she should speak to her own party, and get the police stations reopened in Rother Valley.
Ellie Reeves
Since the Conservatives took office in 2010, there have been cuts to police, stations have been closed, there are fewer police on the streets and there is less confidence among the public that the party has the ideas to tackle crime in our communities.
Victims cannot see judgments being handed down because their local courts have been sold off and cases are taking years to complete, and communities cannot see justice being done in their area because criminals are instead finishing their sentences on Microsoft Teams. What is more, these failings are killing judicial faith in the effectiveness of community sentences. Judges do not believe that sentences are being completed, so they are not handing them down. Instead, they are giving out more short custodial sentences in the Tories’ colleges of crime, and so the cycle of reoffending worsens.
Ellie Reeves
Community payback can be fixed if the Government follow Labour’s plan. First, Ministers must end the chaos that they have created in the probation service by ruling out any further reductions in staffing.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The hon. Member mentions cuts to probation, which have led to a workload and staffing crisis in the probation service. It is no surprise that there is a direct relationship between that and the huge drop in community sentences in Wales; in 2019, there were nearly half as many community sentences as there were in 2010. Does she agree with me and Napo Cymru that devolving probation will be key to restoring restorative justice for perpetrators of crime and their victims in Wales?
Ellie Reeves
I thank the right hon. Member for the points she makes. She illustrates the fall in community sentences because of the issues with them, and the point that she raises about people being able to see justice being done in their community is so important. The role the probation service plays in that is incredibly important, but it cannot do its job properly if its resources have been cut to the bone. There will potentially be cuts of 20% to the civil service; we ask the Minister whether probation officers and prison officers will be affected by that as well, because we have not been able to get a straight answer on that. We want the Government to rule out further reductions in staffing, and we urge them to deliver Labour’s proposal to let communities and victims decide on the unpaid work that criminals do to repay their debts to society. Offenders picking up litter is not enough. They could be taking part in more transformative schemes locally, if there was more community and victim involvement in deciding what unpaid work they do. The Government have a national portal that allows communities to suggest schemes for offenders to work on, but it is little known and used even less.
Labour has suggested adding community groups and victims’ representatives to community safety partnerships and safer neighbourhood teams to create community and victim payback boards. These boards would decide what unpaid work offenders completed, and would publish local data that assures communities that the work is getting done.
Andrew Gwynne
I am really interested in the concept of community and victim payback boards, because the important thing is that the voice of both the community and the victims be heard. Too often they are locked out of decisions made about community payback and community sentences. How does my hon. Friend envisage the voice of the victim, in particular, being part of the proposal that she is setting out?
Ellie Reeves
Victims would be at the heart of everything a Labour Government do, whereas the Government have time and again promised a victims Bill that still has not made it on to the statute book. Our party is on the side of victims; theirs lets victims down.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
Is the hon. Member aware that the draft Victims Bill is currently undergoing prelegislative scrutiny by the Justice Committee at this very moment in a Committee Room upstairs?
Ellie Reeves
I am well aware of that. I am also aware that it was six years ago that the Government first proposed a victims Bill and we have been waiting for it ever since. Where is it?
Ellie Reeves
Six years—I think that speaks volumes, does it not, about the priority the Conservatives place on victims.
Being tough on crime and on the causes of crime remains as much a guiding mission of the Labour party in 2022 as it was in 1997. Our plans for tackling crime and antisocial behaviour today show that our party is still committed to those principles nearly a quarter of a century on. This Government have the chance to show voters that they care about crime in their communities by adopting Labour’s plans and making community and victim payback boards a reality. I urge them to take it.
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
I rise both perplexed and pleased to respond. First, I am perplexed because, in seven years in this House, I do not think I have heard quite such a series of distortions of events, or indeed such a naked use of a global pandemic to derive political advantage. I know that when the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves) goes to tweet or Facebook the clips of her being outraged in this debate, she will point out—to her, no doubt, small number of viewers in Lewisham West and Penge—that the pandemic had an impact on the whole of the country, not least the criminal justice system.
I am also perplexed at the sudden reversal in the Labour party’s view of community payback. It was only a year ago that the former shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), said that community payback
“has nothing to do with tackling crime”.
She accused us, in promoting community payback, of “stigmatising” certain sections of the community. She called our desire to have more community payback teams out in the community, doing exactly the kind of work that the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge now seems to celebrate, a “distasteful gimmick”, as did, at the same time, the now shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). So while I welcome the hon. Lady’s conversion, it is the cause of some confusion. Perhaps we are in happier, more Blairite times in the Labour party now, under new leadership, although how long that will last I do not know.
Having said that, I am pleased to celebrate the work that has been done on community payback, particularly over the last year as it has roared back into life, and to take the opportunity to pay tribute to the outstanding work of our operational staff across England and Wales, who, in spite of a huge number of challenges, have continued to deliver projects day in and day out.
The community payback requirement is of course delivered in groups, sometimes indoors—painting and decorating schools for example—and covid-19 had a severe impact on our ability to deliver. I am afraid that resulted in a backlog of cases where hours have not been met 12 months after sentencing, which is a stipulation of the requirement. However, we are committed to ensuring that all eligible offenders who did not complete their community payback because of covid-19 will be required to meet their hours.
The hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge, on whom I wanted to intervene, seemed to indicate that hours had been written off from community sentences. She may not be aware of this, but we are not able to write off community sentence hours as that is entirely a judicial decision. We have undertaken to present every single case where somebody goes over their 12-month requirement period back in front of a judge for them to take a decision—to extend the time limit, we hope, but at the very least for those people to complete their hours.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I sat as a magistrate in a breach court in Merseyside last week, hearing from the probation service on cases that it had not been possible to complete in a certain period of time, and the periods for delivery of that community payback were being extended. A point was made from the Opposition Benches that in Greater Manchester some payback cases were not being completed; of course where that is happening, the probation service can and does bring breach cases to court for magistrates to resentence or revoke the order.
Kit Malthouse
I salute my hon. Friend for doing his civic duty as a magistrate and he is right that these decisions are effectively for the independent judiciary and we are very limited in what we can do in terms of flexibility. My hon. Friend also rightly highlights that we regularly take those who fail to complete their community service requirement in front of judges for alternative sentencing or for reaffirmation of the sentence. I hope my hon. Friend made the right decision when sitting as a magistrate; I am sure he will have done.
In stark contrast, our brethren in Scotland decided, other than in certain cases, to write off 35% of the hours accumulated because of the covid-19 backlog. We in this part of the United Kingdom took a completely different decision, recognising the importance of sentencing both to victims and for rehabilitation and punitive purposes, so we are persisting. That does however mean that we have a backlog, but also that we had to develop some necessary solutions to make sure sentences were delivered despite social distancing regulations.
The independent working projects, which the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge mentioned, were introduced as a temporary delivery method in response to covid-19 restrictions and have enabled us to maximise delivery during the pandemic and as the probation service recovers from the impact of the pandemic. All the products created by offenders during these projects were for the benefit of the community or for local charities. They have included a range of robust and practical tasks such as producing hats and scarves for Ukrainian refugees and making face masks and personal protective equipment during the pandemic. I am sure the hon. Lady would not see those jobs as any less valuable than cleaning up a churchyard. Those projects are still being deployed in a limited and targeted way to support our recovery and will be phased out by the autumn.
We cannot shy away from the fact that the probation service and community payback were, like the rest of the country, deeply impacted by the pandemic. As a result we have built up a backlog of cases and we need to make sure those and future cases are all delivered within 12 months. We are boosting our delivery capacity and maximising our efficiency, and to do that we are investing an additional £93 million in community payback over the next three years.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
On probation, I attended the justice unions parliamentary group yesterday and subsequently had discussions with members of Napo, the probation officers’ union. They were at pains to point out the huge caseload many of their members are carrying and the difficulties that presents in terms of assessing cases and identifying those suitable for community service and community payback.
Kit Malthouse
The hon. Gentleman is right that the probation service has a heavy caseload, and that is why we are in the process of recruiting significant numbers of new probation officers; there were 1,500, I think, last year with more to come in the year ahead. We have been given significant investment by the Government to expand that capability and I am very aware of the caseload pressures across the country. It is therefore even more important that we should be given the flexibility to enable people to complete their sentences within the 12 months so as not to add to the burden by having to represent those cases in front of magistrates if the deadline is not met.
This significant investment will enable us to increase the delivery of community payback from the pre-covid benchmark of around 5 million hours a year to an unprecedented 8 million hours a year. These hours will be put to good use, with a particular focus on more outdoor projects that improve local areas, allow the public to see justice being done and build confidence in community sentences. We will be delivering more placements that restore pride in communities and add value to the work of local charities, building on the success of projects like one in south Yorkshire which saw offenders undertake 2,500 hours of work to transform a derelict building into a community centre for disadvantaged young people. The ramp-up will be facilitated by the recruitment of about 500 additional community payback staff who will bolster resources in every probation region. In January, we launched a national recruitment campaign and successful candidates are now commencing in post.
Alexander Stafford
I thank my right hon. Friend for mentioning south Yorkshire. He will know that, in March, a group of offenders came to Rother Valley under this scheme to help clear up Maltby. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need more of these schemes across Rother Valley and Yorkshire so that people can see the value of community payback, and that it is often better to have people out working in communities rather than serving shorter sentences in prison?
Kit Malthouse
I completely agree and am pleased to hear about the projects in my hon. Friend’s constituency. As he will know, I have urged all Members across the House to nominate schemes in their constituencies to be fulfilled and I need everybody’s help to get us to the target of 8 million hours. If we all pull together I hope we will make sure that not just my hon. Friend’s constituency but every part of the country is looking spick and span.
This investment is also enabling us to establish new national partnerships with major organisations and charities, which are also joining this coalition to get to 8 million hours, bringing forward high-quality local projects and initiatives to be replicated in communities across England and Wales. This includes our groundbreaking partnership with the Canal & River Trust, which sees offenders clearing litter, tidying towpaths and maintaining beauty spots along 2,000 miles of waterways. The work of offenders on community payback has delivered at Perry Barr in Birmingham, clearing a towpath near the site of this summer’s Commonwealth games, which is testament to the impact such projects can have on local places and people.
Stephanie Peacock
The Minister talked about the number of hours completed and has spoken a lot about the impact of the covid pandemic but the fall in the number of hours completed began in 2017; what is his answer to that?
Kit Malthouse
There was a decline between ’17-18 and ’18-19, but the hon. Lady will remember that the last three years of decline were covered by a lockdown; the lockdown began in the first quarter. And while there was a decline it is worth pointing out that there was also a very significant decline in the previous year because this is an activity which, as I have said, takes place in groups and we were not allowed to meet in groups. I know it is not often the case that the word fairness is used in our antagonistic form of democratic debate, but it would be unfair of Opposition parties to decry the work of the probation service and community payback supervisors and say that they should have been doing that group work during the pandemic.
Kit Malthouse
No, I want to make some progress. [Interruption.] I will give way in a moment, but I have just given way to the hon. Lady.
Stephanie Peacock
It is disingenuous of the Minister to call me unfair. He clearly misheard my intervention; I was talking about 2017 but he is talking about 2020. Will he answer the question about 2017?
Kit Malthouse
As I have said, the baseline was at or around 5 million hours a year for quite a period. It fluctuated from year to year because of a number of factors, not just the delivery but also whether magistrates were giving community sentences in volume, which is not something we can influence. But I am more than happy to write to the hon. Lady with the hours as we see them. [Interruption.] I do not have them to hand, but I am more than happy to write to her about those hours. Look, the number fluctuated at about 5 million-odd, and we want to get it to 8 million. We have been given £93 million and 500 more supervisors have been recruited to get us there. I hope that Opposition Members will acknowledge that community payback was impacted, and had to be, by the pandemic. I know that the Labour party would not seek to make political advantage out of the impact of that awful disease when we had to bear in mind the safety of Ministry of Justice staff.
The Opposition have submitted their own proposals on improving local engagement and participation, which the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge referred to. However, I am afraid that her quango-tastic response to the issue is both unnecessary and, I am afraid, overcomplicated. In reality, community payback is already delivering for local communities, and the Government are only strengthening our engagement with key stakeholders. We recognise that local engagement is an integral part of the community payback offer, and the probation service already works closely with local authorities, police and crime commissioners and voluntary organisations to identify demanding placements that benefit communities. We also encourage members of the public to take part and nominate community payback projects in their areas via an easy-to-use form on the gov.uk website. I urge you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to make some nominations in your own constituency.
Furthermore, we have just introduced a new statutory duty via the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 that requires the probation service to consult with key community stakeholders on the delivery of community payback in local areas. The duty will encourage greater collaboration with key partners such as PCCs and ensure that projects benefit communities and are responsive to local needs. The new statutory duty will cement and formalise existing relationships and create a consistent consultation process across England and Wales. That in turn will guarantee that local people have a say in the types of projects delivered in their areas, ensuring that our placements are responsive to the community’s needs.
The impact of such collaboration was evident during the community payback spring clean week, which was delivered in support of Keep Britain Tidy’s campaign in March. Between 25 March and 1 April, community payback teams were mobilised across England and Wales to deliver clean-up projects that visibly improved local areas and green spaces. More than 1,500 offenders collected 2,200 bags of litter, removed eyesore graffiti and cleared vegetation from public spaces. They delivered 10,000 hours of hard and productive work at about 300 projects. The initiative was widely supported by many hon. Members and PCCs who visited projects. The spring clean week is a superb example of the impact that meaningful and robust community payback can have on local areas.
Andrew Gwynne
I want to take the Minister back to the 8 million hours of community payback that he set out. We all support more hours of community payback, particularly on meaningful projects such as some of those that he has just listed. He skirted over the fundamental problem, though, which is that in June 2011, 185,265 community sentences were handed down—13% of all sentences—but by June 2021 that had fallen to 72,021, which was just 7% of all sentences. He said that there is little that he can do to make the courts award community sentences, but, if he is to make those 8 million hours a reality, he will have to do something to encourage them. What is he doing to ensure that more community sentences, where appropriate, are given out to perpetrators of crime?
Kit Malthouse
The hon. Gentleman is quite right that the decision on a sentence is a matter for the magistrate or for the judge at the time. It is for them to decide what is a fitting punishment and, indeed, what is likely to deter the offender from reoffending. The fall that he pointed to will be entirely down to judicial discretion.
We can do a certain amount of marketing to judges and sentencers. In promoting my own pet project of alcohol abstinence and monitoring orders—the new sobriety tags that have been brought in—I have been attending judicial training courses to explain to sentencers how the sentence works and its effectiveness. In the end, a judge or magistrate wants to know that a sentence is effective, and if we can demonstrate through our work that it is effective, punitive and satisfies the public interest, and the local community sees value in that sentence, I am sure that magistrates and judges will step forward with much greater enthusiasm and help us to fulfil that 8 million hours target. The hon. Gentleman identifies the interesting point—no doubt it will be embarked on with the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge)—of explaining to those who give out sentences the growing importance of this work across the whole of the country.
I hope that all hon. Members in the Chamber will become my Twitter followers. One of the great pleasures of my day is to tweet my “payback of the day”. Pretty much every day, I put out “before” and “after” pictures of a project taking place somewhere across the country showing the fantastic work that offenders have done. We seem to specialise in cemeteries—a lot of work is going into cleaning them and smartening them up. Some of the transformations have been extraordinary. I visited a project in Eastleigh, near my constituency, and what struck me was the value that the offenders themselves saw in the work. Local residents had been over to congratulate them, thank them and understand what they were doing—the offenders all wear high-vis that has “community payback” written the back—and the offenders felt a sense of pride. They had been working in a churchyard, making it look very smart and tidy, and in fact a couple of them said that they were interested in a career in landscape gardening as a result.
Across the House, we agree on the value of community payback. I hope it is agreed that the service suffered during the pandemic because of the nature of this group-based work, but that the staff at the probation service and the community payback supervisors were innovative in inventing solutions to help us deal with the backlog. Nevertheless, we all need to put our shoulder to the wheel to get us from 5 million hours to that target of 8 million hours, by which time I hope there will not be an area of the country that is not clean, scrubbed and free of graffiti and litter.
While I realise that the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge is trying to use the debate to confer some kind of political advantage, I know that she recognises—she is generally a fair-minded individual—that the staff were struggling during the pandemic, as were so many services. Now that her party has happily reversed its position, we share the view that the community payback is an incredibly valuable part of our criminal justice system, and I hope that we will all work together to promote it. I look forward to receiving a nomination from her for a scheme that she would like to see done in her constituency. Perhaps she and I could visit it together and congratulate the offenders on their work.
As for the hon. Lady’s overall claim that somehow the Conservatives have gone soft on crime and are no longer the party of crime and order, I gently remind her that she voted against the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act and its measures to put rapists and other serious offenders behind bars and to deal with a variety of other criminals. Until the Labour party becomes more action and less talk, I am afraid that it will not be able to aspire to the crown, which we currently proudly hold, of being the primary defender of law and order in this country.
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
This debate is about how we provide security for our communities and justice for victims. It is also about getting real about why so many crimes are happening, why so many victims are being harmed and why the wounds are not being helped to heal. We know about how the Tory austerity cuts to our courts helped to create a massive backlog even before the pandemic. We know how victims are waiting years for justice and how so many are dropping out of the system because they cannot have cases hanging over their heads any longer. We also know how suspects waiting month after month in custody or on bail just creates the conditions for further crime.
We are talking about community sentences and the role that they can play in providing justice, in repairing the damage that crime causes to our communities and in stopping reoffending by dealing with some of its causes. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves) laid out the facts: the number and percentage of community sentences in our justice system have declined in the past 10 years—even before the pandemic. The Ministry of Justice’s own research shows that community sentences are associated with lower reoffending than short prison sentences, which are often the alternative, and that community sentences cost 10 times less than a prison place. When our prisons are as underfunded, dangerous, overcrowded and devoid of rehabilitation as so many are today, that is no bad thing. Community sentences are a win-win, as they have lower reoffending rates and they are cheaper.
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. There is another bonus because, when community sentences are done correctly, they provide payback—the clue is in the name—to communities affected by crime and they provide a form of restorative justice to victims of crime. A price cannot be put on that. It is justice in action, is it not?
Ms Brown
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Community sentences work because they include punishment while maintaining a link to the community and enabling progress on the problems that drive crime in the first place. The link to the community is perhaps the most important thing, because it helps people to maintain the hope that is necessary to change their life. Community payback orders can give people experience of work that helps their neighbourhood to thrive. The work can and should be hard, but it should also be rewarding, which can, in and of itself, create a motivation for further change.
What are the barriers to making this kind of sentence work well? A lack of investment in the probation service is part of the problem. When I was a shadow probation Minister, I frequently heard of probation staff taking on huge, extraordinary numbers of cases. Good, valued probation staff are not just an early warning system for when an individual is going off the rails; they are agents of hope, healing and personal change. That can only happen if professionals are given the time and resources to develop the real relationships that are essential if we are to turn lives around. It is about understanding the needs, vulnerabilities and risks of the people they are supervising. We need probation staff who organise unpaid work to have good links with employers, councils, colleges and local charities. They need a range of opportunities to be available so they can tailor the service to a person’s skills and needs. Most of all, they need the necessary time and trust to inform the courts of the most effective, most appropriate and fairest type of sentence.
Grahame Morris
My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. The Minister suggested that Opposition Members do not appreciate the work of probation officers, so will my hon. Friend please set the record straight? We really do appreciate the work of probation officers, and we acknowledge the hiatus caused by the privatisation of the probation service. I hope the Government will recognise the value of probation officers in the current pay talks.
Ms Brown
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If we are to turn around people’s lives, and if we are to make a dent in the crime on our streets, we have to resource those who are working with people who often have immensely disorganised lives, who may have a history of trauma and who might need a proper intervention by social services or the probation service to enable them to put their life straight. All too often, the only contact we have with the probation service is to criticise it for not recognising that somebody is about to go off the rails or has already gone off the rails and for not having a close enough eye.
The reality is that our probation service needs the resources to work properly with the people in its care, as well as resources for healthcare, drug rehabilitation, alcohol dependency and so on to use as tools in its work.
Andy Carter
The hon. Lady is making an interesting speech. There are, of course, two elements to unpaid work—the punitive element and rehabilitation—so two levels of sentencing are imposed: rehabilitation activity requirements and unpaid work. It is important not to confuse the two, because unpaid work is usually the punitive element. She talks a lot about needs, which sit in the rehabilitation activity requirement.
Ms Brown
I genuinely think it is about seeing it in the whole. If I am doing unpaid work to clean up a graveyard, I can look back and see a graveyard that is in better nick because of my work and somebody could commend me for that work, which begins to build confidence and self-worth. Although there is the punitive element of taking hours away from my life and making me do a job that I do not particularly want to do because it is a bit nasty and a bit scuzzy, there will be appreciation from others and from me for a job well done. The two cannot be separated, so we should acknowledge and accept both bits with open arms and say that this is what we want to do, because it changes lives.
Good, valued probation staff are not just an early warning system; they are agents of hope and healing. I worry that unpaid work can be seen as a box-ticking exercise, and it is no surprise that courts and victims sometimes do not have confidence that it is a genuine form of justice. I am worried that the probation system, with its regional structures, is too remote from our local communities. There is not necessarily the transparency and accountability to create genuine confidence in what is happening.
I worked in local government for years before I came to this House, and I saw time and again how money and power can be sucked away from the local when there is a regional structure. Sometimes our regional structures are a bit too far away from the delivery on the ground. There are fabulous local and public organisations working in Newham that I would trust to do the job of putting people to work in a way that pays back the community and creates opportunities for offenders, but those organisations are too often shut out of these contracts because they are a bit too small, a bit too local and a bit too distant from the decision makers, whether in Westminster or Islington. It sometimes means the best are not employed to do the work that we all know could happen.
To illustrate what I have been trying to say, I will finish by talking about the group that is failed most by the criminal justice system. Women overwhelmingly end up before the courts for non-violent and non-sexual offences. In 2020, 72% of women sentenced to prison had committed a non-violent offence. These offences are usually driven by the legacy of abuse, trauma and exploitation, and we know from the Government’s own research that 60% of women entering prison have suffered domestic abuse, almost half have an alcohol problem and almost a third have a drug problem.
Let me be clear. Women do commit crimes and we have to respond by creating a justice system that supports them to escape the abuses, traumas and addictions that have put them where they are. Community sentences can be an important tool for women offenders. They can help women to face up to and deal with their addictions. They include unpaid work that builds a woman’s skills, confidence and ambition. We have to face reality: if we do not give a community sentence, the alternative is a short prison sentence, which can make the problems that drive women’s offending so much worse.
Let me give an example. Many women who commit crimes are in a desperate situation due to homelessness. They then go into prison and, if they had a tenancy, they lose it. When they are out of prison, as many as two thirds do not have a safe home to go to. Most prison sentences for women are very short—70% are for less than a year. In the system in which we are working, that, frankly, does not give professionals enough time to respond to individual needs and provide the necessary treatments that will enable a woman to make a success of her life once she is released. For instance, it is not possible in that time, in the big structures in which we are working, to get a woman on to drug rehabilitation and alcohol dependency courses and provide the facilities and resources that she needs to turn her life around.
Alexander Stafford
I am trying to follow the hon. Lady’s logic. Is she saying that every woman—I know this is about women, rather than men—who commits relatively minor crimes such as shoplifting, mugging or assault, which still have victims, should not be sent to jail? I do not think we should screen people out because they are male or female. If someone commits a crime, they should go to jail, if that is appropriate. If the argument is that sentences are too short, let us make them longer so that there is chance to be rehabilitated in jail where the criminals belong.
Ms Brown
Let me help the hon. Gentleman. The Government have a female offender strategy, and what I am speaking about is not outwith the philosophy and principles in his Government’s strategy. It is massively understood that there are many and complex reasons why women find themselves in a situation where they can be imprisoned for between three and six months. Many such women will have responsibility for children. Their incarceration destroys the home for that child. It destroys their having a stable place to be. It often means that the child, although there may be no such predisposition previously, has that trauma to carry with them, which can have lifelong consequences.
If the hon. Gentleman believes that payback is a reasonable way of dealing with this, let us think about non-violent offenders and how we can use payback and community orders to reduce crime. The thing about payback orders is that they work. I want to see fewer victims. Therefore, I want to see less crime, so how do I get less crime? We are saying that payback orders can get us to a situation where there is less crime because reoffending rates are not as high as they otherwise would be.
There is a constant churn in prisons, with staff desperately trying to establish relationships but then losing them again. Let us imagine that a staff member meets somebody they could finally support in changing their life. Let us imagine that staff member making promises to that person when they know that those promises cannot be kept because the person will be moving on again in a few weeks. It is simply impossible.
Justice that happens within women’s communities can avoid that terrible, wrenching disruption and provide long-term support, enabling women to stay closer to their support networks. Almost 60% of the women in prison have children. Research shows that they have a greater risk of becoming involved with the criminal justice system if their parent is placed into prison. It is no wonder that the rates of self-harm in women’s prisons have gone up over the past decade. Many offenders, but particularly women offenders, are trapped in terrible cycles of harm, abuse, crime and punishment. It is a revolving door of reoffending, and that reoffending, effectively, creates more victims.
I believe that community payback is the kind of innovation that we need. Local partnership working between victims, courts, charities, businesses, probation and other public services is exactly the kind of joined-up local working that, sadly, Conservative Governments have eroded over the years through austerity and the decline in community sentencing. It can be absolutely no surprise that we are all paying the price of increased reoffending, increased crime and more victims, and our communities are being denied justice on a catastrophic scale.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Just before I call the next hon. Member in the debate, I have to notify the House—hon. Members can sit down; this is a very exciting announcement—in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Act:
Social Security (Additional Payments) Act 2022.
Community Payback
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
At the outset, I declare my interests, having served as a magistrate for 12 years, as a member of the Sentencing Council and as a non-executive director of Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service, all prior to my election.
In my role on the bench, I sentenced many people to community payback. It is a superb way to achieve the purposes of sentencing. It acts as a punishment by depriving offenders of their free time; it makes reparation to the public by improving local community facilities; and it often also helps to rehabilitate offenders by providing them with new skills or, at times, giving them their first ever experience of work. I have heard many accounts of people who have gone on to use those skills and experiences in later employment—employment that reduces their likelihood of committing further offences and so reduces the number of victims of crime.
Over the past two years, however, we have had the covid pandemic. When I first saw this motion on the Order Paper, I thought that the Labour party had perhaps forgotten about that. I realised then, of course, that it had not because its leader constantly wanted to keep us in lockdown. The pandemic had a massive impact on work across the entire country, so it is hardly surprising that community payback fell considerably during that time or, indeed, that the type of work that offenders were asked to do was adapted to the circumstances of the covid restrictions that were in place. It seems to make sense to me that when it was necessary, offenders were given tasks that they could complete at home, which included making personal protective equipment and face coverings, which became such a vital part of everybody’s life during those grim covid days.
I do not claim for a second that that was perfect, but it was surely better to have people carrying out their sentence in some form, producing something useful and contributing to their local community. What would Labour have preferred? Would it have preferred that they all sat watching “Bargain Hunt” while waiting for life to return to normal? What about offenders whose health meant they needed to shield for longer than others? Does Labour think that they should have been let off? We certainly do not. Does it not make sense, in fact, that community payback can adapt to circumstances, so if a person is unable to work in a certain location, perhaps because of a physical disability, other provision can be made for them to repay their debt to society? In my time at HMPPS, I constantly called for greater innovation. It strikes me that that is exactly what was demonstrated during the pandemic. Indeed, we can learn from that for the future.
This is an appropriate time to pay tribute to all the staff of HMPPS for everything that they did during the pandemic—I absolutely share the view of Opposition Members on that. I have often described those staff as the unsung heroes of our public services and they certainly proved that over the past two years. I particularly congratulate the winners of the Prison Officer Of The Year and Probation Champion Of The Year awards, which were held last week, recognising the outstanding contributions made across both services. As the chief executive of HMPPS said:
“The incredible work on show reflects the resilience & professionalism I see across the service every day from our fantastic staff”.
I am therefore absolutely delighted with the investment that the Government are making to recruit 500 additional community payback staff over the next three years, meaning that a record-breaking, staggering 8 million community payback hours will be completed each year.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter), who is still a serving magistrate, pointed out, community payback is just one of a wide range of non-custodial sentencing options open to magistrates and judges. I very much hope that the recent unification of community rehabilitation companies and the National Probation Service will lead to a wider use of community orders where doing so protects the public and has the confidence of the judiciary.
I am very pleased that we have already seen the introduction of tougher community sentences under this Government. One aspect of that is doubling from 12 to 24 months the time for which an offender can be subject to curfew restrictions. Personally, I hope that over time the Ministry of Justice will look at creating new forms of community sentences. A couple of years ago, I worked with the Centre for Social Justice on just such a proposal: the intensive control and rehabilitation order, under which offenders would wear GPS tags tracking their movements. They would be confined to their homes under a highly restrictive curfew that allowed them out only for specified reasons such as a job, a meeting with their probation officer, specific reparation work for victims or a course to address their offending behaviour. To some extent, it would be a midpoint between the current community orders and a spell in prison. I would very much welcome the chance to discuss that proposal further with Ministers.
For now, however, I return to my puzzlement at today’s Labour motion. The Government are committed to community payback, and they can prove it with the work done so far, the work still to come, the money being spent and the staff being recruited. Indeed, they are committed to tackling crime and reducing the number of victims in a plethora of ways, including by increasing the number of police officers, giving the police more powers and toughening sentences for the most serious crimes—measures that the Opposition have opposed time after time. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves), who is shaking her head at me from the Opposition Front Bench, was right about one thing: this debate will show which party is serious about tackling crime. It is the Conservative party. It always has been, and it always will be. I am proud to be on our side of the House, in the party that takes action and makes investments to put victims first.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I declare some interests: I work with the Justice Unions Parliamentary Group, as I mentioned in my intervention on the Minister for Crime and Policing, and I recently spoke at the POA conference in Eastbourne. In recent weeks, I have spoken in debates about the need for a national policing strategy for anti-social behaviour and for off-road bikes, and about repeat offenders and sentencing.
I did not intervene on the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler), but he said that the Conservative party is leading the way. I have served in this House for several years now, and I well remember that in 2011, the then Justice Secretary—who had held many high offices of state, including Chancellor of the Exchequer and Health Secretary, and now serves in the other place as Baron Clarke of Nottingham—proposed a similar solution, although in those days it was called a non-custodial sentence rather than community payback. The prison population was 85,000 then, but because of criticism from his own side, the then Justice Secretary had to back down. I well recall his statement, when the then Speaker remonstrated with him about the length of his answers; I said in his defence that I thought that that was a terribly unfair criticism because the Justice Secretary had already indicated that he was against shorter sentences. [Laughter.] Thank you.
I highlighted the difficulties experienced in our prison system and the lack of rehabilitation in a recent debate, to which the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), responded. The hon. Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter), who is no longer in his place, spoke very well in that debate and was very constructive.
There are concerns among people who work in the system. I agree with the Minister for Crime and Policing that for community payback to be effective, it must be a team effort, but there are issues in our prison system with lack of rehabilitation and with the unsafe working environment for those in the Prison Service—not just prison officers, but prison educators and others. There is a serious threat to life and threat of injury for prison officers, whose service and commitment to public safety often go unnoticed behind the prison walls.
It is my intention to continue to raise the frustrations of police officers about pensions, particularly for new recruits. They have seen the number of their colleagues cut over the past year; there are fewer experienced police officers, and they are struggling to contain rising crime and antisocial behaviour. I know Ministers will say that we are recruiting extra officers, but we lost 20,000. We are running to catch up with where we were in 2010. I have the utmost admiration for the police officers who seek to ensure that our streets are safe, but many are new recruits. We have lost experience, as we have in probation and many other areas, and it will take many years to get that experience back.
Yesterday, we saw criminal barristers on strike, walking out of courts. Let me say for the record that as a Labour MP and as a lifelong trade unionist, I will always stand up for working people in their fight to protect their pay, pensions and terms and conditions, whether they are barristers, rail workers or postmen and women.
After 12 years of Conservative Government, there are frequent and systemic failures across our whole criminal justice system. Only yesterday, I had to raise a complaint about a constituent who has twice been unable to report crimes via the 101 service, owing to extended delays in answering calls. Today we are looking at community payback, but we will never even get to that point if the public cannot report crime. The hon. Member for South Suffolk may recall that I highlighted a particular case in last week’s Westminster Hall debate and subsequently wrote to him about it; he asked me not to raise it individually at the time because it was still ongoing.
On the surface, crime figures may appear to be declining in particular areas, but in the case that I pointed out, many in the community, including the victims, considered the sentence overly lenient. They have lost confidence in the system and are less likely to report crimes; in fact, the individual affected has said that under no circumstances will he ever go through it all again, because he does not feel that justice has been served. There are not enough police officers to attend incidents in a timely manner, and criminals are not being convicted because of court delays and backlogs. Sadly, the Government are refusing to take responsibility, but the decision to close 164 out of 320 magistrates courts since 2010 is clearly not helping the backlog.
The Government are undermining the quality and quantity of community sentences. In 2019, the chief inspector of probation found that because of the Government’s “Transforming Rehabilitation” reforms, which split probation provision into the public sector National Probation Service and privately owned community rehabilitation companies, probation services are
“failing to meet all performance targets…In too many cases, there is not enough purposeful activity…The probation profession has been diminished…There is now a national shortage of probation professionals”.
The chief inspector noted that there is too much reliance on unqualified or agency staff, and that
“in the day-to-day work of probation professionals, there has been a notable drift away from the evidence base”.
I think the Government acknowledge that privatising probation was an error, because they renationalised it, but these issues prevail. The courts are less inclined to give community sentences. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) mentioned the reduction in the number of such sentences. Indeed, there has been a 46% decrease in England and Wales over the past 10 years, and a 25% fall in the four years between 2017 and 2020 alone in my region, the north-east. A decline in community sentences may indicate a more hard-line approach, given the increase in the use of custodial sentences. However, the prison population is lower today than it was in 2010. I do understand that during the pandemic there was less crime, and I think that the prison population fell by about 6% during that period, but what we have now are fewer police officers, fewer courts, and fewer community and custodial sentences.
The Conservative party often tries to portray itself as the party of law and order, but the statistics and the experience on the streets suggest that it is more the party of crime and disorder. Recently—and quite regularly—the Government have said, “Well, what would you do?” It is easy to throw stones and criticise.
Kit Malthouse
I am sure the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that while different types of crime can fall in different ways, some serious volume crimes are, according to the Office for National Statistics, well down on where they were three years ago. Burglary is down, robbery is down, theft is down, and admissions to hospital with a knifepoint injury are well down. There are areas of concentration, to which we have given significant priority and resources, which are now significantly down across the country. That is British crime survey data, not data for reported crime.
Grahame Morris
I acknowledge the Minister’s intervention. My concern, which I raised earlier in my speech and also last week, is the number of people who, because of a lack of confidence in the criminal justice system, are simply not reporting crimes—not necessarily the very serious crimes involving physical assault but crimes that we might classify as minor, including antisocial behaviour.
Kit Malthouse
As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, we use two methods to measure crime. There is recorded crime, as he says, which is sometimes affected by sentiment, but the more accurate measure—the one that is generally used—is the British crime survey, which contains data that is not impacted by the kind of sentiment to which he is alluding, and that data shows that these important crime types are significantly down.
Grahame Morris
I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention. However, let me return to the frequent criticism of Labour for not being definitive enough in proposing alternatives. Let us be no doubt about this: Labour is not soft on crime. Through new community and victim payback orders, we would make offenders pay back to the communities they have harmed. I think that that is an excellent idea, and I hope there is a basis for us to move forward together, given that Labour has a solid policy that commands support in the community.
Labour would set up police hubs—indeed, we have an embryonic police hub in Horden, in my constituency—in our towns and larger villages, and would put more police back on the streets. That would give residents direct access to a way of sharing their concerns about their community. We all know that the most effective policing is intelligence-led, and features close co-operation with a community who can often identify those who are involved in crime. Finally, Labour would create new neighbourhood prevention teams, which would bring together police, community support officers, youth workers—that is very important—and council staff to tackle the causes of the antisocial behaviour that is blighting so many communities.
The Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and the Justice Secretary know that the cuts of the past 12 years were wrong, and I welcome the U-turn at the 2019 election, when it was proposed that 20,000 police officers be rehired, but the public should remember that they were, in the main, present for, and voted for, each and every cut to our criminal justice system over the past 12 years. When it comes to community payback and rehabilitation—although I believe in the concept—the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and the Justice Secretary are repeat offenders. It will take many generations for the criminal justice system to recover from the wanton attacks and mismanagement of this Government.
While we can restore numbers relatively easily, the decades of experience that we have lost among skilled professionals—in the police and the probation service, and among prison officers—are not so easily recovered. Even following the recruitment drive to which the Minister referred, there are still nearly 24,000 fewer police staff today than there were in 2010, and over 6,000 fewer special constables. That is 30,000 fewer people seeking to prevent crime and catch offenders. Moreover, the closure of so many magistrates courts means that we have halved the court capacity to process offenders who are caught and charged.
The probation service recently launched a recruitment drive—the Minister mentioned this—to attract 500 extra community payback staff. The question I want to ask is this: how does the Minister expect to attract people to these important roles, given that retention, let alone recruitment, is struggling? The probation union Napo tells me of issues involving staff feeling unsafe at work—that may be partly due to concerns about covid—frustrations over stagnant pay and a lack of progression in jobs, and, overwhelmingly, covid-induced backlogs that are still clogging up the system.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I hope that he will soon bring his remarks to a conclusion. He has not done anything wrong—he is behaving perfectly properly—but although I did not impose a time limit originally because I thought that that would allow freer debate, I will have to ask Members who speak after the hon. Gentleman to take about six or seven minutes, because we want to finish the debate at about 4 pm.
Grahame Morris
I shall heed your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker. Let me end by saying this. In the opinion of many—myself included—our criminal justice system is falling apart, and the Government should be finding a way to fix it rather than just using it as a means of silencing their critics. I must say how disappointed I am that the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 is being used to silence Steve Bray just yards away from here. I know that many of us have had brushes with Mr Bray, but his voice is being silenced today, and by tomorrow, many of us who have never demonstrated before could be subject to prosecution under that law.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
It is absolutely ridiculous that the Labour party has brought this Opposition day debate, and then sent along four of its Back-Bench MPs. It is an absolute scandal. It is worth pointing out that, since I have been in this place, Labour has voted against every single measure to increase sentences for criminals such as murderers and rapists.
Labour Members really do have a cheek to talk about community payback, especially after my experience of Labour MPs and supporters calling for my head, and calling me some sort of right-wing fascist, when I had the temerity to suggest that criminals should go to work for a living, pay taxes and work hard. That was just before the election in 2019. I was working with residents on the Carsic council estate in Sutton-in-Ashfield, and they had had enough. They were having problems with antisocial behaviour, and with criminals who were making their life a complete misery. This was a handful of no-good villains who the council thought it was a good idea to put into flats and bungalows meant for pensioners, in order to try to integrate them with old-age pensioners, but it did not work. I did not think it was fair, so my suggestion was pretty simple: make these criminals go to work. There is a shortage of workers on our farms and in our agricultural industry in this country, so the answer is quite simple: do some graft, earn a wage and pay some taxes. That just might stop these people causing trouble by going out thieving and robbing people.
Sarah Owen
The hon. Member talks about hard graft. Does he think that making birthday cards and greeting cards is a suitable punishment for criminals?
Lee Anderson
No, I do not think that is a good way for criminals to do community payback. Of course it is not, but during the pandemic and in lockdown when people had to stop inside the house, we had to find something for them to do, so for that period of time I would say yes, get them to do some work, like making personal protective equipment. That was a great thing for them to do. We have not been living in normal times.
Imagine the outrage from Labour Members when I said all that stuff about people going to work. Going to work! The outrage! It was incredible. They said I wanted to open up gulags and forced labour camps, just because I was asking for people to go and pick vegetables. They said it was cruel to make people work on farms, yet they said it was not cruel for immigrant labour to come in and pick fruit and vegetables on farms. Do they just not like immigrants? Is that what it is? Because that is how it looks. It is not cruel for people to work hard, pay taxes and contribute to society. It is the right and decent thing to do in any civilised society.
We all know that the Labour party is trying to rebrand itself as the patriotic, low-tax party of law and order that is tough on illegal immigration. What a load of nonsense that is! Even Labour Members are laughing right now. It is ridiculous, isn’t it? They need to make their mind up, because the same MPs were saying, a while back, that we should not deport foreign criminals at Christmas time because it was cruel. I think it is a great Christmas present, deporting criminals. The people in Ashfield think it is brilliant. [Interruption.] I was in here when Labour Members said it, and it was absolute nonsense. They were absolutely out of touch with the decent, hard-working, tax-paying people in places such as Ashfield—[Interruption.] They can shake their heads all they want, but they are completely out of touch.
Labour Members have voted against every single measure to lock people up for longer. They should be ashamed of themselves. I know they think I am on a rant, and that I like picking on them, but I do not. I like to be sensible, calm and measured, and to put a proper argument across—[Interruption.] But there they are, chuntering away. This is great.
I hope that the Government will listen to some of my suggestions and take on board what I am saying, because criminals up and down the country are living rent-free in social housing, and every day they are making people’s lives a misery. It is true. I say again—I stick to my words—that these people do not deserve to be given free housing while we have decent people on the waiting list. They should work for a living.
Community payback is a great idea, and the Government are doing great things and investing millions of pounds in it—it is absolutely fantastic—but I hope they will look at doing something a bit more long term to sort this problem out. I will stick to my guns: as I have said before, we have a massive shortage of labour on farms in this country, but the good news is that we have a massive pool of habitual, bone idle, self-entitled criminals who are a drain on this great society of ours, so when the payback is finished, how about the Government—if they are listening to me—ensuring that these people are sentenced to 40 hours’ paid work a week for the rest of their life until they retire? Imagine that! It would send them into meltdown. That’s me done, Madam Deputy Speaker. Thank you very much.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
To return to the subject of community payback, most of us across the House know the impact of crime and antisocial behaviour on our communities. We see the impact on our towns and villages. We see how it worries people, makes them anxious, brings down their sense of pride in an area and makes them angry. We know that the link to antisocial and criminal behaviour, even at a low level, exists and really matters to our communities, so it is right that, where it is appropriate and in line with sentencing guidance, the option of community payback work should be given. A lot of communities see a link between wrongdoing and payback to the community. They see that those who have offended are doing work to make a difference in their local community. I think, for example, of work done a few years ago in my local cemetery—that is seemingly a very popular option for payback schemes. The work was very much needed. It helped the local community, and helped the offenders to learn skills and move forward after their payback service was completed.
The well-respected consultancy Crest Advisory has said that
“the notion that community sentences can be a more effective, cheaper alternative to prison is supported by a strong body of evidence.”
Community payback can stop more serious reoffending by addressing the root causes of offending behaviour, yet there has been a reduction in its use by the courts because of concerns that the schemes just will not be carried out; there is a concern to ensure that offenders do actually pay back for their crimes. That reduction means that community sentences are now being used less than at any point over the past 15 years.
Let us look at the number of offenders who completed a community sentence in each year between 2016 and 2020 in every region in England and Wales. In my region of the north-east, there was a 25% decrease over that period, and a fall of 69% in the number of community payback hours completed. If we look at the causes of some of those reductions, we see that ironically, even after sentences are given, local organisations cannot access schemes because of the pressure on probation services and the cost involved for the organisations. As we have heard, the probation services have been through a really difficult time as a result of the Government’s failed privatisation of them. Such services are vital and respected. Voluntary organisations are willing to lead payback schemes, but they need funding and support from probation to run them. Again, that affects the number of people who can be on these schemes. It reduces the benefit to communities and the need for that work when such schemes cannot be carried out.
I wish to speak briefly about another aspect of giving back to our communities. Operation Payback is a scheme operated by our excellent Northumbria police and crime commissioner, Kim McGuinness, using money from the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. She is determined to ensure that communities use the money recovered from crime to address local problems. Northumbria is a huge area for a PCC to cover, and many of its town and villages have successfully submitted bids to Operation Payback. Let me highlight one example in my community. Our PCC has worked with local community groups, which are doing great things to support young people in avoiding offending or antisocial behaviour, and are providing positive alternatives. The scheme has funded a forest school, which brings older young people together to engage in positive activities. It tackles the issues of potential antisocial behaviour and food poverty.
Community payback is really important and needs to be strengthened greatly, so I welcome Labour proposals to make it effective, and to link it closely with the priorities of the local communities who suffer from crime. Our community payback boards would put local representatives at the heart of the payback scheme, which is important if we are to make that community link. We would set up new police hubs to put police on our streets and increase their visibility; we all know that people across our constituencies are calling for that. We would also create new neighbourhood prevention teams.
This is an important debate on community payback and how we can strengthen it, and on the issues arising from the reduction in hours of community payback. I would like a much stronger and more effective scheme, linked to our local communities and the issues that they face.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
I am already an avid follower of the Twitter feed of the Minister for Crime and Policing, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), so I have already seen his regular payback of the day posts, which I highly recommend, showing the tree planting, the painting and decorating, the restoring of parks and the other schemes that are happening. Anyone can nominate a local project, and I am encouraging my constituents to make sure that they do so.
Like others who have spoken in this debate, I was surprised when I saw the motion on the Order Paper, as there are already plans to deliver 8 million hours of payback—2 million more than happen now. Perhaps Labour Members were also surprised, given the poor attendance for their own debate. Where are the Liberal Democrats? Do they have nothing to say on crime? There is no one here from that party.
Increasing the hours is important, because community payback does what it says on the tin. It is about offenders making amends in the area where they committed their crimes, doing something positive for communities that they can see. To deliver that increase, and other efforts to reduce offending, the probation service has launched a campaign to recruit trainee probation officers in Norfolk, which I hope will be successful. As others have said, it is a rewarding career to help people turn their lives around.
Another element of the Government’s community sentence scheme that I support is electronic monitoring or tagging. Last week, the Public Accounts Committee, of which I am a member, looked at that programme. Across the country today, 15,000 people are tagged, including those subject to community orders and offenders released under licence from prison. In due course, the Committee will report on the programme and some problems with the IT system, but I was struck by the impact of tagging on alcohol monitoring. Among community-based offenders and offenders on licence with an alcohol abstinence requirement, there was an overall sobriety rate of 97.2% and 95.6% respectively. There is a big prize here, given that alcohol-related crime costs society £21 billion a year and plays a part in nearly 40% of violent crime. Reducing it must be a priority and tagging has an important role to play. Based on the success of the programme to date, it is being expanded, with up to 12,000 offenders due to be tagged over the next three years.
Part of the extra £183 million to be invested in tagging by 2025 will go into a technology innovation fund. I welcome the fact that that will include focusing on what my right hon. Friend the Minister for Crime and Policing has referred to as the holy grail—an effective tag to monitor for drug use. Tags are also used in domestic abuse-related cases to better protect victims and their families. By adopting new technology, there is the potential to protect the public and deliver better value for money.
Payback and tagging are part of the Government’s focus on standing up for victims; recruiting more police, with over 200 additional officers already recruited in Norfolk; and ensuring offenders face tough penalties while getting support to reduce reoffending. In contrast, the Labour Party voted against tougher sentences for the worst crimes, voted against increased police funding, and voted against giving the police powers they need to protect the public. The first job of any Government is to keep people safe, and this Conservative Government are committed to cutting crime and reforming the justice system so that it serves the law-abiding, decent majority.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
When people talk about crime, all too often the focus is on the crime itself and not the impact on victims and communities. Drug dealing leaves people scared to go out of their homes, knives are taking away young people’s lives, and rapes are going unconvicted, leaving victims feeling they have nowhere left to turn and completely powerless. Under this Conservative Government, rape is effectively legalised, and when they had the chance to toughen up the laws and actually get on with the job of governing, their perverse priorities meant that a statue was better protected than me or any of my constituents. Any of the meaningless figures reeled off by Ministers do nothing to redress the years of cuts to policing in our communities.
James Cartlidge
The hon. Lady just said that rape has been legalised under this Government. That is a shameful thing to say. Whatever differences we have about the detail of waiting times and so on, the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) made it clear earlier that we are all working hard on this matter. I ask the hon. Lady to retract what she has just said.
Sarah Owen
I will not be retracting that. I said “effectively” legalised. When only 1.6% of reported rape cases are prosecuted, the crime is effectively legalised. It is a shameful statistic for a Minister.
Sarah Owen
I have not finished.
It is a shameful statistic and it is shameful that rape victims are left without any justice. Although there is much political difference here, that is one statistic that we should all agree needs to be improved.
Lee Anderson
The hon. Lady is being very generous with her time. Does she realise that language such as that in this place strikes fear into the hearts of women in this country and encourages men who are thinking about doing these horrible crimes to go out and commit them? It is absolutely shocking. She should retract what she said.
Sarah Owen
When it comes to using moderate language, I think the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) might have to take some of his own advice. And when it comes to protecting women and giving them faith in our Crown Prosecution Service, in our Criminal Justice System and in our policing, that responsibility is on this Government, and for 12 years they have let victims down, so I will not be apologising for their mistakes.
This Government, as I have said, have the wrong priorities and seek only to divide our communities when our communities should be offered the hope that, as a society, we can be brought together to live safely and to see those who do not want to live by those laws adequately punished and rehabilitated.
After 12 years of Conservative Government—it may come as a shock to Conservative Members, but they have been in power for 12 years—we have seen record criminal case delays, police officers disappearing from our streets, courts sold off and a court backlog that cannot just be blamed on covid. Communities have no faith that the Criminal Justice System, for which the Government are responsible, is keeping their communities safe from crime. But it does not have to be this way.
We have all heard, from both sides of the House, many examples of how community payback can stop more serious reoffending, but judges have stopped handing it out because this soft-on-crime Conservative Government cannot be trusted to ensure that offenders pay back for their crimes. To be honest, when they look at the state of the Prime Minister, is it any wonder why this Government do not care if criminals get off scot-free?
To give Members an idea of the sheer scale of how let down victims feel, I can tell them that, last year, 1.3 million cases were dropped because victims just gave up. They did not have hope that the system would deliver for them, and that includes only the people who made a report. We can only guess at the number of unreported crimes where the victims did not have the faith that they would see justice. When will this Government stop treating victims as an after-thought?
I have spoken to people in Luton North who have been conned and defrauded of their money by bogus cowboy builders. Not only have their homes been wrecked in the process, but they have lost hard-earned savings. In one heartbreaking case, a pensioner lost pretty much everything, but they were told that it was a civil matter and that they would never get their money back. That may have been true, but the people who are conning our residents are criminals and they should pay for that, yet under this Government they do not.
We have seen reports from across the country of police being so understaffed that they no longer investigate burglaries, leaving victims to take matters into their own hands. Is that what the Government mean by community payback? One woman tracked down her stolen car only to be threatened with a crowbar. The BBC reported three other serious incidents where the community were left to fend for themselves under this Government.
A mother reported that her 12-year-old son had been sexually assaulted by a man in a pub toilet. She said that it took a week for the police to investigate, and officers then accidentally wiped the CCTV footage. A victim of domestic abuse was assaulted by an ex-partner in front of her children, aged two and four. She was told that no one could visit her until the following morning. The man returned later that evening. A stalking victim said that officers failed to attend her home despite repeated visits by her stalker, which included death threats.
These serious failings are not one-offs. Sadly, they are becoming the dangerous norm—if the Minister wants to listen. I am perfectly clear that this dangerous new norm is the fault of the Tory Government, and not the fault of the hard-working, dedicated police officers working with fewer resources and fewer colleagues to keep people safe. I recently visited Luton police station with my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) whose constituency it is in. That followed a visit to the Bedfordshire Police headquarters in Kempston. We met Detective Superintendent Zara Brown and spent time listening to officers and police support workers tackling some of the toughest cases. Those teams covered rape and serious sexual assault, protecting vulnerable people and domestic abuse.
What struck me as I listened to the officers was not only how dedicated they were to each individual victim, but how frustrated they were on the victims’ behalf with the backlogs and the delays in getting them justice. Many in those teams have not seen significant pay rises and were regularly called in on their days off to attend in uniform to police extraordinary events in the region.
Most strikingly, that visit showed me, clear as day, without anyone saying a thing, the half-empty desks—not a covid measure, but because there were not enough police officers to fill them, and certainly not enough detectives. The failure for victims does not fall on hardworking and dedicated police officers and staff, but squarely on this Conservative Government, and that failure is being brutally felt in communities such as mine. The Conservatives’ version of community payback is one where the community pays repeatedly for this Government’s failure. That is not justice.
Labour knows that our communities need and deserve better than this. We will create neighbourhood prevention teams that will give our communities the tools and support to tackle the root causes of antisocial behaviour. We will put communities and victims at the heart of how offenders repay society and make sure justice is seen to be delivered locally and for good. Labour will put security at the heart of its contract with the British people.
The hon. Member for Ashfield talked about criminals living rent free, so I have one final question for Conservative Members: when will they get rid of the one living in No. 10?
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
Today we have heard from many hon. Members who know that the blight of crime and antisocial behaviour has grown out of control in their constituencies over the past decade, and who know its impact on victims and the failure of this Government to deal with it. We have heard powerful contributions from many hon. Members.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Ms Brown) made a very powerful speech about the impact of the lack of investment in the probation service over many years, with staff undervalued and neglected. She made a strong argument for improving the system to reduce reoffending. I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Easington (Grahame Morris) and for Blaydon (Liz Twist), who also emphasised that the probation service has been stripped bare, so that courts are less inclined to give those important community sentences. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) made a powerful speech, giving strong examples from within her own constituency of where victims are being let down.
Hon. Members have reiterated that the public want to see solutions rooted in their constituencies and communities. That is why the collapse of community payback has dealt such a heavy blow to the trust in our criminal justice system among both the public and the victims of crime. Not only do victims have to deal with the aftermath of crime, but they must battle incessantly for justice, and many drop out of the system after years and years of waiting.
I speak to victims every day, and the thing I am most commonly told is how horrific going through our justice system is and how rarely it results in justice. Two victims recently shared their experiences with me. One said that,
“the system actively worked against us”,
and the other said that,
“this was the worst and most dreadful experience of my life.”
For 12 years, this Government have let victims down. It is clear that this justice system is not fit for purpose. Only Labour is serious about tackling the criminality that is wrecking our cities, towns and villages.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves) said in opening the debate, “Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime” might sound like a slogan from another era of Labour history, but it remains as true and as vital now as it was in 1997, when the last Labour Government replaced a tired Conservative Government who were mired in sleaze and had no new ideas to fix the problems they created. Sound familiar? As is often the case, we are now seeing history repeating itself. Crime is up and prosecutions are down. This week we have seen an epidemic of fraud that hit newspaper front pages. Conservative Members may not think that fraud matters to anyone, but it does, and it matters to Labour too—and after a decade of cuts the police are ill-equipped to tackle it. We see that in the low number of prosecutions and convictions for offences such as theft. Retailers are reporting that the police will not come and investigate shoplifters brazenly walking a trolley’s-worth of alcohol out of their stores because they simply do not have the time or resource. Despite any protestations, our constituents are seeing and experiencing antisocial behaviour day in, day out.
In my own constituency we have seen a local conservation area, Forest Farm, and a climbing frame at Heath Park fall victim, on numerous occasions, to arson attacks, resulting in millions of pounds-worth of damage, not to mention the huge loss to our community. Community payback could and should be a powerful way to address why someone commits such crimes before they go on to commit any more, or worse. It means that those who committed the crime provide visible community benefit that victims and the wider community can see. It allows offenders to be held accountable by the communities they have impacted and it reduces the likelihood of further offences.
But community payback is failing. The service is still reeling from the catastrophe of the 2014 privatisation of the probation service. Even Conservative Members now accept that that was a crucial error. I pay tribute to the incredibly hard-working probation staff who struggle to supervise offenders properly. That is very clear from the statistics that we have seen over the past five years, with 4 million fewer hours of community payback, a quarter fewer offenders finishing community sentences, and a trebling of offenders finishing their unpaid work schemes from home. Community sentences are not paying back. Judges know it and victims know it—we all know it.
Labour has a different vision for community payback. We want schemes that begin to rebuild communities and victims’ trust in the justice system. We want a system where communities and victims come together, set out the tasks that must be completed through community payback and report back on results—one where offenders are properly reintegrated into communities by doing unpaid work that gives them a sense of value.
This can be fixed, but only if the Government put communities and victims right at the heart of the system. That is what our community and victim payback boards offer. Our plan would form part of the community safety partnerships and safer neighbourhood teams, meaning minimal cost to the taxpayer. Instead of emailing an anonymous Government inbox, this would give local communities, as well as victims, an opportunity to create ambitious schemes of real value. We could then publish local data on progress so that communities can really see the difference that these schemes are making. These schemes—community safety partnerships and safer neighbourhood teams—are already taking this approach, including in Labour-run Wales and Labour-run London. This is achievable, and it will bring results.
A constituent told me about the violent threats his neighbour was making to his disabled wife, while another has reported to me that she suffered a miscarriage due to the stress of antisocial behaviour from her upstairs neighbours. We know the distress that antisocial behaviour and crime are causing in our communities. Crime and antisocial behaviour are tearing through the country and destroying our communities while this Government just sit back and let it happen, letting victims down and criminals off the hook. We need a solution, and Labour has one. I hope that the whole House will come together today and back Labour’s plan.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (James Cartlidge)
Let me start by saying how grateful I am to all those who have contributed to this important debate today. In particular, I join the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin), who has just spoken, and all my colleagues who have paid tribute to the brilliant work of those in the probation service. They have put in a hell of a shift through the pandemic. They have delivered exemplary service since then, and we all know the value they add in our communities and the key role they play in the criminal justice system. In particular, I thank them for the role they have played in helping us to achieve a situation whereby the proportion of offenders released from custody who reoffended within 12 months of release fell from 51.5% in 2010 to 42.2% in 2020. That is a significant improvement through reducing the reoffending rate.
The key point is that we have heard from the Opposition that they are now the party that is tough on crime, but as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Crime and Policing said at the beginning of the debate, we have to judge politicians by what they do, rather than what they say. Opposition Members cannot run away from the fact that they voted against the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which recently received Royal Assent.
Let us just remind ourselves of the measures in that Act that the Opposition voted against, which include doubling the maximum penalty for assaulting an emergency worker; mandatory life sentences for unlawful act manslaughter of an emergency worker in the line of duty; a starting point of a whole-life tariff for premeditated child murder; increasing from 14 years to life the maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving; increasing from 14 years to life the maximum sentence for causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs; and, among many other measures, abolishing automatic halfway release for serious, violent and sexual offenders. That is what is being tough on crime. Voting against that measure is being weak on crime.
Several hon. Members rose—
Grahame Morris
I thank the Minister for giving way. He is absolutely right about the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act, which comes into force today, but the problem we had was that it was take it or leave it. We had to take the whole thing or reject the whole thing. Can I ask the Minister whether it is a good use of taxpayers’ money and police resources when more than a dozen of the Metropolitan police and several vehicles were involved in the arrest of Steven Bray under the terms of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act for using a loudhailer outside Parliament? I think it is outrageous.
James Cartlidge
These are operational matters for the police, who are independent of Government. The point I am making is that the Opposition could have chosen to support those many measures. If we look at those measures as a whole, they send a signal that this party is tough on crime. The Opposition voting against them sends a wholly different message.
James Cartlidge
I will take one more intervention, from the hon. Member for West Ham (Ms Brown).
James Cartlidge
I am pleased to confirm to the hon. Lady, because it comes back to the speech of the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), who said that we were somehow legalising rape, that the average sentence for adult rape in this country was around 10 years in 2021. I can confirm that that amount has increased by 15% since 2010—not decreased; increased. Those are very tough sentences for what is a very serious crime. I think that when we speak in this House, we should send a message that deters people from carrying out these horrific crimes, instead of sending messages that somehow people are going to get away with it. That does not help anyone. It does not help my daughter and it does not help anyone in this House or any one of our constituents.
Turning to the contributions in this important debate, the hon. Member for West Ham made a very good point about the impact of community payback on women. She talked particularly about the effects of alcohol and drugs. When we talk about community sentencing, the rehabilitative part is important, as my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter) mentioned. As the hon. Lady knows, we are piloting residential women’s centres, and we announced in May that the first one will open in Swansea. I hope that she will support that.
James Cartlidge
I am glad to hear that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) speaks with great expertise. He made the important point that the motion criticises us for what happened to unpaid work, but it ignores the reality of the pandemic. He also made the crucial point that the Opposition would have kept us in lockdown for longer. Last December, they wanted us to have a lockdown because of omicron, but we resisted, which was the right thing to do for the country. If they had done that, it would have taken even longer for us to deal with the backlog in the courts, the backlog of unpaid work and everything else.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) for being persistent on the subject of persistent offenders. He had a Westminster Hall debate on it last week, to which I enjoyed responding. As a constituency MP, he continually raises the case that he has written to me about—I promise that I will respond to him—and he is a champion of his constituents. We obviously disagree on some of the matters that he raised, but he is right to pay tribute to prison officers. We certainly cherish the huge role they play and appreciate all their efforts.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) was typically robust and forthright in telling it like it is. He said that prisoners should go to work, and in the spirit of that point, I say that it is crucial to ensure that there is every chance for people to get a job when they leave prison. That is why I am proud to confirm that the number of persons released from custody who were employed six months after release is up by 66%. That is testament to the strength of the economy and to the Government’s commitment to reducing reoffending.
The hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist), who is no longer in her place, made a very good speech. She made an important point that the evidence shows that, in many ways, if someone has a short prison sentence, it has less of an impact on reducing reoffending than community sentences can have. Hon. Members on both sides of the House agree with that, and it is certainly what the evidence suggests.
Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) made some good points. He encouraged his constituents to get involved in schemes and nominate where work can happen. If there is a problem with fly-tipping in a constituency, people should go to their parish councils, which should in turn go to the police and crime commissioner and say, “What about getting some of that unpaid work resource into our constituency?” He also made an excellent point about alcohol and the increasing use of sobriety tags; all hon. Members on both sides of the House surely know the impact of alcohol on crime. The Minister for Crime and Policing is committed to making more of that.
The Government have a clear plan to increase the number of community payback hours delivered via robust outdoor placements. We have made significant investments to bolster staffing levels and we continue to strengthen our engagement and collaboration with key local stakeholders to ensure that placements visibly improve the communities in which they are served. In that way, as the most timeless common law principle says, justice can be seen to be done.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House notes that the number of community sentences handed down fell by one quarter in the last three years; further notes that completed hours of unpaid work carried out by offenders has fallen by three quarters in the last three years; notes with concern that despite the end of lockdown restrictions in 2021, the number of offenders permitted to complete unpaid work from home has continued to rise; and calls on the Government to create community and victim payback boards to place communities and victims in control of the type of community projects that offenders complete to restore public faith in community payback.
Sarah Owen
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I ask the Minister to correct the record. He inadvertently misled the House by saying that I had said that rape is legal. That is clearly not the case. I find it particularly distasteful that the Minister is seeking to put responsibility for prosecuting rapists on a woman Opposition MP. I offer him the chance to correct that at the Dispatch Box, if not in Hansard.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. Obviously, it is not for the Chair to interpret what Ministers or other Members may say. She has put her concern on the record and the Minister will have heard it, so I suggest that we move on, unless the Minister wishes to say something.
Delivery of Public Services
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House notes that UK economic growth is forecast to grind to a halt next year, with only Russia worse in the OECD; further notes that GDP has fallen in recent months while inflation has risen to 9.1 per cent and that food prices, petrol costs and bills in general are soaring for millions across the country; believes that the Government is leaving Britain with backlogs such as long waits for passports, driving licences, GP and hospital appointments, court dates, and at airports; and calls on the Government to set out a new approach to the economy that will end 12 years of slow growth and high taxation under successive Conservative governments.
It is my pleasure to speak to the motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, and those of me and my right hon. and hon. Friends. The Prime Minister told us at the weekend, speaking from the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Rwanda, that he was “actively considering” his third term in office. The shadow Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), replied that she was actively considering marrying Ryan Reynolds.
While the Prime Minister considers his future, here at home concerns are more prosaic and more real. In area after area of life, standards of service that used to be taken for granted have crumbled, leaving people facing delays and backlogs for basic services, and all this is coming on top of the cost of living crisis, which is biting deeper with each passing week. As each new backlog and delay builds up, the Government look more and more powerless to address them. Even the Government’s supporters do not seem to believe that the announcements made by No. 10 will be followed through with any proper delivery. The Government were supposed to take us forward to the future, but as we read the news each day, it feels more and more like a step back in time towards the 1970s.
In another, more candid remark, also on Saturday, the Prime Minister admitted that since the Conservatives took office the UK economy had
“not grown as it should”.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Does the right hon. Member agree with me that if you wish to improve service you do not go on strike and if you wish to pay for higher wages you do not go on strike? Will he give that advice to the rail unions?
Mr McFadden
I had anticipated one or two interventions on strikes, so let me say to the right hon. Gentleman that whoever’s responsibility the strikes are, it is certainly not that of a party that has been in opposition for 12 years. He and the Ministers he supports will have to take responsibility for the industrial strife they are presiding over. I say that to him in the anticipation of other interventions in the same vein.
Mr McFadden
That is my answer to all interventions on the issue, so let me proceed.
Mr McFadden
Not at the moment.
I am grateful for the Prime Minister’s candour on economic growth. That is a very important admission, because without good economic growth the country is less prosperous, the fiscal position is weaker—in fact, it is weaker to the tune of some £40 billion a year compared with the pattern of economic growth we had in the first decade of this century—and people’s wages are lower by thousands of pounds a year. We know that people are paying higher taxes due to the Government breaking their manifesto pledges, but let us see what they are getting for their money.
It is often said in this place that the first duty of Government is to protect their citizens and that justice delayed is justice denied. Both those statements are true, so let us look at what is happening with access to justice. Victims of crime have a right to expect a trial in a reasonable amount of time after that crime has been committed. In the year before the pandemic—I repeat, before the pandemic—the number of cases awaiting trial at Crown courts grew by 23% to more than 40,000.
Rob Butler
Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the backlog in the courts will be lengthened or shortened by barristers going on strike?
Mr McFadden
I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
As I have said, the number of cases grew by 23% to over 40,000 before the pandemic, and that number now stands at 57,000. For magistrates courts, the number is 364,000. The typical wait for a case of robbery to come to court is two years, and for rape it is often three years. No wonder that in a recent sexual offences case that had been delayed for more than three years the presiding judge, Patrick Thompson, branded the delays “absolutely farcical” and said:
“How this is justice is beyond me.”
He is not alone in his judgment. These delays leave victims without redress and without justice and with the crime that they have suffered hanging over them. They are not just a symptom of the pandemic: we must remember that in the year before the pandemic the number of cases awaiting trial had grown by 23%.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend is making excellent points. Does he agree that the excessive delays in the justice system, in particular for rape, have a huge mental health impact on the victims yet our mental health system is also failing to respond quickly to those needs?
Mr McFadden
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As she outlines, these backlogs have real and important human effects; they are not just numbers on a page.
Mr McFadden
I will make some progress.
This is happening not just in the field of justice. Record numbers of patients are waiting for NHS treatment, and they are waiting longer than ever: the waiting list for NHS treatment is now 6.5 million, with more than 300,000 patients having been on the list for over a year.
Given that the system had to focus on dealing with covid, some might point to pandemic effects. There would be some justification for that argument if we had not gone into the pandemic with waiting lists that had already rocketed, but we went into the pandemic with waiting lists of 4.4 million patients, almost double the number on the lists when this Government came to power. Long waits and more people waiting are not just features of the pandemic. The number waiting more than 18 weeks is now 2.5 million, but even before the pandemic that number was nearly three quarters of a million. Some 840,000 patients were told in April that they will have to wait more than a month for a GP appointment—if they can even get through to the surgery in the first place. Millions of people are struggling to get any access to NHS dental treatment. Last year 2,000 dentists left the NHS, almost one in 10 across the whole country. There are 4,500 fewer GPs than in 2013, and Conservative manifesto promises to increase the number of GPs have been broken repeatedly. These delays are not the fault of NHS staff or the patients; they are the result of 12 long years of the Conservatives presiding over the system we have and it is time they took responsibility for the backlogs and the delays that have resulted from their long period in office.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. The situation in our dental services is so dire that people are having to carry out do-it-yourself operations at home without anaesthetic or any other medical facilities. Does he agree that it is disgraceful that people are having to resort to such measures as a result of the Conservatives’ backlog given that we are the world’s fifth largest economy?
Mr McFadden
My hon. Friend is right. In a debate on the subject last week, the shadow Health Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), outlined a horrific case.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
Is the situation not more nuanced? Healthcare is devolved in Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England, with four different parties running it, but all have suffered and seen waiting times go up not only during the pandemic but in the preceding 10 years. Does that not show that there is a fundamental problem across the western world, because the likes of Germany, the Netherlands and France are all struggling and suffering the same fate?
Mr McFadden
To govern is to take responsibility, and the problem with saying that it is all about the post-pandemic situation is that waiting lists had almost doubled before the pandemic. I could give the hon. Member the figures again, but I do not want to read them out twice.
It is not just about the NHS. There are also delays at our ports. We have seen long queues of lorries—the delays are well known—and increased costs and bureaucracy for exporters.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, when the last Labour Government left office in 2010, satisfaction in the national health service was among the highest in the world and that through reform programmes, disruption and cuts in funding the Government have created problems in the NHS? They need to get a grip.
We also have chaos in the courts. I see that in my constituency, where the family courts are really struggling with long waiting lists because of shortages of judges and lawyers. We also have passport queues and disruption across the country. The Government have lost control and need to get a grip.
Mr McFadden
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I remember seeing the driving down of waiting times and waiting lists in government, and never at any point did anyone say, “We can take our foot off the gas” because there might have been problems in Germany or somewhere else. We took responsibility for the system that we were running.
As I said, there have been large queues at the ports. The Government do not need to rerun the Brexit argument—Ministers should have realised that we can leave only once—but there are things that they could do. They could at least seek a veterinary agreement with the EU—even New Zealand has one—which would be a better deal for our farmers and our food industry and may cut the bureaucracy and delays at our ports.
Let us take the asylum system, which is of significant concern to our constituents. The number of cases taking more than six months to decide has been up every quarter since the Home Secretary took office, and the backlog has tripled in the last three years. That matters because delays cost money and leave everyone in limbo.
Hywel Williams
On ports, another aspect of the problem is the decline in business through ports in Wales and western UK ports involved in trade with Ireland. In fact, trade through Holyhead is down 34% as a permanent feature. It seems to me—perhaps to the right hon. Gentleman as well—that the Government are doing absolutely nothing about that.
Mr McFadden
Well, the Government have chosen the route that we discussed in the Chamber last night. I do not want to repeat that, but other routes are available to them to reduce the bureaucracy experienced by our farmers and exporters.
The delays in asylum matter because they cost money. Seventy-five per cent of asylum claims are eventually endorsed, but, until they are decided, legitimate claimants cannot make a positive contribution to the country by taking up a job, and claimants who are denied cannot be removed from the country. It is neither in the interests of those who seek refuge nor in the national interest to have a system so beset by delays and backlogs. It is certainly not value for money for the taxpayer, either.
On passports and driving licences, people are being asked to wait up to 10 weeks for a passport—a standard that was itself breached more than 35,000 times in the first quarter of the year according to the Home Office. That is where backlogs beget backlogs. There are reports of travellers being asked to seek emergency travel documents because passports have not been issued, but now—this is the least surprising news ever—there is a queue for those documents, too.
Three quarters of a million drivers are waiting for their licences to be processed because of the backlog at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. A large proportion of those drivers have medical conditions and need specific permission to keep driving. That is where the backlog begets workforce issues, because, until those people get their new licences, they often cannot return to work. I appreciate that none of that may be as exciting as the latest wedge issue thought up in No. 10, but delivering on basic governance is the Government’s job, and it is time to do that job. The duty of service delivery does not go away. At the heart of this are two issues: getting the workforce right and making the most of new technology.
James Daly
The right hon. Gentleman touched on criminal justice earlier. Will he join me in asking Andy Burnham, the Mayor of Greater Manchester, to take responsibility for the appalling situation that the criminal justice system is in, in Greater Manchester? It is not protecting vulnerable people or investigating crime, as a result of which my local residents are suffering. Will he join me in asking Andy Burnham to take responsibility and do something about it, which is his job?
Mr McFadden
I detect a pattern with these interventions. They seem to be saying that the problem is everyone’s responsibility except the Government’s. There is no escaping 12 years in office.
There are two issues at the heart of this: workforce and technology. Staff shortages are common in many areas. The unemployment figures have fallen, but so too has the overall number of people in employment. More than half a million people have left the labour market since the pandemic. They are from all age groups, but the biggest group is the over-50s, and their biggest reasons for leaving the labour market are ongoing health issues and caring responsibilities.
This is where the delays and backlogs become a vicious circle. I have already mentioned that when people with medical conditions cannot get a new driving licence approved, it can prevent their return to work. The Access to Work programme is there to help people with disabilities into work, but people face delays of up to 12 weeks in their application being processed, and the waiting list for decisions has quadrupled over the past year. That holds people back from taking up jobs and makes the staff shortages worse.
The NHS employs some 1.2 million people, but it went into the pandemic with 100,000 unfilled vacancies. We have argued for a forward plan for NHS staffing, and for training so that the vacancies can be filled. That was supported by the cross-party Health and Social Care Committee, but fiercely resisted by the Government. I have to say to the Minister that looking the other way will not make the workforce issues go away. Why are the Government so resistant to the forward planning needed by the NHS?
The question is how we make the most of our potential workforce, and help those who could go back to work to do so. Many people in this country are suffering from long covid. There are people with mental health issues, and people for whom childcare costs are a barrier. We support an expansion in mental healthcare, so that we get support to those who need it within a month, and we support mental health hubs in our local communities. More breakfast clubs and after-school activities would not only be good for children but would help parents get back to work, too.
The point of all this is that we should use the talent and energy of everyone who can make a contribution, and address any barriers to work that they face, but that is not the Government’s response to the backlogs; they have proposed staffing cuts of 20%. How will that help anyone to get a passport, driving licence or health treatment quicker, or get their case to court sooner? Is it really the best that the Government can come up with? Is it even a real response, or just another initiative thrown up to provoke a debate that distracts attention from the real issues that people face?
The issue is not just about the workforce; it is also about using innovation and technology to make public services better for the public. Covid has been described as the great acceleration. It was a time when years of change were compressed into months—in education, in the way we work, in the way we shop and pay for things, in accessing healthcare and so on. The question is how we make the most of what we have learned, and of all the other rapid changes in daily life that are powered by technology, to reform our public services for the future. Our ambition should not be just to return to where we were in 2019; it should be to improve, so that we can have high-quality public services for all.
We already knew that the Conservatives were running a high-tax, low-growth economy—we have said that many times—but the backlogs that I have outlined in public services, in area after area, show that it is also a high-tax, low-delivery economy. We have the highest tax burden since the 1950s, but people cannot get a passport or an appointment with a dentist. That is simply not a good enough deal for the British public.
The Prime Minister says that he wants another two terms in office, but our public services cannot afford another two terms of backlogs and chaos. This Government are not really governing any more. They are simply campaigning.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
My apologies to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for attending the start of this debate tardily. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a Scottish dimension? We talk about the number of Governments we have had. Today, pregnant mothers have to make a round trip of more than 200 miles from Caithness to Inverness to give birth. Health services have gone backwards in my constituency, so all that is being said is also relevant to the Government north of the border.
Mr McFadden
I am glad that the hon. Member had the opportunity to make that point, whether he is wearing a tie or not.
The sole purpose of the Government is the survival of the Prime Minister. They have trashed standards in public life, as we have seen; they have damaged our standing in the world; and they are now trashing service delivery. When people pay the price for Government dysfunction in constant delays and backlogs, which have a damaging effect on quality of life; when the things that we used to take for granted become an endless slog and a debilitating battle; and when all this comes at the price of broken tax promises, people conclude that they cannot rely on the Prime Minister and on this Government. That is what is happening. As long as he and they remain in office, the chaos that has led to Boris Johnson’s backlog Britain will continue.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the shadow Chief Secretary—do forgive me: the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Simon Clarke.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Simon Clarke)
I hasten to say that we very much remain in office, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to respond for the Government to this debate. I begin by saying, as I have on many occasions, that we understand the impact of global inflationary pressures on the cost of living. We have already acted in many different ways to ease those pressures, and we will continue to do so; we are acting, as we see it, reasonably and responsibly to help UK households get through this. The reality is that we are experiencing a perfect storm of international supply shocks. High global energy and commodity prices, together with problems affecting international supply chains in the wake of the pandemic, have pushed up prices around the world, and consumers and businesses are feeling the pinch.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the Chief Secretary for giving way. Is it his view that 10 years of austerity economics, which slashed the capacity of both central and local government to spend, left our Government’s public services with the resilience to meet the demands of the covid crisis, and the cost of living and inflation crisis?
Mr Clarke
I take the view that 10 years of responsible government made sure that this Government had the financial resources available to unleash £400 billion of support for the UK economy in response to the pandemic.
On top of the issues with supply chains, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has significantly worsened the situation. I know that the House is united in the view that we should stay the course with Ukraine and stand up for freedom and democracy there in the face of this barbaric onslaught, but that comes at a cost. Domestic factors have also started to play more of a role. For example, although our very low rate of unemployment is welcome and good in its own right, that contributes to the relatively high rate of inflation.
Rising inflation poses a challenge for the public finances, as it does for family budgets. As in many other countries, high inflation is acting as a curb on growth. The good news, which I will come to, is that the Government have the tools and the determination to tackle inflation and boost growth—namely, an independent monetary policy, a responsible fiscal approach and a focus on supply-side reform.
Hywel Williams
I notice that the right hon. Gentleman did not include Brexit in his little list. Last week, the Resolution Foundation said that by 2030, Brexit will cost the average worker more than £470 per annum in lost pay. Would he like to include that in his list?
Mr Clarke
Well, there have been many projections about Brexit, many of which have proved totally wrong. I certainly do not regret my vote to leave the European Union. We managed the fastest vaccine roll-out in Europe; we are able to create our new freeports; we are free of the European Court of Justice; and we are not sending huge sums to Brussels, and can instead deploy that money for the public good. Frankly, those are all reasons why this Government were returned with a thumping majority in 2019. Crucially, it is a settled question, and it would be well for this country to move beyond it. There are all sorts of debates to be had about how we can take advantage of our decision to leave the European Union; those would be a more productive use of this House’s time.
We have a plan to grow the economy sustainably, boost productivity and improve living standards for millions of households in the years to come. In the past two years, the Government have demonstrated our determination to lead this country through the worst crisis—indeed, crises—in living memory. We will do the same as we tackle the challenges of today. As I have mentioned, the Government have taken steps to address the cost of living challenges. We are putting £37 billion into helping households, and are targeting that support at those who need it most. The households most vulnerable to high inflation will receive an extra £1,200 this year, with the first payments coming next month. Everyone will benefit from our energy support package, which will provide £550 for 28 million households.
Dr Luke Evans
I have had the good fortune to go to Hinckley jobcentre to see how things are functioning there, given the adversity that our constituents face. One of its strongest features is the household fund, which delivers to those who are most needy. It gives the officer who sits in front of an individual the flexibility and accountability to support them at that point. Is that not exactly what we should be doing—targeting our greatest support at those who are most vulnerable?
Mr Clarke
I completely agree. That has also been my experience at my jobcentre. It is really important that across the House we emphasise that our jobcentres are a fantastic source of support and not something to be scared of. The teams in my constituency could not be more committed to helping the public; I am sure that the same is true of those in my hon. Friend’s constituency. That is a really important message, given our aim of getting as many people as possible into work.
Crucially, our package of support is more generous than what the Labour party suggests; that may be why there has been some chuntering on the Opposition Front Bench. The public, if they are in the 8 million means-tested benefit households, will receive £1,200 under our plans, compared with only £600 under Labour’s. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said of our intervention:
“On average the poorest households will now be approximately compensated for the rising cost of living this year.”
On top of that, we have cut fuel duty, and we have set aside £1 billion to help those who are most in need with the cost of essentials such as food, clothing and utilities through the household support fund, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans) mentioned.
There are other ways of putting money back into people’s pockets. From next week, as the Chancellor explained in the spring statement, working people
“will be able to earn £12,570 a year without paying a single penny of income tax or national insurance…That is a £6 billion…tax cut for 30 million people across the United Kingdom”.—[Official Report, 23 March 2022; Vol. 711, c. 340.]
Rushanara Ali
The Chief Secretary mentions ways of putting money into people’s pockets. Will he explain how he will recover the £26.8 billion that the Treasury has lost to fraudsters and error, and the £11 billion lost by failing to insure against interest rate rises? If the Government could recover that money, or if they had not wasted it through fraud and mismanagement, there would be billions of pounds in the public purse to support our constituents right now. Instead, it has been lost through incompetence.
Mr Clarke
I respect the hon. Lady from our days of old on the Treasury Committee, and I completely share her commitment to managing public money responsibly, but I gently disagree with those numbers. Clearly some fraud has been perpetrated during the pandemic, and we are managing it actively; indeed, in July, the new public sector fraud authority will go live, backed by some £25 million of additional funding, which is a welcome step. However, sometimes the figures cited in fraud debates capture items such as the write-down in value of the personal protective equipment that was purchased at an absolute premium at the height of the pandemic and that subsequently became worth much less in an era of much greater supply. We should be careful to take the issue seriously, but should not convey the impression that things are as bleak as the hon. Lady makes out.
Mr Clarke
I am going to make some progress at this point.
The Chancellor has also announced his intention to cut the basic rate of income tax from 20p to 19p in the pound from 2024. This will be the first income tax cut for 16 years, and it will be a £5 billion tax cut for 30 million people. The Chancellor has also said that he will set out his support for businesses in more detail in the autumn Budget.
Crucially, everything that we have done has been done responsibly, reflecting our continued commitment to strong and sustainable public finances. In direct contrast, the Labour leadership has so far promised £99.5 billion of day-to-day spending commitments—
Mr Clarke
I can provide the hon. Gentleman with the full details if he would like a list.
However, Labour has only announced £7.5 billion in revenue to pay for those commitments, less than one tenth. That leaves a £92.5 billion fiscal black hole of unfunded public spending commitments, which would almost double our current borrowing. This year we will spend £80 billion just paying interest on our debt. That is nearly four times what we spent last year, and those numbers should concern the whole House. The Office for Budget Responsibility made it very clear at the time of the spring statement that our fiscal headroom could be
“wiped out by relatively small changes”
to the “economic outlook”. Labour’s £92.5 billion black hole would mean an extra £3,303 per household in general taxation or extra borrowing. In opposition, parties have the luxury of promising it all and not being responsible for delivering any of it.
Rushanara Ali
It is rather rich for the Minister to lecture the Opposition about funding when he has not even been able to tell us how much will be lost in fraud on his watch. His own counter-fraud Minister, after he resigned, said that it had been
“happy days if you were a crook”.
That is what his Government are doing—dishing out money to crooks. Perhaps the Minister could answer my earlier question: how much money has been lost to fraud and incompetence, and how will he recover that money?
Mr Clarke
We have set out a very clear plan to recover that money, and we have provided regular periodic updates on the progress that we are making against fraud, but we do not accept Lord Agnew’s characterisation of the situation. We continue to pursue this, and obviously the authorities reserve the right to pursue individuals and companies wherever it is clear that wrongdoing has occurred.
As a Minister, I am proud to be part of a Government who support people through difficult times, but that needs to go hand in hand with fiscal responsibility. The support that we are providing is timely, temporary, and targeted at those who need it most to avoid pushing up prices and interest rates further.
The motion lists a number of other issues, including passports, driving licences, GP and hospital appointments, court dates, and airports. Let me take each of those in turn.
Owing to covid-19, more than 5 million people delayed applying for British passports. Following the return of unrestricted international travel, there has been unprecedented demand for new passports, with 9.5 million applications forecast for this year. That compares with 4 million applications in 2020 and 5 million in 2021. Since April 2021, 650 additional staff have been brought in, with a further 550 arriving over the summer, and those numbers are starting to tell: more passport applications are being processed than ever before. In fact, between March and May alone, the Passport Office completed the processing of some 3 million applications. Since April 2021, people have been advised to allow up to 10 weeks to receive their passports, and 98.5% of applications have hit that target. For the small percentage of customers whose applications take longer than 10 weeks, and who are due to travel within a fortnight, there is an expedited service, at no additional cost, to ensure that they obtain their passports in time.
I am encouraged by the hard work of employees at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency to clear the backlog in the processing of driving licence applications and waiting times for driving tests which built up throughout the pandemic and last year’s industrial action. I am confident that the DVLA remains on track to reduce waiting times further over the course of this year.
On NHS waiting lists, I want to take this chance to thank the NHS for the commitment with which it is tackling the backlog that built up during the pandemic. This Government are already instituting one of the largest catch-up programmes in the history of the NHS, spending more than £8 billion between this financial year and 2024-25 to tackle the backlog so that the NHS in England can deliver some 30% more activity in 2024-25 compared with pre-pandemic levels.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
In the Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust, nearly 18,000 women are waiting for a breast scan that is overdue, largely because of a shortage of individuals who can perform those scans. Five full-time equivalent posts have been left vacant. Does the Minister agree that something needs to be done to tackle these workforce issues so that we do not fail to deliver key services and increase the risk of avoidable death?
Mr Clarke
I want to reassure the hon. Lady and her constituents that we completely agree that there is a need to ensure that those sorts of scans happen as speedily as possible. That is why the total budget of the Department of Health and Social Care in 2024-25—that is to say, at the end of this Parliament—will stand at £188 billion a year. That is a truly colossal sum of money and it equips the NHS to bear down on precisely these backlogs in a way that will help women in her constituency.
Dr Luke Evans
I sit on the Health Committee, and we were talking this morning about some of the problems with the workforce and the interaction between primary care and secondary care. One of the responses was that the 42 new integrated care systems that have been put in place will give us the flexibility to change the system. Does the Minister agree that this is exactly the kind of planning and foresight that allows us to deliver better for the future, and to future-proof our health service to try to deal with some of the problems that we all know are affecting western world medicine?
Mr Clarke
I agree with my hon. Friend. It is crucial that the NHS continues to reform and, frankly, become more fit for a technological age, as well as for one in which we can anticipate these problems ahead of time. We should act to improve the use of all the technologies, which will mean that we get more value for taxpayers’ money. With an ageing society that is plagued by so many avoidable and preventable conditions, we need to be able to catch them in time, and that planning and foresight will be crucial for the future.
John Redwood
When I asked representatives of the Health Department how many chief executives there were in NHS England, they said that they did not know. Has my right hon. Friend had any more success than I have in finding out how much senior management there is, how it is aligned with the interests of patients and how wisely it is going to spend the extra money he is giving it?
Mr Clarke
My right hon. Friend is right to say that with this budget for the NHS comes a responsibility for that organisation to be absolutely open and candid—in a way that, frankly, it has too often not been—about where its resources are deployed, and certainly to avoid funding a culture of managerialism at the expense of the patients. We have had recent success in securing some of the data that we have been looking for, but this is a subject where ongoing pressure from across the House for greater transparency is welcome. Certainly if there is any data that we hold that my right hon. Friend would like to see, I will do my best to facilitate that.
James Daly
I welcome the steps the Government are taking to address the challenges within the system. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a bit rich for Labour Members to be lecturing anybody on waiting times when waiting time targets in Wales have not been met for many years? As of May 2022, nearly 700,000 patients were waiting for care, which is a 50% increase since February 2020. That is a record to be ashamed of.
Mr Clarke
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The performance of the Welsh Government in this area is genuinely concerning, but this also demonstrates a point about fundamental fairness. This debate is sometimes mischaracterised as everything being this Government’s fault, but as we have heard from the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), the performance of the Scottish healthcare system is blighted by many of the challenges that we are facing in England. Clearly there are also problems in Wales and significant problems in Northern Ireland. What matters is that we set out a clear plan to deal with them.
Our NHS elective delivery plan states that by next month no one will be waiting more than two years for elective care, except where patients choose to wait longer for some reason, and in a number of highly specialised areas.
We know that considerable progress has been made in achieving that target. The number who have waited two years or more in acute hospitals has fallen by 15,000 to 6,700, down from a peak of 22,500 in January. At the same time, the Government are on track to deliver our manifesto commitment for 50 million more primary care appointments by 2024. GP appointment numbers have already recovered to pre-pandemic levels, with 25.3 million taking place in April, of which 1.3 million were covid vaccinations.
The motion also mentions court dates, where we are also making good progress. We are providing almost half a billion pounds to address criminal court and tribunal backlogs.
Rob Butler
The shadow Chief Secretary was reluctant to give me a straight answer to my question, so I wonder whether the Chief Secretary would tell me whether he believes the strike by barristers will lengthen or shorten the waiting times in our courts. Does he think strikes by public service workers more generally will do anything to help our economy and our recovery from the covid pandemic?
Mr Clarke
I thank my hon. Friend for his substantive question, and there was a certain reticence from the shadow Chief Secretary to answer it. The public will look in consternation at barristers striking when there is an offer on the table of a £7,000 a year pay increase for that profession. It comes down to a test of values: if they are serious about tackling the backlog in our courts, they should get to work, accept the pay offer and move forward. It would be helpful if the official Opposition, rather than looking at their feet or their phones, would get on with the job of persuading public service workers that the best interests of the public and those workers themselves lies in accepting reasonable pay offers, moving forward and not further gumming up public sector delivery by taking unnecessary strike action.
We are providing some half a billion pounds to address criminal court and tribunal backlogs. We have also extended 30 Nightingale courtrooms to help manage complex cases that would otherwise crowd out cases that are easier to answer. We are also investing £200 million to complete the £1.3 billion court reform programme. Reform is making our courts more modern, with a wide range of new online services to make the courts more efficient—this includes rolling out a new digital platform to manage 1.5 million annual criminal cases.
Finally, on airport delays, the reality is that we are seeing disruption globally in the travel sector as it is reopening, at pace, after almost two years of being shut down during the pandemic. Anyone who has seen the scenes recently at Schiphol or Dublin will recognise that, fundamentally, this is an international challenge. Where possible, the Government are supporting our aviation sector to manage the risk of disruption this summer. That includes using our post-Brexit freedoms to provide the sector with more flexibility when training new employees; working with Border Force to ensure preparations meet passenger demand; and allowing HMRC employment history letters to be used as a suitable form of reference check. Last week, we also laid regulations before Parliament that will help airlines prevent last-minute flight cancellations during the summer peak by allowing a one-off “amnesty” on airport slots rules.
While we are working around the clock to help people get on with their daily lives, the Labour party has, once again, chosen to side with its trade union paymasters and join the picket lines. During the pandemic alone, we delivered some £16 billion of emergency funding to keep the railways running, which is equivalent to £600 for every family in the UK. That level of subsidy is unsustainable and shows why reform is needed now, but instead of working together to achieve the reforms we need to make the railways fit for the future—and it is eminently achievable and fair, and really important—Opposition Front Benchers have backed the strike action and joined the picket lines. Those strikes have stopped people from getting to work, created additional stress for students taking exams and created untold problems for patients needing treatment. The shadow Front Benchers wish to form a Labour Government, but through their actions it is clear that a Labour Government would be content to see the country brought to a halt by militant union leaders. On this issue, the Opposition have displayed no leadership whatsoever.
I said that I would come back to the issue of inflation, and how the Government are addressing it. As the Chancellor told the House last month, we have three key tools at our disposal: independent monetary policy, fiscal responsibility and supply side reform. We have every confidence that the independent Bank of England will take decisive action to get inflation back on target, with it having averaged precisely 2% over the last 25 years. Our second tool is responsible fiscal policy. We know that any fiscal support we provide must be timely, targeted, and temporary, to avoid making the situation worse, by causing inflation, and interest and mortgage rates, to go up further than they otherwise would.
We are also taking an active approach to supply-side reform through initiatives such as the energy security strategy, which will reduce bills by increasing energy supply and improving energy efficiency; moving 500,000 jobseekers off welfare and into work; doing more to support older people back into the jobs market; and making our visa regime for high-skilled migrants one of the most competitive in the world.
The Opposition have no plan to tackle inflation. If they support double-digit, inflation-busting pay rises for public sector workers, do they accept the inflationary effect that will have? Does the shadow Chief Secretary accept that that would lead to higher and more prolonged inflation, hammering the incomes of more vulnerable households? How does Labour propose to pay for inflation-busting pay rises? Every Labour spokesperson who refuses to answer those questions—and they all do—is ducking questions that are fundamental to the running of our economy and our society. The public will draw their own conclusions.
We understand that growing the economy sustainably into the future is by far the best way we can support families in the long term. That is exactly why we will continue to invest in capital, people, and ideas, so that we can boost productivity and improve living standards. It is why we will cut the burden of taxation as we move out of the shadow of the pandemic over the years ahead. In his February 2022 Mais lecture and in the spring statement, the Chancellor spoke about his plans to create the conditions for private sector growth by supporting a culture of enterprise. Together, our plan for growth and our tax plan represent an ambitious strategy for boosting growth and productivity. By contrast, the Opposition call for a “new approach” to the economy. It is not a new approach: it is the same old Labour—uncosted spending, higher borrowing and a surrender to hard-line trade union bosses at every turn, every time. This Conservative Government will not make those mistakes. We will stick to our plan, make responsible choices and guide our country through difficult times to better days ahead.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I calculate that to give each Back Bencher equal time will require a time limit of about eight minutes. In that way, we will get everybody in.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
In April the UK had a national net debt of £2.4 trillion—that is 12 zeros. The Chief Secretary was brave when he spoke about fiscal responsibility. The motion starts by noting that
“UK economic growth is forecast to grind to a halt next year, with only Russia worse in the OECD”.
That would be bad enough, but when one actually analyses what the OECD says, the position is even more stark. It says:
“GDP is projected to increase…in 2022, before stagnating in 2023. Inflation will keep rising and peak at over 10% at the end of 2022 due to continuing labour and supply shortages and high energy prices. Private consumption is expected to slow as rising prices erode households’ income. Public investment will weaken in 2022 as supply bottlenecks hamper...investment”.
It is a gloomy prognosis.
The IMF’s numbers make for troubling reading. The 1.2% growth forecast for the UK next year is the lowest of the advanced economies. That growth is also lower than emerging and developing Asian economies; lower than Latin America and the Caribbean economies; lower than the middle eastern and central Asian economies; and lower than sub-Saharan Africa. All of that at a time when, as the motion says,
“food prices, petrol costs and bills in general are soaring”.
Given that inflation in the euro area was at 8.1% in May, one could make a credible case that this is a global phenomenon. However, some of the problems are self-evidently self-inflicted. Only a fool would deny that many of the continuing labour and supply shortages are a direct result of the self-inflicted economic harm that is Brexit, leaving the single market and ending the free movement of labour. I know that the Minister said that Brexit is done and we need to move on, but I am not sure that there is a way to resolve many of those issues without addressing the freedom of movement and the single market issues.
Who pays the price of the failures? The OECD rather helpfully tells us:
“Vulnerable social groups have been particularly affected by the pandemic and poverty is set to increase as jobs are lost and self-employed see incomes dwindle”.
It will not be the Tory donors and cronies who benefited from the dodgy personal protective equipment contracts who will suffer. It will not be the bankers whose bonuses are proposed to be uncapped. They will not suffer, but then these people never do.
When the OECD talks about poverty being set to increase, we must also remember that this is not all by chance. It is not all a result of covid. It is not all because of external inflationary pressures. It is not all other people’s fault. It is a result of removing the universal credit uplift. It is a result of increasing national insurance. It is a consequence of the Tory policy of taxing the country more than it has been taxed for the past 70 years.
However, the motion before us also recognises that this failing and out-of-touch Government are leaving the UK with backlogs, such as the long waits for passports, driving licences, GP and hospital appointments, court dates and at airports. These things are all happening; we are seeing them with our own eyes. Many of these problems are of the Government’s own making, and their failure to understand, let alone tackle them is, I think, to their shame.
Let us look at the passport fiasco. Three weeks ago, I went to the pop-up passport office in Parliament with 24 cases. I went again last week with a further nine. Those are not unusual numbers; every MP has this. The staff there are incredibly helpful, but it is clear that the entire system is broken. Staff are drowning in the backlog of work. This is about not only families desperate not to lose hard-earned cash through cancelled holidays because they do not get their passports in time, but the impact that this is having on business. A local businessman told me recently:
“I travel abroad regularly for business and was unable to send off my passport for what could be 10 to 12 weeks. I was planning to use the fast-track service or online premium as my passport runs out in September. In the last six weeks, there has been no availability from Glasgow and I was planning to travel to Belfast or Durham, which were the only passport centres available.”
He told me a couple of weeks ago that
“as of last week, the passport website has been down with no access or availability. My current passport runs out on 11 September. I have business trips booked through May and June and, while I believe you can travel with up to three months on a passport, there is no guarantee that the airlines will allow you to fly.”
What sort of Government allow their Departments and agencies to fail like this, effectively stopping businesspeople travelling overseas to win new orders or to source raw materials or equipment?
And on an associated point—this is another Government failure—I have a local business that had advertised a professional management role. It told me that it did not receive a single eligible candidate from the UK in five months. It did, however, find a very good candidate in the United States and applied for a sponsor licence under the skilled worker immigration route, only to be denied on the grounds that they had not, apparently, provided all of the required information, while at the same time receiving no request for any additional information. This is Kafkaesque bureaucracy. It is a system that is designed to fail. The problem is, though, it was not just one person who did not get a job. The failure to bring this managerial role person on board has resulted in the business postponing the recruitment of other managerial and supervisory positions. What sort of Government would deny businesses and therefore the economy the opportunity to grow because they cannot issue a visa to someone who is self-evidently qualified to receive it?
Of course, the failures and backlogs are not all in passports and visas. I want to turn briefly to another constituent and the DVLA. This alludes to something that the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury said. A constituent who wrote to me yesterday said:
“I voluntarily surrendered my licence in June 2020 due to ill health, I have since reapplied...after I was advised that I should reapply for my licence. Since then, 19 weeks have passed and I have only heard from the DVLA to advise they had all the information required, this was on the 16th May when I made contact with them. I have enquired a few times since... I have contacted them via a special e-mail address that is set up for front line workers as this is meant to be a faster process.”
God help the poor souls who do not have access to the faster process. He went on:
“I am currently working as a community mental health nurse...my team works with severe and enduring mental health and requires a lot of travel for home visits, some of which are emergency situations. As you would expect this is having a massive impact on the service that I as a community mental health nurse can provide due to not being able to drive.”
This is not just backlog Britain; this is broken Britain. It is businessmen who cannot travel, businesses unable to recruit and mental health nurses unable to visit their patients.
Instead of the underlying problems being fixed—I am not talking about the short-term mitigation—what do we have? Threats of privatisation. At its heart, that is what this is all about: more private profit from the public purse going to the same people and, as I am sure none of us would be in any doubt, a yet more expensive and even poorer service for the people who depend on all these agencies.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I will keep to the eight minutes you have asked of us, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will take the opportunity to focus on three issues. Two of them, long waits for driving licences and backlogs at the airports, are mentioned in the motion; the third, delivery of rail, is not. However, while it may not have made it on to the motion, we are certainly all aware it was an issue for us last week and will continue to be so.
Looking first at the backlogs at the airports, there have been issues and challenges there. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury is absolutely right to say that we are not alone: Schiphol had a cancellation rate of about 11% during the period in question, while Gatwick’s, for example, was 2%. The situation has been poor across Europe, but it is particularly challenging for passengers to have their flights cancelled at the last minute.
One large reason for it is that only on 17 March did the industry get complete clearance for travel restrictions to be dropped in their entirety. Airlines were also required by Parliament to use 70% of their slots, or they would lose them. A combination of those two factors, and the fact that many airlines had taken out covid loans and had to start paying them back, led to a decision that they would ramp up over summer. However, it has been challenging for them to do so. There were 5,000 jobs lost in the international travel sector in this country on a monthly basis, and that has had an impact.
The airports collectively lost £10 billion, so it has been very difficult for them to ramp back up, and it takes a long time to get staff on to the frontline. It can take as much as three months to go through the vetting and clearance process. Of course, that has to be strict—it is for security—but I will shamelessly plug the Transport Committee’s recommendations here.
The first recommendation was for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to help with a personal statement where people cannot fill in all the parts of their five-year employment history as required. It is great to see that that is now in place. Many people worked in different sectors and parts of industry that have gone under during covid, and it has been difficult to get that five-year map. That is a great change, as is the ability to train workers while they are in their final vetting stage; again, the Government have accepted the recommendation for more flexibility. The ability to train more people within the line of sight has also helped. I praise the Government for the work they have done to make that easier.
However, the number of flights being cancelled at the last minute is just not good enough for passengers or for the industry. I welcome the steps the Government have taken to ease the 70% rule: for airlines that cancel with 14 or more days’ notice, that flight will go towards their 70% rather than counting towards them losing the slot. That is the kind of flexibility the industry needs.
I particularly praise Gatwick airport, which has taken the novel approach of capping the number of flights. It could see that the industry was trying to fly at 2018 figures but did not have the staff to do so, as I have just mentioned. The cap should make for a more bearable experience for passengers. The flights that are cancelled would just be those flying to the same destination on the same day; otherwise, the airlines would have to pay out. Sensible measures have been taken, and I welcome them. I would just say to those on the Front Bench: can we please get the Civil Aviation Authority more up-front powers? It is still going through the court process from the Ryanair industrial action of 2018 because it does not have the ability to stop poor behaviour when it occurs. However, I do welcome what the Government have done.
On long waiting lists for driving licences, as has been mentioned, drivers have been unable to take up work because there has been such a long delay to the paper-based process. According to the DVLA, at one point, due to social distancing, reductions in staff on-site and industrial action, the backlog got to 1.6 million. We have continued to write to the DVLA as a Committee and hold it to account. It last reported that the backlog was down to 890,000. It always has a run rate of 400,000 at any one time but assured us that the rate will get down to the business-as-usual rate by September. We will continue to hold it to account. At that time, it was the one sector of the civil service, or agency, that seemed to be struggling, and there are questions for the management as to whether people really can work from home in a manner that for other parts of the civil service and agencies seems to work quite well. Management are on notice that they need to do better.
The third aspect, which is not referenced in the motion but is so important, is rail. I talked about the 5,000 jobs lost each month in the airline industry because it had to make its own way through. We supported rail to the tune of £16 billion. There were no redundancies apart from a package of voluntary redundancy that was announced, and got a high uptake, last year. In direct contrast to what the airline sector saw, the rail system has been supported by us all. It is incredibly disappointing to see the strikes. I call for the unions to look at the reforms as not just a way of increasing productivity that will give their members a pay rise, but as making the railways safer for the workforce and for passengers. Why do we still require people on the track when technology can do it better, so it is safer for them and safer for passengers? We need both parties to work together to end the strikes. Rail is not being delivered, and it would have been nice if the Opposition had recognised that we all need to support it.
My last point is on the impact of inflation. In all three sectors I have talked about, industrial action has been occurring or is ongoing. Inflation-busting pay increases are completely counterproductive for those who are seeking them but also for the wider public who have to pay for them, because all they do is put up inflation even more and take away the pay rise at that end. They also have to be paid for. Let me give an example. The refuse strike at Wealden District Council in my constituency has been settled at a cost of 27%. That will be paid for by all council tax payers in my constituency. The last increase in council tax has all been eaten up by the previous pay settlement, so there will not be enough to fund this one, and all the benefits we could bring to the district council are being taken away. How will it be paid for? The council cannot go into deficit and therefore there could be job losses, so one person’s pay rise is somebody else’s job loss.
With the cost of living challenges, I understand that there will be pay demands in the public sector, but we all know—certainly Conservative Members do—that somebody has to pay for that, and it will be all our voters. We also know that inflation breeds inflation, and so it knocks out the pay rise. It effectively becomes a zero-sum game. I hope that all of us in Parliament can call for restraint—for people to be sensible and reasonable, and try to find productivity gains to pay for those increases—but if we are not careful things will get very bad indeed in the public sector and that will not benefit anybody in this place.
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
We pay taxes for the Government to run our public services, and many of my constituents are asking: what is the point? From driving licences, to passports, to immigration decisions, to dental appointments, to ambulances, to GP and hospital appointments, backlog Britain is a daily reality for so many people across the country. If Ministers were running these public services as private companies, they would all be bankrupt—and what is their response? It is to charge us more by putting up our taxes while cutting the number of frontline civil service staff providing those services. How Ministers can think that cutting staff and putting up the cost is the answer to backlog Britain, I do not know.
Ministers have said, and will continue to say, that they must take these measures—putting up taxes and cutting staff—because of the economic situation. But after 12 years of Conservative economic mismanagement, they have only themselves to blame. After 12 years of economic mismanagement, the national public debt has increased by billions, from only 60% of national wealth in 2010 when Labour left office, to 80% before covid struck, to now being nearly 100%—all under the Conservatives’ watch. After 12 years of economic mismanagement and repeated tax rises, tax revenue is projected to hit 35% of national wealth by 2025-26, which is the highest sustained level of taxation since the second world war. After 12 years of economic mismanagement, our economy has gone from flatlining to declining. Britain is becoming less competitive, less productive and less wealthy thanks to the Conservatives’ economic mismanagement.
Now more than ever, with the cost of living crisis affecting so many, the public want to know that their taxes are being spent well. Yet this Government’s disregard for public services is self-evident. Many of my constituents in Bristol North West have written to me over the past few months about the problems they have experienced at the Passport Office, which is just one example of a service in the reality of backlog Britain. All of them are desperate after weeks and months of delay. One was left waiting for nearly six months for their passport to be renewed, with their long-planned holiday in jeopardy and their formal complaints left unanswered. Another had their passport lost by the Passport Office for months, with the result that they were unable to travel to visit a sick relative. A third, also with their passport inexplicably lost, was unable to attend a relative’s funeral despite weeks and weeks of chasing.
I say to the public that they should keep a close eye on this lot in government, because rather than outlining how the Government will fix the problems, the Prime Minister’s response to backlogs at the Passport Office was to threaten the service with privatisation. Year after year, cut after cut, I worry that our schools and hospitals could suffer the same fate. We are an ageing population, and the British people will need to rely on our national health service and social care more in the future, yet right now our health service is struggling to cope.
A constituent recently wrote to me to share their experiences of needing an ambulance during an emergency. They reported that they had to wait for as long as 12 hours for an ambulance to arrive after first calling 999. They explained how they now worry about dying alone in the future. Another explained that they were forced to wait for two months, rather than the expected two weeks, for an urgent cancer referral to specialists. If we want Britain to be competitive in this globalised world, our young and working people need to receive the best education and healthcare available. However, because the Conservatives have left the economy smaller, poorer and more indebted, we will have less money to pay for those public services. Bit by bit, those who can afford to use private services, whether dentists, GPs, care homes or private tutors, will have no choice but to do so—many already do.
I have spoken before in this House about the breadth of problems my constituents have encountered in trying to access NHS dental services, which, in my view, have largely been privatised already by the back door. Constituents tell me that waiting times are getting worse and worse, and that the Government fail to intervene. Next, I am sure that the Conservatives will encourage those who can afford it to go private, leaving underfunded public services for those who cannot. Before long, our public services will be changed forever, with only those families able to afford to pay for the best from the private sector able to get the support they deserve.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, including on privatisation, but there is another point, which is that the poorest in our society pay the most for services. They pay the most for banking services, and they pay the most for energy through prepaid meters and other things. We have a further widening, not just of incomes, but of costs to the poorest in society, pushing them further and further away from being able to live decent lives above the breadline. Is that not a broader effect of what is going on?
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend is right, and it is for the Government to do something about it. What is the point of having a Government or paying taxes if the Government stand by and say, “Oh well, this is just something that we cannot really affect”? Inequality is growing and it is now impossible for people to make themselves wealthy in our country without inheriting wealth. These issues are getting worse and worse, and the Conservative Government think it should just be left to the market and that the Government have no role to play.
In the backlog Britain that exists in reality today, whether that is passport services or elsewhere, Ministers sit by. They blame anyone else they can think of and threaten public services without taking any responsibility for their role as Ministers of the Crown. It is their job to fix these issues. Why are they not doing so? Until I see the Conservatives get a grip of the economy—[Interruption.] The Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Minister for Security and Borders are chuntering, but they are welcome to intervene.
James Daly
Does the hon. Gentleman make the same points to the Welsh Government regarding their appalling NHS waiting times?
Darren Jones
I am a Member for Bristol, but I point out that the Conservative and Unionist party ought to take some responsibility from here about what is happening across the country and the Union. Once again, however, its Members deflect responsibility and distract the public from the real cause of our problems, which is 12 years of Conservative economic mismanagement.
The facts may be uncomfortable, and Ministers may chunter, but they come from the Office for Budget Responsibility and the national statistician. Ministers have no answer to that evidence of the Government’s economic mismanagement of the last 12 years—they merely deflect and blame others. Until I see a Government who are ready to get a grip of the economy, with a plan to make Britain stronger, more successful and more sustainable, with the energy to not just survive until the next vote of no confidence, but invest in and modernise our public services, I have little hope that we will move away from the Conservative legacy of the high-tax, low-growth backlog Britain that we live in today.
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)
I rise to speak against the motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. I feel a sense of déjà vu, because I spoke in an Opposition debate last week on a similar motion. Once again, Opposition Members criticise and talk Britain down, but offer nothing constructive to deal with the problems that the country faces, having been impacted by the unprecedented pandemic and a global economic situation. They are also transparent in not attacking their own politicians who have power in this country, who face and acknowledge the same problem that we are talking about.
I maintain that it is only because of our actions since 2010 when the Conservatives took power that we could spend the money that we needed to insulate ourselves and our public services from the pandemic. We had to do that because Labour bankrupted the country in 2010, and our responsible approach from 2010 to 2018 allowed us to protect the services that we needed to protect and spend the money on them and vulnerable people throughout the pandemic.
The hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) talked about this country’s indebtedness. I agree that this country is in a large amount of debt, but I remind him that in his constituency, people were kept in employment and businesses were kept in business because of the furlough scheme that the Government created. Does he think that should not have gone ahead?
Darren Jones
As I said in my speech, the national debt level had reached 80% of national wealth before the pandemic. How did that happen?
Paul Holmes
It happened partly because we were investing in services. The hon. Gentleman said in his speech that the Government were woefully in debt. I take it, then, that he did not back the action that we had to take during the unprecedented pandemic and global situation to protect his constituents and the businesses in his constituency. The people out there will take what they need to from his speech.
The action that I have outlined led us to have 7.5% of economic growth in 2021, which was the largest increase in economic growth anywhere in the G7. That has now stalled, but that is because of the global situation in which we find ourselves. Let us remember that if the Opposition had been in charge, we would have come out of the pandemic more slowly, because they wanted to keep us in lockdown. We would have had a slower vaccine rollout—this Government spent the money necessary to get the vaccines onboard—and lower economic growth. Opposition Members now have the cheek to absent themselves from acknowledging the pandemic and the global situation. Once again, they present a vision full of hindsight that is lacking in any reality whatsoever.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is talking about the pandemic and growth as we come out of it. Will he comment on how the Government failed to lock down quickly at various key points, which prolonged the pandemic and made the related reduction in economic activity deeper and worse?
Paul Holmes
My comment to the hon. Gentleman is that this country lifted back up while his party was still calling for us to be in lockdown. We lifted up quicker than the Leader of the Opposition wanted us to; he wanted us to lock down again, so I will not take any lectures from the hon. Gentleman about what the Government have done in lifting us up and getting the economy moving.
The action I was outlining means that £37 billion has been invested in the economy; at no stage today was that acknowledged by the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden). It means £650 for recipients of means-tested benefits, £300 for pensioners in receipt of the winter fuel payment and £150 for people in receipt of disability benefits—and we have cut taxes for 30 million people to the tune of £330 a year.
However, there is an issue on which I have some sympathy with Members and those outside this House. I am a Conservative—I do not think that I need to declare that in the House—but I am a Conservative who believes that we can grow the economy if we keep more money in people’s pockets. I gently say to the Chief Secretary that people are looking to him for tax cuts—for the economy, the middle classes and vulnerable people. We need to go further with tax cuts, so that we get the economic growth that we need.
The Labour party should not be allowed to be disingenuous with this motion; the Government have invested in public services. I want to pick up on two points that the shadow Minister outlined. What kind of world do we live in when the Labour party, the supposed party of the NHS, moans that we are under-investing in the NHS while consistently voting against the Government’s record investment in it? The Liberal Democrats voted against it, too. We put £36 billion of funding into the NHS, which is £12 billion a year of extra funding, and they opposed it at every turn. They opposed us in every Division we had on NHS spending, and now they say that we are not doing anything. That is not a consistent approach from the Labour party. There are record numbers of doctors—124,000 of them—as well as 300,000 extra nurses, and I remind the House that Labour Members, the Liberal Democrats and those from other parties voted against those measures.
In the passports debate two weeks ago, I said to the shadow Home Office Minister, the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), that although the Opposition say that the Government are not taking any action on passports, 700 extra staff are being recruited to the passport service. There are 500 already, and they are not privatised staff, but staff of Her Majesty’s Passport Office, whom we are investing in, so that passport applications are completed on time. Some 90% of applications are completed within six weeks; 98.5% are completed within 10 weeks; and 1 million passports were processed in March 2022. Seven million would be processed in a normal year. I say today what I said then: there is a lack of acknowledgment of the effect that the pandemic and lockdown have had on international travel. They have meant that more people are applying. However, we are taking the action necessary to make sure that passport applications are completed on time.
Today we have heard about Labour failure in Wales and Manchester. As this debate has gone on, we have heard about Labour failure in London; the Metropolitan Police Service is being put into special measures. It is controlled by a Labour politician, but nobody on the Labour side of the House criticises the Labour party, or those in power who have the budgets and the means to make the changes that the people they represent need. The Labour party attacks us. The public see that the party has no vision for this country, and that it does not play on a level playing field, given that its elected politicians are failing because of the same circumstances that Labour Members have mentioned today. What we see here is what the public will see, which once again is a carping Opposition with no practical, constructive or sensible solutions for the unprecedented problems of the day. They need to stop voting against measures that tackle the problems that they complain about. They complain about us not taking action, but why do they not march through the Division Lobby and vote with this Government for record amounts of money for public services, and then come up with a constructive solution afterwards? They have not done that at all.
Finally, it would be nice if, just once—even if they disagree with the core principles of this Government—Labour Members told the truth: that they would not, and could not, have done much differently, given the circumstances we faced in the pandemic, and with the global economic crisis. The public would respect this Parliament a lot more if we genuinely worked together, instead of Labour Members carping from the sidelines. This Government are taking action on the NHS and passports, and are making sure that the most vulnerable people in this country are looked after. That is why I was elected to this House, and why the Government were elected to office in 2019. Labour Members should stop criticising. They should come to the table and provide solutions, but I doubt we will ever hear them.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
I congratulate the Labour party on bringing forward today’s debate, and acknowledge at the outset—I am seeking common ground with those on the Treasury Bench—that government is hard. Government means not being entirely in charge of events, and the Government must be responsible for things beyond their direct control. The SNP has been the Government of Scotland since 2007, and it has seldom been easy to achieve the results we wanted, but we see the verdict of the people of Scotland on the performance of the SNP Government: the 2019 Westminster election, the 2021 Holyrood election and the local election this year have been resounding SNP victories.
James Daly
The hon. Gentleman is making a very fair point, but is that the reason why A&E waiting times in Scotland are at a record high? In May over 10,000 people were waiting over two years for medical treatment; is that not a shameful record for the SNP Government?
Alyn Smith
I was hoping to find common ground, rather than hear endless whataboutery. We could all swap stats about the performance of our relative Governments, but I am here to critique the performance of this UK Government and try to find solutions. Have there been challenges? Of course there have. Are we all facing common challenges from the international global situation with covid? Of course we are. It is how we respond to those challenges, the decisions we make, and how we resource our public services that we can be judged by. The people of Scotland judged the SNP Government, and resoundingly backed us. Of course there are challenges, but I am proud to stand by the SNP’s record.
To govern is to choose, and it is the choices of this UK Government that we can critique today. I endorse the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) about the underlying causes of policy failure, the UK Government’s wrong decision in leaving the EU, and doing so in the way they did. That compounded a number of our difficulties, just as wrong management choices affected the delivery of public services. I will not belabour or repeat the points my right hon. Friend made, but the SNP remains very clear about our ambition for Scotland: we want an independent Scotland, back in the European family of nations. The people of Scotland will have a choice on that in October 2023. We will come back to that discussion at the proper time, I do not doubt, and I look forward to that.
Paul Holmes
I apologise for intervening on the hon. Gentleman, especially after I have just made a speech. Talking of delivering public services and the economy, the First Minister today outlined her plan for independence, but she failed to mention what currency the SNP proposes for an independent Scotland, and whether independence would have a negative or positive impact on the economic outlook of Scotland.
Alyn Smith
As I say, I look forward to the debates that we will have in the coming months, and I look forward to the decision of the people of Scotland on those matters.
I have said that it is difficult to be in government, and I acknowledge the problems the UK Government have faced. I am honestly not here to score political points. I will focus my remarks solely on passports and driving licences, because that has been a considerable difficulty for hundreds of the people I serve in Stirling—and, I suspect, for thousands, if not more, people across all our constituencies. I say hand on heart to the UK Government, constitutional politics aside, that I want this fixed. It needs to be fixed a lot more quickly.
I listened carefully to the Chief Secretary’s comments on passports and driving licences, and I am not sure that many of my constituents in Stirling would agree with his rather Panglossian analysis. There have been clear failures in the delivery of these services. I agree that the backlogs in both the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and Her Majesty’s Passport Office were unprecedented, but they were not remotely unforeseeable, and the scale of the Government response was inadequate. We need a laser-like focus on that in this discussion. We need far greater investment in these services, and far greater support for the hard-working staff who are swamped in trying to deal with the backlogs, which are having significant knock-on effects on the livelihoods and mental health, as we have heard, of many millions of the citizens we serve.
I have three examples from Stirling—this is just a selection from this morning’s postbag. One constituent applied for his child’s passport on 30 March—13 weeks ago this Wednesday. He was to travel on 25 June, but he cancelled, lost the money and rebooked for 6 July. There was no response at all to his requests to expedite the application, and with just seven days to go, there is still no passport.
Another constituent applied on 2 March for passports for herself and her four-year-old daughter, so that they could travel on 1 May—it was to be their first holiday. Their passports were late and they missed their holiday. In another constituent’s own words:
“I went to the Glasgow office today and waited for hours in the queue. They weren’t going to see me as I don’t travel in the next 48 hours. However, I pleaded my case and the lovely lady agreed to at least check everything was ok with my application. It was not. Though they received my supporting documents recorded delivery, HMPO have lost them (3 birth certificates). This resulted in me quite literally running down to the Glasgow registrar office”.
It said it could provide the certificates in 24 hours. My constituent continued:
“I am now on a train back to Stirling to go to the registry office there who have agreed to print them off…then I will head back to Glasgow to have them proceed with the application.”
Missed holidays are not the biggest crisis in the world, but missed livelihoods are, and the failures of the DVLA are even worse. A number of HGV drivers and people dependent on driving for their work have been unable to work and in danger of losing their livelihoods and employment because of the delays.
I always hope to find consensus and to suggest solutions. To solve a problem, one first needs to acknowledge it. I therefore urge a bit more humility and honesty from the Government in dealing with the passport and DVLA issues in particular. There has been investment—I acknowledge that—but it has not been adequate. We need more. The establishment of a Westminster helpdesk for MPs, while welcome—we have used it—reveals something of a Westminster-centric attitude. What we actually need is far more people on the phones, available to our constituents and citizens who need the advice. That advice needs to be properly resourced.
I acknowledge that there has been investment, but it has not been enough, so to talk about tax cuts in general, as an ideological point, is to miss the point entirely. This is a problem that hundreds, if not hundreds of thousands, of our citizens are facing right now. The Government have to deliver public services, and they have not done remotely as well as they need to. For hundreds of thousands of constituents, backlog Britain is a very real and pressing problem. I therefore congratulate the Labour party on bringing forward the debate and urge the UK Government to do better.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith), who seemed to argue that incompetence is justified as long as a party gets the democratic mandate to continue to act in that manner. I welcome his straightforward comments accepting that the SNP Government, who have responsibility for the matters that we are discussing, have faced the same challenges, including those resulting from the pandemic, as the rest of the world, and, like others, found difficulties in overcoming them, hence some of the bad figures that I quoted. I thank him for his straightforward response.
In talking about the delivery of public services—the Labour party, who brought forward the motion, do so with such certainty of criticism and purpose—we must look back to Labour’s previous actions as well as at its current actions, because clearly it must be doing something right. I gave the example—it is worthy of repetition—that Labour politicians criticise Conservative politicians for challenges regarding waiting times, yet in Wales 700,000 people are waiting for planned care, which is a 50% increase on February 2020, and no Opposition Member makes any reference to it. If the Welsh Government have any idea of how to address that, I would welcome Members sharing the news with us. What is the idea? What will they do? There is nothing on that. [Interruption.] I will not give way.
So we go on and look back further. The criticism in respect of the NHS is that, in effect, money has been put in but wasted in various ways. I thought, “I must look back at when Labour ran our NHS. I’m sure that there is a real record of investment and getting a really good bang for the taxpayer’s buck.” Although I am the very proud MP for Bury North, I am from Huddersfield and my local hospital was under threat under the last Labour Government because of the decision to build Calderdale Royal Hospital.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is talking about the Labour party’s delivery of the NHS. Is he not aware that public satisfaction with the NHS was the highest it has ever been when Labour left office?
James Daly
The hon. Lady talks about public opinion. Calderdale Royal Hospital was constructed with a £34 million private finance initiative deal that, at the last reckoning, cost the taxpayer £740 million. The last Labour Government wasted millions upon millions of pounds on the NHS that should have been invested in modernising and developing frontline services—it was absolutely criminal. We have made record investments throughout our time in government, as shown in the increased number of nurses and the increased services that my constituents are able to access, although there are challenges.
Margaret Greenwood
The hon. Gentleman is being generous with his time. Surely he must be aware that his Government’s Health and Care Act 2022, which was enacted just a month or so ago, opens up the NHS to private sector takeovers that will be deeply inefficient because money that should be spent on patient care will be taken out and given to shareholders.
James Daly
Privatisation of NHS services began under Labour. There was more privatisation under Labour, so I thank the hon. Lady for giving me the opportunity to highlight Labour’s desire, when it was last in power, to privatise large parts of the NHS.
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend remember Labour’s famous slogan before every general election: “We have just 24 hours to save the NHS”? Well, it has been a very long 24 hours since 2010, has it not?
James Daly
I remember another slogan from when Labour left office: “there is no money.” I agree with my hon. Friend.
We talk about figures all too often in this House, and we can come up with any figure. It could be £1 billion, £2 billion, £500 billion or £500 million. That is not the delivery of public services; it is just us coming up with figures. The question is: what delivery model will get bang for our buck and deliver services so that people in Scotland do not wait so long in A&E and so waiting lists are not as long in Wales? The delivery model is the issue.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman keeps referring to the healthcare system in Scotland. When will the English Government implement free prescriptions and free annual eyecare for the people of England? When will they implement free social care for the elderly in England?
James Daly
There is record investment in the NHS in England, and it is for the decision makers, those who deliver frontline services and medical professionals to make those choices. The hon. Gentleman is saying that politicians, not medical professionals, should decide the right choices for patients. [Interruption.] It is strange that he is laughing, but he makes my point on the method of delivery.
I have a constituency example of what this Government have done to deliver public services. I have already spoken of the Mayor of Greater Manchester’s appalling supervision that led directly to my local police services, and the local police services of my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson), being put in special measures, and to the most vulnerable people in our communities being put at risk. My local council, a Labour council, was given £122 million to support people, businesses and frontline services during the pandemic. Under the £37 billion package that was before the House last week, 12,000 households in my constituency will get at least £600 to support them through this period, and most of them will get up to £1,200. When we talk about those figures and what the Government have done, we see that they are supporting the people in Bury to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds. The problem is that the delivery model is Labour-controlled Bury Council, which is incompetent, I am afraid, and its record would suggest that. We therefore need a wider debate about how we link the money that the Budget and the Treasury gives to local and regional government and how that is spent in the most efficient way.
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. He rightly points out the grotesque incompetence of our Mayor. The second largest police force in England, Greater Manchester police, is failing; it is considered to be inadequate. I was wondering whether he could remind me who the Health Secretary was when people were drinking water out of flower vases at Mid Staffs and, apparently, satisfaction with the NHS was at its highest.
James Daly
The Mayor of Greater Manchester has been consistent in his past and present career regarding the delivery of public services. The important point is that we have to learn from the mistakes that my hon. Friend highlights and make sure that public services are delivered in a different way.
The Government have invested more than £400 billion during the pandemic. Not only have they given the metropolitan borough of Bury the £122 million that I mentioned, but both constituencies in Bury have got upwards of £200 million. There are three free schools and there have been two levelling-up fund bids, as well as all sorts of other things—including the purchase of Gigg Lane, Mr Deputy Speaker—directly to help and support the aim of us all to make sure that public services are delivered in the best possible way. However, we cannot have this debate simply about figures. We have to work out a way to ensure that managers in the NHS and civil servants in various councils throughout the country deliver on the manifesto and the mandate that is given by the Government through record levels of investment in schools, the NHS and all the other things that we are discussing.
The Government’s record is something to be proud of. We heard from the Opposition what their plan is: nothing. There is no plan. This is simply an opportunity to read out a load of manufactured points, rather than supporting the Government in their efforts to level up and make sure that public services are delivered in the interests of constituents throughout the country.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)
It is a privilege to speak after the hon. Member for Bury North (James Daly), who seems to take the line that because someone else is doing badly, it is okay for this Tory Government of 12 years to do badly; and that because somebody else is failing to deliver somewhere, it is entirely right for the Conservative Government to fail and not deliver for the public in this country. When questions are put to them about when they will deliver free prescriptions for England, free eye tests on a 12-monthly basis and free social care for everyone, they fail to address them. They use smoke and mirrors when addressing the 12 years of failures from this incompetent Tory Government.
Earlier this month, we discussed the unacceptable waiting times facing people who are seeking to renew or apply for passports. Welcome to backlog Britain, thanks to 12 years of a Conservative Government. During my contribution to that debate, I stated that the passport delays were but one instance of the backlogs being faced by my constituents under 12 years of this Conservative Government. For the past two years, I have spoken to hundreds of constituents whose visa applications are still outstanding, with some people waiting for more than a year without a word from the Home Office. Welcome to backlog Britain, thanks to 12 years of a Conservative Government. Even simple matters such as the issuance of a biometric residence permit are subject to mind-boggling delays. Welcome to backlog Britain, thanks to 12 years of a Conservative Government.
Paul Bristow
Forgive me if I am wrong, but has the hon. Gentleman just committed his Front Benchers to free eye tests on the NHS, free social care and free prescriptions? Is he now saying that that is the policy of the Labour party?
Tahir Ali
I was referring to how the Conservative party uses smoke and mirrors to blame everyone else for its failures.
I have spoken to asylum seekers who have not received a single update on the progress of their application for asylum. These are people who do not have the right to work or any recourse to public funds, so making them wait for months at a time without providing an update on their application is not only incompetent, but profoundly cruel. Welcome to backlog Britain, thanks to 12 years of a Conservative Government.
Things do not get any better when we look at services such as healthcare. I recently visited Sparkhill primary care centre in my constituency. Dr Al-Qazi, a well-recognised and respected GP, runs the practice. I spoke to patients and doctors there about the strains on GP surgeries. Capacity is a serious issue, with recruitment problems and growing patient numbers making it difficult for GPs to meet demand. Welcome to backlog Britain, thanks to 12 years of a Conservative Government.
Despite repeated promises of extra funding from this Government, Dr Al-Qazi had not seen an extra penny. An obsession with targets, without any of the promised extra resources, is tying GPs down and preventing them from prioritising patient care. I must say that the GPs and patients I spoke to expressed no confidence in this Government’s ability to deliver. Welcome to backlog Britain, thanks to 12 years of a Conservative Government.
In Birmingham and across the west midlands, NHS waiting times are the worst since records began. Welcome to backlog Britain, thanks to 12 years of a Conservative Government.
People are facing not only 12-hour waits at accident and emergency departments, but significant waiting times for hospital appointments. Welcome to backlog Britain, thanks to 12 years of a Conservative Government.
I have spoken to several constituents who, because of the long waiting times for life-changing surgery, are now turning to private providers, whether they are affordable or not. Recent research by the University of Birmingham on waiting times and operation backlogs has shown that more than 100,000 people in Birmingham are waiting for surgery or need invasive procedures to check for cancer. Welcome to backlog Britain, thanks to 12 years of a Conservative Government.
The research also points to the fact that many more people are on hidden waiting lists that are not represented in official data. It therefore concludes that growing waiting lists may become an inevitable feature of NHS care in future. Welcome to backlog Britain, thanks to 12 years of a Conservative Government.
All this means that people across the country are essentially being forced into private care because of the serious backlogs confronting the NHS. The burden of these backlogs is being carried by families and by those least able to afford it, while the Government flounder. Welcome to backlog Britain, thanks to 12 years of a Conservative Government.
To my mind, all these backlogs demonstrate two clear things. First, this Conservative Government are incapable of ensuring that even the most basic services are provided to constituents in a timely manner. Secondly, they are all so completely out of touch with the British public that they feel no urgency about getting a grip on the situation and introducing measures to relieve the backlogs. It seems that backlog Britain is here to stay as long as we have this rudderless Government standing in the way of solutions.
In summary, passport renewal times: up. Home Office application times: up. Driving licence times: up. GP appointment times: up. Hospital appointment times: up. Ambulance waiting times: up. NHS dentist times: up. A&E waiting times: up. Police waiting times: up. Cost of living: up. Mortgage rates: up. Food banks: up. Gas and electric bills: up. Court waiting times—
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
It is, of course, a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Tahir Ali). He talked a great deal about the need for free prescriptions; I think it must have escaped his notice that the Government have now vaccinated 150 million people with free covid prescriptions.
Listening to the Opposition, one would think that this was a Government who were failing at everything. We have heard nothing but doom and gloom. There has been no recognition that when the whole world was hit by the worst global pandemic for a century, this Government delivered the first approved vaccine roll-out anywhere on the globe. We have heard nothing about the fact that that was followed by the fastest vaccine roll-out in Europe—and at the same time the Government delivered £400 billion of support for businesses, which preserved 14.5 million jobs: that is why unemployment is now at its lowest since 1974.
Margaret Greenwood
Will the hon. Lady not acknowledge that it was actually the national health service that delivered the vaccine roll-out?
Anna Firth
The national health service was funded and run by those on the Government side of the House. Perhaps the hon. Lady has not noticed that. If the Opposition had been in charge, she would of course be saying that it was they who had rolled out the vaccine.
Paul Bristow
In fact, it is a little bit worse than that. If Opposition Members had been in charge of the vaccination process, we would not have jabbed nearly as many people, because they would have supported the EU scheme rather than ours.
Anna Firth
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Nor would we have come out of lockdown at the earliest possible moment, which has preserved the economy and jobs. The main point, however, is that we have heard no solutions from the Opposition.
The motion mentions GP and hospital appointments, and that is what I want to talk about today. In the health system, the Government are looking for new, innovative solutions to solve the problems that we are experiencing. Of course there are problems: we have just been through a global pandemic which saw the whole country in lockdown and our hospitals and GPs focused on treating millions of covid patients and on the vaccination programme that I have just been talking about, so inevitably there have been delays to regular and routine appointments.
Steven Bonnar
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way; she is being very generous.
I wonder how much responsibility she thinks the Prime Minister should bear for that situation, given that in the very early stages of the pandemic he was coming in here and gloating about shaking hands with covid patients. That set the scene for the early response from the Government to the pandemic.
Anna Firth
I think the hon. Gentleman is missing the entire point that I am making. I am acknowledging that our health service has quite rightly been treating covid patients. Now that the pandemic is over, we are of course looking towards dealing with the backlog.
In Southend West, I, like many Members in other constituencies, receive complaints every week from constituents who are experiencing delays in getting appointments with their GPs. One constituent who wrote to me had suffered a minor head injury and ended up having to call an ambulance and go to the local A&E because they could not get a GP appointment. I have raised the issue of ambulances in the House before. However, we have a Secretary of State who is focusing on the issue and is already making progress. That is why we were able to announce this week that we are set to eliminate two-year waiting lists by July, and that is why, because of our management of the economy, the NHS budget is set to grow by an average of 3.8% every year up to 2024-25. As we have heard, by the end of this Parliament we will be spending £188 billion on the NHS, up from £133 billion. That is an increase of £54 billion—over 40%. That is possible despite the poor financial circumstances that we inherited. This Government have increased investment in the NHS every year since we came into office in 2010.
In Southend West, which I represent, we are leading the way in improving people’s healthcare. Due to the actions of myself and other Essex MPs, we will have an increase of 111 ambulance staff over the coming months and 11 new ambulances will be on our roads by the end of July. Earlier this month, Southend Hospital began an innovative enhanced discharge service. This is a collaboration between the council, the clinical commissioning group and the hospital, and it is helping people to get home when they have been in hospital, and to stay there. It is a brilliant therapy-led assessment service that really puts people at the heart of ongoing care, and I am delighted that the Government are supporting the scheme.
Margaret Greenwood
The hon. Lady is talking about the discharge from hospital process that was brought into law through the Health and Care Act 2022. Is she aware that the Government do not even know the clinical outcomes of these people? I have submitted written questions on a number of occasions to ask how many patients who were discharged under the discharge to assess process were readmitted to hospital within 30 days, but the Government do not know. Does she agree that the Government should really have done the work and found that out before going ahead with a process that puts very vulnerable patients at risk?
Anna Firth
I suggest that the hon. Lady should be congratulating this Government on delivering a £36 billion package to reform the NHS and social care and on tackling issues that Labour Members have ducked for years.
I want to return to the improvements at my own hospital. Patients are now being welcomed through the doors of a new two-storey outpatients building that is creating space for an extra 200 people every week. This state-of-the-art £1.2 million building includes 14 new consulting rooms, seven offices and a large waiting area. It is initiatives such as these that are leading the fightback against delays and waiting lists at the hospital, as opposed to just talking about them. There are also exciting new plans to build a brand-new £8.6 million entrance at the hospital, improving clinical provision, accessibility and the whole experience of patients, staff and visitors. This building will attract private capital funding. There will be no extra cost to the hospital trust or to the taxpayer. It is exactly this sort of innovation that we are looking for.
I am also pleased that our local GPs are looking at ways to improve their waiting lists. As I have mentioned, waiting lists are a huge problem. Having people waiting in a queue on the phone at 8 o’clock in the morning and being unable to book an appointment is something that none of us wants to see continue. The Pall Mall surgery in my constituency, which I had the pleasure of visiting earlier this week, has introduced a new e-consult scheme. Patients can enter their details online, which are then triaged by a clinician. This allows the surgery to triage 100 patients in the same time that traditional appointments would have taken to triage 15. The point of this is not to deny people who need to see a GP a face-to-face appointment but to ensure that our resources are used to their maximum effect so that the GPs can see as many patients as possible face to face.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I just want to remind the hon. Lady of what Madam Deputy Speaker said earlier. She said that people should look towards sticking to about eight minutes, and we are over that now.
Anna Firth
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I come to my final point, which is about the reconfiguration of the accident and emergency department at Southend Hospital. That will deliver crucial improvements, and the Government announced funding for it in 2017. The business case was approved by regulators and by the Treasury in 2019, and only last month the Minister for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), restated that we would be getting this funding. It would be wrong of me not to use this opportunity to ask, once again, that the Department of Health and Social Care releases this funding to Southend Hospital.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Southend West (Anna Firth).
I wish to speak in favour of the motion and to pick up on some of the serious concerns about backlog Britain, illustrating how it is linked to the long period of low growth and under-investment in key public services that goes back to the austerity period and the decisions made by Governments since 2010. Before I do, I wish to pay tribute to our public sector and public service workers, who have done the most incredible job for a very long time—for their whole careers—but particularly in the past couple of years, during this unprecedented crisis the country has faced. I am sure that all of us, across the House, want to wish them the very best and show our support for them. We respect them and think they do the most wonderful job for our communities across this country.
While I touch on the work that those workers have carried out, I want to ask Ministers to think seriously about what it feels like to be a frontline public sector worker. I ask them to imagine themselves into the position of a nurse in the Royal Berkshire Hospital in Reading, of a local GP or of many other local public sector workers in my constituency. I ask them to think about that and respond in the fullness of time.
In particular, I ask Ministers to think about not only the pressures caused by the pandemic, but the long effect of austerity, the lack of funding and particular local problems we face in our area. For example, two GP practices have closed in my constituency and others are under severe pressure. We have a problem with looming GP retirements and other pressures arising from severe shortages of skilled staff. We have problems with numbers being reduced in Thames Valley police. Admittedly, the Government are recruiting more police, but they are doing so belatedly and there are questions as to whether they will be able to replace the officers who have been lost. There are serious problems with school funding and pressures on school budgets, because of the misunderstanding of the way in which the teachers’ pensions need to be funded by schools. There is a series of serious problems, and I ask Ministers to think deeply about that and address them when they respond to us later today. I hope they can learn the lessons of these mistakes and rethink Government policy.
In the time available, I wish to focus on one service that has caused serious problems in my constituency. I refer to the mismanagement of the passport service during the past few months, as we have come out of the pandemic. Let me illustrate some of the problems that I have encountered as a constituency MP. I have dealt with 59 cases in recent weeks of people waiting for passports, sometimes for up to 12 or 14 weeks. Those affected include not just families who want to go on holiday and rightly deserve to do so after the awful time of the pandemic, but people waiting to see terminally ill relatives and people who need to go abroad for urgent reasons. The delays are lengthy and there is a lack of communication with residents in my area, and I understand that colleagues from across the House have suffered with this as well. People are not being given updates. I have often had residents come to me saying, “I am about to go on holiday. I am due to go in two weeks but I still have not heard anything from the Passport Office.” That is not good enough and it reflects a wider lack of planning, which I want to pick up on in a moment.
Margaret Greenwood
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. We know that the Government want to cut 91,000 jobs from the civil service. On 2021 figures, that would mean the loss of almost a fifth of all civil servants. Those cuts could mean more than 11,000 job losses in the north-west, where my constituency is based, with 3,500 in Merseyside and 400 in Wirral. Does he agree that if the Government go ahead with these job cuts, my constituents, the region’s economy and the level of services that people receive will suffer?
Matt Rodda
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. She is highlighting clearly the issues in her area, and the same applies across the whole country. The Government are expecting public service workers to catch up and deal with an unprecedented backlog, while threatening deep cuts. As she has rightly said, many of the services provided by the civil service are in Government agencies rather than in Whitehall, which employs only a tiny proportion of the overall headcount.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. To add to his point, it is foolish to suggest that there is somehow some unnecessary flabbiness in the civil service or in local service delivery, because so much that has been added was driven by the need to make trade deals, with teams being brought in to negotiate those deals, and to support the Afghan situation and now the Ukraine situation. That is why we have so many people in our civil service right now.
Matt Rodda
My hon. Friend makes a good point about the need to respond to crises and the pressure on the public sector as a whole.
I thank the Minister for Security and Borders, the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), who is in his place, because he and his colleagues have been generous in supporting me in dealing with some of my constituency cases. However, the fact that Ministers have to intervene illustrates some of the management failures in the system, which ultimately reflect poorly on them and their colleagues in government.
I ask Ministers to think about the case study of the Passport Agency. It provides a vital public service, and it has been expected to catch up with a large backlog very suddenly. Why, when the pandemic was clearly coming to an end, was there not more planning, more foresight and a more strategic look ahead at the likely implications for the head count needed in the offices that process passports, as well as the implications for the public and the economy of severe delays in that vital public service? I am afraid that the Government have been found very wanting in that instance, and it illustrates the wider failure of leadership and management in the current Administration that dates all the way back to their election in 2010. I urge the Government to think carefully about the implications of the problems we now face.
That issue also links to the way the Government operate at a political level. It is interesting that many of the problems are occurring at the very time when we see turmoil in the governing party. All too often it suggests that Ministers are more bothered about the internal factional issues in their party—the Prime Minister’s survival or demise—than about managing public services in a responsible, sensible way. I ask them to get back to the day job and get a grip on those vital services, support public service professionals, provide them with the correct amount of resource, and encourage them in their vital work.
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
I am pleased to speak in this debate on public services, because it gives me the opportunity to thank everyone who serves my city, Peterborough, by working in our public services. There is little to be happy about when it comes to the motion. As usual, the Opposition moan, groan and clip their speeches for social media, but they have no plan whatever for the economy or the reform of our public services. It is spend more, borrow more and pile on more debts for future generations, but they say absolutely nothing on jobs. On this side of the House, we know that it is work that will grow the economy, increase tax revenue and fund public services.
It is worth reminding the House that every single Labour Government have left unemployment higher when they left office than when they formed their Administration. This Government have delivered the lowest unemployment since 1974. Opposition Members have completely ignored that and, on jobs and on work, they have nothing to say.
The debate gives me the chance to celebrate good public services in my constituency. A shining example is the Thistlemoor surgery, run by Neil Modha, who is an inspirational local doctor in Peterborough. The surgery serves 29,500 patients, 80% of whom do not have English as a first language. The surgery has just received an outstanding grade from the Care Quality Commission. I thank Dr Azhar Chaudhry, who works with local mosques and communities, along with Dr Lubna Salim, Dr Lubna Akbar, Dr Mohammed Mukhtar and Dr Syed Husseini. Paulina Janczura is the manager of a team of 85 staff, all from different backgrounds, mirroring the background of the population that Thistlemoor surgery cares for. These are doctors, nurses, paramedics and admin and clerical staff doing an outstanding job for my constituency.
Peterborough is also the home of the Passport Office. We have heard lots of Members talk about Passport Office failures, and they are absolutely right to raise frustrations expressed by their constituents when it comes to delays on passports. However, we must also remember that staff in the Passport Office in Peterborough and elsewhere are working incredibly hard. We must always remember that when we speak in this House and on behalf of our constituents, because, sometimes, they can be left feeling unsupported, especially by those who stand up and make overly critical speeches.
There is a disappointing example of public service delivery in my constituency. The residents of the beautiful village of Thorney have temporarily lost in-person services at Thorney Medical Centre. This is down to a lack of admin staff. It is worth mentioning that the staff do a wonderful job and certainly do not deserve abuse, which, regrettably, is becoming all too common across the NHS. Local people rely on the service. Local councillors and I are campaigning for this service, along with Jenner Healthcare, to reopen as soon as possible. A meeting has been set up on Friday, and I am confident about what will happen with this vital surgery on which so many people in Thorney rely.
If I may, I will tell the House one more story of public service delivery in Peterborough. Very sadly, this involves the Labour Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. We have already heard about Labour’s failure in public service delivery in Manchester, in Wales and in London, but, unfortunately, we now have to move on to Labour public service delivery failure in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. The combined authority is the accountable body for Net Zero Hub projects across the whole of the south-east. That put the Mayor, Nik Johnson, in the lead for spending from Hampshire to Kent, and from London to Peterborough. For that reason, the Government handed him £80 million for energy projects and £118 million for sustainable warmth projects—more than double that of any other comparable authority. That should mean cheaper bills and warmer homes in Peterborough. He has had the money for months. It was his chance to make a difference, so what of that whopping sum of £198 million? How much has he used? Staggeringly, the answer is less than £6 million.
In fact, the Mayor has written a letter to the Government, begging for yet another extension to the deadline for spending it. But I am told that, because of his
“poor delivery performances and assurance processes”
the Mayor’s request will be refused, because it would break Her Majesty’s Treasury rules. It gets worse. The Government do not even believe that he has the capability or the capacity to deliver, because the hub has spent nothing on home improvements so far—nothing, zero, absolutely nothing. Thousands of homes in Peterborough will lose out as a result, but not so in Cambridge. Cambridge City Council put its own bid together for sustainable warmth funding and got just over £6 million, in partnership with some of the local councils close by. Unlike homes in Peterborough, they will get the improvements because they bypassed our failing Mayor—a Labour Mayor.
Cambridge City Council led this bid, and it obviously knew the Mayor well enough not to trust him. It takes Labour to know Labour. I am told that the Government have already received formal complaints from four different councils about the combined authority-run hub. More complaints are likely when other councils find out what our Mayor has done and the amount of money that he will be returning—unspent—to central Government. It really is a national scandal—a scandal covering a third of a national funding pot and a fifth of the country. Only Nik Johnson’s other scandals make this the least likely thing to prompt him to quit. Yet there is no longer any question but that he should. This is a failure of public service delivery. This is an example of Labour failure of public service delivery.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the motion today. The official Opposition termed the subject “Backlog Britain”, but “Backlog, broken, Brexit Britain” would have been a more apt and relevant title—they should shoulder their portion of responsibility for much of that, given their leader’s weakness and their inability to hold this shambolic Prime Minister and his Government to account.
The UK is the sick man of Europe, with a despot leader who does not rely on the rule of law to keep order—quite the opposite; he chooses to break it freely and consistently, whether international or domestic, with nothing limited or specific about it. As with the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill that came through this place last night, laws are being broken knowingly and willingly.
If I were to throw out the figure of tens of thousands, I would be speaking not about the opportunities made available to us via a post-Brexit bonanza, but the number of people waiting for their passports to be processed by this Government’s Passport Office—a number that grows by the hour. It is frankly staggering that this Tory Government have sunk to this new low, such a low that they now cannot even get the most basic of tasks, arming our citizens with their passports, sorted out. The reality is that I could have picked any Government Department to focus my comments on today. The DVLA, the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency, the Home Office, the Department for Work and Pensions, the Passport Office—the whole Government are in complete disarray.
Everyone could see that in excess of 5 million people would be applying for passport renewals this year in the wake of a pandemic which saw two lockdowns where people could not leave their house, far less the country. The impeccable foresight of this Government led them to do what? To create more backlogs than necessary by cutting the number of civil servants staffing those Departments by more than a fifth in the past couple of years. They have plunged the entire travel industry even further into chaos in the wake of their incompetent pandemic border policy, with people now forced to cancel flights and travel plans due to the delay in issuing passports.
It would be remiss of me, when touching on transport matters, not to put on record my solidarity with and support for the workforce and the members of the RMT union striking for a fair pay for a fair day. I also place on record my admiration for Mick Lynch, leader of the RMT union, in how he has handled the heavily slanted media reporting we have seen from some commentators across the Brit-Nat media outlets—for the avoidance of doubt, I am talking about Sky and the BBC. I also noted with some admiration his choice of socialist revolutionary.
Issuing passports and driving licences and keeping people on the move via public transport are the very basic asks of any Government. Yet this Government, led by a law-breaking Prime Minister, have utterly failed our constituents on every count. Families across the four nations of the UK, as we all know well, are already suffering under the turbocharged Tory cost of living crisis, and yet this Government are completely failing to even acknowledge their mismanagement of the situation.
Blissful ignorance works well for the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, and it looks to be catching right across that Government Front Bench. The Government know fine well that the cost of living is rocketing and that, for the vast majority of those we represent, every penny is a calculated and measured spend. Yet my constituents have been left with the only viable option of paying extra of their hard-earned money, in the hope of obtaining their passport in time for travel. It is completely unacceptable—but, of course, an inhumane policy such as the despicable Rwanda plan, which costs half a million pounds for every empty plane sent, must be funded somehow, mustn’t it?
My constituency office in Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill has been inundated with hundreds upon hundreds of passport, visa and immigration related inquiries. I have constituents who need to spend whatever little time is left with a terminally ill parent in Australia, met with intransigence; another who needs to access urgent specialist cancer treatment in Canada, met with intransigence by this Government; and another who needs to attend their brother’s funeral in India, met with inaction from the Government. Those are real concerns, real problems, real emergencies and real people that this Government do not have a shred of compassion for, let alone any attempt to understand or accommodate. While we focus on trying to sort this stuff, highlighting individual Government inadequacies along the way, that leaves less and less time for the long list of other issues that we need to deal with that are once again at the heart of this Government’s “steal from the poor and give to the rich” agenda.
Steven Bonnar
I have heard enough from Conservative Members, and the hon. Gentleman has spoken many times, so I will push on and make the points that I am here to make.
The cost of living is getting higher and higher for our constituents. There is the cost of gas and electric, and of petrol. There are the soaring food prices for families and sky-high council bills, and inflation is soaring over 9%. That is all before the real implications of Brexit, which are staring us all right in the face, truly begin to bite. This is, without question, the most incompetent Prime Minister that this place has ever seen, but those on the Labour Benches do not get away scot-free. The Leader of the Opposition and of the supposed workers’ party is too busy banning his own MPs from picket lines to do so much as land a glove on the Prime Minister. We in Scotland know that both parties in this House shoulder some of the responsibility for the absolute shambles of Brexit, and of the Brexit negotiations thereafter. It is down to both the Government and Labour, with their “We will make Brexit work” mantra. Brexit will not work. It certainly will not work for Scotland.
Thankfully for the people of Scotland, we have a way out—another option. We have a choice. The people of Scotland will weigh up the potential of an independent Scotland in Europe, versus the pain of a backward, broken, Brexit Britain. There is no choice at all this time around; the day is fast approaching when we take back our independence.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
There is an old saying that you cannot solve a problem if you do not know that it exists. While I hope that the contributions to this debate have spelled out in no uncertain terms where the problems are, there has been a failure right across Government to measure performance, which is part of the reason we are here now. To illustrate the point, I will highlight some of the written questions I have asked on these issues.
I will start with the most recent. Yesterday I got an answer to a question asking what the average waiting time is for an assessment for personal independence payment from the point of application. The answer I got was:
“the information requested is not readily available and to provide it would incur disproportionate cost.”
I am sure that Members recognise that phrase very well. People claiming PIP usually need immediate help, but how can the Department judge whether it is doing enough on that score if it cannot even tell us how long it takes to get to an assessment? I know some of the practical consequences of that. I have a constituent with multiple long-term conditions who was disgracefully turned down for PIP back in October 2019 and still has not had her appeal heard. She had another go at it last week, but the appeal was cancelled for the umpteenth time because no one from the Department was available to register their objection to her appeal. How is that justice for that individual? How is it anything other than a damning indictment of the way that the Department works?
At least the response to that written question was rather more straightforward than the one I got from the same Department on the average online journal response time for universal credit claimants:
“Universal Credit is a 24/7 digital service.”
Well, that is really helpful for understanding how long it takes people to get a response.
Moving on to the Department of Health, I asked it what the average length of time was for a resolution to complaints to the Vaccination Data Resolution Service regarding incorrect vaccination records. I was told that the information was not held centrally—again, a phrase that I am sure that many Members are familiar with. The Government need to get a grip on this, because I know people who have been trying to correct their records since last year, which means that they are having trouble travelling abroad because their vaccination records are not up to date. That shows that it is not just GP appointments, specialist referrals, ambulance waiting times and A&E waits that the NHS is struggling with. However, at least there is some kind of measurement of those issues, although it has not gone unnoticed that for quite a lot of them, the goalposts have moved in recent times.
As many Members have said, the biggest issue in the inbox at the moment is passport delays. It has been for at least the past couple of months in my constituency. I asked a written question about processing times for passports way back in April. Despite having a couple of weeks’ notice of the question, the Department could not get an answer to me before Prorogation, rather conveniently. Last week I finally got an answer to the question; I was told that between March and May, more than 90% of applications were processed within six weeks, with approximately 98.5% completed within 10 weeks. Obviously the Prime Minister told us a few weeks ago that everyone was getting them in four to six weeks, which was clearly incorrect, but I think we have done enough on his exactitude recently, so I will not go any further into that.
The issue has been live for many months now, but it was only last week that the Department was able to provide me with information on its own performance, which takes me back to the original point: the Government have either wilfully or negligently decided not to mention their own performance. I think they are doing that because they just do not want anyone to know how badly they are doing.
On the issue of the Home Office backlog, my constituency office phone bill last month was far larger than normal. It was more than £260. When we dug a little deeper, we found that most of it was down to my excellent caseworkers being put on hold for hours at a time when ringing various Home Office hotlines. If we multiplied that by all the Members here, it would mean that more than £2 million had been spent in one year on calls to one Department’s hotlines. If that is what it is costing us here, imagine how much the British public are having to pay. It is not just backlog Britain; it is rip-off Britain.
I am reminded of a constituent who told me about his passport renewal. Having paid an extra £70 to get it checked by the Post Office, he had to make an emergency dash to Durham on Friday, which cost him £100 in fuel, and then had to pay another £90 to the Home Office to get the passport issued, despite the fact that the application had been sent in more than 10 weeks ago. Just for good measure, he could not work that day, so he lost another £200 in earnings. He could not do his job because the Ministers could not do theirs.
Let us make it clear that the blame lies at the feet of Ministers, not with the hard-pressed civil servants who are doing their best. As we have already heard, the Government think that we can cut civil servants by 20%. One can only imagine the backlog we would face if that went ahead. This backlog is across every facet of life. The child waiting for their education, health and care plan; the teenager waiting months for a driving test slot; the young family waiting for their passport renewals; and the pensioner waiting for the ambulance to arrive—everywhere we turn, there is another person unable to get on with their life because the Government have failed them. It is not just the failure of the Prime Minister; over the past 12 years, each of his predecessors has decided, time and again, that public services are not a priority, and that they can get away without investing in those services and the people who run them.
Matt Western
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. One of the learnings of the past two years, and one of the concerns, has been about the cuts to local government and our local administrations. They performed very well in the disbursement of support to businesses and so on, and were doing well with test and trace. The Government seem to be doing the reverse of what is obvious and logical, which is delivering services well.
Justin Madders
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I declare for the record that my wife is a member of the local authority. When we first entered the covid crisis, there was already a system in place for contact tracing through local authorities. Unfortunately that was not deemed good enough by this Government, who decided to spend an awful lot of money on private providers. On the Homes for Ukraine scheme, I get a lot of compliments from residents on how the council is reacting, and a lot of complaints about how slow the Home Office is to respond. The power of local government cannot be overstated, and we should value more the great service that it provides.
In conclusion, we have seen over the past few months that a decade of austerity has consequences, and the folly of it has been well and truly exposed. This Government should hang their head in shame and step aside for a party that believes in public services, and has a record of delivery in government that this lot can only dream of.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to conclude the Back-Bench contributions to this debate. This Tory Government’s catastrophic Brexit and austerity agenda are fast pushing the UK economy into recession, as evidenced by the fact that the UK has the slowest growth of any G7 economy, according to the OECD. The chief economist at the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has been highly critical of the length of time it took the UK Government to act to help people with the additional financial pressures caused by inflation. She noted:
“Inflation continues to hit highs not seen since the early 1980s, heaping more pressure on millions of families who were already struggling…The support package announced last month shows the Chancellor is finally grasping the scale of the crisis. The continuing rise in food prices means the decision in April not to uprate benefits in line with inflation has left low-income households…facing a difficult”—
really difficult—three months until they receive their first payment in July.
It is extremely reckless and frustrating that the UK Government have decided to bring forward legislation that deliberately sets them on an entirely avoidable collision course with the EU. Risking a disastrous trade war in the middle of a cost of living crisis is unthinkable and indefensible. This news has been met with dismay by Scottish businesses, which stand to face months of uncertainty in a year with record increases in their input prices. Scotland has a direct interest in the Northern Ireland protocol, particularly with regard to trade and border control, yet despite repeated requests, the UK Government have shown absolutely no willingness to engage with the Scottish Government on those issues.
It is staggering that Labour and the Liberal Democrats remain committed to Brexit, even as it causes vast damage. Last week, the Resolution Foundation put out a report, “The Big Brexit: An assessment of the scale of change to come from Brexit”, which noted that the long-term aggregate impact of Brexit
“will be to reduce household incomes as a result of a weaker pound, and lower investment and trade.”
Scotland’s food and drink sector has borne the brunt of a hard Tory Brexit. In 2019, Scottish exports were growing consistently in all directions—to the rest of the UK, the EU and the rest of the world. We now know that Scotland’s total trade with the EU was 16% lower in 2021 than in 2019, and Scotland’s trade with non-EU countries fell by only 4% in the same period. An Office for National Statistics report found that Northern Ireland’s GDP grew by 1.4% from July to September 2021, compared with gains of only 0.9% and 0.6% in Scotland and England respectively. That may well be due to Northern Ireland having continued access to the single market.
Brexit is hindering the UK’s potential as a key 21st-century trader, and is actively disadvantaging UK producers and businesses. The UK’s new relationship with the EU implies an increase in trade costs of 10.8% for exports to the EU and 11% for imports from the EU, and those figures rise to more than 16% when accounting for the fact that the EU is likely to integrate further in future years. It is the SNP’s view that rejoining the EU at the earliest opportunity as an independent country represents the best future for Scotland. I am happy that more and more people in Scotland are coming round to that point of view.
Transport is being run into the ground, especially for people who travel by train or plane. There are vast queues at Dover, with people forced to wait in unsanitary conditions, due to Brexit delays and mitigating measures have been limited by the fact that the Transport Secretary—
Marion Fellows
No, I am not going to take interventions. I need to finish and allow the Front Benchers to fight it out.
With the UK Government’s failure to back a Bill from my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) to absolutely outlaw fire and rehire, they have shown that they actually have no time for this. They are encouraging this abhorrent practice—P&O being only one example—and we are now seeing this being carried out in other areas of the economy. Fire and rehire is a shame on this country and it is a stain on this Government.
I understand that I do not have much time so I want to move on briefly to talk about passports, or the lack of them, and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. We have heard consistent examples from across the Chamber today and I have many examples of issues with passports. The one sticking in my craw right now is that of a father who is terminally ill and cannot get a passport to go and visit his daughter. I cannot do anything about this because there are two days of queries, and I have to sit and wait before I can go down to the hub. I have been down at the hub many times, and I have nothing but admiration for those who work there, but they should not be there. There should be no necessity for such a hub, and we should get this whole business of passports sorted out. It was an accident waiting to happen—it did not just appear out of nowhere —and there should have been forward planning for this.
The DVLA has been a thorn in my side for many years. One of the biggest parts of that, which has had an impact recently, is the fact that many of my constituents are applying to have their licence returned, but are left unattended in the vocational doctors queue. It is not unusual; I have had numerous complaints about this from HGV drivers over the years. They are signed off as fit to go back to work, but there is a shortage of doctors at the DVLA to sort this out. That also needs to be sorted.
What is the Prime Minister’s answer to these hard-working Government Departments? I do not know whether I can say this, Mr Deputy Speaker, but the word “arse” is a good Anglo-Saxon word. The Prime Minister has threatened to “privatise the arse” out of Government agencies—
Marion Fellows
Oh, right then: the Prime Minister has threatened to privatise a body part out of Government agencies, including the DVLA and the Passport Office as a result of the public facing lengthy waits for vital documents.
This Government have to go, this Prime Minister has to go, and when Scotland is an independent country in Europe, we will be much better off.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
I would like to start by thanking all the hard-working people who keep our public sector and our public services going day in and day out. They are not responsible for the fact that our country is so bogged down in backlogs and bureaucracy. Indeed, as we have heard throughout this debate, their professionalism and dedication to public service stand in stark contrast to the shambolic performance of this Conservative Government.
I would also like to thank hon. Members, particularly those on the Opposition Benches, who through their speeches and interventions in this important debate have expressed genuine concern on behalf of their constituents about the desperate state of the Prime Minister’s backlog Britain, as opposed to those who have attempted to defend the indefensible.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) made a thoughtful speech and pointed out that if Ministers were running a business it would be bankrupt by now. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Tahir Ali) gave a barnstorming speech: “Welcome to backlog Britain, thanks to 12 years of a Conservative Government.” is the line that came through very clearly. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) called on the Government to learn the lessons and focused in particular on the chaos of the Passport Office. My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) recounted the appalling costs to his constituents of the backlogs and dysfunction at the heart of this Government, demonstrated by the failure to answer his basic parliamentary questions.
Conservative Members consistently attempt to blame covid and the lockdowns for the mess in which we now find ourselves, but backlog Britain cannot be blamed simply on covid and the lockdowns. The reality is that the underlying causes of the mess we are in predate the pandemic and the challenges we now face have got worse since the end of lockdown. That is because backlog Britain has been created by two basic failures: first, a failure of resilience caused by a decade of underinvestment by the Conservatives in British businesses and public services; and, secondly, a failure of governance caused by Ministers walking away from their responsibilities and utterly failing to plan for the end of the covid restrictions. The combination of those two fundamental failures with the fact that we have a lawbreaking Prime Minister who has lost the confidence of 40% of his own MPs and has basically become a national embarrassment provides all the ingredients for a catastrophic breakdown in the systems and institutions that keep our country going.
On the failure of resilience, the decade leading up to the pandemic was defined by a staggering lack of investment by the Government in the private sector, which led to low growth and weakened British business—so much so that Britain became the European capital for hostile foreign takeovers. The Conservatives failed miserably to meet the average growth rate for similarly developed countries and as a result the Government unlocked less private investment than in all but two of the 38 comparable countries. If the Government had matched that growth rate, the Treasury would now have £12 billion extra in the Exchequer, and if they had matched the growth rates achieved by Labour Governments between 1997 and 2010, they would have an extra £40 billion to spend.
Low growth meant less money to invest in public services. NHS waiting lists were already at record highs, and as the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), pointed out in his opening contribution, there were already more than 100,000 staff vacancies while court backlogs were already growing by 23% in 2020. Lower growth inevitably meant weaker public services and less flexible local government, resulting in a less resilient economy and public sector. It also left our critical national infrastructure dangerously reliant on China for everything from personal protective equipment to our nuclear energy supply.
Resilience is about being able to absorb and bounce back from shocks when they hit, but that lost decade of underinvestment removed our shock absorbers: the British state was surviving hand to mouth—it was walking on thin ice; it was hollowed out by the toxic combination of incompetence and indifference that has characterised successive Conservative Governments since 2010. And now we see that this ice is breaking and the result is backlog Britain.
Huw Merriman
Given that there have been four Conservative election victories—or, at least, four Conservative Governments—is the hon. Gentleman saying that the people cannot be trusted, that the Conservative Government are not as bad as he says, or that the Labour party has been particularly hopeless at giving an alternative message? It must be one of those three things.
Stephen Kinnock
The British people participate in democratic elections, and when we see the desperately bad results that this Conservative Government are delivering, I am absolutely confident that at the next general election they will deliver a landslide Labour Government. Then we will see the changes our country needs, rather than the incompetence and indifference we see from the Conservative party.
That leads me to the second fundamental failure: the failure of basic competent governance. Mr Deputy Speaker, you do not have to be Mystic Meg to know that when the pandemic abated, the lockdown restrictions would be lifted. We all knew that GP, A&E and hospital waiting lists were skyrocketing, with 4,500 fewer GPs to take appointments than 10 years ago. We also knew that the court backlog was at a record high, with the victims of the most serious violent crimes, including rape, having to wait two or three years for a case to come to court. We also knew that people would want to go on holiday and that they would need passports.
There was no need for a crystal ball—it was happening in front of our very eyes—but while AstraZeneca and the NHS were rolling out the vaccine at speed, the UK Government were patting themselves on the back and wheeling suitcases full of booze into No. 10. Backlog Britain represents a shameful dereliction of duty by a Prime Minister who is utterly out of his depth. Instead of meeting Britain’s challenges, he prefers Government by gimmick. There are lots of big, flashy announcements, but nothing ever seems to get delivered. The Northern Ireland Protocol Bill is not designed to solve any of the immediate problems, and it will take months to get through Parliament. The Bill of Rights is an empty distraction that will just increase the backlogs in the courts system, and the Government have sent £120 million of taxpayers’ money to the Rwandan Government for a press release.
There is a world of difference between campaigning and governing, and the Government appear to be permanently stuck in campaign mode, constantly hunting for wedge issues that will enable them to pick fights and sow division, inflaming tension, rather than building consensus. They are not even campaigning for the Conservative party. No, their campaigns are focused on one aim and one aim only: throwing red meat to Back Benchers so that the Prime Minister can carry on squatting in Downing Street.
One of the many fundamental differences between Government Members and Opposition Members is that we believe in an active state. We believe that the state should work in partnership with the private sector and civil society to facilitate sustainable economic growth and the smooth running of the systems and institutions that underpin and empower our economy and our communities. We believe in investing to help the private sector to grow so that British businesses can create jobs, improve productivity and compete internationally rather than sell out to the highest foreign bidder We believe in investing in public services so that NHS hospitals do not have to choose between treating covid and screening cancer, and we know that the backlogs are clogging up our courts, our ports, our A&E departments, our GP surgeries, the Passport Office, the DVLA and our asylum system. That is holding our country back.
Government Members do all they can to avoid any state support whatsoever. They see government as the very last resort, and the result is the mess that we are in. The result is backlog Britain.
A Government who fail to plan are a Government who plan to fail. A Government who fail to build resilience are a Government who leave us exposed to shocks. A Government who blame anyone and everything for their own failures will never step up and take responsibility for cleaning up the mess they have made, and a Government led by a man who is utterly unfit for public office are bound to end in disaster. Backlog Britain is the consequence of all those failings. The British people deserve better than this.
The Minister for Security and Borders (Damian Hinds)
The Government absolutely recognise the difficulties that families across the country are facing. It is a concerning time, and that is why we are taking concerted and wide-ranging action, the details of which I will come on to highlight, to ensure that people and businesses get the support that they need.
Countries around the world are seeing slowing growth and higher inflation, and I am afraid the UK is simply not immune. This month’s OECD economic outlook says:
“The world is paying a heavy price for Russia’s war in Ukraine. It is a humanitarian disaster, killing thousands and forcing millions from their homes. The war has also triggered a cost-of-living crisis, affecting people worldwide. When coupled with China’s zero-COVID policy, the war has set the global economy on a course of slower growth and rising inflation”.
Our priority is ensuring people get the support and help they need, continuing our responsible economic management and helping people to stay in jobs.
It is important to note what has happened in the labour market. Economists had projected that unemployment would peak during covid at somewhere close to 12%. In the event, it peaked at 5.2% and is now down below 4%. The unemployment rate is now close to historic lows, and youth unemployment is at near record lows, at nearly half the rate during the same period of 2010. Redundancies are at the lowest level since records began in the mid-1990s. Total real wages are 3% above pre-pandemic levels.
We must never forget that by far the most important thing for living standards, for fighting poverty and for the dignity of families throughout the country is having a job, and it was the decisive action of this Government that kept so many people in jobs through the pandemic. The furlough scheme and the self-employment income support scheme, which together went to an estimated 14.7 million people, helped to protect jobs, businesses and livelihoods. Some £100 billion of loans and grants were made available to support businesses of all sizes. And now, as we find ourselves in another global phenomenon, the Government are rightly stepping up once again.
We understand just how hard the rising cost of living is for families across the UK, and we are taking significant steps to ease these pressures. Central to that effort is the £37 billion to help households, especially those most in need, with the cost of living. We know that the best approach to managing pressures in the long term is helping people into work, supporting them to increase their income and helping them to keep more of what they earn, hence the reforms to universal credit and the taper rate, the increased national living wage and the higher national insurance thresholds.
This has been an important debate, with good contributions from both sides of the House, and I thank everyone who has contributed. I thank the Opposition spokespeople, the right hon. Members for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) and for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) and the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), and I thank the hon. Members for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), for Stirling (Alyn Smith), for Birmingham, Hall Green (Tahir Ali), for Reading East (Matt Rodda), for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Steven Bonnar), for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) and for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows).
I also thank my Conservative colleagues. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), with his Treasury Committee background, spoke with great authority and knowledge. He acknowledged some of the changes we have made to help the travel trade, to which I will return in a moment, and he reminded us of the lesson of history on wage price spirals and the ultimate importance of driving productivity to make sustainable rises in real wages.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Paul Holmes), in a very perceptive speech, noted the repetition we sometimes hear from Opposition Members, who do not always match it by voting with us to support investment in our key public services. He rightly said that every Member should acknowledge the problems we face and should work together on the issues, and I strongly agree.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly), in a similar vein, pointed out some of the issues facing both the Welsh Government and the Westminster Government, including on the national health service.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth) spoke of the great success of the vaccine programme. She rightly spoke with great respect of national health service clinicians and staff in her constituency, and she covered some of the innovation they are driving in Southend.
My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow) spoke of the importance of employment, and I echo and wholeheartedly agree with what he said about the hard work of staff at Her Majesty’s Passport Office, particularly in his constituency.
Let me turn to some issues that came up a number of times, starting with passports. We discussed the subject of passports across these Dispatch Boxes during an Opposition day debate two weeks ago. On that occasion, hon. Members may recall my acknowledging that although 98.5% of UK passport applications are being processed in 10 weeks, some of our constituents have clearly not received the level of service that they rightly expect. It is incumbent on us to do everything we can to address that.
To give some background, in a normal year before covid, some 7 million people would apply for a passport. During the period of covid, that number came right down. The projection is that 9.5 million people will apply for a passport this year, which is an unprecedented rate of year-on-year growth. The hard-working staff in HM Passport Office really have stepped up to the plate. In March, April and May, around 3 million applications were processed. I acknowledge, absolutely, that there have been difficulties with specific cases. The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw spoke with compassion about a particularly compelling case. If she comes to me after the debate, I will make sure that she is put in touch with a Minister to discuss that further.
When I spoke about this two weeks ago, I said that on the most recent reporting, 650 additional staff had been added to HM Passport Office since April 2021. That figure, on the most recent statistics, is now up to 850, with the recruitment of a further 350 staff in train. Suppliers and contractors have also increased their resourcing and we have added a further service desk and added capability on couriering. The service has continued to improve, and more passport applications are being processed now than ever before.
Darren Jones
Will the Minister confirm whether civil service cuts will apply to the Passport Office after that period of recruitment?
Damian Hinds
It would be quite wrong for Ministers to stand at the Dispatch Box and give analyses of and running commentaries on what is a sensible and important exercise to go through—[Interruption.] Well, it is. We have just been through two enormous events—leaving the European Union and the coronavirus pandemic—which have involved all manner of changes in how the civil service operates, some of which are temporary, whereas some are more sustained. Meanwhile, there have been opportunities, as there always are, to look afresh at how we do things. It is right for Government to do that on behalf of our taxpayers and all our electors, to whom we have a duty to spend taxpayers’ money as efficiently and effectively as we can.
Let me turn to airports, which a number of colleagues spoke about, and particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle. There has been a sharp increase in passenger demand after a very suppressed period. That has put considerable pressure on the aviation sector, resulting in some passengers experiencing unacceptable delays and, in some instances, airlines cancelling flights. As Members on both sides of the House have noted, we have seen some of these effects in other countries, including members of the European Union.
A number of operational challenges have contributed to the situation, including staff shortages, crew availability and issues relating, in some cases, to covid restrictions still being in place in other countries. Although the private sector—the aviation industry—is responsible for resourcing airports and airlines, we rightly work with that important sector, which supports a lot of jobs and prosperity, sustains business travel, brings tourists to this country and generates a lot of export earnings. We have worked with the sector to support it in a number of ways.
On 29 April, we laid a statutory instrument to make use of our new Brexit powers to allow Ministers greater flexibility over regulation. That allowed for temporary changes to permit certain training to be undertaken while background checks are completed, helping to speed up recruitment but without a change in security assurance. Having listened carefully to the industry, we were also able to agree that HMRC employment history letters could be used for a time as a suitable form of reference check, with safeguards, to reduce the time that recruiting takes.
On the inbound side, which is an area of Home Office responsibility, Border Force is working to a projection that demand will go back to pre-pandemic levels and is staffing accordingly. Our collective focus must be on ensuring that people can get away for business travel, to help to create prosperity, and for their well-earned summer breaks, on time and as hassle-free as possible.
On driving licences, let me first say that if the right hon. Member for Dundee East comes to me with the case that he mentioned of the community mental health nurse in his constituency, I will make sure that a conversation takes place with the appropriate Minister. More than seven in 10 people apply online for driving licences; there are no delays in those applications. The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency is also back to normal times for vehicle registrations and non-medical driving licence paper applications. The remaining area in which more improvement is needed is applications from those with a medical condition. As colleagues may know, that part of the operation was hit by industrial action, but it is anticipated that it, too, will be back to normal timings by September. In the meantime, the DVLA continues to recruit more staff and utilise overtime to reduce medical application delays, and has opened further customer service centres in Swansea and Birmingham.
On the national health service, it is true that following the disruption of covid, the elective waiting list has grown in England, in Wales and across the United Kingdom, as it has grown in other countries. I place on record my enormous appreciation, gratitude and admiration for everybody who works in our national health service: their contribution throughout the pandemic has been absolutely exceptional. GP appointment numbers have now recovered to pre-pandemic levels; as of April, there were 1.26 million GP appointments per average working day. The Government plan to spend more than £8 billion to support the NHS to provide the elective care that was delayed by the pandemic. With the additional £1 billion that we announced for the second half of 2021-22, that could fund the equivalent of approximately 9 million more checks, scans and procedures.
There is no doubt that these are difficult times. Covid-19 was a major, indeed unprecedented, time in global history. The war in Ukraine is devastating for the people of Ukraine, and the economic shockwaves are felt far beyond, too. As Ministers, we are here to be held to account for the Government’s response, quite rightly, but I must say to the Opposition that they cannot just will away these huge global challenges with wishful thinking and fantasy economics.
Calmly and determinedly, this Government are stepping up to face these challenges head on. We do not underestimate the scale or complexity of them. We will not waver. We will weather these storms. With the fortitude of the British people, the creativity and belief of British business and the innovation of British entrepreneurs, we will emerge stronger than ever. The British people know that dedicated public servants are working flat out for them. They can be assured that they have a Government who are taking the difficult decisions and who are on their side.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House notes that UK economic growth is forecast to grind to a halt next year, with only Russia worse in the OECD; further notes that GDP has fallen in recent months while inflation has risen to 9.1 per cent and that food prices, petrol costs and bills in general are soaring for millions across the country; believes that the Government is leaving Britain with backlogs such as long waits for passports, driving licences, GP and hospital appointments, court dates, and at airports; and calls on the Government to set out a new approach to the economy that will end 12 years of slow growth and high taxation under successive Conservative governments.
Business without Debate
Delegated Legislation
Pryzm in Watford
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of Watford residents to save Pryzm nightclub from closure. As the only town-based nightclub in Hertfordshire, Pryzm has had many names over the past 40 years—Baileys, Destiny and Oceana, to name but a few—but one thing is true: it has always been the beating heart of Watford’s night-time economy, with many businesses relying on the thousands of visitors each weekend, creating friendships and forging memories and even relationships. There is no doubt that Pryzm’s closure would be a devastating loss for our town.
The petition states:
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to urge the local council to engage with developers and urge them to withdraw their planning application or refuse the application to build on the site of Pryzm in Watford, and should the application be refused, to urge the landlord not to evict Pryzm nightclub as tenants.
And the petitioners remain, etc
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that Pryzm in Watford should not be closed down; further that Pryzm is the only town-based nightclub in Hertfordshire; further that Pryzm is a long-standing part of the culture of Watford; and further that if the planning application to build houses on the site and Pryzm itself is approved, it will have a detrimental effect on the local economy and especially the night-time economy.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to urge the local council to engage with developers and urge them to withdraw their planning application or refuse the application to build on the site of Pryzm in Watford, and should the application be refused, to urge the landlord not to evict Pryzm nightclub as tenants.
And the petitioners remain, etc]
[P002742]
Hammersmith Bridge: Restoration Funding
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
Thank you for calling me, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I thank the Members who are present for this important Adjournment debate.
Here I am again, and talking about Hammersmith bridge again. It has been closed to vehicles for three long years, and that closure is still having a huge impact on the everyday lives of residents in Putney, Roehampton and Southfields, and much more widely across south-west London.
I last held an Adjournment debate on the closure—and, hopefully, the reopening one day—of the bridge in April 2021, and I have raised it in the House several times since then. Since that debate there have been welcome stabilisation works to make the bridge safer, and it has reopened to pedestrians above and river traffic below. However, I am here again because there has still been no agreement on the building of a temporary vehicle bridge, on any date by which the restoration of the bridge will be complete, or on when—and residents are crying out “When?”—the bridge will fully reopen. I hope to hear much better news from the Minister this time than last time, and I know that plenty of people in Putney and across south-west London are listening to the debate and also want those answers.
The Government have been dragging their feet, and the taskforce has had no task and no force. Responding to my last debate, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), simply said:
“The buck stops with Hammersmith and Fulham.”—[Official Report, 14 April 2021; Vol. 692, c. 442.]
That was a very disappointing end to the debate. I will be describing all that Hammersmith and Fulham Council is doing now, because it is the council that is responsible for the bridge, and explaining why it is the Government who need to do more.
It is Hammersmith and Fulham Council that made the assessment of the danger in the first place, has made the business case for the stabilisation works and funded those works up front, and has drawn up the memorandum of understanding between the council, the Government and Transport for London, the three parties that will be responsible for the funding. However, Transport for London does not have the funds to restore the bridge because of reduced fees and other payments as a result of covid, so it comes down to the Government. What have the Government done, what will the Government do, and when will the bridge reopen?
Let me first say something about the impact of the closure. It has resulted in between 500 and 4,000 vehicles a day coming through Putney High Street. Local residents complain constantly of increased travel times for journeys by bus and car, of increased congestion and pollution and of accidents on the roads, especially involving children near the schools on the most affected roads.
We want more safe cycle routes in Putney, and in Wandsworth we have one of the highest “propensity to cycle” ratings. However, the increased traffic and traffic jams make cycling more dangerous and put people off cycling. In meetings that I have held with potential cyclists, most people say they feel that Putney Hill, Putney High Street and Putney Bridge are very dangerous roads. That in turn means worse air quality, because if there are fewer cyclists on the road there are more vehicles, which add to the congestion. As you will know, Mr Deputy Speaker, each year more than 4,000 Londoners die prematurely as a result of air pollution, and more than 500,000 people in London boroughs suffer from asthma and are vulnerable to toxic air.
Recently, for Clean Air Day, I undertook readings using an ultra-fine particle counter—lent to me by Imperial College—along Putney High Street and the Lower and Upper Richmond Roads, the main diversion routes from the bridge. The readings were exceptionally high, even from inside homes along those roads. Residents have shown me the black soot that builds up in their homes, and companies tell me about the impact that the poor air quality is having on their business.
The Putney Society is concerned about this as well, and it has sent me the following statement about the impact of the bridge closure:
“Congestion is at an all time high with roads leading towards Putney Bridge clogged up before 7 am in the morning, with traffic jams continuing well into the evening. Prior to the Bridge closure in 2019 Putney already suffered from one of the most polluted High Streets in the country. And despite positive measures such as the introduction of cleaner buses and the ULEZ zone, our pollution levels continue to exceed UK legal limits, in part because of additional traffic resulting from the Bridge closure. Around 60 constituents die prematurely each year because of this pollution, and we now face the prospect of this continuing for several more years until Hammersmith Bridge is fully repaired.”
The statement continues:
“The extra traffic has affected thousands of people. Aside from the impact of pollution on residents’ health, children and students have suffered disrupted journeys to their school or college; workers, especially those travelling from Roehampton, have faced significantly lengthened bus journeys and businesses have had delayed deliveries. And the most vulnerable people, who require access to healthcare, whether appointments or vital emergency treatment, face delays in getting an ambulance or reaching nearby hospitals. Why? Because ambulances can no longer take a short hop across the Bridge to Barnes or beyond but now spend much, much longer in traffic”.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, particularly in drawing attention to the fact that the closure of Hammersmith bridge is having a sub-regional and regional effect. It is much wider than just the immediate locality. Does she find it surprising that the Government have dragged their feet all the way along the line on this, first by asking Hammersmith to find all the funding, then £64 million and now a third of the cost, which is more than double what they would propose for similar schemes? Does she agree that until the Government are prepared to take their responsibilities in this matter seriously, we are not going to see progress?
Fleur Anderson
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. We have just had a debate on Government failure, and this is Government failure 101. Not keeping a major transport route open in our capital city and letting it stay closed for so many years—and who knows how much longer—is a Government failure. They need to step up with the funding, and I will be outlining more information about that.
Hammersmith bridge is a very unusual bridge, and this is why it requires special attention from the Government. It is a grade II listed structure and part of Great Britain’s engineering heritage. It is also one of the world’s oldest suspension bridges, and only five years younger than the Brooklyn bridge in New York. It is unique, having been built out of cast iron, wrought iron and wood. No Government, surely, would allow the Brooklyn bridge to stay closed, so why let Hammersmith bridge do so? It has suffered from over seven decades of deterioration and corrosion. This corrosion, along with the fact that the bridge was designed for the needs of the 19th century, is what makes Hammersmith bridge one of the most expensive bridges in Britain to repair. When warnings of its possible imminent collapse forced its closure, I perfectly understood that the engineers faced huge challenges.
Transport for London has estimated that the repair bill could be between £141 million and £161 million. By comparison, the cost of repairing other Thames bridges is far smaller. For example, Chiswick bridge cost £9 million to repair, and Albert bridge cost £9.7 million. In those cases, Transport for London largely funded the works, paying between 85% and 100% of the costs. The responsible council was not left to foot the bill in the way that Hammersmith and Fulham Council is being asked to do. The bridge is a special case, both historically and financially, and it needs a different funding package from the Government.
Overall, there needs to be a change in bridge policy in London. Lambeth Council has five bridges, but is responsible for none of them. Southwark bridge and London bridge are managed by a trust. Two railway bridges are managed by Network Rail, but Hungerford railway bridge is managed by Westminster. The policy is all over the place. I think it might be time to look at the inequity of bridge responsibilities in London, because it is clear that the system is failing us over Hammersmith bridge. But we are where we are, and there is currently an agreement that the Government, Transport for London and Hammersmith and Fulham Council will fund it.
The Mayor of London has repeatedly sought to meet the Transport Secretary to discuss this and a range of London transport funding issues, but these requests have all been refused. Twenty meetings with Transport for London have been cancelled by the Department for Transport or the Treasury since the last TfL funding deal was agreed. The last time the Transport Secretary and the Mayor of London spoke and discussed Transport for London funding was on 30 May 2021. That is shocking to hear, as Londoners are being let down by this Government. We need them to work with the Mayor, and I hope to hear more of that from the Minister later. We are talking about a national transport route, and the Government must lead the way in funding and reopening it. If a toll is going to be made necessary because the Government will not fund the bridge, has the impact on Putney residents been factored into that business case?
What has Hammersmith and Fulham Council done? Can we say that the buck stops with it? Last November, the council submitted a full business case to the Department for Transport for the stabilisation works, at a cost of £8.9 million, which was £21 million less than the TfL stabilisation plan, so this is a major saving to the taxpayer. To speed up the repair programme, the council decided in December to make the cash available up front, rather than wait for the DFT and TfL governance processes to sign off their shares, as that process is simply too cumbersome. That enabled works to begin several months early. The DFT did not sign off on its one-third share until 22 March this year, many months later, showing that the Government are dragging their feet. The phase 1 stabilisation programme was able to get under way on site in February. It will stop the risk of collapse and prevent future closures to pedestrians, cyclists and river traffic, which I, of course, welcome. On 7 March, Hammersmith and Fulham Council signed off a further £3.5 million investment so that it could crack on with all the essential expert studies required to obtain Government and TfL funding through the full business case. That includes essential concept design work, geotechnical studies, crowd loading assessments and traffic modelling. I understand that the council and the DFT officials are working together on completing the business case, but when will that be done? Will funding be ready to go as soon as that is completed and approved, so that we do not have any more delays?
The latest investment of £3.5 million by the council to deliver those essential studies has again been paid for by the council up front, rather than having to wait for the DFT and TfL governance processes to kick in. This signing off of money, at its own risk for the council, in order to expedite bridge works is a situation that the council says cannot continue. I understand that the impasse is now the memorandum of understanding, which would confirm the one shares payable for the council, the DFT and TfL, but that it has not been signed. The latest draft version was sent by the council to the DFT on 14 September 2021, but it has not yet received a response from Ministers or their officials. So I hope that I will not hear, “The buck stops with Hammersmith and Fulham Council” from the Minister again. The Government need to recognise the huge impact of this closure on people in Putney and beyond, and they need to take far more proactive and urgent action.
I shall finish with some questions for the Minister. When is the next meeting of the taskforce? When will Secretary of State sign the memorandum of understanding to enable the next phase of the works to continue as fast as possible? What is the hold-up on that? Has an assessment of the impact of a proposed toll, or of any other financial proposals, on routes through Putney been carried out? Would the Government consider underwriting the full works? When will the building of the temporary bridge start? How long will it take? Is there a deadline from Ministers for the completion of this project, as we would certainly like to see that there is and that it is as soon as possible? I ask again, and I will keep asking, what have the Government done, what will they do and when will Hammersmith bridge reopen?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Sarah Olney has asked permission from the mover of the motion and the Minister to make a short contribution in this debate. Both have agreed and I have been informed.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) for securing this debate and I thank the Minister and you for allowing me to contribute briefly to it. As I am sure everybody knows, the closure of Hammersmith bridge has had an enormous impact on my constituents. I wish to raise two issues, following on from the excellent speech of the hon. Member for Putney outlining the situation. The first is that on 25 May 2022, the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham issued a prior information notice, announcing its intention to seek external funding for its third of the cost of strengthening Hammersmith bridge. As the hon. Lady asked, does that mean tolls? We are desperately seeking further information on that important point from the Department. I am not against tolls. If they are required to get the bridge open, there may be public support for that in Richmond Park, but it needs detailed consideration by all parties, including the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames. Any tolls would weigh heavily on my residents, and we need a full exploration of all the factors. For instance, would tolls mean that people continue to use Putney and Chiswick bridges and avoid Hammersmith bridge and the tolls? Tolls are not unknown on London bridges, but not within the lifetime of anyone here.
My residents would also want to know who will have to pay the tolls. Might there be exceptions for Richmond residents, or will the exceptions just be for buses and emergency vehicles? We need more information. I urge Baroness Vere, the Minister responsible, to reconvene the taskforce so that the issues can be urgently discussed by local stakeholders, including the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) made the point about the strategic issue involved. In Richmond, planning permission for housing developments, school place planning and healthcare planning are being affected. Will my residents have access in the long term to services, including schools and healthcare, on the north side of the Thames? It is really urgent. We know that jointly Transport for London, the Department for Transport and the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham are committed to reopening the bridge, but without the funding to do so, their commitment is not worth very much. When it comes to five and 10-year planning for education and healthcare, we do not know whether services on the north side of the Thames will be accessible to people in Barnes. That is a real issue for parents who are thinking about schooling for their children. Will they be able to cross the bridge and access schools in Hammersmith and further afield? I thank the hon. Lady for bringing the debate to the House, and you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to contribute.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Trudy Harrison)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) on championing Hammersmith bridge once again, and on securing the debate. I also note the contributions by the hon. Members for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), and for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney). I have listened carefully to them, and I appreciate that the subject is of keen interest to their constituents. I understand the impact of the bridge’s closure to motor vehicles on many of the people in constituencies around Putney, and throughout south and west London.
As the hon. Member for Putney is aware, the bridge is owned by the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham and, as such, the borough has the responsibility for maintaining the bridge. The decisions on its repair lie with the borough. The bridge is a unique wrought iron structure, and has served generations of Londoners for nearly 200 years. It is deeply concerning that the bridge has had to close, first to motor vehicles in 2019 and then to all users in 2020. Of course the safety of those using the bridge was and remains the greatest priority. That is why my Department has done everything in its power to assist the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham and Transport for London with the project, and to facilitate the full reopening of the bridge to all users, including motor vehicles.
I turn to the progress that has been made and some of ways that we have assisted. In 2019, we established the Hammersmith bridge taskforce, led by Baroness Vere of Norbiton, and it has met several times. The taskforce brings together all the key stakeholders whose input is required to deliver successful outcomes for pedestrians, cyclists, river traffic, and, eventually, motorists. The taskforce has been instrumental in organising stakeholders to work together in developing a clear course of action to enable the bridge to open.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) asked about the prior information notice that was issued by Hammersmith and Fulham. That PIN was issued on 25 May, with a deadline of 10 June. It was then extended to 15 June. Meetings with interested parties are taking place over the next few weeks to gauge interest and to seek feedback on the proposals. This is a crucial step in the process, and in developing an understanding of the market’s appetite and of the options being considered by the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham.
On the timelines, since the establishment of the Hammersmith bridge taskforce, the project has made significant progress. Thanks to Government funding—some £4 million was provided on 31 October 2020—the bridge was able to reopen on 17 July 2021, albeit on a limited and controlled basis, to pedestrians, cyclists and river traffic. The next stage of the project—reopening the bridge to motor vehicles—is under development by the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. Providing a schedule for full reopening is part of the development process. Whether to impose tolls is a decision for the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. We expect the borough to engage with residents as it deems appropriate, so that it can understand any implications, as the hon. Member for Richmond Park set out.
Sarah Olney
Can the Minister bring any influence to bear on her colleague in the other place, Baroness Vere, so that she reconvenes a taskforce that will enable the whole issue of tolls to be properly, widely and publicly discussed with the relevant stakeholders?
Trudy Harrison
I will now set out exactly what is happening. Much good progress is being made. Following the complete closure of the bridge in 2020, the Department for Transport provided £4 million of taxpayers’ money, which enabled a comprehensive investigation of the overall structure and condition of the bridge. Through that investment, we had pretty much world-leading engineers working to develop a complete picture of the issues facing the bridge. Those works determined that the bridge was in a better condition, thankfully, than first thought, and that led directly to the bridge reopening, albeit on a temporary and controlled basis to pedestrians, cyclists and river traffic.
Andy Slaughter
I am in a state of despair, listening to the Minister. The cost of reopening this bridge could be £160 million. Hopefully, it will be less, but it is of that order. It is about the same as building a whole new Thames bridge, and it is fantasy for the Minister to say, “The Government are providing £4 million,” and “The Government have done this or that.” All the initiative so far has been taken by Hammersmith and Fulham Council—whether that is on the memorandum of understanding, on the proposals for the cheaper Foster COWI bridge, or on the stabilisation work—to get the bridge open permanently again to pedestrians. This is a strategic route through London. The Government must step up to the plate. I know that this is not in the Minister’s brief, but please could she take this issue seriously? It is affecting hundreds of thousands of people all across London and the south-east.
Trudy Harrison
I reject the characterisation of my Department as not taking this seriously. The hon. Gentleman will know that when one is potentially spending more than £100 million on a new bridge, much consideration and engineering knowledge will need to go into things such as a review by the Case for Continued Safe Operation Board. The board monitors the condition of the bridge, and has enabled it to stay open to pedestrians, cyclists and river traffic. I am relieved to say that since that reopening, no further closures on safety grounds have been necessary.
The commitment to this project did not stop at the initial £4 million investment—not at all. In the TfL extraordinary funding and financing settlement of June 2021, we committed to sharing the cost of reopening the bridge. We have committed to that funding with the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham and TfL. We reiterated that commitment in a subsequent settlement, agreed in February 2022. That commitment ensures that the Government will fund up to one third of the cost of opening the bridge to pedestrians, cyclists, river traffic and—depending on those costs—buses and motor vehicles as well.
The first part of that commitment has already been delivered. Earlier this year, the Department approved the full business case from LBHF for the stabilisation works on the bridge. Those works will ensure that the bridge will remain open to pedestrians, cyclists, and river traffic permanently, with no risk of further temporary closures due to unsafe conditions.
The approval of the business case was a condition of the Government’s releasing their third of the funding for stabilisation. I am pleased to say that in May this year, my Department provided the borough with almost £3 million to allow the works to progress unimpeded by financial concerns. That brings the total investment to date to nearly £7 million.
It is thanks to the excellent work and diligence of my Department, TfL and the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham that the works are already well under way. At long last, the residents of this part of London can see tangible progress being made. The borough is now managing the works, and will be providing my Department with regular updates on progress.
The next stage is to strengthen the core and renovate other structurally significant parts of the bridge. The strengthening phase of engineering works will build on stabilisation works; on its completion, the bridge can open to all users, including buses and motor vehicles. LBHF is required to submit a further business case to my Department and to TfL; in that business case, we would expect to see that the proposed method of strengthening is viable, offers value for money and minimises disruption to current users of the bridge. That is essential. The business case will also set out the final cost estimate for strengthening the bridge and, once approved, will allow my Department to release its third of the funding.
Trudy Harrison
Sorry; unfortunately, I cannot give way due to time. All three parties will work together over the coming months to ensure that an HM Treasury Green Book-compliant business case is developed and submitted for approval as soon as possible.
In closing, I re-emphasise that reopening Hammersmith Bridge to all users is and remains a Government priority. Restoring full access to this vital south-west London artery will improve the lives of thousands of residents, commuters and businesses who have, as we have heard this evening, been long deprived of a convenient route across the Thames. I also restate my Department’s commitment to funding up to one third of the cost, on approval of an appropriate business case.
I thank hon. Members for their contributions, and for their dedication in highlighting the issues that the continued closure of the bridge causes for their constituencies and others in the surrounding area. I reassure them that we are working tirelessly to deliver the full opening of the bridge.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Contracts for Difference (Allocation) and Electricity Market Reform (General) (Amendment) Regulations 2022
(1 year, 10 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change (Greg Hands)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Contracts for Difference (Allocation) and Electricity Market Reform (General) (Amendment) Regulations 2022.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson.
The regulations were laid before the House on 11 May 2022. The draft instrument makes a number of amendments to the Contracts for Difference Regulations 2014 and the Electricity Market Reform Regulations 2014. Those amendments include changes to contracts for difference delivery and supply chain plan policy in preparation for the fifth allocation round. They will help support the ambition for the CfD allocation round, planned to open in March 2023, delivering on the ambitions set out in the “Net Zero Strategy” and the “British energy security strategy” to make progress towards the 2050 net zero target.
The CfD is the Government’s flagship renewable electricity support scheme. It is designed to offer long-term price stabilisation to new low-carbon generators, bringing investment forward at a lower cost of capital, and therefore at a lower cost to consumers. The scheme has been hugely successful in driving substantial deployment of renewables at scale in Great Britain while rapidly reducing costs to electricity consumers. CfD applicants with a capacity of 300 MW or more are currently required to present a supply chain statement to the Electricity Market Reform delivery body as part of their application. A statement is provided if a developer can demonstrate to the Secretary of State’s satisfaction that the project is likely to make a material contribution to the development of relevant supply chains. The aim of the policy is to increase productivity, competitiveness and capacity in our supply chains, promoting innovation and skills in the low-carbon electricity generating sector.
On 9 February 2022, the Government announced that CfD allocation rounds will run annually. The increased CfD round frequency underlines the Government’s commitment to achieving low-carbon electricity generation to achieve a fully decarbonised electricity system by 2035, subject to security of supply. The current policy approach to CfD delivery and supply chain plans needs to be strengthened in the context of annual allocation rounds. That will ensure the scheme continues to operate effectively, encourage low-carbon generation and provide confidence to investors and supply chain companies. It will support the delivery of those renewable technologies identified in the “Net Zero Strategy” and the “British energy security strategy” that are key to decarbonising the power sector, such as offshore wind, onshore wind and solar.
The regulations amend the current non-delivery disincentive—NDD—exclusion period so that an application cannot be made in respect of an excluded site in the subsequent two applicable allocation round. That will strengthen the current policy of excluding a site from only one subsequent allocation round. That is a consequential effect of moving to annual options. The change will ensure that the NDD exclusion period is aligned with the decision to hold allocation rounds on an annual basis from 2023, ensuring the NDD remains an adequate incentive to deliver projects.
The regulations also bring alignment with a change to the valuation formula introduced to the allocation framework for allocation round 4. For that round, the Government introduced changes to the valuation formula to reduce the complexity of the auction and to ensure that the earliest possible date of CfD payments is considered when calculating the impact on the budget. The regulations now introduce this technical change—amending the corresponding Contracts for Difference Allocation Regulations to reflect the amended formula.
Changes to supply chain plans include amending the validity period of a supply chain plan statement so that it is valid for nine months rather than the previous 12 months. That ensures that in practice developers continue to submit individual supply chain plans for each CfD allocation round in the light of the move to annual auctions.
We are also amending the requirement to provide a supply chain plan statement so that it applies to all floating offshore wind projects. That allows the Government to support the development of supply chains for the more nascent floating offshore wind industry as it approaches significant commercialisation and deployment. We seek to make those amendments now to give certainty to businesses that might be planning to take part in the next CfD scheme opening, as I said, in March 2023.
We are proposing the legislative amendments following a public consultation that ran from 4 February to 15 March, which gave stakeholders the opportunity to scrutinise and test the policy proposals. The consultation generated 41 responses from a range of developers of renewable generating stations, trade associations and bodies, suppliers and public and investment bodies. Officials also engaged wider audiences through an online event.
Overall, the policy proposals received wide support. The consultation led to one policy change to the supply chain policy proposals in response to the feedback received. A minor adjustment was made to the proposal to introduce floating offshore wind projects into the supply chain plan process whereby a bespoke, less burdensome process will be required to account for the smaller size of their projects.
The Government have set out a clear vision for how we will transform the production and use of energy, in a decisive shift away from expensive fossil fuels. The regulations, together with annual CfD allocation rounds, will help to support an increase in the pace of deployment of new renewable electricity generation needed to achieve our ambitions, while continuing to consider the likely cost to consumers and energy security. Subject to the will of Parliament, the arrangements will come into force on the day after the regulations are made.
Achieving our carbon budget and net zero targets will require deployment across a range of home-grown, green technologies at an unprecedented scale and pace that will support our transition from reliance on fossil fuels. Therefore, I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
The CfD proposals are essentially non-controversial and in the main pretty straightforward and minor amendments to the CfD regime. As the Minister said, those changes will be of particular relevance to the forthcoming changes in the allocation rounds, which will transfer to an annual basis. The arrangements for applicants who are applying for favour under those particular rounds will change from a year’s duration to nine months, which will have a positive effect in making sure that those allocation rounds are carried out sensibly and reasonably. I am particularly pleased to see that change. Indeed, the Government have said that the arrangements that applicants make can be carried over to subsequent applications without being rewritten. That means that those who do not succeed in one particular allocation round are not faced with an onerous new series of actions in the forthcoming round.
I am not quite so taken with the other part of the regulations, which relates to the conditions under which floating wind must undertake supply chain plans to be eligible for the allocation rounds. I am sure that the Minister is absolutely on top of the fact that floating wind is largely new technology, which is making serious and considerable innovations and differences to the circumstances under which wind is deployed. The fixture is anchored rather than attached to the seabed and its technology is therefore available for application in much deeper sea areas, because it is not subject to the jacket and base that essentially applies to shallow seabed areas—essentially the case in most of the North sea.
The floating wind generation that is being developed for England and Wales will be largely sited in the Celtic sea, a predominantly deep-water area between Ireland, Wales, Devon and Cornwall and the west of England. The location of that generation is such that supply chains are not well developed. The back-up infrastructure for those developments is not well advanced, for example, in terms of the availability of ports for the development of the necessary infrastructure, given that the platforms on which floating wind installations are fixed are not easily imported from many other places. Those platforms will have to fabricated at port, and there are various issues relating to the cables and the lack the necessary infrastructure.
It is clear that floating wind generation is developing under circumstances where the supply chain is not favourable to its support. When an offshore development applies for inclusion in an allocation round, a threshold of 300 MW of generating capacity must be exceeded and that application must have a supply chain plan attached to it. Supply chain plans are quite onerous in terms of the considerations that must be met, but given that almost all current offshore generation is above 300 MW, that criterion is regarded as a matter of course. The size of those offshore projects enables those plans to be developed and there is a well-established supply chain for North sea generation. That is not the case for floating wind generation, but somewhat perversely the Government have decided that the threshold for such generation’s supply chain plans should be nil. Any future floating wind project—the Minister is aware that virtually none are up and running in the UK, but there are an encouraging number in the pipeline, particularly in the Celtic sea—will be under 300 MW and will have to develop in difficult circumstances, but will be expected to provide a full supply chain proposal as though they were akin to a large offshore wind proposal in the North sea. Contrary to the view that that policy enables the Government to develop supply chains on the back of a floating wind installation, I suggest that the current thinking impedes that development. The onus is on the floating wind projects to get the supply chain plans in place, but right now the onus should be on the Government to get those supply chains up and running in the Celtic sea. I am sure that the Government will address that.
We need to be clear that floating wind generation still has a way to go to getting itself established in the line-up of offshore wind generation. The Government have great ambitions, as set out in the energy security paper, to expand the capacity of floating wind generation rapidly—an increase from 1 GW, as cited in the 10-point plan, to 5 GW by 2030. By the way, the Crown Estate only seems to have an ambition to establish the equivalent of 4 GW of floating wind allocated sites by 2030, so perhaps the Minister should have a word with the Crown Estate so that its ambitions are aligned with the Government’s.
Overall, the problem remains that the imposition of a supply chain plan for offshore floating wind based on zero capacity rather than 300 MW seems a little discriminatory against that generation in comparison with the requirements placed on standard offshore wind generation. The Minister said that of the 41 responses to the consultation, most were largely in favour of the proposal to include floating offshore wind projects that fall under the 300 MW in the supply chain process. I have spoken to representatives of the floating wind industry and they were not in favour of the proposals; perhaps others were in favour because they were not affected by it in any way. I suspect that is why only a minority of responses to the consultation said that the 300 MW threshold reduction to zero was not a good idea. I understand, however, that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has considered those comments and undertaken to propose
“a bespoke, lighter touch questionnaire for the relevant FOW projects”.
The key question is what that questionnaire will look like, and whether it will effectively give the floating wind developers a much better environment under which to bring their proposals forward to the allocation rounds. I would appreciate a response from the Minister about his intentions for that questionnaire, and whether he believes that it will largely overcome the problems that I have outlined regarding the apparent onus on floating wind generation to carry the supply chains on its back in contrast to the arrangements that attach for more established offshore generation.
I am sure that the Minister would not like to be party to holding back the development of offshore floating wind generation, because I think we both share a great enthusiasm for the strong role that it could play in our future renewable arrangements, particularly given how it could reach certain offshore assets that other wind generation would be unlikely to harvest. I am sure that he would agree that devices that would impede such development, or look like they might, are not to be welcomed. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s justification for removing the 300 MW threshold from offshore floating wind projects, and his comments about the bespoke lighter touch questionnaire, and how its findings might ameliorate the problem I have set out.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson.
I take the view that the terms of the statutory instrument are quite benign. To be honest, I thought it was quite logical to extend the supply chain plan to the development of offshore floating wind. As the shadow Minister just said, the findings of the lighter touch questionnaire are also important to the development of floating offshore wind.
To me, it is critical that the supply chain plans are used to develop supply chains in the United Kingdom, and it cannot only be a tick-box exercise. The reference to UK content must mean exactly that and ensure that. In the past, the debate about offshore wind generation has centred on how the 60% content was measured, and whether companies were circumventing that requirement depending on where items were manufactured versus where they were fabricated. We must ensure that the proposals develop UK supply chain. The Government must work with companies to ensure that. If that means slightly higher CfD rates, I would argue that that is a price well worth paying if that means that UK supply chains are developed and expertise built up.
Scotland is already leading the world in the development of floating offshore generation, and the regulations and the target increase to 5 GW generation by 2030 are a great opportunity. That said, the 5 GW generation target for floating offshore by 2030, and the 50 GW target for total offshore generation, will need a lot more in terms of supply chain plans and development. We must look at grid charging in the round and anticipatory grid investment. We need an upgraded grid that is suitable for taking the planned 50 GW of electricity generation. That is key. We must look at the bigger picture, but I am largely in support of the SI, which seems logical to me.
Greg Hands
I thank the hon. Members for Southampton, Test and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun for their good, detailed questions and contributions.
I welcome the broad support of the hon. Member for Southampton, Test. It is worth noting that arrangements for one CfD application can be rolled over, but that does not obligate a supply chain plan to be unamended. Most would probably evolve their supply chain over the period, which is valid for nine months and not 12, to reflect the move to annual auctions. That will ensure that applicants reflect changes in their commercial arrangements, and seek to innovate year on year, and not simply roll over supply chain plans. Industry acknowledged that and were supportive of the Government’s proposals.
The hon. Gentleman asked why floating offshore wind generation has been brought into the supply chain process. I think that is incredibly important. It is a relatively nascent industry, and ensuring that there is a good supply chain right from the beginning, and doing what the Government can do to steer it in that direction, is really important. Contrary to the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion that perhaps we should adopt a laissez-faire approach, I think there is a good reason for Government to be there right at the beginning to make sure that there is a strong supply chain for the UK to cement its place as a world leader in floating offshore wind, as we have been a world leader in fixed-bottom offshore wind, with Europe’s largest installed capacity.
Dr Whitehead
For the sake of clarity, I certainly do not wish to propose a laissez-faire regime for floating offshore wind generation. I am not arguing that there should not be a good regime, but how that regime is brought in as that nascent industry develops. I certainly think it should be subject to either a reduced threshold or it should conform with the 300 MW. I would entirely support that, because supporting the supply chains as the industry develops is clearly a positive and good idea—as the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun said.
Greg Hands
I am glad that we are in alignment on the need for supply chain plans. It is key to note that in its first phases, floating offshore wind will typically consist of significantly smaller projects. Therefore setting a different limit at which the supply chain must be submitted makes perfect sense if we are to capture floating offshore wind projects and make sure that there is taxpayer value for money. That is in all of our interests, not just the Government’s. We must make sure that we able to develop and cement our advantage in the UK. We have a fantastic technological advantage when it comes to wind. To start with, we have a fantastic geographic advantage, and making sure that we can cement our world leader position will depend upon making sure that there are good supply chains for those projects, which are necessarily smaller than fixed-bottom offshore projects. That is the reason for the different threshold.
Floating offshore wind is a technology on the verge of significant commercialisation and deployment within the next five years. Being at a key juncture in terms of its deployment means that certain emerging technologies, like floating offshore wind, have the potential to play a really important role in helping us to meet net zero. Bringing those projects into the supply chain process will allow BEIS to support the development of the associated supply chain at the earliest stage, by encouraging the industry to invest in competitive supply chains and accelerate cost reduction.
The hon. Member for Southampton, Test asked about engagement with the Crown Estate. I engage with it all the time, probably on a weekly or almost a fortnightly basis. I am happy to consider his specific point about the Celtic sea. That sea will be very important for us. At the moment, offshore wind has been a huge success for this country, but it has been predominantly an east coast and Irish sea phenomenon. It is very strong in Scotland, the north-east of England, Yorkshire, Humberside, East Anglia, the Irish sea, and north Wales gets a piece of the action. But the developments in the Celtic sea enable us to bring extra places around the United Kingdom, most importantly south Wales and the west country of England, into the offshore wind industry. Our position as the world leader, and as Europe’s largest installed capacity for offshore wind, is one of this country’s really great success stories of the past 10 years. To bring the Celtic sea into that development will help to level up and make this an all-UK effort.
Alan Brown
I do not have a problem with the development of the Celtic sea, but obviously we cannot forget about the North sea. For the record, there has been a discussion about the Crown Estate of England and Wales allowing for the generation of 4 GW, and there is also Crown Estate Scotland and the ScotWind leasing round. That latter round had bids for 25 GW of offshore energy, but National Grid ESO is only allowing for 10 GW of that in its forward planning, so that is a real disconnect. Will the Minister allow for the full deployment of that 25 GW of ScotWind leasing?
Greg Hands
The hon. Gentleman is quite right; BEIS and the UK Government put a lot of effort and support into the ScotWind process. Of course offshore wind off Scotland is incredibly important to the country as a whole, and floating offshore wind will be a big part of that. On Crown Estate Scotland, the hon. Gentleman may be aware that I was involved in a lot of the legislation for the devolution of the Crown Estate to Scotland under the Scotland Act 2016. I am familiar with a lot of the issues in relation to Crown Estate Scotland. We have an excellent relationship with it. While recognising that Scotland has been a massive part of the delivery of our fixed-bottom offshore wind, and will be a massive part of the delivery of offshore floating wind, it is good to get all of the UK in on the action when it comes to offshore generation.
We are investing up to £160 million for new, large-scale floating offshore wind ports and manufacturing. That is a big investment of Government money to make sure that we have a great future when it comes to floating offshore wind. The funding, boosted by private sector investment, will develop port infrastructure capable of mass-producing floating offshore wind turbines and installing them out to sea, reducing the need to import from overseas. That will create thousands of new jobs in the UK’s industrial heartlands and around our coasts. We have recently announced £31 million of UK Government funding to be matched by industry for research and development in this sector.
The hon. Member for Southampton, Test asked about the light-touch regime. Again, I think it is a question of balance. For the smaller projects, and to start with it will be predominantly smaller projects, we want to look at their supply chains. That is really important to us, but, equally, we do not want to make a regime that is too onerous on those smaller projects. That is why there is a lighter touch regime and questionnaire, but a deeper down, if you like, in terms of the size of the companies that must make supply chain plans. The consultation on the new supply chain questionnaire closed on 14 June. The Government’s response detailing the new approach will be published in due course, and the updated questionnaire and guidance will be published this summer.
I think I have covered the removal of the 300 MW threshold from floating offshore wind. I think I have answered a few of the points raised by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, and I think the anticipatory grid will be a key part of the debate. The criticism is that National Grid does not currently allow for anticipation of when projects will come on and provide for the grid. Ofgem is actively looking at that, and I expect that might be a key part of future debate. There will be a big scale-up in electricity generation, especially as our electricity demand will double by 2050. We need to have more grid, more network, more transmission network and more distribution network to make that happen. To make sure that our system is fit for that will be a key part of the energy security Bill to be considered in this parliamentary Session.
I hope that my responses have provided the necessary assurances so that Members can approve the SI. The changes in the regulations are essential to ensuring that the next CfD allocation round, which will start in March 2023—the first annual round—is a really important reform to drive through more renewable energy in this country. The regulations will help to make sure that our supply chains and other parts of the process are as best supported as possible, to make sure that we support the pace of renewable deployment while continuing to ensure value for money for consumers. That is why I urge the regulations to be made now, ahead of the next CfD allocation round in next March, so that developers have certainty as to who will be eligible to take part and on what basis. I therefore urge the Committee to agree to the regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Contracts for Difference (Allocation ) and Electricity Market Reform (General) (Amendment) Regulations 2022.
Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill (First sitting)
Tuesday 28th June 2022
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 View all Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 28 June 2022 - (28 Jun 2022)
The Chair
We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. I have a few preliminary announcements: Hansard colleagues will be grateful if hon. Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk; I ask hon. Members to switch electronic devices to silent; and a reminder that tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. I have also been asked if hon. Members may remove their jackets: you have my permission to do so—it is quite warm in here. Date Time Witness Tuesday 28 June Until no later than 10.10 am NFU Tuesday 28 June Until no later than 10.35 am Professor Gideon Henderson, Chief Scientific Advisor, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Tuesday 28 June Until no later than 11.00 am Food Standards Agency Tuesday 28 June Until no later than 11.25 am Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment Tuesday 28 June Until no later than 2.35 pm The Royal Society; The Royal Society of Biology Tuesday 28 June Until no later than 3.15 pm Angus Wheat Consultants Ltd; Rothamsted Research Tuesday 28 June Until no later than 3.50 pm Organic Farmers & Growers; Soil Association Tuesday 28 June Until no later than 4.30 pm NIAB; Crop Science Centre Tuesday 28 June Until no later than 4.50 pm British Society of Plant Breeders Tuesday 28 June Until no later than 5.10 pm The Center for Aquaculture Technologies Thursday 30 June Until no later than 12.15 pm The Roslin Institute; Genus; The Pirbright Institute Thursday 30 June Until no later than 1.00 pm Nuffield Council on Bioethics; Dr Madeline Campbell, Senior Lecturer in Human-Animal Interactions and Ethics, Royal Veterinary College; Compassion in World Farming Thursday 30 June Until no later than 2.20 pm RSPCA Thursday 30 June Until no later than 2.50 pm Beyond GM/A Bigger Conversation Thursday 30 June Until no later than 3.30 pm Professor David Rose, Professor of Sustainable Agricultural Systems, Cranfield University; Michael Edenborough QC, Serle Court Chambers; Professor Sarah Hartley, Associate Professor, University of Exeter Thursday 30 June Until no later than 3.50 pm Agricultural Industries Confederation (AIC) Thursday 30 June Until no later than 4.10 pm Paul Temple, Farmer, Member of the Science Agriculture Advisory Group Thursday 30 June Until no later than 4.30 pm Benchmark Genetics Thursday 30 June Until no later than 5.10 pm NIAB; John Innes Centre; KWS
We will first consider the programme motion on the amendment paper, then a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication and a motion to allow us to deliberate in private, if we so wish, about our questions before the oral evidence session. In view of the time available, I hope that we can take those matters formally. I ask the Minister to move the programme motion standing in her name, which was discussed yesterday by the Programming Sub-Committee.
Ordered,
That—
(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 28 June) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 28 June;
(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 30 June;
(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 5 July;
(d) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 7 July;
(e) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 12 July;
(2) the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table:
(3) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Tuesday 12 July.— (Jo Churchill.)
The Chair
Copies of written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room and will be circulated to Members via email.
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Jo Churchill.)
The Chair
Informally, I discussed with the Minister and the shadow Minister whether the Committee might wish to sit in private to consider the structure of the questioning, but both agreed that there is no need for that, so I will not put that motion. We can therefore now commence the oral evidence session. If Members have any relevant interests to declare, now is the time to do so. No.
Examination of Witnesses
David Exwood and Dr Helen Ferrier gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear evidence from David Exwood, vice-president, and Dr Helen Ferrier, chief science and regulatory affairs adviser, both of the National Farmers Union. Thank you for coming this morning. I can see that you are both there—both our witnesses are appearing via Zoom.
Before calling the Minister to ask a question, I remind all Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill. We must also stick to the timings in the programme motion that the Committee has agreed. This session will finish at 10.10 am. With all witnesses, I will first call the Minister and then the shadow Minister, before opening up to questions from others in the Committee.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Jo Churchill)
Q
David Exwood: I think farmers welcome this Bill, because of the possibilities it offers. I am really clear that the big gains, the big changes, in farming are all around breeding. Yes, there are gains in productivity around my machinery, but really the exciting things in the future are all around breeding and the possibilities that brings, and the Bill will help with that.
For all my farming career, I have used pesticides as part of the process. I am very happy about that, but we now genuinely have an opportunity to produce as much food as we do now but with much less impact. So I think farmers welcome the Bill, which opens a world of possibilities and addresses the challenges we face at the moment. There is so much pressure on land use, and the ability to produce the same amount of food as we do now but with less environmental impact and more sustainably is something all farmers welcome.
Dr Ferrier: Ultimately, the market will decide whether this technology is adopted here, but I think that, before that happens, the regulatory system and the legislative process will decide whether farmers and growers have access. The technology is clearly being developed around the world, and regulatory processes are being reviewed and put in place around the world. Farmers and growers are not going to be able to access the products of the technology and realise those benefits that David has talked about if companies are discouraged or regulation is not enabling. So the impact of the Bill depends on how well it is written and whether it will be proportionate and fit for purpose and will therefore encourage the investment of breeding companies that then enables farmers to adopt the products of the technology.
Jo Churchill
I have other questions, but I would like this process to be collegiate, so perhaps we should go to others, because they may ask the same questions as I will.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Q
David Exwood: Virus yellows in beet is something carried by aphids into the sugar beet crop in the spring and it can have a dramatic effect on yield. We saw two years ago reductions of up to 80% in the beet yield in affected fields. So that is a real-life example of a pest that can dramatically affect the productivity of a crop. We produce about 1 million tonnes of sugar beet in this country each year, and that can be dramatically reduced through virus yellows.
Through precision breeding, we have the ability to breed in genes resistant to virus yellows so that the plant just will not be impacted and all the issues of neonicotinoids and using synthetic insecticides to try to control the aphids and control the impact of virus yellows will disappear. That is a real gain in an industry that clearly needs support and could be really impacted. That is the really clear gain and potential of this technology that the Bill will allow. And there is the point about the sustainability of that business. It is such a concentrated business in a certain area of the country.
To move on to the trade environment, this technology absolutely has to be one that is used widely. I am really clear that the EU is moving on gene editing and precision breeding; it is very clear about that. Actually, my greatest worry is that the UK gets left behind on this technology. The rest of the world is moving, and we need to move with it. We absolutely live, work and trade in a European environment and a world environment, but, given that the EU is moving, my concern is more that we get left behind, rather than us moving ahead of them and nobody coming with us.
Dr Ferrier: Obviously, it is very difficult to predict, but the indications from companies are that, should this legislative change happen, it would be at least five years before products start come on to the market for farmers and growers to use. Clearly, the international trade impacts will depend on the harmonisation across trading partners in terms of the legislation in their jurisdictions. I believe that within the period necessary for those products to come on stream commercially, there will be much more harmonisation. As David said, that will also happen in the EU, which plans a legislative proposal by quarter 2 of 2023. We are not concerned about imminent trade issues, because no products are available for us to use at the moment.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Q
David Exwood: Absolutely. We run our consultation process and work up our policy as one organisation that brings in all sectors—organics being one of them. I think everybody recognises the advantages of technology; everybody recognises the benefits that breeding brings. That goes for organic farmers and smaller farmers as well as large farmers. We have to co-exist alongside organic farming in all circumstances—we are very clear about that. We do not see that as a challenge; we already run slightly separate systems and it does not significantly alter business in any way.
The key element of the Bill for small farmers is that it is drafted in such a way as to make it as widely available as possible. It needs to be open to as many farmers as possible—that is how it will bring the most benefit. Breeding actually brings benefit to all farmers, and a good variety of wheat or sugar beet, say, is something that all farmers will benefit from, regardless of their size.
Deidre Brock
Q
David Exwood: Yes, I do. As I said, we run existing codes, and conventional and organic already co-exist. This does not change that in any way. We have to make sure that we are able to do that. There has to be a co-existence—I am very happy about that—which is a key part of our policy and our ask. I do not see the Bill as being a challenge to that.
Dr Ferrier: The market for organic versus conventional or other systems currently enables segregation for different specifications that the market might ask for. We see that continuing to run as it does at the moment. When a buyer has particular specification, there is certification for organics. As we understand it, the certification for organics would not currently allow the use of precision bred organisms. Obviously, that could change, allowing for segregated supply chains, just as with food-grade versus industrial-grade oilseed rape, or with sweetcorn and forage maize, which are kept apart.
If you are getting a new variety of a particular crop, for example, and you grow a crop for seed multiplication purposes, the high-purity requirements for that seed are there and are managed within the supply chain. We see that continuing to apply for organic farmers.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
Q
Dr Ferrier: Certainly, the most recent development in countries reviewing their legislation, and one that I think would be really useful for you to look at, is what Health Canada, the Canadian authority, has done. It has recently reviewed its legislation and put out some technical guidance. The key thing is that it confirms that precision bred organisms do not pose any additional safety risks compared with conventionally bred plant varieties. That is driving Canada’s regulatory process. It is not proposing different authorisation and risk-assessment processes. It does not believe that that would add any significant benefit for consumers or the environment, because the science does not show any additional risks—that is very similar to the European Food Safety Authority opinion from the end of November 2020.
Argentina is certainly a very interesting case. Since it has put in place proportionate and enabling regulations—such as those that the Government propose in this Bill—it has seen a real increase in the number of small and medium-sized enterprises and public-good breeding R&D activities taking products through that regulatory process, so that it is not just the preserve of the largest companies that are able to pay for and absorb any uncertainty in a less ideal or dysfunctional regulatory process.
Japan is another example of where a product—a tomato—has been through that process. In countries that put in place proper regulation, the actual process is functional and works well for the companies. Those countries then see investment in R&D and into commercial companies. That is bringing through the products. South America, North America and Japan are investing in this. It is interesting to see how quickly the science develops into commercial opportunities once the regulations are right.
David Exwood: The challenges that we face as farmers in the UK—sustainability, climate change and so on—are the challenges faced by farmers across the world, and we are all looking for solutions to those problems. It is interesting that across the world, there is a move on this technology, which we are seeing quite widely. That is because everybody is looking for answers and solutions to the challenges that we all face.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
Q
Dr Ferrier: There is no evidence that that would be the case, but we understand that people have concerns about existing farming systems. We see that expressed, and we work hard to address it. To me, that is a separate issue from the Bill. We can have discussions about how to improve animal welfare, but I really do not think that it would be sensible, I guess, to design special elements of this particular Bill to address general concerns about farming systems.
The other important thing to be aware of is all the existing animal welfare rules and activities within Government and industry. Obviously the Animal Welfare Act 2006 applies, so we need not duplicate elements of that in the Bill, and there are codes of practice for each sector that are being reviewed all the time. Also, the action plan for animal welfare is in place, and the animal welfare pathway is being developed. We therefore think that concerns in the area, which are freely expressed, are being, and can be, dealt with through appropriate parts of legislation and industry action.
The Bill, which relates to just one particular technology, is not the place to address those areas. We have talked about the challenges. It is not just a challenge for growers of crops; there are a lot of difficulties that are climate change-related, and disease, health and welfare-related production challenges for farmers. There are genetic solutions to some of those challenges that we would like to see explored. We would like farmers to have the benefit of them, but we will only be able to explore them if the legislation enables companies to invest in the technologies to work out whether some of them could help. We can only see benefit from using this technology to address some of those problems.
Ruth Jones
Mr Exwood, do you want to add anything specifically on gene editing and animal welfare?
David Exwood: I understand the concerns about animal welfare, but it is really important to say that with animals the ability to produce sustainability with less impact applies just the same as with crops. I have dehorned thousands of cattle in my farming career, and the ability to breed out horns in cattle is a clear gain for people and livestock. It would be good for everybody. I would be very happy if I never had to dehorn another calf again. I understand the nervousness, but there are things that this Bill will offer that are clearly a gain. It is wrong to assume that it will just lead to an intensification of production.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
Q
David Exwood: Yes, we do have concerns. The main concern is that farmers across the UK should have access to this technology. I would urge that the gains we see are available to all. I understand the politics of the situation, but again I think that the fact that the EU is moving on this and has made clear signals about the direction of travel gives us some reassurance that across the whole continent we are moving to a different position on this technology. Therefore, the other countries of the UK should be looking to where everybody is moving and our market is moving, and think about how they might want to be in line, alongside what we could do in England.
Dr Ferrier: To be honest, I think it is a real shame, because clearly some of the best scientists and geneticists are operating in Wales and Scotland. There is a real strength. A lot of investment goes on under our devolved Administrations to invest in the science, but in order for there to be a return on that investment, it needs to lead to some kind of commercial adoption. It is a real shame for those scientists to consider that their work will not go beyond the lab if those Administrations’ positions remain the same. I do not think this should be a political issue, because it is about recognising a technology that has a lot of potential to do good things for the environment, society, animals, and farmers and growers; it would be a shame if it were a political issue. We will see. Time will tell whether movement within the EU—which certainly for the Scottish Government, as you know, is a key place where they are looking to see what approach they should take—will change the position. It would be a shame if this were derailed for political reasons when the issues are not political.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Q
David Exwood: A key example might be soya beans. The current situation is that people have tried over a number of years to grow soya beans. Clearly, it is desirable to grow more of our own homegrown protein, but given that that is quite difficult, it is the sort of opportunity that this technology could give us—the opportunity to make varieties better adapted to our climate, so that we can grow such crops. I do not want to promise too much, but clearly breeding, as I said, offers some of the big solutions in the future. It is those sorts of solutions that we perhaps cannot quite see yet but that may well help us to be much more sustainable in what we do.
Kerry McCarthy
Q
Dr Ferrier: We have really excellent scientists. We have some really world-leading plant science organisations here. An example is NIAB in Cambridge, as Daniel Zeichner will know very well. The scientific capability is certainly there. Obviously, it needs funding, and increasingly research funding is seeking to enable impact from research—impact beyond the academic world, but on society and the economy. Based on that, if research funders see that there is a route to market eventually for the science that they are funding, that will increase the investment in research and development. Of course, the statutory instrument passed a few months ago will enable and make easier the R&D for these particular technologies, which is a good first step. Then, if we have a clear route to market, that will be a further incentive to explore those funding streams.
Of course, with funding comes greater capability, because research organisations are then able to recruit the best researchers. When we were doing our consultation of our members on the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs consultation last year, we had scientists come and talk to our members, including a wheat scientist from the John Innes Centre, who explained the science he was doing and the potential for that to address some of our members’ challenges. We have seen in the food White Paper the reference of protein crops and finding ways to get sources of plant-based protein. Some considerable investment in R&D is required in order for that to become a greater commercial proposition for growers in this country.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
Q
Dr Ferrier: I guess we are talking about a new, not genetically modified food. I have not done a comparison of current GM foods on the market—the chocolate bars and the oils, for example—so I am not sure where they sit. Organic commands are premium partly because of the greater cost of producing organic. Maybe David could talk about that. On potential products that might come through precision breeding, it depends on the product. I think there is potential, as we have already seen with some conventionally bred products, such as a broccoli with higher antioxidant levels or eggs high in nutrients, for some premium products that have nutritional benefits, but initially there may not be any difference in the final price in shop.
Alec Shelbrooke
Q
Dr Ferrier: From conventionally produced wheat, for example, for baking a conventional loaf. It depends on the products that come through. It is difficult to judge, but there are examples, such as a heart-healthy tomato in Japan that has an extra benefit that may command a premium in shops. It is very difficult to tell. I think organic always has that premium. As I said, currently that premium will include the fact that they do not use biotechnology. They do in some of their veterinary medicines, for example, but I mean in the actual production of organic food.
There is a premium for organic. I do not know whether there is a premium for GM or if it is cheaper. Clearly, if it is easier to grow a food product, there is potential to pass that on to the consumer. One relevant element that we may come to later is other requirements around the marketing of precision bred organisms. For example, extra labelling always increases the cost of getting food on a shelf. That could be a cost for the final consumer.
David Exwood: Could I just add to that? It is worth pointing out that, rather than perhaps massively increased yields, what this will increase is the sustainability and reliability of crops. Being able to grow crops consistently with less volatility is the real gain here. You will not see wild swings due to crop impact, or maybe a pest impact such as we were talking about with sugar beet earlier. Its sustainability is the great offer, and that is clearly a real advantage at a time when the global food supply chain is under pressure. That is probably one of the main advantages offered by this technology.
Alec Shelbrooke
Q
David Exwood: It is really interesting. What is happening in the world grain market is a coincidence of problems: the political situation in Ukraine, obviously, but also production problems in the rest of the world. We have serious drought in the US midwest and problems in India, so it is that combination of climate and politics that has created the current spike in prices. Clearly, for example, if we can breed varieties that are more drought-tolerant, that will help with the food supply chain. Again, it has the potential to offer quite significant gains in the sustainability of our food supply.
Dr Ferrier: It is many years away, but I am sure these kinds of shocks will return. Obviously, whatever happens with this Bill, we are not going to have an immediate silver bullet to answer our current issues and shocks within the supply chain.
The Chair
I have three Members indicating that they want to ask questions, and we have nine minutes left, so the time allocation is fairly obvious.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
Q
David Exwood: I can make you aware that my counterparts—the presidents in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—wrote to their respective Ministers in support of the Bill, and urged them to support this legislation. I hope that gives you comfort that farmers across the UK see the benefits of the Bill, want to have access to this technology, and are urging—as Helen said—that politics should not override the clear gains here. Yes, we have consulted: we all agree as the four unions, and we would all like to see this technology adopted and available to all farmers in the UK.
David Duguid
Q
Dr Ferrier: Yes, they are. We are having to ensure that at the moment, as I said, the certification requirements are obeyed and can be delivered on. It is the same as for other things that the organic sector cannot use that the conventional sector can, or for certain specifications, so I definitely believe that the current segregation arrangements would also apply here, enabling that certification rule to be followed.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
Q
Dr Ferrier: We are definitely not opposed to transparency, and we are very much in favour of the notification arrangements that are set out in the Bill. That is something that we worked with Government on over a period of time—to be able to have a system within the supply chain, from breeder all the way along, as far as it needs to go, so that the supply chain is aware of the particular breeding technology used. That enables the transparency and the traceability to be there.
We are also not opposed to labelling, as such, because a lot of voluntary, market-led labelling exists already, outside of the statutory system, enabling a retailer, manufacturer or producer to alert the public to something that it particularly wants them to see to try to persuade them to buy that product. Market-led labelling is definitely something that could be achieved, if the market demanded it at the point where products were being used, because we have the notification transparency system within the Bill.
We are opposed to statutory labelling—I guess that position is in line with DEFRA and the Food Standards Agency—because there is no scientific basis for statutory labelling for products that could have been produced through conventional breeding or natural mutations. We therefore believe that, actually, it would be misleading for consumers to have products that were labelled as different when they are not different from their conventionally bred counterparts. We are pleased to see that in the Bill—that any marketing of these products must not mislead the consumer. Of course, the food information to consumers regulations mean that producers of food cannot mislead consumers anyway. So, there is not a scientific basis for statutory labelling, and it would not benefit the consumer. It is really about the safety of the food, so it would not apply to this particular technology because all of those authorisation processes would be in place.
On consumer surveys, which are often quoted, if you ask, “Would you like this particular thing to be labelled?” consumers will generally want that. However, with lots of other breeding techniques, such as radiation-induced mutagenesis, polyploidy induction—don’t ask me to explain what that means—or somatic hybridisation, if you asked consumers “Would you like to see that on a label if it is being used?” they would say yes. We need to be led by the science of whether these products are actually different if you are going to put a statutory labelling requirement in place. If the market wants to label when the time comes, that will certainly be possible with the transparency arrangements in place.
Clive Lewis
Q
Dr Ferrier: I just do not think labelling is a way to deliver policy. It is very blunt.
The Chair
Thank you, Dr Ferrier and David Exwood, for your time and valuable contribution. We now move on to our next witness.
Examination of Witness
Professor Gideon Henderson gave evidence.
The Chair
We have before us Professor Gideon Henderson, the chief scientific adviser at DEFRA, who is on Zoom. For this session, we have until 10.35 am. Professor Henderson, would you like very briefly to introduce yourself for the record?
Professor Henderson: Hello, I am Professor Gideon Henderson, and I am chief scientific adviser at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Apologies for not being in the Committee Room with you.
Jo Churchill
Q
Professor Henderson: Yes, I would. I think I can reassure the Committee on both those questions. I have been involved since the very early stages of the preparation of this Bill in consulting widely with the scientific community, advising Ministers and officials in my Department and others, and talking to stakeholder groups about the science and its implications. The Bill has taken into account the science and the most expert views of it in a very diverse way. I am personally content that it is fit for purpose and will ensure the continued safety of the environment and food.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Professor Henderson: There is an interesting question about how far deregulation into genetic technologies ought to go in one step. Some groups of scientists would certainly favour a model in which you relax the regulation much more widely and base all the outcomes on the traits that are produced through that technology—the outcome in the product—rather than having any view about the technology or the process by which the product is made. That is certainly a view that some scientists would hold.
The view of Government—this has played out in a number of stakeholder groups— has been that moving more cautiously to deregulate or lower the regulation of some aspects of genetic technologies first is a cautious and stepwise way to move. That takes account of the science, enables us to be aware of the issues as they arise, and most importantly builds the confidence of the public as those technologies are used more widely in food production. That is the justification for moving first into the use of technologies only to mimic breeding processes through precision breeding, as described in the Bill.
There is a difficulty in describing the limits of what is possible with breeding. It is clear that some things that are possible—we know they are possible because we have done them—are very similar to things that have been done, and they are therefore clearly in scope. There are other examples that are clearly not possible through breeding. In between those, there is something of a grey area. There is now detailed advice from an expert group—the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment—that lays out the definition of the circumstances in which something would be considered possible through breeding, and therefore would be considered a precision bred organism, to define the line within that grey area.
You also asked about exogenous material, by which I take it you mean material from another species. That sort of material can occur entirely naturally, and it can occur during breeding processes as well, but in general it does not lead to any functional change or any phenotypic change. The Bill is designed not to allow exogenous material, if it has any functional or phenotypic outcome in the product. In that way, it does mimic the action of traditional breeding. I hope that answers your question.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Professor Henderson: The Bill is designed to exclude the intentional inclusion of exogenous material, or the residual accidental inclusion that has any outcome that matters. That is probably the shortest way of summarising it. If there happens to be a bit of exogenous material in there that is similar to what might happen through the natural breeding process, or entirely naturally, but it has no functional outcome—no phenotypic change on the crop or the livestock—that is not considered an issue. Any intentional or accidental change that leads to a phenotypic outcome—the crop being different in a way that could not have been possible through traditional breeding—is not allowed under the terms of the Bill.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Professor Henderson: GMO is a broad church of definition. A thing that is clearly outside of the terms of the Bill is the intentional insertion of a transgene—genes from another species—in order to create the effect that you wanted. That would be in order to make the product different in some way by bringing in an—[Inaudible.]
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Professor Henderson: It is to do with intentionality, but it is also to do with the outcome—[Inaudible.]
Daniel Zeichner
We are losing you, but I get the drift. I will leave it there.
The Chair
Professor Henderson, I do not know if you can hear me, but you are frozen on our screen.
Jo Churchill
Perhaps we can ask Professor Henderson to dial off and dial back. Let us see if we can retrieve him.
The Chair
You are back, Professor Henderson. We move on to the SNP spokesperson, Deidre Brock.
Deidre Brock
Q
Professor Henderson: I can. There is a very wide range of peer-reviewed literature that demonstrates the benefits that can arise from the use of gene editing for precision breeding, for building better crops. The list is long and I would be happy to share a long list of some of the references. There was a review paper published in Nature in 2019 that I often refer back to, which summarises the many routes by which we can use gene editing to enhance crops.
I am wary of time, but I could talk at some length about the different sorts of crops that might be beneficial in this context. There is also an extensive peer-reviewed literature that demonstrates the safety of these technologies and the fact that the unintended consequences through precision breeding are generally lower than those through traditional breeding, and particularly some of the more extreme mutagenic forms of precision breeding. There is very extensive scientific literature.
You started your question by pointing to the differences of opinion politically on the different sides of the national borders within the United Kingdom. I should say that scientifically, there is not a difference of opinion as you change nations in the country and certainly leading scientists in this sector in Wales and Scotland have also been very instrumental in the peer-reviewed literature that I have mentioned, and they agree with the sense of direction of this Bill, although their political leaders do not.
Deidre Brock
Q
Professor Henderson: As a scientist, trade is less my area of expertise, but to some extent you could argue that this Bill would enable more trade, because it will enable better crops and more crops to be produced, and therefore they could be more readily traded overseas, giving more market opportunities for UK farmers and markets. [Inaudible.] Therefore, I do not see an immediate problem with any trade with the EU, either.
It is also true to say, as I believe your previous—[Inaudible.] Sorry, are you still there?
The Chair
We are. We missed a little towards the end there, Professor.
Professor Henderson: I am sorry; if it happens again, I will switch wi-fi on to my phone. I do apologise.
I was saying that, from an EU perspective, the final thing to say is that the EU itself is of course consulting on changing the law in a way similar to the way that we are considering, and it is quite likely to change on the same timescale that we will be producing marketable crops.
Ruth Jones
Q
I note in the Bill that the definition of “animals” is not restricted to farm animals; therefore, it follows that it is obviously not just farm animals that we are talking about here. I just wondered what you see the Bill actually covering in terms of applications beyond farm animals—what sort of areas do you see the Bill taking us in?
Professor Henderson: I am sorry; could you repeat the question, please?
Ruth Jones
Yes, okay. In the Bill, the definition of “animals” is not restricted to farm animals. Therefore, it follows that if we are not just talking about farm animals, we are talking about animals outside farms. What sort of applications you were thinking of? As you said, you have been involved in the development of this Bill. What sort of areas are we looking at in terms of the application of gene editing here?
The Chair
Did you hear that question, Professor Henderson?
Professor Henderson: I heard something about—[Interruption.] The application for animals outside the farm is something that will need to be addressed before secondary legislation can be enacted. It is not something that I am willing to discuss now, because I—[Interruption.]
Jo Churchill
I understand, Gideon, that you are on a visit. May I suggest, with the Committee’s indulgence, that we slot you in on Thursday, if people are agreeable and you have the time? Your evidence is both welcome and vital, and we would like to hear from you.
Professor Henderson: Again, I can only apologise for the bad wi-fi I have here. I would be happy to come back to you at any time that suits the Committee.
The Chair
We have 10 minutes left in this session, so let us have one more try. If that is unsuccessful, then, with my co-Chair, we can consider changing the programme motion. We have agreed a programme motion so it would have to be formally changed. Will you ask the question again, Ruth?
Ruth Jones
Did you hear the question, Professor Henderson?
Professor Henderson: I think your question was to do with animals that are not on farms—non-livestock animals—which I take to mean things like pets. In that area, there is a piece of work still to do to ensure that animal welfare is looked after and continues to be well looked after following the passage of any Bill on precision breeding. That is a piece of work that scientific information will need to feed into.
There is a body of evidence on animal welfare, including on-farm and off-farm welfare. That is a process that I believe will have to take place before secondary legislation can be enacted. The process for that is laid out in the Bill, and the timescale will be something like two to three years where scientific input will feed in.
Ruth Jones
Q
Professor Henderson: That is our expectation.
Kerry McCarthy
Q
What do you see as the parameters of that? How will the Bill protect animal welfare? Because of the popularity of those dogs, breeders may make use of the new technology to breed even more extreme examples. Would that be desirable? How can we prevent that from happening? You may have answered that in response to my colleague and said that it needs more time, but how do you see that in terms of the desire for increased yields and increased production on farms? Is there not an argument for not including animals in the Bill while this further research takes place?
Professor Henderson: Scientifically, the application of these technologies to cross to livestock or other animals is identical in terms of the changes it can cause. It can mimic the impact of breeding more efficiently, effectively and rapidly. In the livestock and animal area, this has identified more clearly a problem that was already there and the fact that we know, with respect to animal welfare, there are some negative outcomes that come from traditional breeding processes. If we are able to speed that process up through precision breeding, those negative outcomes may occur more quickly.
The passage of this Bill has pointed to those problems in animal welfare and made them clearer, and made it necessary to deal with them quite explicitly before we can enact legislation about precision breeding for animals. That is not because the science is different but because the existing regulation around animals differs from that needed around crops. That is why the instrument is set up as a secondary instrument, so that there is time to fully consider and deal with the animal welfare processes before that is changed in law.
The Chair
Thank you, Professor Henderson. We will end the session there. It has been a difficult session because of the technology. I will consult the Front-Bench spokespeople and we will consider whether to change our programme motion and possibly invite you back, if you would be good enough to return. Thank you for the information you have given us and for your time.
Examination of Witness
Professor Robin May gave evidence.
The Chair
We now come to Professor Robin May. We have until 11 am, so we have gained five minutes. Thank you for giving us your time and expertise this morning. Could you briefly introduce yourself?
Professor May: Certainly. I am Robin May, chief scientific adviser at the Food Standards Agency and a professor of infectious disease at the University of Birmingham.
Jo Churchill
Q
Professor May: There are probably two answers to why this is necessary. Currently, precision bred foods and feeds will be encapsulated within the existing GM framework. If they are moving out of that framework, it is important to be sure that those products are safe. The key difference here with traditional breeding is one of pace. The entire point of this technology is to do things that could have been achieved through traditional breeding, but much faster. It is important that we have safety checks along that pathway.
On your question about balance, I think the key balance to strike here is between supporting innovation and ensuring safety. At the moment, our thinking around this is to have a two-streamed process for regulation, where there is a very light-touch process for anything where there is unlikely to be a substantive change in the food and more scrutiny of anything where the final food product is different. I think that is quite appropriate for this blend of technology.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Professor May: We have undertaken quite a lot of consumer research in this area, as have many others. There are various take-home messages from that. The first is that there has been a perceptible shift in public views over the last 10 or 20 years, and there has been more interest in the potential benefits of this technology. That is mirrored by a really strong view that the public want some level of regulation and safeguards in this and other genetic technologies.
Specifically around labelling, there is a very strong majority of the public that we have polled, and that others have seen, who would like labelling of these products. There is some difference of views about what that labelling should entail, but there is a strong feeling around it. From an FSA perspective, we would in principle support that, because we stand very strongly for transparency. The problem, sitting here as a scientist, is that this is not really achievable for this particular group of foods, because the entire nature of the precision breeding legislation is to consider things that could have been produced traditionally.
Consequently, you may end up in the future with two apples, for instance, and one was produced by precision breeding that involves gene editing and the other was produced by traditional methods. It would be scientifically impossible—at least, at the moment—to tell those two apart.
Then, from my perspective, my view is that a label that is not enforceable and that might be misleading is actually worse than no label at all, because you then start to spread doubt about the validity of other labels in the food system: allergen labels, nutritional labels. While in principle I think labelling would be a good thing, the fact that we cannot enforce it makes me feel that this is not appropriate for this type of food.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Professor May: Labelling in the UK is quite a complex system. There are different legislative responsibilities in the different devolved Administrations, for instance. Broadly speaking, there are a whole variety of things, as we know, on a food label. The most obvious that most of us look at are things such as calories, fat content and salt content. There are very tight legal guidelines around what must be present on the label and that it must be accurate. Clearly, if you say that it contains 6 grams of salt and it contains 7 grams, that is not legal.
That holds also for other aspects. There are safety aspects of labelling, such as allergen information, which is critical for many of us, and country of origin. Then there are a raft of labels that may not have a legal framework, but which have recognition under guidelines—Red Tractor and animal welfare standards, those kinds of things. There is quite a lot on the label already. Under the current legislation, any food that is approved as a genetically modified food is labelled as such.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Professor May: That is a good example of somewhere where I think we would have a different approach. Just to go back on the approach we are currently proposing—I stress that there is nothing set in stone yet. This is an approach that we are working quite closely on with our advisory committee on novel foods and processes to develop firm guidelines. At the moment, our thinking is around this two-tier process. Tier 1, for instance, would be foods where there is no compositional change in the thing you eat. A strawberry with a different root system, but the strawberry itself is identical, would not need substantial regulation. In contrast, with the vitamin D tomato that you mentioned, the thing you eat is now different; there is vitamin D in there. Those would be risk assessed and under that risk assessment the key issue there would be one of safety.
In an example such as that one, where there may be a subset of the population for whom this is dangerous, absolutely, we would incorporate that into the risk assessment and our guidance to Ministers then would be that it would be entirely right and appropriate to label that food, possibly with a label that says, “Not suitable for certain groups.” You could imagine a scenario where a food is not suitable for pregnant women, for example, and we would certainly stand strong on the fact that the bottom line is that the food needs to be as safe as it is today. Anything that might compromise safety should clearly be labelled as such.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Professor May: That is correct. At the moment, part 3 of the Bill encompasses the direction of travel, but not the details. That is something we are working on at the moment.
Deidre Brock
Q
Professor May: Happily, I am here as a scientist, so I can say that, scientifically, we have an extremely close working relationship with FSS and other regulators around the world, but the closest is with FSS.
If I give an example, at the moment, risk assessments that we might do in FSA are shared very closely with FSS. All that process is done together. Often we are using the same sets of experts—for example, to provide information. Once the risk assessment is done, it passes to a risk management process. I cannot think of an example where there is a difference in the risk assessment part between nations, because the science is the science.
Where there are sometimes differences is in the risk management area. A current example is raw drinking milk, because the science around the risks of drinking such milk is the same, but England and Scotland have different views on how much risk is acceptable. Under this framework, I would fully intend that we would share all the science around the risk assessments of a precision-bred product. Ultimately, though, the decision on a risk management basis and whether to authorise it would fall to Ministers in each of the individual countries.
Ruth Jones
Q
Professor May: Previously, prior to Brexit, everything was handled at the European level. As I just mentioned, we share informally the scientific advice, which is very international. Often the people who are providing evidence for a risk assessment are the same people—they may not even be within the EU, but wherever that expertise is available in the world—so there is quite a lot of sharing at that level. Currently, our only formal arrangement with the EU on food safety is around alerts. An alert for a food safety issue that may have an impact on the UK is passed to us, but something that affects countries outside and has no impact on the UK would not necessarily be shared.
I think all of us hope that there will be a reciprocal arrangement for sharing information in future. It is in everyone’s interest to share as much evidence and data as possible, but that is obviously not in my gift to control. There is recognition in the EU that the current GM framework is not fit for purpose for these kinds of products, so the process is already rolling in the EU to look at how it might be changed. How long that will take, and what the outcome might be, will obviously be very different. I would anticipate that it is going to take longer than it will in the UK to get resolution on that.
Ruth Jones
Q
Professor May: Sitting here as a scientist, obviously I hope very much that there will be good sharing. As I said before, it is in everyone’s interest to share the best science and the best evidence around this. Happily, building those relationships is not in my purview to organise, but I hope that there will be sharing, particularly around the horizon-scanning function. For us as a regulator, it is really critical to think about not just what is on our desks now, but what will be there in two, three or five years’ time. What is the science that we will need to assess the potential risks of products that I have not even thought of yet? Collaborative agreement around what might be coming down the road is really critical for all of us.
Deidre Brock
Q
Professor May: That is a very good question. It is hard to predict based on the estimation of what might be coming to our desks. On the one hand, the Bill will remove a tranche of products that would otherwise have been assessed as GM products. We already regulate GM products, and there is the capacity. On the other hand, the purpose of the Bill is to stimulate development in this area, so we may end up with a lot more applications, in which case we are going to need additional resource. We have taken steps in that direction, including recruiting independent experts in this area to provide scientific expertise, but if there were a large volume of applications needing consideration, we would need additional support.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Q
Professor May: Our statutory mandate is to protect consumers and represent their interests as they pertain to food. That includes a communication role ranging from allergy alerts and food withdrawals through to a more nuanced understanding of the food system—food security, food poverty and those kinds of questions. At the moment, we do a fair bit of public communication around issues that we know consumers are interested in. Precision breeding, on which we have done some work, is a good example. An explainer on what genome editing and precision breeding are, and what impact they might have, is available on our website, for example.
We do a limited amount of work with schools—particularly in some regions of the UK—mostly on food hygiene. There is an opportunity to do more to explain to people the honest truth about food, and to help them to make decisions about safety and their purchasing decisions in that space. There is always room to do more. There is a lot of consumer interest in this class of foods, and I anticipate that we will do more to make sure that people have the facts about it that they will want.
Kate Green
Q
Professor May: That depends very much on the type of misinformation. Local authorities usually enforce in that area. When a product is not what it says it is, for instance, it gets seized or withdrawn from retailers at local authority level. We issue alerts, and we have a national food crime unit that is very actively involved in looking at deliberate crime in the food sector, including people selling things that should not be sold or that are misrepresented. We also do quite a lot in the detection and enforcement of large-scale issues, including supply chain problems, incorrect labelling and so on.
In the case of precision breeding, it will clearly depend on what Parliament decides, but if there were a regulation on labelling, we would need to look carefully at how that responsibility goes out to the different regulators. We would undoubtedly have a view, and we would issue information for local authorities to enforce on what should and should not be on a label.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Professor May: That is exactly right. As the legislation stands, you might introduce what is called a single base pair chain—a tiny, one letter change in the DNA code of that apple. Those single letter changes happen all the time. If you have a field of apple trees, they will all be slightly different, even if you cloned them all initially, so we would not be able to take that apple, sequence the DNA and definitively say, “This one was created by someone using genome editing, and this one just turned up by chance in the field.” As you cannot tell those two apples apart, if there were a label on one saying “Precision bred” and a label on the other saying “Not precision bred”, I could not, as a scientist, say that that was true. That therefore raises questions in my head about why you would have a label if you cannot be sure, in the first place, that what it says is true.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Professor May: In principle. There are ways that you might do that. One way that some developers are thinking of—in the context of protecting their intellectual property—is to make that single letter change in a background of lots and lots of other single letter changes that you already know, as a kind of barcode. Then, the concept would be to mount a defence, so that if someone steals my apple, I would be able to say, “But this apple that you are selling has that single letter change, and the other 15, all of which were in my original stock apple, so this is my apple, not yours.”
That is a reasonably good way of protecting intellectual property if you are trying to claim that something is yours. It is very difficult to use that the other way around and say, “That is definitely precision bred.” I could be growing my apples and say that those 15 changes occurred spontaneously. Again, it is not currently possible to say definitively that they cannot have appeared naturally.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Professor May: The idea behind the register is to have a public awareness of the products that are going through this pathway and are ultimately out on the market, in a similar way to the public registration of foods at the moment. To take a current example, if you applied to us with a novel food, you would apply with a dossier of data that says, “This is the food. This is how I produced it. Here is how I have considered safety risks.” At the point that we say the dossier is complete and sufficient for us to consider, we publish and say, “This company has put its proposal in. We are now considering that product.” In the fullness of time, we will either recommend approval or not for that product. If we recommend approval, that will get registered publicly as well, so people can see what this novel food is and where it came from, and be reassured that there has been a due process behind it.
My view as a scientist is that this should be the same for precision breeding. We should have a register that says, “Here is a product that has been considered. We have looked at it; it hasn’t rocked up without any kind of due diligence around it.” It is there in the public domain for people to see what process it has gone through and be reassured that those products have had some level of scrutiny.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Professor May: It is aimed at some consumers, and that is true now. On average, most of us spend less than six seconds considering each food item we purchase in the supermarket, which is not enough time to consider the label. Some consumers, depending on their concerns, spend more time looking at labels. If you are an allergen sufferer, you spend a lot of time looking for allergens. If you are a vegetarian, you check that the label says it is vegetarian. We know most consumers are a bit uninterested in some of these issues, so they probably will not stop in that garage and check whether the product is on the register or not, but there will be some consumers who have strong views on this, and they may or may not wish to purchase something accordingly. It is important that the information is available for them, so that they can pause if they want to and find out. Even if most people do not, it is available, should they wish to do so.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Professor May: There is a slight threshold—yes, that is true. That is not unique to precision breeding. People are quite rightly demanding more and more information about their food. The labels are not getting any bigger, and certainly my eyesight is getting worse, so there is already a shift, and we see that. Many of us are doing more and more of our purchasing online. We actually never look at the sticky label on the food item because it is on a webpage instead. People are getting more used to looking elsewhere for information, so it is not the hurdle it used to be. You are quite right: there is a limit on how much we can fit on a physical label, and it is jostling for space with allergen, nutritional and the country of origin information, so there is limited real estate on the back of the label to get this information across.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Professor May: That is correct, yes.
Jo Churchill
Q
Professor May: There is a range of approaches across the world. It is probably true to say that no two countries have exactly the same approach at the moment. Perhaps I may give some examples.
At one end of the scale, you would have the current approach in the European Union, where all genetic modification, even genome editing that would fall within precision breeding, is regulated as GM and goes through a full risk assessment, often involving toxicology and quite a lot of analytics. At the other end of the scale, you have the US, for example, which has a default setting: if it is similar to something that was traditionally bred, there is no regulation.
Perhaps in between, the Canadian example is an interesting one. In Canada, they regulate the product and not the technology that has created it. They ask—let us go for an apple—“If you have created this apple, is it different from an apple I can buy currently?” If it is not different, it is not a novel food and it is not regulated; if it is different, it is a novel food and it gets assessed, regardless of how you made it. If I made that apple by precision breeding and it is different, it would be regulated; if I made it by crossing two apples in my orchard and creating a new apple tree that was different, it would still be regulated through that process. Scientifically, that is a very valid approach, but it means that you encompass within it all of traditional breeding and all the things that are done but not regulated in that way in this country.
The Chair
That brings us to the end of this session. Thank you for your time, Professor May, and for the contribution that you have made.
Examination of Witness
Professor Jim Dunwell gave evidence.
The Chair
Good morning, Professor Dunwell, and thank you for giving us your time. We will finish this session at 11.25 am. Will you introduce yourself briefly?
Professor Dunwell: I am Jim Dunwell, professor of plant biotechnology at the University of Reading. I am also chair of ACRE, the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, and have been for the past nearly three years.
Jo Churchill
Q
Professor Dunwell: Absolutely not. Some people suggest that speed, when it is applied in this kind of science, somehow has an intrinsic risk attached to it. That is slightly strange, as in most areas of science and innovation we are striving towards efficiency, whether it be in producing better vaccines or better batteries for electric cars. We are in a competitive world, and we can be sure that, as a nation and a scientific group, we are up against people who are having the same discussions elsewhere. If you are a plant breeder—not that it is a particularly profitable business—the ones who are successful are those who make genetic gains more efficiently and more quickly. Ever since we have known how genes control plant development, there have been advances in plant breeding to try to go through generations more quickly, so that people can capture, create and select genetic variation more quickly, and get their products to market more quickly. This is another element in that, which allows further increase in efficiency. Therefore, I have no intrinsic doubt about it.
Jo Churchill
Q
Professor Dunwell: No, not at all. It is something that ACRE as a group has had discussions about in the past decade, saying that the traditional methods of regulation were not really keeping pace with the change in the scientific information. Some 10 years ago nearly, we produced a report leading the way on that. Some of those issues have now fed through into the present proposal for regulation. Something you do with gene editing is to make slightly different, smaller genetic changes—that is the precision—enabling you to take a good variety and make it slightly better, just by making an existing change. In the past, you would have to put together different hybrid combinations. You would then have to go through massive selections of the best progeny, and that takes time. In terms of breeding a new variety, it may take five, eight or 10 years. That, now, can be cut back substantially.
Jo Churchill
Q
Professor Dunwell: I think it is very appropriate. Obviously, it follows on from our removal from the EU. As for the legal case that created this, I suppose, concern, most scientists in the UK and the EU realised that it was a sort of perverse judgment when it comes to traditional so-called mutagenesis, where you apply chemicals or radiation—that is considered a traditional method and has been for 50 years. If you go back to the ’50s, there was a society of atomic gardening. That was when atomic energy was “good”. There was a very popular and interesting character who set up the atomic gardening group. She used to demonstrate her plants at Chelsea; she used to have dinner parties and carry round irradiated peanuts to offer to people. It was considered a good thing, but it was a complete unknown. But there was no evidence of any problems relating to it. We can now make particular small genetic changes in a much more precise way, and I think it is a good time for the UK to take a lead and apply the best scientific principles that we have at our disposal.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Professor Dunwell: I think this comes back to our understanding of genomes. Some of the wording in here comes out of the discussions that we have had within ACRE and the recognition that, probably 20 or 30 years ago, we assumed that one crop had one genome and that was it, but we now know, because you can sequence genomes very easily and quickly, that in fact there is an enormous underlying diversity of genetic material. The number of genes in one variety of maize or corn is different from the number of genes in another. There are also structural rearrangements. You can have great pieces of chromosomes interchanged or moved; it is still a maize plant. These so-called structural variations are an intrinsic part of plant breeding—and also animal breeding. The more we see the diversity of this variation, the more we pick up the fact that many, many plants have DNA that has come from other organisms throughout their evolution; it is the same with animals. Plants have segments of DNA from, say, virus infections hundreds or thousands of years ago perhaps. They have been incorporated into the genome and so, in old-fashioned definitions of GM, those organisms would be considered genetically modified organisms, because they have material from another organism in them. But we accept now that that is the baseline—that many, many organisms have small parts of DNA from many, many organisms. We have nematodes that have plant DNA. We have insects that have plant DNA. These have been moved around during evolution. They do not change the purity of the species. In evolutionary terms, they create the diversity that enables evolution to take place.
That is the background in which the term “natural transformation” has been created. The simple presence of a small fragment or a bit of DNA from another species, which might have been there anyway, is not something that has any impact on hazard or risk.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
I want to press you a bit further on some of these vexed issues of definition. We have “precision bred organism”, “qualifying higher plant”, and the EU now has “new genetic techniques”. We have three new definitions, which the learned societies have suggested in their evidence do not really mean very much. I may be being slightly unkind, but they are not very precise in their definition. The evidence that your committee, ACRE, produced to give guidance, which unfortunately came after the statutory instrument a few months ago, makes for very interesting reading. I will not read it all out—I assure you, Mr Stringer—but it is a very nuanced account of how you might go about coming to conclusions about what any of these things are, but it lacks precision and certainty. As legislators, we are trying to put into a Bill some fairly precise definitions. Am I wrong about that?
Professor Dunwell: No, it is a nuanced approach. It is nuanced because it takes account of the developing science. That is something that our committee does; part of the responsibility of all committees is horizon scanning. We want to see where techniques that we think of as traditional now are in a few years. There will be even better means of changing not just bits of DNA, but perhaps epigenetic effects, which is where you change not the sequence of the DNA but whether the DNA is expressed in a particular cell. That can also have an advantage.
What you see in these definitions is something that takes account of the advance in science. As I said, it takes account of the background genetic variation that exists. There were a couple of papers recently in Nature, for which something like 50 potato genomes were sequenced, and something like half a million quite big genetic variations were identified, in terms of the position of genes. It is against that background that this definition is pitched. That is where we have to take account of the variation. You cannot say now that one particular fragment of DNA is going to produce any particular risk.
Deidre Brock
Q
Professor Dunwell: Well, we realise that the jurisdiction is different. We have observers at ACRE meetings from the devolved authorities—not at every meeting, but they are clearly invited to attend, and some of them do. They can add their own input into the discussions, even though it will not apply within their jurisdiction. Then of course we have the fact that much of the good science goes on at the James Hutton Institute, the Roslin Institute and elsewhere. Those are world-class centres of science doing this type of research. I am sure that among those scientists there is an intrinsic frustration about the political environment that exists, but I am not going to comment on the policy at that level. ACRE as a committee had sessions in Edinburgh some three or four years ago, and we have spoken to the relevant committees directly. I was part of those discussions.
Deidre Brock
Q
Professor Dunwell: Under the EU system a lot of the discussion was part of EFSA. Obviously it is different now, but in those days it fed back information to ACRE. Even though we have kind of split, we still take account of and look at the EFSA reports on a regular basis. We keep up to date with the discussions in the whole area of science looking forward, because it is our responsibility to make sure that ACRE is not just an isolated UK silo. We have those reports and there still are UK people who sit on EFSA committees, even though we are not part of the official system. It has not disqualified the scientific input from the UK into the EU, which is an interesting element in its own right.
Deidre Brock
Q
Professor Dunwell: Well, it is the terminology “escape”. Perhaps it comes from releasing things into the environment, which has some implication to it, but there is no evidence that any existing genetically modified things that are on the market have any greater impact on the environment either through pollen dispersal or propagule dispersal than any existing variety has. Just because it is genetically modified or, in the future, gene edited, it will not intrinsically expand the danger of gene contamination, which is often an objection.
Deidre Brock
Q
Professor Dunwell: It is not relevant. There is no evidence for that.
Deidre Brock
Q
Professor Dunwell: No, they would be excluded. You have taken a gene or genes, and you accumulate the numbers of genes. Some of the things that are being grown in the States now might have eight or 10 transgenes —separate genes—all inserted into the same variety. That is completely different from what we are discussing today, which is minor changes that are much more equivalent to forms of mutation that have existed for ever. The domestication of crops relied on mutations, but we did not know at the time what they were. Agriculture and what you eat today is a product of natural mutation.
Deidre Brock
Q
Professor Dunwell: There are lots of maize varieties that have been proposed and are grown commercially in the States over large areas. Initially, 20 or so years ago, they just had one or two genes, which were to do with insect resistance or herbicide tolerance, but over time the numbers of genes have been pyramided together, either by introducing them all at once or by crossing together a transgenic plant that has one insert and one that has two, so there are varieties now with six, eight or 10 different genes from different sources in one commercial product.
Deidre Brock
Q
Professor Dunwell: Yes, and it has been done by—
The Chair
Order. May I just say that there are a number of people who wish to speak? If there is time at the end, I will come back to you, Deidre. I call Andrew Bowie.
Andrew Bowie
Q
Professor Dunwell: Yes. The science is clearly not different. A plant grown in England or Wales or Ireland or wherever is no different. But there are differences in jurisdiction. Where you have devolved authorities, that element of allowing or not allowing cultivation is a devolved issued.
Clive Lewis
Q
Professor Dunwell: We could debate the precautionary principle for a long time.
Clive Lewis
But you are obviously happy that it has been resolved.
Professor Dunwell: Yes, but the discussions and the recommendations we have had are proportionate to the scientific debates that ACRE takes part in. Under the traditional remit, our major remit is to advise on potential risks of GM to human health and the environment. That is the core of our debate. At the same time, we have to do that in this area of moving scientific expertise. We continually adjust that, but those are the core features in what we are tasked to do. Clearly, more tasks might come out of the Bill. In that area, we have for years had flexibility about elements of those core principles. Yes, we are satisfied that the precautionary principle is not an issue.
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
Q
This might not be a fair question, but has science ever got to the point where it could effectively give us a legal definition that we could use to erase some of the confusion on the Opposition Front Bench, or is biology itself too complicated?
Professor Dunwell: Biology is not physics—you cannot measure every charge of every atom. The appearance of any plant depends on not just the genes that are in it, but where you grow it.
Katherine Fletcher
On what gets switched on and what does not.
Professor Dunwell: Yes. The so-called genotype-environment interaction is what determines how big the weeds in your garden grow. It depends on whether they are watered, whether they have fertiliser, whether they get mildew on them and so on. The plant itself is a consequence of that interaction.
As you say, that is an extraordinarily difficult thing to put down in words to be subject to legal enforcement. I am not a lawyer; I admire the people who put our advice into this Bill. There may be bits that people can tweak, but it is the job of the lawyer to try to compose something that fits legal standards but is also compatible with the kinds of—
Katherine Fletcher
Q
Professor Dunwell: I have not spoken to the drafting lawyers, but I imagine they have struggled at times with trying to pin down something that is, as you say, flexible and messy. Biology is something that perhaps does not always fit or meet strict definitions.
Katherine Fletcher
Q
Professor Dunwell: Taking one step back, any form of agriculture and any form of domestication and multiplication of a crop in the last 10,000 years has been to put something into the environment that was not there. In the case of maize 10,000 years ago, someone somewhere in Mexico found a unique plant with characteristics that they had never seen before, and he or she—that very bright individual—said, “This has got attributes that I can see are good and I want to keep.” That was the beginning of the agricultural system.
Katherine Fletcher
And she—let us make it a she—almost environmentally released it into a field.
Professor Dunwell: Yes. That is the context, and I think it is important just generally that people—well, that is me producing a sermon. That is the context in which we are now working.
Ruth Jones
Q
Professor Dunwell: That is a whole other area. Science in this area has not been applied in the same way to a micro-organism. Obviously, it has been applied to animals. You talked before about asking the question about gene edited animals. One of the things I should add before I get to the other question is that the best example of that on the market at the moment is gene edited fish in Japan. There are two varieties of fish whose growth rate has been modified through gene editing, which have been on the market—I do not know whether successfully commercially, but they are one of the prime examples of that.
On micro-organisms, we hope at the next ACRE meeting—we have not had an in-person meeting since covid started—to start to explore the applications in the microbiology area. We have invited people along from outside, as we do quite regularly, for consciousness raising at a scientific level, to get the best experts to say where they see this type of technology going. Microbiology at the moment is not specifically described in here. It will develop over time because there is an increasing interest in applying different microbes—often ones that have been selected, because the soil is full of tens of thousands of microbes, and some of them are good and some are bad. Many companies now have huge collections of hundreds of thousands of microbes that they go through to try to pick ones that may have an antagonistic effect on other microbes, so they can be applied as inoculants into the soil to improve soil health.
All that is really admirable and exciting stuff. It depends, again, on our ability to identify, extract and sequence genetic information. I went to a meeting probably 20 years ago in Paris, when somebody for the first time said that their PhD student, having spent three years, had got the sequence of one bacterium. He was so proud of that student. Now, you can probably do hundreds in a day. The rate of change is orders of magnitude just in 20 years. It is in what grows out of that and how we develop the regulatory boundaries that the challenges lie.
The Chair
That brings to a conclusion this morning’s session. Professor Dunwell, thank you for your time and evidence.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Jo Churchill.)
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Fifth sitting)
Tuesday 28th June 2022
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 View all Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 28 June 2022 - (28 Jun 2022)
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a couple of reminders. Colleagues should switch off telephones, or at least switch them to silent. No food is allowed, although Members are allowed liquid refreshments. Our Hansard colleagues would be delighted if Members emailed their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
We are about to begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room, here in front of me. The selection list shows how the selected amendments have been grouped for debate. Grouped amendments are generally on the same or a similar issue. Please note that decisions on amendments are taken not in the order in which the amendments are debated, but in the order in which they appear on the amendment paper.
The selection list shows the order of debates. A decision on each amendment will be taken when we come to the clause to which the amendment relates. Decisions on new clauses will be taken once we have completed consideration of the existing clauses of the Bill. I hope that is clear.
Members wishing to press a grouped amendment or new clause to a Division should indicate when speaking that they wish to do so.
Clause 1
Statement of levelling-up missions
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move amendment 3, in clause 1, page 1, line 14, at end insert—
“(c) the independent body that Her Majesty’s Government proposes to use to evaluate progress in delivering those levelling-up missions (“the independent evaluating body”).”
This amendment would require the Government to commission an independent body to scrutinise their progress against levelling-up missions.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 5, in clause 2, page 2, line 37, at end insert—
“(aa) include the independent evaluating body’s assessment of the progress that has been made, in that period, by Her Majesty’s Government to deliver each of the levelling-up missions.”
This amendment would require annual reports on the delivery of levelling-up missions to include the evaluation that the independent evaluating body has made of the Government’s progress in delivering each of the missions.
Amendment 10, in clause 5, page 5, line 18, at end insert—
“(ca) state whether the independent evaluating body considers that pursuing the levelling-up missions in that statement is effectively contributing to the reduction of geographical disparities in the United Kingdom,”
This amendment would require the report on a review of statements of levelling-up missions to include the assessment of the independent evaluating body.
Amendment 12, in clause 5, page 5, line 31, at end insert—
“(iii) so that it includes the guidance from the independent evaluating body on this decision”
This amendment would require the Government to publish the guidance from the independent evaluating body on this decision.
New clause 1—Independent body to monitor levelling up missions—
“(1) The Secretary of State must assign an independent body to assess the Government’s progress on levelling-up missions and make recommendations for improvements to delivery of them.
(2) The body must prepare parallel independent reports for each period to which a report under section 2 applies.
(3) Each parallel independent report must—
(a) assess the progress that has been made in the relevant period in delivering each of the levelling-up missions in the current statement levelling-up missions, as it has effect at the end of the period, and
(b) make recommendations for what the Government should do to deliver each levelling-up mission in the following period.
(4) The Secretary of State must lay each report under this section before Parliament on the same day as the report under section 2 which applies to the relevant period.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to establish an independent body that can provide reports on the Government’s progress on levelling-up missions and outline recommendations for their future delivery.
Alex Norris
It is a pleasure to begin our line-by-line consideration with you in the Chair, Mr Paisley.
The first two parts of the Bill deal with levelling up. I think it is safe to say that levelling up is an area in which there is considerable public interest. It has been at the core of the Prime Minister’s agenda and was at the heart of the 2019 Conservative manifesto, but, many years on, there remains considerable interest in what it really means. In February, we received the White Paper, “Levelling Up the United Kingdom”, which has 297 glossy pages comprised of broad missions that all of us could support, such as addressing inequalities in health and life expectancy, and in pay and productivity, and boosting local pride and more. I think there would be broad political consensus on those things.
The White Paper was heavy on narrative—lots of history, although some of it seemed to be directly from Wikipedia—but there was little clarity on how those worthy goals would be met. That was set against the frequent negative briefing we have seen in the media by ever-present Government sources about levelling up, as well as a clear reduction in commitment from the Treasury with little or no new money being made available to power the programme. We meet at an important point at which there is a lot of public interest in what levelling up is going to mean, but no little cynicism about whether anything is really going to change.
The Bill was supposed to represent the moment when that cynicism would be arrested, and the Government would demonstrate beyond doubt that they really were committed to levelling up the United Kingdom and were going to deliver their promises. I fear that the Bill has not yet met that moment.
As I said on Second Reading, the levelling-up Bill is now the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. Essentially, the Bill has been bulked out with a planning Bill, which is a sign of what we are going to be doing here over the next three months. If that point is contested, the doubt could be erased by considering how much time the Minister for Levelling Up and I, as his shadow, have spent talking compared with the Minister for Housing and his shadow. Today, tomorrow and next week, I am afraid that we might hear more from me. However, we have a duty—we also have lots and lots of time—to make the Bill better, so that it might serve this important agenda. With that in mind, I have tabled amendment 3, which I shall turn to now.
The amendment is about independent scrutiny of this important agenda. We on the Labour Benches are concerned that the Government will seek to demonstrate levelling up not as hard-and-fast, real and meaningful change that unlocks the potential of the United Kingdom, across all the nations and regions, but in a political sense. We are concerned that they will seek to write up whatever happens as a huge political success, but nothing will really get better. We see that as a stock in trade for this Government; every Prime Minister’s Question Time is an exercise in hearing how well our economy has done and is doing, but we know the reality. We see in our communities anaemic growth, real-terms wages stagnating and rampant inflation. We are constantly told how great things are, but the reality is anything but. That cannot happen with levelling up, and the Government should be keen from the outset to show that they do not intend for it to. Our amendments would help them considerably in that.
Clause 1(2) requires the Government to establish levelling-up missions through a statement from a Minister of the Crown. It says that the statement must include the Government’s objectives in tackling geographical disparities and the metrics they intend to use to measure progress. That leaves the Government to mark their own homework—they can say what they are trying to do and how well they are doing it. Amendment 3 would improve that by requiring the statement also to detail an independent body to evaluate whether the Government are achieving what they say they will.
Independent oversight is a cornerstone of good governance. Clear, trusted and impartial analysis makes better policy, delivers better outcomes and is a good thing for democracy. An independent body that can sit alongside the programme could be a real anchor for the development and progress of the agenda. Such a body is not a particularly unimaginable prospect, as we already have good examples of such independent oversight. I will draw briefly on two of those examples: the Office for Budget Responsibility; and the Select Committees in this place.
In different ways, but with similar impacts, the OBR and the Select Committee system have been vital in holding the Government of the day to account by providing analysis and reports on issues such as the state of public finances in the case of the OBR, and for various policy matters across every Government Department in the case of Select Committees. They can act without fear or favour, and since their introduction they have significantly improved debate on policy, the development of good policy and the proper implementation of good policy.
Governments, as is their wont, seek to drive their agenda forward each day with announcements of different policies or achievements, but Select Committees in particular have been important forums for us to step back, assess the evidence, evaluate what has worked, take evidence from around the world or from different systems to see what has worked, and to reach informed conclusions about how to improve outcomes. The Government, with their legislative mandate, can then choose whether to accept those conclusions.
I am sure that the recent Public Accounts Committee report into levelling up so far will come up during the proceedings. It was made clear by the Minister for Local Government, Faith and Communities, the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Kemi Badenoch) in questions yesterday that the Government have no intention of taking that report on board. That is fine; there is independent scrutiny, and then the Government must make their decision, as they have a mandate to do. The scrutiny process also takes some of the partisanship out of situations, which is always a good thing.
During our final evidence session, Will Tanner, who on political matters would normally be closer to the Minister than to myself, said:
“The area where I think the Committee could make a real difference is around the levelling-up missions and the overarching framework around the Bill. I am not sure the Minister will necessarily thank me for saying this, but I think the reporting requirements and the architecture around the levelling-up missions could be strengthened considerably in two primary ways. First, we have seen through the Office for Budget Responsibility and the Climate Change Committee the importance and strength of an independent body to hold the Government to account for delivering against its own targets, and I think the levelling-up missions would benefit from that level of scrutiny and accountability. At the moment there is a bit of a risk of the Government setting out its own interpretation of progress rather than us having an independent view.”––[Official Report, Levelling-up and Regeneration Public Bill Committee, 23 June 2022; c. 144, Q179.]
That is the first of two points Will Tanner made; I will raise the second under the clause 2 stand part debate. That first point is right, and it is a view shared by the Local Government Association. We are keen to avoid the issue that Will Tanner finished with in that quotation: the risk of the Government setting out their own interpretation of progress. There is a risk of that in the Bill currently.
We know that the Government are in that space to an extent; they value external voices through the Levelling Up Advisory Council. I hope the Minister might make some references to its work and how he sees that following Royal Assent. The body brings together respected individuals from their fields to advise on levelling up. The Minister can tell us how useful that has been so far. I trust it has been very useful. The amendment gives the Government significant discretion. I have offered an OBR model and a Select Committee model. The advisory council itself could be a model, provided the Government could demonstrate suitable independence. I see no harm—only positives, in fact—in maximising the process of, say, the advisory council and building on its independence and distance from Government.
The timescale, size and importance of levelling up necessitates independent scrutiny. As we have heard from the various speeches from Ministers setting out to define levelling up, this is a vast project that cuts across various Departments. Policy in the White Paper concerned economy, crime, health, education, devolution, employment and much more. Indeed, the White Paper spoke of how Government decision making would have to be “fundamentally reoriented” and that wide-scale system change was required in Government for levelling up to succeed. It says:
“System change is not about a string of shiny, but ultimately short-lived, new policy initiatives. It is about root and branch reform of government and governance of the UK. It is about putting power in local hands, armed with the right information and embedded in strong civic institutions.”
That is a very noble pursuit—titanic, I might say. Clearly, purely in policy terms, it is going to be very big. Some independent support would be welcome. That quote from the White Paper recognises that levelling up is not a project for Government alone, neither in the execution nor the analysis. That is why we think the introduction of an independent voice would add to that.
It is not just about size. Levelling up will take some time to deliver. The Government’s levelling-up missions in the White Paper set targets for 2030. I do not want to open a political debate this morning—yet—but such a target is likely to outlive the Government. Having an independent and constant scrutineer, which would be part of the process, whether Ministers moved on and Governments changed, would help with the implementation of long-term policy objectives. It would provide a sustained focus, unencumbered by changes. We are well placed to do that, because the principles of levelling up happily enjoy cross-party support and are here to stay. Certainly, we will find much common ground in these sessions on the broad principles of what we are seeking to achieve. Why not embed those principles in an overarching independent body?
Amendment 5 mirrors amendment 3. We will have opportunities to debate clause 2 fully subsequently, but it requires annual statements on the Government’s progress towards the levelling-up missions. A Minister of the Crown has to make those statements each year. That is a very good thing. There is a danger with medium-term goals; I am always a bit sceptical about them. I remember that at the turn of the century, we always had to have 2020 visions. I was always quite sceptical of 20-year programmes. It is often the work that is done in the first years that is as important as the work done in the last years, and the last thing we want is to get to 2030 and realise we have not achieved what we have set out to do. Annual reporting is therefore a good thing to ensure that we are on track. If we are not, we can evaluate why and make some changes to get back on track. That will give us a good tool to hold Ministers to account.
Clause 2(2) says that the annual reports must include the Minister’s view of progress so far, description of actions taken so far and plans for the future. In short, the Government mark their own homework—getting the chance to trumpet the actions they have taken and herald the future actions they will take. If we judge the Government on their current standards, we are likely to see a cycle of subterfuge and self-congratulation. Amendment 5 would remove that risk by requiring annual reports on the delivery of levelling-up missions to include an independent evaluating body’s assessment of the Government’s progress. As I said, independent oversight is a really important factor in good governance, and clear and trusted analysis would lead to better policy and outcomes.
We should look to Budget day, and to the OBR, as a model. Why should a Minister’s annual reports on the progress of levelling up not be accompanied by a booklet featuring clear, factual information and independent analysis? That is what we get on Budget day from the OBR, so why not replicate it with levelling up? Levelling up is a transformative economic project that is supposedly at the centre of the Government’s domestic policy, so its profile could be seen as equal to that of major annual economic events. If we are to be transformative, let us try to raise the significance of levelling up.
We would all agree that debates on the Budget and financial events are enriched by the information provided by the OBR. In this case, the debate around levelling up—whether we are going in the right direction and whether we will get there in the time we have set for ourselves—would only be enriched by providing similar information. Again, it would give Members opportunities to scrutinise, to give real-time feedback on how things are feeling in their constituencies, and to create a conversation with the public. I think all hon. Members would agree that we do a better job—on making policies or scrutinising them—when we have a bit of independence supporting the system.
I dare say that a theme of these debates will be that levelling up will not be a success if it is something that central Government do to the nations and regions. There will have to be a partnership. Part 2 of the Bill seeks to establish sub-regional bodies. Again, that will be a partnership between the Government and the sub-regional bodies. Sub-regional bodies, their councils and communities—the whole family; all of us—all have a stake in things getting better. There therefore needs to be some impartial assessment in the Bill, certainly for the public—it is their money, after all—to be able to see the progress that is being made, so that there can be a conversation. Sometimes that conversation will be about holding central Government to account and saying, for example, “We don’t think you’re making the right resourcing decisions to drive changes in crime,” but it is also about saying to local communities, “What is your part in that?”
Impartial assessment is not just about having something with which to evaluate the Government, but about holding ourselves—mutually, in partnership—to account, but we cannot do that if the only assessment of progress and impact is made by the central player in the field. The Public Accounts Committee report commented on the wisdom or otherwise of, or the lack of criteria in, the way in which a significant sum of public money has been spent. Impartial analysis, including of the finances, would help us to build trust that levelling up is something that the Government want to do in and of itself, not for any other purposes.
I turn briefly to amendment 10. We are discomfited by clause 5, which allows Ministers to revise the levelling-up missions. If Ministers do not think the missions serve levelling up, they can be dispensed with. That offers a mechanism for the Government to dodge accountability when the reality of their lack of success fails to measure up to their press releases. That is a huge power for the Government to ask for. The White Paper is full of lofty rhetoric, and there is supposedly a stake in the ground about the centrality of the levelling-up missions, but we now see in the Bill that there is an asterisk saying that the Government might want to change the missions later. We are being asked to accept that, and we will probe that issue fully when we come to the clause 5 stand part debate.
The intention behind amendment 10 is to say that if the Government want to reserve a pretty significant power to diverge from what they have said they are planning to do—presumably, they built the missions based on the evidence, and on conversation and engagement with the public—an independent body should report on whether it thinks the Minister’s decision is sound.
The Chair
I intend to call Back Benchers first, and then the Front Benchers. You do not need to bob, but if you are a Back Bencher who wishes to speak, please catch my eye.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Mr Paisley. I want to stress the importance of the legislation before us. In particular, I want to speak to amendments 3 and 5, and to new clause 1.
Clause 1 deals with the levelling-up missions, the foundation to the Bill and to building a stronger and more equal society. Representing a constituency in the north, I cannot stress enough the importance of this agenda in addressing the regional disparities that we see, and the inequality that my constituents experience. Across the House, we recognise the intergenerational lack of investment and the cost that has caused, biting particularly hard through the past decade of austerity, covid and now the cost of living crisis.
Clause 1(2) deals with levelling-up missions: what, when and how. However, the “who” is omitted. In taking evidence last week, the Committee heard leading experts repeatedly highlight the need for independent evaluation. In the very last evidence session, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North said, Mr Tanner drew attention to the importance of independence in the scrutiny of the levelling-up missions. That was a consistent theme throughout the week, with good reason.
First, no Government should mark their own homework. The Government clearly want to succeed, and therefore the matrices through which the comprehensive auditing process is undertaken could skew, or even conceal, the extent to which progress has been made. I am sure that if Government Ministers were sitting where we are, they would make the exact same argument about wanting rigour and independence through the scrutiny process of the levelling-up agenda. If the agenda is of such importance, the Government should welcome independent scrutiny of it.
Secondly, objective, independent scrutiny for such complex examination would provide Government with better insight into the progress made, and set out the path forward to address emerging inequalities or struggling areas that need concentrated focus to address those inequalities. It would give the Government the opportunity to step aside and then to invest in those areas. With the Government being so close to wanting levelling-up to succeed, there is risk of skewing the objectives.
Thirdly, I will make the comparison, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North did, to the Treasury establishing the Office for Budget Responsibility. That organisation has enabled independent scrutiny of Treasury assessments and has enabled Parliament and the public to hold the Government to account and to scrutinise the workings of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and wider Government respectively. In addition, the Climate Change Committee now has such authority that the nation looks to it: we know that academia particularly focuses on it, the Government certainly focus on and adhere to its calls, but so does industry. Having that rigour across industry enables us to see the seismic change that is necessary to meet our climate objectives. Seeing such scrutiny at work demonstrates the importance of independence. We can look at the power of COP26: had the Climate Change Committee not undertaken its vital work, we might not have seen the outcome that we did.
It is crucial that we see independent scrutiny not just of climate issues but across other national agendas. It does not matter who the Government of the day are; we want to bring about this change in order to apply that scrutiny to them. In order to tackle the inequality and injustices that we see across our communities, we must ensure that we set the right foundations for long-term measurement, and that the methodology is robust and independent, can attract cross-party support and is useful for all—not only in this place, which is often where the focus is, but across the country.
When we are dealing with such issues as those relating to criminal justice, housing and health, there are of course huge communities looking for robust measurement in order to understand how to advance those agendas. As we see more devolution in areas such as health, with the new integrated care systems, there needs to be a collective understanding of the mission that we are going on, not only through setting out the levelling-up missions but in scrutinising and measuring them as they advance. This is not just of use to the Government, or to the Opposition in scrutinising the Government; it is useful to all those parts of our society that move our levelling-up agenda forward.
In the light of the complexities of measuring levelling-up missions, it is of course necessary for measurement not just to be placed on the Government. There needs to be inclusion of, for instance, ICSs, local government, mayoralties and so on, so that there can be robust determination of how they feed into the levelling-up missions and how their work is scrutinised, given their arm’s length role in delivering many of these functions and the missions and aspirations of Government. As my hon. Friends on the Front Bench have set out in amendment 4, with proposed new subsection (4A), the Government must also publish an action plan to enable objective scrutiny of the missions’ impact. This is about not just looking backwards but projecting forwards, which helps to set the rhythm of Government but also of our nation.
The regeneration community—the professionals who will implement many elements of the Bill—talk about those golden threads where analysis is required not just in the silos of individual missions or Departments, but across them, to determine how they will intersect and work together so that, together, they are more than the sum of their parts. I am talking about drawing in multiple Departments to address inequality. We know that many of these issues are intersectional, so we need a body that can hold everything together and highlight the opportunities, because the Government are often too close to them to identify them.
It might be worth noting that the Hackitt report in relation to Grenfell takes that approach. It looks at intersectionality, which is so important for a robust response. Clearly, with such complexity as levelling up presents, having a space for independent scrutiny is all the more important. The independence will then, of course, build confidence across the country. This will not just be seen as a headline, a tweet or the next moment to talk about levelling up; it will gain public recognition and will bring focus across Government and beyond. Independence will take away suggestion of unconscious bias in Government decisions, and will give delivery partners greater confidence in the process and in Government. It will restore trust, which the Government are seeking and we all want to see. It will thus reduce conflict and increase motivation.
We have independent scrutiny across most functions in society. We have heard about the OBR and the Climate Change Committee, but I draw the Minister’s attention to Ofsted, Ofcom, Ofgem and the Care Quality Commission—independence is absolutely at the heart of all they deliver, so why not have it for something as fundamental as levelling-up missions? This is now recognised as the mechanism by which performance can be judged nationally, regionally and locally. A mature Government therefore have to understand the rigour of independence.
I move on to proposed new subsection (2)(c). We have had the what, the when, the how and the who, and we now need to talk about how much. It is vital that the Government quantify the resources available for investment in the nation’s regions, sub-regions and local areas. The entrenched disparities we see across the country are not due to a lack of aspiration or ability but are in large part down to a failure to invest in more than a generation. The Resolution Foundation has spoken in the past 24 hours about the importance of the scale of investment. When resources are concentrated, their impact is multiplied and we see decades of inequality being addressed.
As we know, London and the south-east suck in the lion’s share of resources. We have seen the evolution of the booming south at the cost of the north; that is what this agenda is all about. In the evidence sessions, Professor Leyser and the Mayor of the West Midlands, Andy Street, highlighted how to build a cluster economy to invest and create wider opportunities. Although the mission of levelling up is to address regional disparities, reviewing the impact it has on local inequity is so important, which is why independent scrutiny is vital.
If all that is achieved in the most affluent areas, then clearly, in order to extend opportunities for wealth, health and education, levelling up will need to be translated across the board. I truly recommend that we focus on opportunities to level up under the purview of an independent body, as opposed to the internal scrutiny systems of Government.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. I will not say very much, except to express my support for the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham North.
It seems to me that it is entirely appropriate to push much of what is in the Bill through legislation—that would be normal for any Government—but for certain aspects, particularly those in part 1, it is quite unusual for a Government to choose this means to achieve their aim. If they want to level up, invest in regions and improve the quality of life in rural and urban communities in the north, the south-west and other areas where we feel that there has been a disparity of opportunity, they could simply do it. It does not take a Bill for us to invest and choose to act differently. The Government could just do something very novel: govern. They could invest and choose priorities to get behind.
Given that the Government have chosen this route, it seems odd that they should want to have their cake and eat it. They want to go down the legislative route but then not do anything commensurate with it—in other words, they do not want to allow themselves to be scrutinised and held to account. It seems entirely appropriate to me that there should be an independent body that is able to judge the success—or otherwise—of the levelling-up missions. It would see whether, for example, we are tackling the huge disparity, in every region of this country, between different age groups’ and income groups’ access to affordable housing, to allow them access to all other parts of society—that is what a decent, affordable, secure home does.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
There is a lot of interest in the idea of levelling up and its lofty and laudable aims, but warm words and good intentions, of themselves, will not reduce inequality across the UK. There is a real flaw in the Bill’s lack of accountability and ownership of each of the 12 levelling-up missions on the part of individual UK Government Departments. Amendments 3, 5, 10 and 12 and new clause 1 seek to address that lack of accountability.
Of course, the Government have given themselves the power to move the goalposts, change their targets, and look as if they are doing what they said they would do even if they are not. Rather than merely marking their own homework, they are also ready to lower the pass mark of the test if they fail it. That tells us how important the Government’s levelling-up plans are. If they really had the confidence in this flagship commitment that they profess to have, why would there be any baulking about objectively measuring their progress on levelling up?
These amendments seek to lock independent scrutiny of the progress of levelling up into this flagship Bill. Here we are, having to debate it, when it should be taken as read. The Institute for Public Policy Research has also called for an independent body, established in law, to oversee and judge the UK’s progress on levelling up. What Government with true confidence in their ability to deliver their goals, as this Government say they have, would resist that kind of scrutiny and accountability? Surely they would exalt in it; it would be the opportunity to demonstrate their success. What have this Government to fear from transparent and objective allocation mechanisms for delivery? The only conclusion that can be drawn is that the Government know that there is more bluster here than actual substance.
True levelling up, of course, requires actual investment, but the necessary financial backing appears to be absent. Any investment must be delivered in a non-partisan and transparent way. Let us not forget that the Institute for Fiscal Studies has pointed out that departmental budgets will actually be lower in 2025 than they were in 2010. How that chimes with and supports the idea of levelling up is something that I am struggling to understand.
Levelling up is an admirable principle, but if the Government are confident that they can deliver, as they say they are, what possible objection can there be to scrutiny? With such attempts to avoid independent scrutiny, it feels as if there is agenda beyond levelling up. If the levelling-up missions do not have the effect of reducing inequality across the UK, then they will have objectively failed in their goal. These amendments seek to measure that progress. Who can object to that?
If the very foundation of the Bill—the ability to deliver greater equality across the UK—is not open to full and transparent, evaluative, published scrutiny, and if that is not written into the Bill, the very principles on which it purports to stand are built on sand, will not inspire confidence and, I fear, will not deliver. I absolutely agree that we do not need the fanfare of a Bill to reduce inequality; it could just be done—a Bill is not needed. A Bill whose stated aims are not open to transparency and independent scrutiny is definitely not a Bill we need, and we are right to be sceptical.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Neil O'Brien)
It is a pleasure to begin line-by-line scrutiny of this important Bill with you in the Chair, Mr Paisley. We have a very distinguished Committee and I look forward to some thoughtful and enlightening debates.
The Government’s defining mission is to level up our country—to close the gap in productivity, health, incomes and opportunity between different parts of the country. That goal is made all the more urgent in the face of cost of living pressures and the inequalities laid bare and deepened by the pandemic.
The levelling-up White Paper sets out that levelling up is a moral, social and economic programme for the whole of Government, not just one Department, to spread opportunity and prosperity more equally throughout the country. The Bill sets out the framework for delivering on our levelling-up missions and places a statutory duty on the Government for the first time to set missions to reduce geographic disparities and to produce an annual report on our progress.
The Government absolutely recognise that scrutiny and seeking expert advice will be important to ensuring that we deliver on our missions and level up the country. That is why we have established the Levelling Up Advisory Council, chaired by Andy Haldane, former chief economist at the Bank of England, to provide the Government with expert advice to inform the design and delivery of the missions.
The council is made up of an expert and distinguished group of people. It includes Katherine Bennett, chief executive officer of the High Value Manufacturing Catapult and chair of the Western Gateway, which brings together the research and development strengths of the Bristol region with south Wales; Sir Tim Besley and Sir Paul Collier, two of our most distinguished economists from the London School of Economics and Oxford; Cathy Gormley-Hennan from Ulster University; Sally Mapstone, principal of the University of St Andrews; Laxman Narasimhan from Reckitt Benckiser; Sacha Romanovitch from Fair4All Finance; Hayaatun Sillem, chief executive officer of the Royal Academy of Engineering; and Sir Nigel Wilson, chief executive of Legal and General. These are very independent-minded people—serious people with deep expertise. The reason why we have brought them together is that we respect and value independent, thoughtful, expert advice.
The Government are committed to enabling Parliament, the public and other experts outside the advisory panel to fully scrutinise progress against our missions. The proposed initial set of metrics have already been published in the levelling-up White Paper, in the technical annex—40 pages, which give all the different ways we will measure all the different missions in incredible, unprecedented detail. I do not remember such detail under any previous Government. The metrics were published in the White Paper and will be refined over time. The analysis included in the annual report to Parliament will be based on the metrics that are here and included in the statement of levelling-up missions that will be laid before the House.
Given the level of transparency and reporting, and the level of input from deep experts, it is unclear what value an independent body would add. The Government will be required to report on set missions within set metrics and methodologies. Instead of creating a new independent body, the Government believe that levelling-up missions can be better supported by focusing on delivering those missions themselves—by getting on with it, as the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale said. It is also wrong to argue that without an independent body, the Government’s progress towards delivering missions will not be subject to independent external scrutiny. Parliament, the public, think-tanks and civil society will all have an opportunity to comment and report on how well the Government deliver missions, in response to our annual reports.
Patricia Gibson
This has just occurred to me as the Minister has been speaking. I am curious: if child poverty does not reduce, will the levelling-up programme and mission be considered a success or a failure?
Neil O'Brien
The hon. Lady raises a really important point. The last Labour Government had a statutory child poverty target; that target was literally locked into legislation. Was it hit? It was not hit, no. That is why we have adopted the approach that we have; just writing something into law does not mean that it happens, unfortunately. That is why we have created the independent architecture around levelling-up missions: to provide both really serious external expertise in the work that we are doing—I do not think anybody disputes the fact that these are really independent, serious people; and an unprecedented level of detail, to give everybody who wants to criticise the programme all the resources and exact detail they need to do just that. I do not remember any of those things happening under previous Governments.
Missions are intended to anchor Government policy and decision making to level up the UK. However they should not be set in stone. As the economy adapts, so too might the missions, to reflect the changing environment and lessons learned. Of course, some of these things can be tightened over time; we have made remarkable progress on our missions to roll out Project Gigabit and the Shared Rural Network, which are a £5 billion intervention and £1 billion intervention respectively. Over the course of just the last two years, they have transformed the availability of gigabit internet and rural 4G.
Opposition Front-Benchers said, “Why do you have to change some of the missions? That seems very dodgy to us.” Some of the missions will literally have to change. For example, one of the missions that I am very proud of is the one to increase domestic public R&D spending outside the greater south-east of England by a third over the period covered by the spending review. Of course, that prompts the question, “What will happen after the spending review?” We will have to change that mission, otherwise it will just become meaningless. Things have to adapt over time, of course, and I think that everyone recognises that levelling up is a long-term mission; nobody thinks that any of these things, some of which are century-long problems, can be solved in the course of one or two years.
However, the Opposition Front-Benchers made a very important point: the Bill sets out that any changes to missions should be—indeed, have to be—fully and transparently explained and justified through a statement to Parliament where they occur. Nothing will happen without Parliament knowing about it.
Hon. Members on the Opposition front page—Freudian slip; Front Bench—would recognise that some of the missions will just have to change over time; there is no point locking in a three-year mission for the next 30 years. This layer of transparency enables the public and civil society at large to comment on the Government’s decisions. It is unclear what additional benefit an independent body would bring. The Bill sets out that any changes to missions should be fully and transparently explained and justified where they occur. The missions will be rolling endeavours.
Rachael Maskell
The big challenges facing our society, such as climate and the economy, have independent bodies, but inequality and the injustices that come from it will not. What do the Government see as the value of independence when it comes to the Office for Budget Responsibility and the Climate Change Committee that they do not see with this particular agenda?
Neil O'Brien
That is an extremely good and useful question. Everyone remembers the backstory about why we created the OBR. As Chancellor, Gordon Brown changed the assumption about how fast the UK economy would grow, to prop up and justify to the public extraordinarily high levels of public spending. When the financial crisis happened, his decision to change the assumption about how fast the UK economy would grow proved catastrophic, and we ended up with the largest structural deficit of any major developed economy in the world going into the financial crisis, with catastrophic effects on public spending and public services that lasted for a generation.
We changed that because it is very difficult for anyone outside the Treasury to challenge or see some of the forecasting assumptions being made; the macroeconomic and technical work that was happening only within the Treasury prior to the OBR was difficult for anybody to scrutinise externally. Anybody, even Opposition Front-Benchers, could tomorrow update every single bit of data in this document. All these things are public sources; it is straightforward for anybody to hold us to account for them.
However, when it comes to the OBR, it is not quite so straightforward to say, “No, I think the output gap should be different. I think that your assumptions about the fiscal impact of excise duty changes interacting with changes in consumer behaviour are wrong.” That is a fundamentally more difficult thing to do. Ultimately, the OBR was created to protect the Treasury from the kind of behaviours that, I am afraid, we saw under the last Labour Government.
Neil O'Brien
We are going to have to make progress this morning, I am afraid, because we have a lot of clauses to get through. The Opposition amendments are well intentioned—given who the shadow Ministers are, it could not be otherwise—but they are unnecessary and that is why we must resist them.
The Chair
Rachael Maskell, you can make another speech, as this is line-by-line scrutiny.
Rachael Maskell
Thank you, Mr Paisley. I want to develop the argument on what the Minister was saying about the Office for Budget Responsibility. The reality is that, over generations, we have seen entrenched inequality that successive Governments have been unable to address. It was the same with climate challenges, on which successive Governments have not placed a focus. Yet through the OBR and the Climate Change Committee, that focus has started to bring about change.
The Government’s determination to have a levelling-up framework through which to assess the levelling-up missions does not meet the same kind of scrutiny that will pivot society towards seeing the importance of levelling up. That is why I want to hear from the Minister why inequality, which is so entrenched in our society, and regional disparities, which are so well known and yet have not shifted for generations, do not deserve the importance given by Government to other elements, such as the climate and the economy. Surely, inequality and people’s lives are of equal importance.
The Chair
Before I call Matthew Pennycook, I remind Members that this is line-by-line scrutiny; it is not like the Chamber. We have time to go through these issues and we are not under any pressure in that regard. If there are matters that need to be raised, please let us consider them. That is what the Committee is for and what the public expect.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
I just wanted to ask the Minister a question.
The Chair
If Members wish to make a speech, they can make a speech and use that opportunity now. I call Matthew Pennycook.
Matthew Pennycook
Noted, Mr Paisley.
The Minister dwelled on the OBR in his response. I understand why: he is much more personally familiar with it. He did not touch on the Climate Change Committee, but that should be brought into the debate, not only in terms of the rigour the Committee provides for holding the Government to account on climate targets, which change over time—as when the House updated the Climate Change Act 2008 to take into account the net zero target—but for what it does for the consensus around those goals. It is extremely important.
This is the Minister’s first piece of legislation. I hope he will want it to stay on the statute book and the levelling-up missions and the wider agenda to outlive him, this Parliament and the legislation itself. Surely he can see the benefit. That is why I urge him to think again about the amendments to do with an independent body that, by passing consensus about those aims, brings in independent rigour in a way that is accessible to the public, allowing the agenda to be more properly and adequately scrutinised.
The Chair
Does any other Member wish to catch my eye? Does the Minister wish to respond?
Alex Norris
I start by saying—given that one of my Whips is in the room, I should not say this—that, for the reasons mentioned, I enjoy these Bill Committees. I am not sure whether I will enjoy them in a few weeks’ time, because we will have been at it for a long time.
Alex Norris
Exactly, so I am very much enjoying it at the moment because we can fight these battles outside the rarefied atmosphere of the Chamber. However, one consequence of my liking these Committees is that I have frequently volunteered to take Bills on—something is not quite right with me, probably. The one thing I have learned from them, which is particularly interesting for a Bill with 200 clauses, is that a person can tell from the first amendment to the first clause how the rest of the discussions are going to go and how minded to take on change the Government are going to be. With that in mind, I am disappointed to hear that the Minister is not minded to accept the amendments.
Our discussion has been good. My hon. Friend the Member for York Central made excellent points about the impact of the Climate Change Committee and COP26. The points about arm’s length bodies and the broader partnership involved in levelling up are important. This legislation is not just about holding the Government to account, but holding to account all parties involved in levelling up, including all of us in this room, in whatever guise—be it as Members of Parliament, as volunteers in our communities, or in local government, as a number of us have been. We all have different stakes in and must hold each other to account on what is a shared endeavour rather than an endeavour of the Government of the day.
Rachael Maskell
My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. This is not just about Government, but about the whole of our society, across party lines, including mayoralties and local government. Does it not make sense therefore to have a framework that all partners can buy into and have confidence in when scrutinising their functions?
Alex Norris
That is very much the spirit in which I tabled the amendment, which is the first Opposition amendment to the Bill. That might be construed as the Opposition wanting to make life hard for the Government or wanting a stick with which to beat them, but far from it. The amendment would ensure that partners all have a mutual responsibility to each other, and that is partly about holding each other to account and having difficult and supportive conversations about why we have not been able to do things that we have sought to do.
The Minister made a point about unconscious bias being woven out with independence, and that is important. The listed regulators—Ofsted, Ofgem, Ofcom and so on—are good comparisons for this space. We have offered the Government a kind of menu of comparisons, and I am surprised that none of them is seen as the right one. My hon. Friend the Member for York Central finished her remarks by addressing the particularly pertinent point about inequalities. It is hard to understand why those inequalities are not considered to have same level of importance as the other agendas. That is disappointing.
The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale made an interesting point, which I hope will come up later in the debate. Part 1 of the Bill is a bit unusual. We have not yet had the clause 1 stand part debate, but I am not sure why those provisions have to be in the Bill. Usually, Ministers argue that things do not need to be in the Bill and the Opposition argue that they do. I will not argue against them, but it is unusual that the Government should have chosen to include the provisions.
I dare say that what is involved is the trick of planting a stake in the ground and saying, “We are going to deliver on these important things.” However, when we consider the point made by the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran, we see that there is an asterisk against this part of the Bill: the Government still want the flexibility to mark their own homework and change it if they want. Those two things are a little oddly juxtaposed. The Government want to put their head above the parapet and make the legislation central to what they want to do. That is quite a brave and risky thing to do, so I am surprised that they are not able to go a tiny bit further.
The Minister mentioned the Levelling Up Advisory Council and the esteemed people on it. We are lucky that they have chosen to take part in public life in that way, and we are grateful to them. I completely agree with all that has been said about their independent-mindedness and capability to speak for themselves, but I say gently to the Minister—this is not a point against him personally, but against the Government—that it is not those people who we do not trust. Of course we trust their independence, but how on earth can we know what they are saying and what their views are? That is the problem.
As we have seen before with various such advisory bodies, in reality the Government will sit on the difficult things and trumpet the good things. Perhaps there is an element of human nature in that—there is huge element of sadness in it—but that is what will happen. If the Government are really committed to delivering on this matter, why not go that little bit further?
I accept the point about the technical annex and, as the Minister put it, the unprecedented detail. This is a saddening thought in many ways, but I would probably go so far as to say that if I thought he was going to remain in his Department until 2030, a lot of my anxieties would disappear—although, I would have anxieties about how we had managed to lose another two elections. Putting that to one side, because I do not think it is likely to happen, I have no doubt about the Minister’s personal commitment to the agenda, his personal probity, and his willingness to have difficult conversations and to explain on the record where things have not gone as they ought to. However, I would argue strongly that that is not a characteristic that applies across Government—I do not think anybody could say that is really a feature of this Government. He says that I could go through and update each technical annex every year—I am surprised that I should have to do that on the Government’s behalf. The problem is that what we will see overtime is the booklet getting thinner, because the difficult ones will drop out or they will be replaced by another one—that is what we normally see. The Government will say, “We have got advanced metrics now that better understand the nature of life in the UK.”
Alex Norris
Housing need, as my hon. Friend says, is a good example. The metrics change to suit the outcome. The Minister knows that, which is why it needs to be in the Bill. He said that these sorts of things will accompany a statement from the Government, and that that will do in place of independent scrutiny. Those two things are not the same. There should not be the level of trust that means we would solely, on the word of Ministers, take what they say they have done as read. When our positions are swapped, I do not think the Minister would take that from us—and I do not think he should either. The need for a level of independence is obvious and clear.
I will not press the amendment to a Division, because I really want Ministers to think again about this. There will be other opportunities in this process to look for a proportionate level of independence. The Opposition have been non-prescriptive. I offered three different versions of independent scrutiny, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South offered a fourth—there may well be other versions. I hope that Ministers will reflect and come back, either at the next stage or in the other place, and put a provision in its place. The case for that is a very good one. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Alex Norris
I beg to move amendment 13, clause 1, page 1, line 14, at end insert—
“(c) the resources made available by Her Majesty’s Government to nations, regions, sub regions and local areas in order to level-up.”
This amendment would place a responsibility on the Government to publish the resources made available to communities in order to level-up.
Clause 1 requires a Minister of the Crown to establish levelling-up missions for the Government. This amendment proposed a new paragraph that would require them to publish alongside those missions what resources are being made to the nations, regions, sub-regions and local areas in order for them to level up. The point that the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran made about the current trajectory of departmental resources, with those in 2025 being less that their 2010 levels, is a very good argument for the provision.
The work of levelling up will not be done alone—certainly not by central Government. From Whitehall, we cannot command and control our way to a more balanced country. Indeed, that model of development is a huge part of why we have such an imbalanced country. The proper allocation of money will have a large say—probably the largest say—on whether levelling up can be a success and be a truly transformative project for the whole country.
As the Government’s White Paper identified, the deep-rooted problems in the UK economy, which are holding back our regions, towns and villages, create greater imbalance than in most other comparable countries. Our country’s economic and social geography demonstrates that imbalance, and it can also be seen across multiple measures, whether pay, educational attainment or health—they light it up like a Christmas tree. As the White Paper outlines, our urban areas and coastal towns suffer disproportionately from crime, while former mining areas and areas with outlying urban estates, such as my constituency, are often communities of high deprivation, with poor opportunities for younger generations. The imbalances in our country are plain to see. The current economic settlement just does not work.
In order to rectify that, the devolution of power back to local communities will be vital, so that they have a proper say over decisions that affect their lives. In blunt terms, levelling up will have to be a targeted return of money, funding and resources back into the parts of the UK that need it. Without that investment, levelling up has no hope of succeeding. The stakes are really high. We need to get good jobs back into home towns, so that young people do not have to get out in order to get on. We need to have our high streets thriving, by kick-starting local economies with good local businesses and money back in people’s pockets. We need to better connect our towns and villages through good transport, digital infrastructure and affordable housing. All of that needs power to be taken out of Whitehall and put into the town hall, because local communities will make better decisions. All those things require significant resources alongside that hard, local graft.
The Chair
Do any Back Benchers wish to catch my eye before I go to the Opposition spokespeople?
Rachael Maskell
Thank you, Mr Paisley, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North for his excellent speech; I will continue his theme about making the right judgments on investment.
During the seven years that I have been in this place, we have seen little pockets of money being distributed in different ways to different parts of the country. Some of that will have had value, but essentially it is about addition rather than multiplication and is not necessarily getting the best out of public resources. As we have seen, the high street fund has gone to various places in the country, as opposed to investing to achieve the economic growth that would benefit a community in the long term, which is what the levelling-up agenda is about.
We have seen competitions for funding being set out and we know the level of resource that local communities are putting into them. For example, the headquarters of Great British Railways was going to come to York because of the high-tech economy on rail there, and to develop that rail cluster. Suddenly we had a competition and local authorities are now spending hundreds of thousands of pounds of public money in order to try to win the bid. At the end of the process there will be only one winner, which I trust will be York, but hundreds of thousands of pounds of public money has been spent on those bids and disappeared from the wider economy. That cannot be a wise way of spending public money—our constituents’ taxes—whether locally or nationally. They want greater value for money out of the Government.
A more consistent approach to growing the economy is important when it comes to where Government place their investments. The drawdown—this is what the whole agenda is about—in London and the south-east, has a cumulative impact, with the heating up of the economy there at the expense of similar interventions in the north. That is the powerful point that Professor Leyser and Andy Street, the Mayor of the West Midlands, made about the importance of the cluster economy.
I congratulate the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on pouring its focus into that and on working with UK Research and Innovation to ensure that we bring together the components of an economy for the future, making sure the investment goes in the right place and building on the assets of a local community—the skills base, the industry, and what academia can bring. That can create the jobs and the skills for the future, to address the inequality that is so entrenched in our communities.
In my city of York, we are looking at the biotech industry, the rail and transport cluster, and the creative arts and digital creative sectors. Investment in those areas brings not just addition but multiplication—we are seeing inward investment, international investment and academia coming from overseas. The amendment is about putting the investment in the right place, ensuring that it goes to the nations, regions, sub-regions and local areas to ensure that we truly get the levelling up required, which will reach the Government’s objectives.
I believe that the amendment is important to ensure that the resources are available in the right place. We will then see economic disparities dispelled, health inequality reduced, educational attainment gaps closed and a better society as a result. I certainly see that getting this wrong has a significant cost. There are areas of York that need levelling up. While looking at regional disparities, we cannot ignore the local disparities.
My question for the Minister is this: does levelling up address all those socioeconomic inequalities? If there is investment in a particular region, city or town, but the affluent people get the gains rather than the people living in deprivation, we will not have levelled up the country; all we will have done is level up parts of it. We see that today in London: the greatest affluence in this city is just across the river, but we do not have to go far to see some of the greatest deprivation. We must ensure that levelling up is not just about the sum of the regions but the parts of the regions, to ensure that those individuals get a share of the wealth. I see how that can happen.
BioYorkshire, a project in York that we are taking forward as a green new deal, will see the upskilling of 25,000 people and the creation of 4,000 new jobs, getting people out of low-paid, insecure jobs and into good-quality jobs, which will bring significant benefit to my city and my region. We have to ensure that no one is left behind and that the impact is on everyone. Therefore, the investment is foundational. Where it goes, and how it goes, has to be a strategic decision, which is why the amendment is so significant, because otherwise we will see widening inequalities. I certainly see that in many places across the country.
I would also like to point out how investment in the right places can address other forms of inequality. We know, for instance, that single-parent families experience the greatest deprivation. How will the missions address that? How will the missions relate to disabled people, women and ethnic minority communities? We need to make sure that the methodology applied is robust, and that it looks not only at geography but at other areas, to ensure that investment is right and that it is measured. That goes back to our previous debate about independent scrutiny.
Tim Farron
This is an important amendment because it allows the Government to be up front about the level of resource that they seek to deploy region by region. It is also important because it refers to areas below the level of region. As the hon. Member for York Central has set out, there is a danger that the Government might sound somewhat patronising when they talk about levelling up, thinking from their London seat that the provinces are all terribly deprived and they should throw some money at them and level them up. Of course, the reality is that inequalities within regions are greater than inequalities between them.
Members will not be surprised by my focus on rural communities. The Minister might be aware of research that has come out in the past couple of days from the Rural Services Network. It has looked at the Government’s own levelling-up metrics and on that basis it reckons that, were rural England to be a separate region, it would perform more poorly than every other geographical region of England. Not only would it perform more poorly, but it is disadvantaged for different reasons. The metrics that the Government are seeking to deploy in order to understand deprivation and inequality do not do the business when it comes to understanding the issues that face rural communities.
In my constituency there will be fewer than 500 people unemployed. We have got very close to full employment. We also have average house prices that are between 10 and 15 times average incomes. We have people in work and in poverty. The clear, huge majority of people on universal credit in my constituency and in other parts of Cumbria are in work, and not just in work but in multiple jobs, seeking to make ends meet. Potentially, they will not tick boxes when the Government’s metrics are being considered and they may not be recipients of the resources that the hon. Member for Nottingham North seeks to get the Government to be explicit about.
Let us think about some of the needs that are present in that rural region of England, which is more needy than every other geographical region of England by some distance. We are talking about incomes. We are talking about house prices. We are talking about the fact that in the south lakes alone—a community with nearly full employment—5,500 people are on a council house list, waiting for their first home. By the way, an educated guess is that there are about 10,000 second homes in the same district. It is important to understand that the discrepancies and inequalities are of that order.
It seems very black and white to say, “These are the homes of people who already have one and these are the people who haven’t even got the one,” but if we care about inequality we are going to care about that. In a property-owning democracy, we might champion people’s liberty and their right to own more than one home, but when there is a conflict between someone’s right to a second home and someone else’s right just to have any home, we know whose side we should be taking, don’t we? If we do not, this Bill means nothing at all, and nothing to rural communities in particular.
Let us look at some other issues in respect of which rural communities are disadvantaged. The vast proportion of people in Cumbria are not on the mains for their heating; they are on oil—liquid fuel—and there is no price cap for that. There is no way of taking into account inflation beyond that which most of us are experiencing when it comes to energy prices. There is nothing to assess that, nothing to allow for it, nothing to ensure that resources are available to help communities so that they can be protected from the cost-of-living crisis that is particularly hard in rural communities.
In cities such as London, Manchester and Newcastle—wonderful places—it is possible to live without a car, and many people do. That is probably good for the environment and for people’s pockets as well. Mobility is more straightforward in a community like the one we are standing and sitting in now, but in a community like mine, people need cars. The chances are that people do not live in the village in which they work, and they need to get from one place to another. Fuel prices are higher and the distances are longer, and the bus journey from Kendal to Ambleside is the second most expensive in the country, so it is very expensive to travel whether via private car or public transport.
Let us also think about access to services. For people living in Sedbergh, for instance, the nearest FE college is 10 miles away and there is no bus, so their access to services is restricted in a way that the access of people in other parts of the country is not. What about health services? What about the one in two of us who at some point in our lives will end up with a cancer diagnosis, and the one in two of those who will need radiotherapy? In a community such as Cumbria they have to make a three or four-hour round trip to Preston every day to get life-saving treatment, for weeks and weeks on end.
The things I have outlined will not be taken into account if we are not honest about what regions actually are, about the categories of places within regions—sub-regions—and about how parts of the country, even though they might be in Northumberland, Cornwall, Cumbria or Kent, have commonalities despite geographical disparity. Without being clear about the resources, we are not going to tackle that need. We are not going to tackle the lack of connectivity that puts people at risk in rural communities, where we do not have the broadband roll-out the Government have promised. We do not have the commitment to bring health services and education close to home or to address transport costs. Above all, a massive flaw throughout the Bill is inadequacy when it comes to tackling the biggest driver of inequality in this country: lack of access to affordable and available housing.
I urge the Minister to look at the Rural Services Network report and to take into account the fact that rural England counts as the most deprived region of England, compared with the geographical regions. I urge him to accept the amendment, and in doing so to ensure that resources are allocated appropriately to every part of every region of this country.
Patricia Gibson
Amendment 13 would place
“a responsibility on the Government to publish the resources made available to communities in order to level-up”.
Who could argue with that? In not arguing with it, I cannot help reminding the Minister that Scotland was promised a £1.5-billion-a-year bonanza as part of the Brexit windfall. Of course, the reality is that Scotland has received 40% less funding than it did under the EU funding agenda, and it has suffered a 5.2% cut in its resource budget and a 9.7% cut in its capital budget. Perhaps the Minister can tell us how that supports the levelling-up agenda, because I certainly cannot understand. It is quite galling that as this Government show disrespect to devolved Parliaments—democratically elected Parliaments—by impinging on devolved powers and bypassing the democratic will of the Scottish people in devolved areas, they simultaneously cut their budget in the context of levelling up.
Despite the stated goals of the legislation, the Minister has been unable to say—perhaps he will do so when he gets to his feet—whether the levelling-up missions would result in a reduction in inequality to the point where we would see a reduction in child poverty. What kind of levelling-up commitment would not address the basic social scourge of child poverty? I cannot think what the point of any of this is if we are not committed to tackling that most basic and serious ill.
Of course, as we have heard, we do not need a fanfare to tackle inequality; we just need to get on and do it. We can exalt in our success if indeed we have it, but we do not need a Bill that runs to hundreds of pages but cannot even commit to transparency or to publishing details of the resources that it is willing to use.
In Scotland, the Scottish Government have tried, with their limited powers, to instigate levelling up—for example, with the Scottish child payment of £20 per child per week. That is real levelling up, and these are the kinds of measures that the Bill really ought to tackle to build a more inclusive society. As food bank use rises, we have a real opportunity if we are serious about levelling up, but it takes targeted political will and a determination to tackle the causes of inequality. That is not an easy thing to do—we have to put in a real shift—but a Bill that runs to a few hundred pages with vague missions that objectively cannot be held to account will not convince anybody.
It is clear to see that the resources for true levelling up will not be made available, certainly from the Scottish perspective with the figures I have cited. For all the warm words, and there have been many, it is difficult to have confidence that our communities will see any tangible difference as a result of this fanfare—sorry, this Bill. The Government should have no problem with amendment 13, because they know that no levelling up can happen without resources. Presumably, if they are serious about levelling up, those resources will be committed, so why not publish them? Why do the Government not exalt in their success and the resources they are willing to expend? If this levelling-up Bill and agenda do not reduce inequality or tackle poverty, child poverty or child hunger, I honestly cannot see the point of them.
Neil O'Brien
I agree completely with the spirit behind the amendment, and we are actively working to bring about what Opposition Members want. However, we do not think the amendment works, and I will explain why. Official statistics about public spending in different places are widely available already. Her Majesty’s Treasury already publishes a regional breakdown for total current and capital identifiable expenditure per head through PESA—Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses—which is my favourite regional statistical document.
We are also taking steps to improve the quality of spatial data. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has established a new spatial data unit to drive forward the data transformation required in central Government. It is frustrating to us that many of the types of data that should have existed for years still do not. The spatial data unit supports the delivery of levelling up by transforming the way the UK Government gather, store and use sub-national data, so that it can underpin transparent and open policy making and delivery decisions. It is completely in that spirit that we are acting to improve data on all levels.
Rachael Maskell
I am listening carefully to the Minister, who has talked about input as opposed to outcomes. In the light of our seeing gross inequalities and life expectancy for some people in our poorest communities decreasing, there is clearly something that is not working in the Minister’s methodology to deliver the outcomes we want to see to close the inequality gap. Will he expand on how he sees the shifting of the dial, as opposed to what we on the Opposition Benches perceive as more of a scattergun approach in terms of where the money still seems to be going through the methodologies he has described?
Neil O’Brien
We are the Government who are creating—literally, through the Bill and the clauses we are debating this very morning—a mission to close the gap in healthy life expectancy between local areas, and between the highest and lowest areas, and to raise it by five years by 2035. These are the missions that the Bill will be getting us to report on every year to Parliament, so we are addressing the hon. Lady’s point. Through the health disparities White Paper and the other things the Government are doing, we are addressing as one of our central priorities the underlying causes of lower life expectancy and the inequalities she mentioned.
To summarise, while we are completely with the spirit of the Opposition’s amendments—we are trying to get better data and have processes in place that are generating better data, because we recognise its importance to the levelling-up agenda—there is, in truth, no hard and fast difference between levelling-up resources and the rest of Government resources. Indeed, philosophically, it is important to recognise that one should not think just about levelling-up funds. Much as one can rattle off an impressive list, one should think about how we reform the totality of Government spending.
That is one of the novel aspects of the White Paper’s approach. For a long time, people thought of science funding in a science policy silo, and thought that it should be allocated to science excellence, with no spatial dimension. We are the first Government to set regional targets for science spending, recognising its importance to potentially addressing some of the inequalities that the Opposition have mentioned this morning. We have changed the Treasury Green Book. We have started to allocate housing and regeneration spending differently so that we can get out of the cycles that Tom Forth and other regional economic policy experts have talked about: some bits of the country are overloaded and people cannot get on a train or buy a house, while other parts are crying out for investment and have lots of scope to take on growth.
I hope that I have given the Opposition at least an honest account of why we are resisting the amendment, even though we absolutely agree with its spirit.
Alex Norris
I am really grateful for the contributions to what has been a good debate. I will cover some of the points made by my Opposition colleagues and then move on to what the Minister said. Turning to my hon. Friend the Member for York Central, Great British Railways is a brilliant example of what we are talking about. We remember the press release on, I think, 5 February, which came shortly after the White Paper and was seen very much as an element of the levelling-up agenda—indeed, it says that on the Government’s website. The location of Great British Railways will be determined through an online public vote. It is like “Love Island”, Mr Paisley. Anyone watching this series knows that we badly need a vote to try to shake things up, but I do not think it is how we should determine the location of—
Alex Norris
I apologise, Mr Paisley. I will get straight back to Great British Railways and levelling up. My hon. Friend the Member for York Central made a strong case for York and, if the hon. Member for Broxtowe promises not to tell my constituents, I might make a strong case for Derby. We are generally not allowed to do such things, but that is my one for the year—[Laughter.]
Alex Norris
Happily, it does not look like the hon. Member for Broxtowe is going to grass me up.
The whole process—we can already see this because people are being encouraged to use a hashtag—will involve TikTok videos and be nauseatingly modern. I know that the Minister does not like things as nauseatingly modern as that, so I cannot believe it for a second—he is sitting sphinx-like, which is of course fine. The constant beauty parade and artificial competition just take energy out of things. Of course, someone will win, and that will be wonderful news, and I will be very pleased for them, but multiple places will lose as a result. That cannot be the best way to level up. I know the Minister talked about a balanced diet, but I will cover that shortly.
My hon. Friend the Member for York Central spoke about where she sees the future for her community and her region, with an emphasis on biotech, rail and the creative sector, and that will be different in Nottingham, Leicestershire or West Yorkshire. That is a good thing. Part of levelling up will be about, as we understand it, sub-regions taking control of where they think their local economies are going to go and the skills they will need to ensure they get that. Getting the resources to make sure they can do that, which is what this amendment is about, is fundamental. This is about resource going to those communities so that they can make those decisions for themselves. I think that the people of York and the sub-region in which my hon. Friend works will have a better say about that than Ministers themselves.
Neil O’Brien
The PAC reported on the levelling-up fund. Are there any particular levelling-up fund bids that we are funding that the hon. Gentleman would like to say represent bad value for money and should be withdrawn?
Alex Norris
The Minister knows that is unkind. I am not going to stand here and pick at one. We could go down the entire list of 157 local authorities, virtually all of which are significantly worse off, by tens of millions of pounds; I am not going to turn around and say that one of their projects should not happen. Please—of course I am not going to say that. The Minister says that the Public Accounts Committee picked up on the levelling-up fund, but that is not true: it has reported on the towns fund, too. This is a long-running issue and there are more than three years-worth of reports.
Rachael Maskell
It is not just about money that is coming from the centre into individual projects. The Government need to take note of the point that it is surely about enabling and empowering local authorities and bodies to make their own determinations about where the money is best prioritised. Whether it is from the shared prosperity fund, the levelling-up fund or the future high streets fund, a local authority might be in the best position to determine how the pot is spent in its local economy to drive up and level up, as opposed to the Government making a central determination about the governance of that funding.
Alex Norris
That is exactly the argument we have been making. We want that to be locally determined. I would be surprised if the Government in general really want to defend what they see from the Public Accounts Committee. We of course await the Government’s response, and if the Minister wants to debate it, we would be very keen to—if he makes a statement, we will all be there—but I suspect that will not happen. The reality is that the basic checks have to be passed, and I am not sure we are fully assured of that yet.
In the spirit of what the Minister said and of ongoing co-operation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Miss Dines.)
Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill (Second sitting)
Tuesday 28th June 2022
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 View all Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 28 June 2022 - (28 Jun 2022)
The Chair
The Committee agreed this morning not to meet in private to discuss the lines of questioning but to go straight to the questioning, starting with the Minister, then the shadow Minister and other Members. Are we happy to proceed with that? Okay. We can bring in our panel of witnesses.
Examination of Witnesses
Professor Robin Lovell-Badge and Alessandro Coatti gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Professor Lovell-Badge: I should say that dealing with plants and animals is not my day job—I work at an institute that is better known for medical research—but I do know an awful lot about genome editing methods and genetically modified organism techniques. I chair the Royal Society’s genetic technologies group, in which we discuss plants, animals and humans in this context. I helped to develop the Royal Society’s submission to the whole process at various stages.
I guess the main point that the Royal Society has been trying to make is that we are a little uncomfortable with having yet more regulations based on techniques rather than outcomes. For us, it would make much more sense to focus on the outcome—the purpose of what you are doing—rather than on the method you are using, partly because scientific methods evolve so rapidly that it is hard to keep track. When reading the first part of the Bill, which includes the definitions, I struggle in some places to understand exactly how certain techniques would fit into it. That is one issue.
If the argument is that genome-edited plants and animals are essentially the same as those that could be bred by traditional methods, yes, that certainly can be the case, but it is not always the case. To give one simple example, if you have two genes right next to each other in the genome, and they both need to be altered to have the trait that you are after—that is possible in normal circumstances—you can do that with genome editing, because you can target both genes at the same time. To do that by conventional, traditional breeding methods may be impossible, however, and it would certainly take an awfully long time to ever get both changes together in the genome. When two genes are next to one another, it is very hard to separate them in normal breeding processes.
There are all these complications that I envisage because that is what I do—I think about the techniques all the time. If your approach is based on outcomes, it is easier to justify, “I’m doing this; the outcome is this.” You can also judge what effect your change has on other things like farming practices, environment and so on. This is a little bit narrower, I think, in that respect.
The Chair
Thank you. Alessandro, please introduce yourself to the Committee, and then you will have questions from members of the Committee.
Alessandro Coatti: With pleasure. Thank you for having me today. I am one of the science policy officers at the RSB. I am biologist by training, and particularly a molecular and cellular biologist. At the society, I provide support to our animal sciences group. I look a lot at policy and research developments in the animal science field, so less so in the plant sciences, which are very important for the Bill. I have been involved, however, in writing our response to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs consultation on the future regulations in genetic technologies, and that is why I am here today.
I agree with Robin Lovell-Badge’s statement and with the approach that the RS takes. The RSB has also argued that it would be better to have regulations based on looking at the traits and products that you would develop using the technologies, and to monitor the impact in risk assessments of the outcomes, or the impact of the organisms. However, in our response we envisioned a bit of what is happening with the Bill, because there is a need to enable development and innovation on a faster timescale, in the sense that the United Kingdom has inherited the EU regulations that have a process-based trigger. They are designed to list a lot of technologies that are “modern” biotechnologies and not block their use, but make it subject to additional risk assessments simply because the technologies were new 30 years ago. They pulled out some of those techniques to create exemptions, to allow the use of mutagenesis in plant breeding in the past few decades.
Basically, we inherited that, so in a way I see what the Bill is trying to do: to define a new category of exempted organisms from that GMO framework that would allow research and innovation to progress faster in this country at this stage. However, this should not be the end of the story. There are good things in the Bill, but in order for the technologies to be properly regulated in the future, a move towards a truly trait and product-based regulation, which looks at the outcome, is really important.
I also commend the report of the Regulatory Horizons Council on regulations in genetic technologies. They consulted us and many other stakeholders, and they have provided a view on how the evolution of regulation in the UK could proceed.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Jo Churchill)
Q
Professor Lovell-Badge: I am, yes.
Jo Churchill
I would like to take a little from the narrative that you have given us, and from something that you stated in your returns to the consultation. Thank you for saying that the Bill has been consulted on widely; we are trying to get it right, so any advice would be gratefully received. You stated:
“If appropriately managed, precision breeding offers a route to achieving many potential and much-need benefits to society.”
That rather articulates your argument that it is outcomes-based. With that in mind, you stated that you support the advice of the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment that precision breeding poses no greater risk than traditional breeding methods. Can you explain why, and can you refer to whether you think the current regulatory framework has held up? I think that was what you were saying in the narrative about research and development. Where would you go with that regulatory framework in order to optimise the R&D so that we can evolve into being outcomes-based, both in environmental and human health terms?
Professor Lovell-Badge: Right. There is a lot there.
Jo Churchill
There is a lot there, but there was a lot in your opening remarks to try to encapsulate.
Professor Lovell-Badge: The first question was about risk, I believe. Generally, on the risk of a random mutation versus a genome-edited one, you are actually better off with a genome-edited one because you know what you are doing. Of course, there can be some examples where you might not know exactly what is happening. There is very little mention of human health in here and so there is concern about zoonosis, where an animal virus can jump to humans, for example. You could, in theory, make what you think is a fairly simple change to give a trait that you want, but inadvertently you allow an animal virus to jump to humans. That needs to be looked at, in terms of risk. Exactly the same thing can happen with traditional breeding, but I imagine it is not generally looked at. That is a risk.
Alessandro Coatti: The case that Robin used before is quite important, where you think about adding multiple changes to genes in the same organism. The Bill covers plants and animals, but it does not cover micro-organisms, which are an interesting aspect that we can discuss later. You also really have to think about the fact that the dynamics of the genomic changes in different organisms are different, just like the way they reproduce is different. The type of gene flow that you would see in plants is different from the one you would see in animals.
The case that Robin was discussing of adding multiple changes in neighbouring genes in an animal is harder, through traditional breeding, than it has been in plants. For example, you can mutagenise into this very big screening. You might get to that point faster in plants than in animals. Perhaps the fast pace where this technology now allows development is not, as you say, either a morally or a practically neutral question. It is interesting that the Government have decided to frame it as something that could have arisen through traditional breeding or spontaneously. There is a reason why that is. However, at some point, it becomes a bit stretched, because in traditional breeding it would take many generations, and it would be quite hard to do it in certain animals.
However, this is again talking about the techniques. When it comes to adding those two traits in neighbouring genes, you might end up actually making the life of the animal way better. That is why you look at the outcomes. By using genome editing, people have corrected genetic defects that have arisen traditionally in breeding, for example of cattle. There is this Japanese breed of cattle that has a genetic syndrome. With genome editing, they corrected it because it was due to a single gene. In fact, even if it were very unlikely that you might have done it with traditional breeding, it is a very valuable use and we should do that because it enhances the welfare and the health of the animal.
Jo Churchill
Q
Professor Lovell-Badge: The question would be: if someone made a plant or an animal where you have targeted two adjacent genes, would that be permitted or not under these rules? It is hard to think that it might be, because you could not simply do it by traditional methods. You might have to wait thousands of years and it would cost you a lot of money. That is the question.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Q
I want to explore something slightly different: the role of advisory bodies. You began to touch on that in your last answer. The Bill at the moment is very thin on what the advisory bodies are there to do. In some of your written evidence, both your organisations suggested that the different bodies should have some kind of remit to look at the wider public good. Could you say a little bit about that? I have been taken by the example of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, or some aspects of the work that it does.
Professor Lovell-Badge: I have been very much involved in the HFEA public engagement exercises. When you are considering a broad area, or potential uses and outcomes, it is really important to have proper public engagement, including democracy, dialogue, or however you want to refer to it, where you really get to understand what the public will think about a topic.
When it comes to assessing technical aspects, it will be challenging. It is fine to have a lay member on a panel, but I do not know whether consulting the public about really detailed, technical issues might be challenging. It depends on what the advisory committee’s role is and whether it is to look more broadly at potential uses and outcomes or to focus on the specific techniques that are being used.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Professor Lovell-Badge: This is another point. I was a bit confused because there is quite a lot of emphasis in the Bill on animal welfare and how they would have a role to play in that. If you are doing an experiment with an animal, you have to have Home Office approval. Animal welfare is a top priority. Many of the things that you might want to do would already be weeded out at that stage. If you wanted to make an animal that felt no pain, for example, you might just about be able to get away with justifying that for research purposes, but certainly not for developing any product.
The regulations about welfare are already there. Sure, it is important to have some input into your advisory committee that says, “This has to be looked at. Have they thought about all the consequences of what they are doing?” Exactly how you would achieve that under the Bill, I am not certain.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Professor Lovell-Badge: I know little about that.
Alessandro Coatti: It is an interesting new player, welcomed by many parties across the House. It looks like it will be an expert committee. Mostly the members will be people with relevant expertise in veterinary sciences, potentially neuroscience, so it would not be an arena for a public dialogue, but that is not to say that they cannot commission it and then take recommendations on board. In my view, they could play a role, but it would be hard. The new animal welfare committee that would overlook the authorisations in the Bill would look at a notifier that said, “We want to do this on an animal, but we do not foresee any health or welfare implications for it.” That committee would focus very much on the health and welfare of the single individual animal, but it is not clear to me whether it would consider higher-level questions such as, “What does it mean for the production of that livestock, the density, the husbandry and so on?”
Of course, the existing DEFRA Animal Welfare and Animal Sentience Committees could be brought in. You could say, “We have a new line of pigs that are resistant to this disease. On paper, it looks very good, because we made a very small, tailored change to a part of it, not a rough deletion of an entire gene. The animals under research and development look fine in contained circumstances and they are well. Would you be happy for us to license them to go on to a breeding trial to expand the number of animals from the 20 in the research study to 200, and to map whether there are any health and welfare impacts on a bigger number of animals?” Those committees could advise the new animal welfare committee on that matter.
Following on from that, the bigger question is: “What do we want for UK farming, agriculture and so on?” That is one of those pillar questions that bigger Government policy, not the Bill, will resolve.
Professor Lovell-Badge: My colleague makes a very good point. If you take things out into the field, the conditions are different from lab conditions in which you originally generated the animals. If you introduce another breeding programme, or a different genetic background, the consequences of what you have done could change. It is the same with traditional breeding, but on all those things, there needs to be long-term feedback. As you would have with humans in clinical trials, you get a phase 3 clinical trial in which you get a lot of people feeding back information—much more than in a phase 2 trial—and then there is always post-market reporting whereby any adverse effects are notified over the years.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Professor Lovell-Badge: Nor do I.
Alessandro Coatti: Under clause 11, when a marketing notice is given in relation to a precision bred animal, the Secretary of State reserves the right to get information from the notifier, over a specified period of time, about the health and welfare of the animal, so that is already covered in the Bill.
Professor Lovell-Badge: But how you do that is not clear.
Alessandro Coatti: No, and a lot will depend on very good guidance from DEFRA or ACRE about how to do that. But that power is in the Bill, at least.
Again, the need for post-marketing monitoring comes down to the trade that you are introducing, not whether you use a technique. It will be important for whoever advises the Secretary of State to be able to tell them, “This change warrants longer-term monitoring, but this other one does not, because we have seen it in the species over many years. This is just a better way of doing it, and it will not dramatically alter what we already know about the trait.”
Professor Lovell-Badge: Remember, many genes have effects in multiple tissues, so you may be focused on changing something—modifying CCR5 for HIV resistance, for example—but not realise that it may also be active and play some role in the brain. That is a clear example of where you may have an issue.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Q
“competition, innovation, consumer and environmental impacts”
should be included in the Bill. Would you agree that there is insufficient detail on that in the Bill currently?
Professor Lovell-Badge: I think I would agree it is insufficient. You have to factor in everything: the environment, farming practice—how whatever you are doing, whether it is with plant or animal, is going to fit in with or change farming practices. I think there needs to be a lot more thought about those issues.
Alessandro Coatti: I am not entirely sure I agree. Could you tell me again—those people said that the Government have not made a case for deregulation of these organisms?
Deidre Brock
Q
Professor Lovell-Badge: It depends. If you are saying it is the same as traditional breeding, then yes, it is probably the same, often, or very similar.
Alessandro Coatti: The case for deregulation—let us put it that way—is that basically, with these technologies, you can achieve changes in the genome that are potentially done already in traditional breeding. You are just doing it in a more energy and resource-efficient way—faster, etc. So there is definitely a policy case for this Bill, because research and innovation in this country can really provide those beneficial traits in plants and animals that we desperately need at the moment.
On the question whether this Bill captures all the potential impacts on the environment, for example, from a release of one of these organisms, you would think that the organisms that are passed through this Bill will not particularly need extra monitoring relative to the traditionally bred counterpart, if you see what I mean.
However, there could be boundaries or grey areas where a change could have arisen traditionally but it is not so common. Therefore, the committee should be able to trigger an additional risk assessment; and in my view, it looks like it can. Now, the question is this. On the environmental risk assessment, there is not much detail in the Bill—that is true—so it will be down to ACRE to provide more detailed guidance and analysis on how it would want the environmental risk assessment to be done.
Deidre Brock
Q
Professor Lovell-Badge: That is a hard one. The EU will have to change—that is my view—because it is going to be way behind other countries, too. We are not talking just about the UK and the EU; we are also talking about the US, Canada, Argentina and other countries. If the whole regulation about genetically modified organisms and genome editing is not made more compatible with actually getting on and doing stuff that is useful, the EU will suffer, because it will ultimately—
Deidre Brock
But the impact here, in the UK, on trade? Obviously, it is the UK’s largest trading partner, so if it continues to be—
Professor Lovell-Badge: I can imagine there could be an impact. It is hard for me to tell what that might be. It is not my area of expertise at all.
Alessandro Coatti: Yes, I would not be able to discuss in detail how that might be. You probably need to have experts on it. But I am aware that the Food Standards Agency has produced a report on these changes in regulations and this evolution across the globe, and there is definitely a case for the UK to try—we say we would like the UK to lead the way, as it has done with the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008. The UK could still lead the way by making legislation—regulation—that other countries would copy, but there is already a lot out there, so it has to harmonise with the regulations in other countries, such as Japan and Canada. It seems like the Bill is going one step in that direction. In terms of the relationship with the EU, as the closest economic partner and one of the biggest markets that the UK trades with, it is important for the UK, not necessarily to slow down excessively, but to maintain dialogue with the EU Commission while it reviews. The UK in the past has created legislation that the EU has then taken on. For example, when it comes to animals and research, the UK has led the way on the protections—eventually the EU adopted some of those elements. Even though the EU is not politically obliged to anymore, it could still value that.
Professor Lovell-Badge: You may be about to get to labelling. I think the registry is a good idea, because if someone wants to import something from the UK, at least it is then obvious that it could have been genome edited—otherwise they might not know.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
Q
Alessandro Coatti: In our response we commented mainly on plants and animals, while making some reference to other uses. There are already leading labs in the UK looking at genome-edited livestock species, for example, and how doing genome editing in those species could be beneficial on many levels. I am quite sympathetic to the fact that animals are included in the Bill, even though there is less of a history of genome editing, and genetic modification, in animals than there is in plants.
It seems to me that more safeguards are added here for animals than for plants. There is animal health and welfare assessment as part of the Bill. With animals, it seems clear to me—but Robin can correct me—that genome editing can be used quite safely. We are talking about the techniques and the process, not the outcomes and the traits. If you look at the techniques with the animals, with a number of species you can be pretty sure that you are making the right change in the genome that you wanted and that you are not adding unwanted changes anywhere else. We can say that there are not many additional risks when it comes to technique, relative to traditional breeding. However, that still has to be caveated a bit.
Professor Lovell-Badge: Some of the methods of genome editing are now so efficient and precise that I do not think it is a great concern, but you always have to check. There are good ways of checking what you have done and what you have got. I would not be that concerned. You would have to check the original animal that has been modified, but once you get to subsequent generations, you will be pretty certain of exactly what you have, and of anything wrong. The methods are being used in humans for somatic genome editing. We know a lot about them and how accurate and safe they can be.
Alessandro Coatti: We pointed out two things in relation to the methodological aspects. Robin mentioned one aspect before: how the gene relates to the phenotype. You change something and then you have a trait change in the animal. Some genes have functions in different organs and tissues, so you want to ensure that by doing something you are not messing up something else. That can be done and has to be done as part of the Bill—you should make sure that it will be done.
The other question is about the reproductive techniques you sometimes use to work on the embryos. Those can also have health and welfare implications for the animals, but it should all come down to an expert committee reviewing the application for the genome edited animals, which could say, “Okay, it looks like they checked everything they should have on the technique.”
The Chair
Order. Sorry to interrupt, but that is the end of the time allocated for this panel. I want to thank the panel very much for coming today to give evidence.
Examination of Witnesses
William Angus, Professor Johnathan Napier and Professor Nigel Halford gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from William Angus, owner of Angus Wheat Consultants Ltd, who will join us via Zoom, Professor Johnathan Napier, research group leader, and Professor Nigel Halford, who is a crop scientist. Both are from Rothamsted Research and are with us in person. Could you introduce yourselves for the record? I will go first to William Angus.
William Angus: My name is Bill Angus—christened William, but anyway. I am a wheat breeder, and my job is to breed new varieties of wheat. I have been doing it for quite a long time. I started in the public sector at the Plant Breeding Institute, and then moved to the private sector with Nickerson. I started my own wheat breeding and oat activities in 2016, which has resulted in us being the largest privately owned wheat and oat breeder in the UK. That is not too hard, because the agricultural landscape is dominated by multinationals. I am also vice-chairman of the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre board of trustees in Mexico. This is the largest publicly funded wheat programme on the planet, breeding for 200 million hectares. To put that into context, that is 100 times the size of the UK. Their focus is primarily on the developing world.
Professor Napier: Hello. My name is Johnathan Napier. I am a project leader at Rothamsted Research. I am a plant biotechnologist. I have a degree—PhD and DSc—from the University of Nottingham. Rothamsted is a publicly funded research institute. I am passionate about using basic research for public good and translation. I am very keen to see the research move beyond just discovery. I ran the first gene edited field trials in the UK in 2018. I have run GM field trials at Rothamsted since 2011 or 2012, and I am looking forward to talking with you.
Professor Halford: I am Nigel Halford. I am also at Rothamsted Research. I have been there a long time—all through the biotech period. In fact, I was involved in GM wheat trials in Bristol in the 1990s. Like Johnathan, I am very passionate about taking our research through to products that are actually going to help British farming, agriculture and consumers. I am currently running a gene edited wheat field trial at Rothamsted. We are looking at reducing the acrylamide content of wheat products, so it is a food safety target.
Jo Churchill
Q
From the point of view of small and medium-sized enterprises, do you think this Bill will help smaller players to have some access to market, or would you like to see this Bill enable smaller breeders, such as yourself, to have access to these technologies?
William Angus: That is a good question. I have worked for a large multinational company. I was interested to hear both Johnathan and Nigel talk passionately about public good—that is what I do. When I was at the PBI this was part of your culture and it became part of my culture when I was at Limagrain.
I love the entrepreneurial spirit that we have in the UK. We started off this, which may be considered by some to be a slight mission of madness, but I had the opportunity to do it. We started in my lounge, then we moved to the greenhouse and then the garage, and now we have built up quite a significant activity.
I am worried about perhaps an agenda that this could be dominated by large multinationals, although one of the joys of wheat-breeding globally over the last 100-plus years has been the freedom to exchange germplasm. As soon as we start putting constraints on that, as soon as we start having people talking about ownership of genes and ownership of genetic material, or licensing genes that are already in the public domain, it starts to fill me with a great sense of foreboding.
Also, being on the CIMMYT board, I am really concerned and very passionate about the smallholder farmers that we have around the world. It has changed my life being on CIMMYT, in that it opened my eyes to the fact that there are millions and millions of people in very dire circumstances. Many people do not realise that the vast majority of farmers in the world are women.
So, yes, I am concerned about that and I would like to see some mechanisms whereby the freedom that currently exists for small companies, or individuals, to start up is not diminished. Therefore, I hope that some protection will be put in place.
Johnathan and Nigel may agree or disagree, but what we have in the UK is that, if you go back 40 years ago, we had a publicly dominating plant-feeding activity in the PBI. We have a really mature situation now. Globally, we are probably the best, and I have seen a lot around the world, of having these public-private partnerships. These guys at Rothamsted, or the John Innes Centre, or whatever, cannot take it to the market and we have a wonderful relationship with them, in that they do the fundamental research and then we, as the plant breeders, translate it into the field. And I include the multinationals in that.
We have a very mature situation and we must make sure that, whatever comes out of this Bill, that relationship is not damaged in any way and continues.
Jo Churchill
Q
However, I will direct my next question to both professors, in the hope that you both cover it to a degree. You have both expressed a passion, and have longevity about looking at this issue, and I think it was Professor Halford who said that he was involved in the GM trials in the ’90s. Can you please help us to understand how far we have come and say what benefits we should try to capture through this Bill in order to drive things forward?
Professor Halford: Any target you can think of for plant breeding—whether it is something that aids farmers, such as nitrogen-use efficiency or simplifying weed control, climate resilience, which is an urgent problem that we have to address in agriculture, or the kind of things that we are working on, benefits to consumers—gene editing can play a role in it. It is not sweeping anything else aside, but it certainly enables you to do some things that other methods in plant breeding do not allow you to do. That is what we are talking about.
Professor Napier: Nigel and I are veterans of the GM of the ’90s, the problems that emerged from that and the hiatus of seeing none of our research translated for a decade. Then, at Rothamsted, we restarted GM field trials in 2012, just because we realised that there was this urgent need to translate the research. The UK has a fantastic reputation for doing basic plant sciences, making lots of fantastic discoveries in labs, but that is no good to feed people or to solve the challenges of climate change and food security. You cannot eat promise; you really need a product.
The reason I am in agriculture is that it is the ultimate scalable solution: once you demonstrate that you can grow something in one field, you can grow it in a million fields. But until you have actually done it in the first field, you do not know whether the technology works. That is the exciting thing that has already changed in the regulation in the past few months—it is easier to do experimental gene edited field trials. Nigel and I are doing those at Rothamsted under the new regulations, and that is great, that is enabling. That is what we need.
We want to enable the technology to advance, which is not to say that we ignore the importance of safety and all those other things. On one level, it goes without saying that those are important, but it should not go without saying—you have to say that those are of paramount importance. What we want is enabling regulation. I am not totally sure I have answered your question, but it gives you the idea.
Jo Churchill
Q
Professor Napier: That is exactly right. Even if you look at the situation in the US, which is imagined to be the most tolerant and enabling of regulatory environments for GM, for example, it still costs probably $10 million to deregulate a crop. That is an utter barrier to entry to any small or medium-sized enterprise. The reason why the market is dominated by the large corporations is that they are the only people who can afford to pay those costs. If the barrier to entry is lower, basically you make it much more open to the more entrepreneurial, smaller, nimbler but less deep-pocketed organisations.
Professor Halford: The GM revolution is now a generation old. It is a 20th-century technology. We see varieties in the Americas and Asia with multiple input traits, output traits, insect resistance, herbicide tolerance, high lysine with a cherry on the top. None of that is available here—absolutely nothing, not a single GM crop plant grown commercially in the UK. We have completely missed the boat on that one, and it is really important that we do not miss the next boat.
We will have to go some way to persuade plant breeding companies, biotechnology companies, that there is a market in the UK. Currently, I can tell you, nobody is thinking about developing a GM or GE commercial crop for the UK or Europe. We will have to have regulation in place that gives breeders confidence that when they get their product to market, they can actually sell it. If my wheat all pans out, it works really well and I hand it to breeders to incorporate into their breeding programmes, we are still talking probably five to 10 years before we could possibly see anything on the market. That is a lot of work and investment. So farmers need to be confident that, at the end of that, they have a market.
The Chair
I remind people that we have until 3.15 pm for this session. A couple of Members have caught my eye. I will start with Daniel Zeichner.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
William Angus: At the moment, what I would like to see is no change to the status quo. Let us take this as an example: company A produces a variety and he introduces a trait into that variety. In two years’ time, once that variety has been added to the UK national list, another breeder can use that trait. That is the freedom to operate. It is really important that that is sustained and that people are not locked out of new developments. What may happen—this is an area I feel quite uncomfortable with—is that we may start to see larger organisations move the goalposts in terms of trying to stop other breeders from using genetic resources that have been developed.
Now, I am quite happy—here, we develop our own genetic resources and we give those away freely, to anybody. If anybody on the Committee would like some wheat, I will send them some genetics, no problem at all. That is freedom to operate. That is really all that I would look for—that we do not change the current status so that people think that, somehow, a naturally developed product or a GE product is any different, and that there is still that freedom to operate.
Can I make one comment on Johnathan and Nigel’s remarks? I have sat on a number of Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council committees. I chaired the horticulture and potato initiative and so on. I am not saying this because they are here, but the UK is absolutely blessed with the best public research on wheat around the world. They are absolutely right to make the point about the fact that this is not developed as well as it could be, primarily because the promotion system is based on paper publications. It is lovely to hear both of these guys talking about taking stuff to the market. That would be another comment that I would make. It is great to hear.
Going back to your question, let us be careful that there are mechanisms in place to protect this freedom of exchange of germplasm that happens not just in the UK but globally. It is really important that we do that. There have been steps in America to patent genes. We really must not go down that route. In my opinion, it will stifle innovation and it would put the control of our food supplies in the hands of large multinationals, which I would be very concerned about.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
William Angus: Yes. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say it occurs naturally and then I am going to change it and now it is different. I agree.
It is very difficult when I come from the environment I do—my views tend to be slightly different from those who come from large multinational companies—but I think it is a really important point, that we protect innovation from big companies and so on, but that we also protect the right of individuals to start up their own businesses. The way I look on it is, you know, Richard Branson started Virgin Atlantic—he was allowed to do that. One man started with one aeroplane, and off he went; brilliant, great, good for him. It would be sad if people like that or companies such as easyJet were excluded from the market because someone said, “This is an aeroplane, and you’re not allowed to fly it.” I would like to reiterate that we need that protection in there.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Professor Napier: I think it was mentioned earlier that with innovation, it probably needs to be developed as a public-private partnership, which sort of implies that there needs to be a market pull. Using the term “market” can be slightly perturbing because, in reality, the drivers for what we want to see translated are much bigger than the economics. They are things like global climate change, food security and all the global pandemics associated with malnutrition and overconsumption. Those are the challenges enshrined in sustainable development goals and things like that. Those are the things that we should be occupying ourselves with. We need to use everything we can to try to fix those challenges. Rothamsted and other places like that—in fact, everybody—should be working towards those goals and overcoming those challenges.
Listening to what Bill said about IP, I spend an enormous amount of time thinking about IP because it is an area that I have to think about a lot. The beauty about the UK is that we have a really strong research use exemption, which allows us to operate in a way that is not encumbered, at least at the research level, by IP. We are in a really good place. I think the bigger barrier to innovation is what I have already mentioned: it is not IP but the cost of regulatory approval. That is why I am so worried that in new legislation, if we start building in layers of costs associated with more regulation, we are just replicating what we had previously under the EU regulation. I think that would be an enormous missed opportunity if we go down that road. That is my personal view.
Deidre Brock
Q
Professor Napier: You cannot patent a gene. There was a case in the US that made it quite clear that you cannot hold a patent on a gene. That legal precedent is quite clear, from the famous case of Myriad. I am not too worried about that. In reality, it is analogous to what you see in the pharmaceutical sector and relates exactly to your point about understanding the drivers for innovation. You need to couple it with economics.
All these things are moving parts, which you need to make the whole thing work. To pull it forward, you need to have an economic case and some form of protecting your invention—patents are a good way of doing that. The example I always give is that my mobile phone probably has 2,000 patents-worth of components in. Nobody gets upset about that. It is about understanding how you can best use this technology. I also do not want to sound like some sort of gung-ho free marketeer, because I am absolutely not. I work in a Government-supported institute. I do not work in the private sector. I probably want the best of both worlds.
Professor Halford: As public sector scientists, at times in our careers we have been told we should be patenting everything, and at times in our careers we have said, “Well, it's unethical to be patenting this stuff.” I think we have a pretty robust patents system. You cannot patent discoveries of genes; you have to patent an invention. That seems to have worked for mobile phones and it works with pharmaceuticals, many of which are biologicals. I do not see why it cannot work in crop high technology.
Deidre Brock
Q
Professor Halford: We have used CRISPR-Cas9 to knock out a gene that makes an amino acid called asparagine, which gets converted to acrylamide. That is our target.
Deidre Brock
You are giving Hansard a few challenges today.
Professor Halford: Acrylamide is a processing contaminant, so it only forms during processing; it is not in the plant. For consumers, it is not an issue—we could talk about that all day—but it is quite a big regulatory compliance issue for the food industry. We are trying to reduce the potential for acrylamide to form during processing by reducing the amount of asparagine in the grain of the wheat. That is where we are at the moment.
Because you do a GM step to put the CRISPR machinery into the plant, some of those components are still in most of the plants we have, so the field trial is running under GM regulations at the moment. The editing has been done, and it has worked. We have very low asparagine wheat grain growing in the glasshouse, at least. We are in the process of crossing away the GM bit, and we do have some plants now—not in the field trial, but under glass—that are now GM-free. They are a qualifying higher plant, and we have registered them as such.
Deidre Brock
Q
Professor Halford: We have five plant breeders working with us. If it pans out in the field and it all looks good, we could hand our genotypes over to those breeders and they could start incorporating the trait into their breeding lines. That process would take probably five to 10 years. We have five years’ consent to run the field trials. You need several years before you are going to convince a breeder that your trait is stable and it will give them what they need. There is nothing rapid about the process.
Clive Lewis
Q
Professor Napier: In my opinion, it is regulatory approval that is the barrier.
Clive Lewis
Why? What does that do?
Professor Napier: It is mainly the cost and the uncertainty. If you think about the way GM crops are regulated, for example, in the US it will cost you something like $10 million and take several years to get regulatory approval. In Europe, you could spend that money two or three times over, and because the approval process also has a political component, it will never be approved, so you have this uncertainty. From an entrepreneurial point of view and a commercialisation point of view, what you want is certainty. Even if you think, “Okay, the horizon is five years and I know I need to spend $10 million,” at least you know what it is. If there is uncertainty, I am not going to go on “Dragons’ Den” and say, “Here is my pitch. I don’t know how much it’s going to cost. I don’t know how long it’s going to take. Can I have some money, please?” I suspect they will tell me to—
Clive Lewis
Q
I am interested in your views, as individuals who operate in the private-public sphere. When it comes to food security and the climate crisis, I would have thought that profit maximisation will probably not be the route map to solving those problems. What is going to be needed is a private-public partnership where we get the best of both, but some things may cost more. It is going to cost us to tackle the climate crisis; it is going to cost us to ensure that we can feed the world with a climate crisis in the 21st century, so it is even more important that we get the regulatory framework right and that it is robust. Freedom from regulations for businesses means freedoms against consumers, the public and those who do not have access to those sciences to be able to utilise them.
Professor Halford: Look at what has happened to GM technology in Europe. The last GM crop approved for cultivation in Europe was approved in 2010, I think. Only one GM crop is grown to any extent in Europe, and that got approval before it became difficult in the mid-’90s. So nothing is happening—for climate resilience or anything else.
Clive Lewis
That is the extreme version, isn’t it?
Professor Halford: Everyone pats themselves on the back and says, “We’ve got a great regulatory framework,” but nothing is happening. Burkina Faso has more experience—
Clive Lewis
Q
Professor Halford: The simple answer is that it has to be proportionate to the risk. You can also compare gene editing to what we have already. We already have chemical and radiation mutants; that technology has been going around since the 1950s. They are already on the market, with exactly the same kinds of genetic changes that gene editing introduces, but completely random.
Clive Lewis
Q
Professor Halford: You could make exactly the same comment about anything in plant breeding. The argument is, “Why should you look at gene editing as being different?” Is it more risky? Is it more likely to be misused? I would say no.
Clive Lewis
Q
Professor Napier: I know what you are trying to say. I tried to write an article about this a couple of years ago, taking the example of Golden rice, which was developed to deliver a public good and took decades to get to market. Why? Because it had been demonetarised. Effectively, all the economic drivers had been taken out of it, so the impetus for it to be delivered to market was not there. You could not monetarise it, which on one level is exactly as it should be: why should you be monetarising what is effectively misery—childhood blindness and things like that? But it also basically depowers the way the world works—the way that modern economies work. That is just the way of the world, isn’t it? We all know that.
I understand what you are saying. For us, we really want to see stuff applied and translated. People get far too hung up about intellectual property. I am not an IP lawyer, but I know a lot about IP. People feel it is a hindrance in plant biotechnology, but compared with the costs of getting regulatory approval, IP is not the barrier. The reason why we have all these big corporations dominating the field of plant biotechnology is that they are the only people who can afford regulatory approval.
When we ran GM field trials in 2012 at Rothamsted, there were big demonstrations about it. Most of the people had come from the Occupy London demonstration, so they were anti-globalisation protesters. They were protesting about the globalisation and corporatisation of the world; they were not actually that concerned about GM. That is not to dismiss their concerns, but that is what they were really worried about. You can end up conflating a whole load of things and saying, “These are all the things that people should worry about,” but I am not sure that is what you need to worry about. It sounds like I am telling you what to do, but I am absolutely not. There are other things to think about in the Bill.
Professor Halford: If you are going to say that you should regulate how people use the technology—can you do that?
Clive Lewis
Q
I am sorry, Mr Angus, that I have not brought you into this conversation very well, but that is not my job. If you would like to come back on anything—
The Chair
William Angus, would you like to say a few words on this subject?
William Angus: Yes, and I assure you that I will be brief. First of all, I have some comments about various things. This is not a short-term solution. It has been bandied about by many that this is like, “Oh, well, in three years we can do this and that.” We can develop genetic resources in three years already; we do not need that. I am actually a really big supporter of gene editing. I think it allows us to short-circuit when we have major key traits that will be of significant global benefit. Gene editing comes into that very well.
We already have a very strong regulatory system for national listing of varieties. The Committee may or may not know that currently, before we can put varieties into the marketplace, they have to go through a pretty robust national listing system. They have to be distinct, uniform and stable, and they also have to have a value for cultivation and use, so those mechanisms are already in place. I would feel confident that, by beefing them up a bit, we could cover the regulatory issues without huge quantities of over-regulation in terms of entry to the market.
I want to make the point that this is not the shortcut that people perceive it to be, because once you have your trait of interest, you then have to transfer it into a variety or something that is genetically good; then you have your in-house testing process, which is usually three to four years; then you have two years of statutory tests; then your wheat, for instance, gets a recommended listing, and then you have two or three years of seed modification. The idea that we can somehow wave a magic wand with gene editing and create something within three years is complete nonsense; it would take 10 or 11 years. This is the thing about plant breeding: it is a long-term venture.
I am weird—I admit that I am slightly strange. You are quite right that all the big companies are profit-driven. I have absolutely no interest in money, but as a plant breeder you can make a huge difference, not only globally but domestically. I suspect that if you have had a bit of bread today, you will have had part of a variety that I was involved with. That gives me a huge amount of satisfaction, and I hope you enjoyed the bread. That is what plant breeders do: it is about impact. Now that I work on a more global scale, it is helping so many people whom I have met who live on $2 a day. That is really the important part. I do not necessarily represent the interests of large multinationals, I am afraid.
The Chair
Thank you, William. We have less than a minute left. I know the Minister wants a quick question—it is less than a minute for your question and the answer.
Jo Churchill
Q
Professor Napier: Yes.
Professor Halford: Yes.
William Angus: Yes.
Jo Churchill
This feels like “Britain’s Got Talent”. There we go; we have finished before 3.15 pm.
The Chair
That brings this session to an end. I thank all our contributors for a really informative session.
Examination of Witnesses
Roger Kerr, Steven Jacobs, Joanna Lewis and Christopher Atkinson gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Roger Kerr, chief executive, and Steven Jacobs, business development manager, both of Organic Farmers & Growers, and from Joanna Lewis, policy and strategy director, and Christopher Atkinson, head of standards, both of the Soil Association. All the witnesses are with us in person. We have until 3.50 pm for the session. Will each of you in turn introduce yourself for the record, and then we will come to questions?
Roger Kerr: My name is Roger Kerr. I am chief executive of Organic Famers & Growers. I am also a trustee of the Organic Research Centre, which is an independent organic research organisation. I am also a director of the Organic Trade Board.
Steven Jacobs: I am Steven Jacobs. I am the business development manager for Organic Farmers & Growers.
Joanna Lewis: I am Joanna Lewis. I am the policy and strategy director for the Soil Association and a trustee at the Food Ethics Council and at Sustain, the alliance for food and farming.
Christopher Atkinson: Hello. I am Chris Atkinson. I am head of standards at the Soil Association charity. I am also an elected board member of IFOAM Organics Europe, our European umbrella organisation.
Jo Churchill
Q
Christopher Atkinson: Organic is a regulated activity, so the requirements for organic production, including separation and segregation, are laid out in law. In the UK, that is currently a retained European regulation, No. 834. That mandates an inspection and certification system based on international norms for product certification. The way in which producers who are under the control system specified in the regulation notify their activity and interaction with independent third-party certifiers, such as Organic Famers & Gowers and the Soil Association, is described in that regulation.
It is very much a farm-to-fork regulation: it covers all parts of the production process, from the farm, beyond the farm gate, right through to the point of sale. There is complete traceability, which is overseen by the certification bodies and maintained through record keeping and some elements of testing and checking, which are carried out both by those who are subject to the regulation and by the certification bodies that oversee their activity.
Roger Kerr: The question was also about the risk of GM to the supply chain.
Christopher Atkinson: Yes. At the moment, there is prohibition of GMOs in organic production, and organic producers rely on the current labelling regime to verify and identify freedom from GM. There is also a testing regime based on detection thresholds for GM specified in the legislation, and there are duties both on the producers and on the certification bodies to apply those requirements.
Jo Churchill
Q
Joanna Lewis: Your mention of PRRS offers a good way to explain why the global organic movement currently does not support the genetic engineering approach. That movement is very much founded on the principle that you harness natural processes to stop pest and disease problems arising in the first place. For instance, PRRS is widely accepted to be a disease that arises from industrial farming systems as a result of overcrowding. The crucial thing is to make sure that there is a public interest test at the heart of the Bill, and that is what we are calling for.
We noted that the Regulatory Policy Committee has raised a red flag about the impact assessment—I am sure that it has been discussed before. We found that the impact assessment had overlooked three crucial areas: first, clearly, the freedom of choice for citizens; secondly, the needs and interests of organic agroecological farmers and growers, who have a key role to play in the Government’s ambitions for a sustainable farming transition; and, thirdly, the impact on the Government’s ability to achieve their own really important legal biodiversity and climate targets, and to address their professed concern about animal welfare and their desire to improve those welfare standards.
One does not need to doubt the good intentions of the research institutions that are involved in the research, but there are strong commercial drivers at play here. It is no accident that current and recent developments on gene editing of crops relates overwhelmingly to herbicide resistance. When you have four companies controlling 60% of the global seed market and two of them, Bayer-Monsanto and ChemChina, which owns Syngenta, account for more than half the agrichemical market, it is no accident that there is that commercial bias.
When it comes to the interests of farm animals, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics held a public dialogue on gene editing and farmed animals. The concern expressed by the public, now backed by the support of the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, and Sciencewise—I am on the oversight group for that dialogue—was clearly centred not so much on the distinctions between gene editing and conventional breeding, but on the fact that the direction of travel for conventional breeding had been to prioritise traits that came at the expense of animal welfare and which facilitated the keeping of animals in inhumane industrial farming systems. The concern was that gene editing might accelerate that trend.
That brings us back to the question of where the public interest test is that could allow the Government to do more than just presuppose and gamble on the benefits of this for climate, nature and health. Norway has developed a gene technology Act, which places that public interest test at its heart. I do not know if that has been discussed yet, but there is a test that requires evidence of community benefit and support for sustainable development, so we would like to see that considered in the deliberation of this Bill.
Steven Jacobs: Just to pick up on where we stand as an organic control body, our role is to maintain integrity through the whole chain of custody, from farm to fork and from seed to shelf. You cannot necessarily tell that a bottle of milk is organic by testing it—actually, there could be tests for that. You can tell a bottle of milk is organic because we have inspected every stage of the process. According to our licensees—and we license more than half the organic land in this country—that is not onerous. They already do various certifications, such as Red Tractor. Our inspectors will be able to do two, three or four of those in one visit. Asking the same question can generate two, three or four certification requirements.
The situation we have is one where there is an established market. In this country, it is worth around £3 billion. Globally, it is worth around $100 billion. It has been going for 60 or 70 years. The regulatory regime has been in existence since the early ’90s. That integrity is accepted in the marketplace and is being bought by shoppers. In the consultation, something like 85% of respondents said it was not that they necessarily objected to gene editing, but they would like to see existing regulatory frameworks upheld. We work in a regulatory framework. We have ISO standards. We are audited by a Government-approved auditor every year. That is how we ensure that that integrity is maintained. For us, those customers have said they do not want GE or GM.
Jo Churchill
Right, okay. I am not sure that I entirely understand why you feel it would be any different with GE, which is a completely different technique—with all due respect—from GM. If I could tease out that animal welfare point, you are predicating your argument on the idea that everything is detrimental on a welfare front. Surely the eradication of avian flu—particularly as we have had the challenge in the last year—would be beneficial to free-range birds as well. I am keen that the rest of the Committee has its chance to contribute, though.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Roger Kerr: From an organic regulatory basis, as Chris has already indicated, GE is still defined as GM. We need to be much clearer about what GE is being defined as, and we still do not have that clarity. As things stand, it is not allowed within the organic regulation, so the risk is where there is a lack of co-existence measures in place, which means that organic crops are contaminated. Organic consumers make these purchasing decisions because they believe they are avoiding GM, and that is a right they should have.
By not having robust co-existence measures in place, we are obviously putting our consumers at risk, because they are purchasing organic products on the basis that they do not believe they are consuming GM. It is a personal choice—I am not saying that you should not—and the organic sector is not saying per se that we should not have genetic editing. What we are saying is that it is incompatible with organic. Organic is out there, and there is a market for it, as Steve has clearly stated. There is a significant opportunity, both domestically and internationally, for the UK organic sector.
We should protect the organic sector, and there should be some visibility in terms of GE—where it is being grown, what is being grown and what the potential risks associated with that are for the organic sector—so we can ensure that the organic sector remains free from GM or GE, as it is at the moment. There is concern that if we are looking to provide consumers with the choice of having GE or not, we will end up with quite a significant cost within the supply chain to ensure co-existence, in terms of space and time, between GM and non-GM. This is not organic per se; it is just GM and non-GM. We will then have to have extra storage, more vehicle movements and a much higher level of testing. There are concerns that, without real clarity about what is going on and where the potential points of contamination arise, a significant cost will be borne by the food sector, which is already under significant pressure.
Joanna Lewis: I understand that you are addressing us as the organic industry and the organic sector, but I just want to reiterate that the Soil Association is a charity of 70 years’ standing that represents all citizens, farmers, growers and scientists who want to see a mainstream transition to agroecological farming and regenerative farming for climate, nature and health.
The response to the consultation on the Bill—85% of people and businesses were opposed—reflects a deeper unease not just about the safety issues and technicalities around the distinction between gene editing and GMOs. That is what I was trying to bring through with reference to the Nuffield Council on Bioethics’s public dialogue. It is really important to emphasise the very legitimate public concerns about the fact that breeding as a whole—plant and animal breeding—has been on an unhelpful trajectory that is not up to the challenge of the Government’s goals on sustainable farming transition. We therefore need to ensure that we are not accelerating that trend through carte blanche deregulation.
There is an opportunity to put good governance at the heart of this Bill, set that public interest test, and ensure full supply chain traceability, transparency and labelling for citizens who want and deserve the right to choose whether this is the solution for them. I would not want it narrowed down to saying we are representing an economic sector. This is a broader movement, and it is very much one for mainstream transition.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Joanna Lewis: I would really recommend that you look to Norway’s gene technology Act. I have not gone through it line by line, but it feels like a valuable precedent from a country that also sits outside the European Union and is looking at what governance can apply—to make sure we are not just presupposing the benefits. Commercial drivers are not given free rein, and if there is to be a relaxation of regulation, you can do it with the confidence that it is going in the direction of supporting more sustainable farming. I believe the test that it set is that something is of community benefit and supports sustainable development. I do not know whether that is fully adequate, but it is a precedent that is out there and merits some consideration.
Deidre Brock
Q
Christopher Atkinson: You are right in supposing that we feel the measures are insufficient. We need a high degree of traceability and the ability for organic producers in particular to understand where crops are being grown and the risk of contamination.
Roger Kerr: The other aspect is that, as we have heard from previous speakers, there is not going to be a significant amount of investment in producing this material unless there is sufficient visibility over where it is, because of the likelihood that it will disappear into the food system and the businesses that have developed the technology will not be able to recover the costs. There is an issue in understanding the full and public visibility over where these crops are being grown, who is growing them and where they are going, so that there is the opportunity to see where that product has gone, so that people can recover their investment.
Steven Jacobs: The Bill says that the organism is
“a marketable precision bred organism”
and
“the qualifying progeny of a marketable precision bred organism”.
One of the issues is what will happen if there are—and we are assuming there will be—many precision bred events put into one product, whether that is livestock or crops. In crops, for instance, you can have stacked traits. The issue is around that crop being bred with something else and some of those traits being passed over, perhaps unknowingly.
We have seen incidents where herbicide resistance has gone out into the wilder environment and that has caused problems. For instance, there was a case on the Swiss-Italian border where herbicide-resistant oilseed rape that was not grown in Switzerland was found on the railway. It had leaked out of the railway carriages. That is a problem because they spray herbicide to keep the railway sidings—all the ballast—stabilised. Now, they have a situation where there is a herbicide-resistant weed in a location that would normally be sprayed in order to keep the railway safe. There are incidents where one would need to see some measure of traceability in order to evaluate. It is not just our need; I would suggest that there is a public and commercial need.
Roger Kerr: On livestock, take a genetically edited bull, for argument’s sake—I have picked cows because I like cows. He will have sired innumerable daughters that will go on to be crossed back. They may be crossed back with a non-GE sire. At what point do they become non-GE? Obviously, going back through their parentage, there will be GE material in there. From our point of view—from an organic standpoint—the question is: at what point is it no longer a genetically edited animal, if its forebears were genetically edited? There is a lot of concern around how we manage this issue, how those things are defined and who, ultimately, owns the genetic material within that animal, albeit it is the great-great-great-great-granddaughter of something. There are concerns there.
Joanna Lewis: It also feels that the solution in terms of implementing supply chain transparency, traceability and labelling is eminently achievable. It does not feel like a big barrier to bring that into the scope of the Bill in order to address those concerns and allow the legitimate needs of citizens who reserve the right to choose to reject this technology, and to preserve the integrity of organic systems. We are obviously at a point in time where the industry is buzzing with big data supply chain solutions and wanting a whole new resurgence in food labelling to show the citizen everything about the provenance, origin and production practices of their food. It should not be a big barrier to this Bill’s intent to include that requirement for full supply chain transparency and labelling.
Deidre Brock
Q
All witnesses indicated assent.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Q
Some witnesses who gave evidence this morning said that it is not the Bill that is at fault. There is a completely separate argument, they said, about whether we want to increase the intensification and industrialisation of animal farming. Where do you sit on that argument? They said that the animal welfare codes deal with some of the concerns. I would say, however, that they are not operating in the right way at the moment, because we already allow a degree of intensification and, to my mind, animal welfare standards are not good.
On the separate issue of increasing yields from animals, cows produce an awful lot more milk than they would have done a few decades ago, and certainly a lot more milk than they need to feed their own calves. Where do you sit on the use of this technology for that purpose? Finally, do you think that the Bill’s provision for the Secretary of State to refer things to a welfare advisory body is a sufficient safeguard? Sorry, that was an awful lot of questions, and you do not have much time to answer.
Joanna Lewis: You asked whether you can separate the intention of gene editing to solve animal welfare problems from the broader challenge of facilitating the perpetuation of systems that result in very poor animal welfare. I think it is important that we bring these together—as the public brought them together in the Nuffield Council on Bioethics public dialogue. We know that conventional animal breeding trends have been to prioritise greater yield, litter size and fast growth over the welfare of sentient animals, and we know that the argument for gene editing is partly that it speeds things up and is likely, therefore, to accelerate those trends. The public were saying, through that dialogue, that this is where they want to see governance. They want the Government to come in and say, “This is our vision for the future of animal farming. This is how it is going to become a higher welfare system that also delivers for climate, nature and health. This is the role we want to see gene editing play in that context.”
I know that you will be hearing evidence from Compassion in World Farming on Thursday, and I know that amendments will be proposed to try to make sure that there are additional tests—which could be linked to the Secretary of State’s powers, secondary regulation or the role of the welfare advisory body—on whether these traits are going to focus on yield, litter size and fast growth and cause lasting harm to the welfare of the animal. Also, are they going to perpetuate, facilitate or enable a farming system that is very detrimental to the welfare of animals? Those are the amendments that will be coming through from animal welfare bodies.
Roger Kerr: In terms of the disease-resistance issue, we have to be really careful about how we approach this. What we have seen, albeit through the use of antibiotics, is the reduction of disease. Again, unfortunately, I am referring back to the dairy industry. We have seen farmers driven to reduce cell counts in dairy cows to a point where the cow’s immune system has been suppressed to such a degree that the more virulent diseases come in, because there is not the natural, more benign flora around any more. Therefore, you have cows going down with E. coli and other things, which is killing them. We have seen this continual drive to reduce the immune system and reduce the cell count.
What we have found more recently is that allowing the cow to have a more natural immune system actually allows it to live a longer and healthier life. We have to be really careful when we start talking about disease that we do not start messing with something but then find that we end up with a whole lot of unintended consequences in terms of opening the animal up to other disease implications. Ultimately, we will just end up on the same old wheel of trying to continually firefight because the animal is going down with disease.
On the yield aspect, again, we can keep saying, “Oh, well, we can genetically breed them to produce high yield,” but what we find is that the longevity of the animals is massively impacted. These cows that can produce 12,000 or 15,000 litres of milk do not live very long because, unfortunately, cows are just not designed to do that. We have to be really careful about what we consider to be a farm animal and what it is there for. If we continue to drive it, we are effectively supercharging its physiology, and therefore it will ultimately not be able to live as long.
Using cows as an example, if you go into a collecting yard or a cubicle shed, you will see the cows breathing really quickly, even though they are lying down, because their physiology is going so fast. What we are effectively doing at the moment is turning what was a very low-input, low-output animal into a Formula 1 car. Unsurprisingly, they do not cope with it and they fall over. What we are doing now in terms of genetically editing is stepping that up a whole other gear. We have to be really careful about what it is that we are seeking to achieve here, and I think we have to look, in terms of welfare, not only at disease resistance but at longevity, quality of life and ability to withstand other disease impacts.
Kerry McCarthy
Q
Roger Kerr: It can affect—
The Chair
Order. I just point out that we only have just over two minutes.
Roger Kerr: Sorry. Chris was going to say something.
Christopher Atkinson: Going back to what you said about what sort of tests should be applied to animals by any regulatory committee, the Farm Animal Welfare Committee introduced the concept of a good life for animals. Our view of animal health and welfare is based on positive aspects of an animal’s life. You have referred to the codes of practice; generally, they are based on absences of harm. For a long time in animal welfare science, absence of harm was equated with good welfare. We have moved significantly beyond that, so we would encourage you to look at the good life framework and ensure that those tests for a good life for animals are applied to any traits and outcomes.
Roger Kerr: On your point about slaughterhouses, we talk about a good life, but we also talk about a good death. It is important to recognise that a lot of stress is experienced when animals have to be moved a significant distance, or even away from the farm and environments that they are familiar with. The fundamental issue is how many abattoirs we have and how far animals have to move. To say, “Oh, well actually, what we’ll do is we’ll genetically manipulate their genes so that we can transport them hundreds of miles before we kill them,” seems to be a perverse and illogical approach.
Kerry McCarthy
Q
Roger Kerr: I am not sure. We were talking about dairy cows, which, as you know, are not bred to be eaten. Beef animals would be different again. There is an issue around stress with killing an animal, but that is more about the environment that it is in. I think we should look at that in a holistic way in terms of the environment and not necessarily just say, “Let’s tweak something so that we can still treat—”
The Chair
Order. I am afraid that I am going to have to bring the session to an end. Our allocated time is over. I thank you all for another interesting session.
Examination of Witnesses
Dr Richard Harrison and Professor Giles Oldroyd gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Dr Harrison: I am Richard Harrison and I am director of crop research at NIAB. NIAB is an independent research organisation based around the country. It receives both public and private funding, and it sits in the area of strategic and translational research in crops. My role in NIAB is as the director of Cambridge Crop Research, which encompasses most of the arable crop research we do in the organisation. That include genetics, biotechnology and some of the statutory work that we deliver in seed certification and variety valuation for the Animal and Plant Health Agency on behalf of DEFRA. My own research is in the area of plant-microbe interactions in complex trait genetics. Most of that work has been done over the past 10 years in horticultural crops—strawberries, cherries, raspberries and other tasty things—where my group have worked on disease resistance but also developed and implemented gene editing technologies in those crops.
Professor Oldroyd: I am Professor Giles Oldroyd. I am professor of crop sciences at the University of Cambridge. I am a fellow of the Royal Society and I am director of the Crop Science Centre, which is an alliance between the University of Cambridge and NIAB. I am the University of Cambridge component of that alliance. My research focuses on how we improve the sustainability of farming systems, with a particular focus on removing the need for inorganic fertilisers from farming. I work on driving sustainability in developed-world farming, but also for smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa. I get most of my funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. I currently have a field trial ongoing in Cambridge that uses a combination of genetically modified lines as well as genetically edited lines.
Jo Churchill
Q
Professor Oldroyd: I think that the current Bill would be truly transformative in our ability to see impact from the foundational research that happens in many of our universities around the country. The UK is a world leader in plant sciences. It has been very frustrating for plant scientists to struggle to see impact from their research because of the restrictions that are placed on the release of potential products from their work.
I believe that gene editing is equivalent to what you can achieve from conventional natural processes, but the level of precision that it provides allows us to do things in a way that we could not—or found it difficult to do—when restricted to only what is available in the natural diversity of that crop. It really does allow us to move things from the lab to the field to the consumer in a manner that is much more straightforward, to apply the phenomenal knowledge that we have developed in plant research in the UK over the last 30 or 40 years, and really to drive what I believe is a crucial transformation in food production. We have phenomenal challenges facing us: we have to feed a growing population, drive sustainability and cope with climate change, all over the next 30 years. That is not easy and we cannot do it with our hands tied behind our backs.
Dr Harrison: I could not agree more with that synopsis. One of the major strengths in the UK is our fundamental research base. Over the past 30 years, we really have understood at a deep level how genes function—in plants and in animals—and the ability not only to capture what is there in nature through conventional breeding, but to use technologies that allow the directed introduction of mutations that could occur naturally but are not necessarily present or are not in the right pre-adapted germplasm. Bringing those into the gene pool and using them for crop and animal improvement is, as Giles says, transformative to our abilities to address the major challenges that we face in food production and the sustainability of food production.
Jo Churchill
Q
Professor Oldroyd: There are currently very tight restrictions on validating the health and safety of GM products. For products produced by conventional breeding, we also have tests with regards to their performance in the environment, their performance relative to other varieties and their health. We have a robust regulatory framework in place that addresses the safety of the consumer, and it has served us well over many decades. I cannot think of an example where we can say, “Okay, this line has caused genuine risk to human health,” and that is because of the regulatory framework that exists.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
My questions are about public confidence. We know that this has been a vexed debate over many years. There is fantastic science being done in Cambridge, but it often strikes me that the wider public have very little idea about it; that is hardly a unique issue there. Do you think there are sufficient measures in the Bill to secure the public confidence that is needed? If not, what extra could be put in to secure that?
Dr Harrison: The key point is proportionality. In all the preamble to the Bill, it is suggested that there is a proportionate response to how the technology is regulated. What we must never forget about gene editing and the scope of the types of changes that can be introduced is that they are indistinguishable from nature, so fundamentally we are not doing anything that could not happen or arise through natural processes.
The level and proportionality of the regulation of, and the transparency of, those products is important, and it is important that the public are aware, which I suppose is why there are systems in the Bill to register intent to put into the existing system gene edited products, but I do not think we need to stretch much beyond that. We have, as Bill Angus said, very well established regulatory frameworks in which to evaluate the performance of crops. We have the DUS system—distinctiveness, uniformity and stability—and we have the value for cultivatable use system. They have shown over many years that when varieties are put on the market, they are safe. The legislation that exists beyond that gives any country the right, if they find a problem with a variety, to remove that from what is the common catalogue in the EU, or, in our case, from our national list. As long as the proportionality is adhered to, the Bill is appropriate.
Professor Oldroyd: There are a lot of studies that have looked at the general public’s position on biotechnology. There are really only a few at either extreme—who absolutely support it outright or who are very scared of it. Most of the general public are looking to people like me—to scientists—and to the regulatory framework to define what is safe to consume.
Within precision breeding, as is intrinsic to the Bill, is the fact that these are events that could happen by exactly the same natural diversity and so already could be introduced, theoretically, through a conventional breeding process. One of the issues is that some—in particular, those on the previous panel—have taken as a presumption that anything that is biotechnology is inherently dangerous, and that is not correct. It is not correct to say that just because it is being developed by this mechanism there is an inherent danger in that approach. That is the erroneous position to take when comparing with conventional breeding.
We use many varieties that have been generated by mutagenesis breeding, by double haploid production. These are conventional breeding approaches. There is very little about gene editing that is different from that in the end product; it is just how you get to that event.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Dr Harrison: My personal view is that I do not think there is any scientific rationale to have additional labelling criteria for gene-edited products, because they are fundamentally indistinguishable from nature. There is a sort of logical incoherence in saying, “Well, they are indistinguishable in nature, yet we must discriminate and show that they are different.” I think there is transparency in the system because there is a register. When farmers choose to grow varieties or there is a protected chain of production to discriminate one set of things from another, people are growing varieties—it is not magicked out of thin air. When people are planting, they will know whether it is a gene-edited variety or not. That is the point at which the choice can be made. I do not think there is any scientific rationale for then extending that labelling requirement to the post-marketing of products.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Dr Harrison: Everybody has said, and many panels have shown, that there is a need, when you are bringing a new technology into the market, to have an additional level of transparency in order to inspire public confidence. I think the question is what level of balance you need for public confidence. I think that the registers are there in order to say, “This is a product that has been produced with this technology,” and there is therefore then the ability for people to choose it, should they want to. That is what I see them being there for—to give people freedom of choice.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Dr Harrison: That is why I was saying that, at the time of planting, people can choose. The supply chain fits around that decision, at that point, much as it does with other production systems. To distinguish a gene-edited product on the basis that it is somehow different from a conventionally bred product is the thing that I am saying is a bit logically incoherent.
Professor Oldroyd: If I may add to that, the Bill itself states that only those that are considered to be equivalent to something that could be achieved by natural transformation are included under the Bill. So by definition we are saying that this product could be achieved by more conventional methods. Therefore, it is illogical to separate it out at some later stage and say, “This product is different”, when intrinsic to the Bill is the fact that it is not different. That is the only way it can be taken forward.
Daniel Zeichner
Which begs the question of why you had to register. However, I think we could probably go round in circles on this. Chair, I am quite happy for us to move on to other questioners.
Deidre Brock
Q
Professor Oldroyd: Let me describe how we get to the point. For instance, I have some gene-edited material out in the field right now and we measure everything we can possibly measure in that material, from its effect. These are affecting plant microbial interactions, so we are particularly looking, for instance, at what is happening in the soil. We have the wild type and we have the gene-edited line, so we can precisely compare, to understand any differences in the local environment caused by the gene-edited type or the wild type. That is intrinsic to the research programme and we have to do those field trials before anything even gets close to commercialisation.
Therefore, intrinsic to working with this material is that we are already putting it out in the field. If I then hand it to breeder, they will then be doing breeding in their lines with that material and also doing extensive field trials, testing many factors, according to their performance relative to other lines. Ultimately, if it gets released as a variety, then NIAB, under the jurisdiction from the Government, tests and compares those lines relative to other lines on their performance in the field.
So there are many points along this track where we are actually testing the performance—as a researcher myself; as a breeding company; and then as NIAB, creating the recommended list. There are multiple factors all along the way that are already intrinsic to the process.
Deidre Brock
Q
Professor Oldroyd: That is the process that we have put in for mutation breeding, for instance. For mutation breeding, I irradiate the seed to create mutations in the seed, look for the lines that give a trait that is useful, and then breed that into the conventional lines. That is already happening; it underpins a lot of our food production and we have a regulatory framework to ensure that what we are actually releasing out into the world is safe and effective.
Deidre Brock
Q
Professor Oldroyd: I think it is certainly sufficient for assessing the validity of material produced by methods that are no different from what happens in nature.
Deidre Brock
Q
Dr Harrison: Yes.
Deidre Brock
What are your thoughts with regard to, say, Mr Angus’s previous points about the ownership of genes or the licensing of genes, and trying to ensure that that does not become a problem for breeders such as Mr Angus, or indeed for growers. We have discussed that in a few panels, so I just wondered how his point could be addressed.
Dr Harrison: Bill was talking about the breeder’s exemption, which means that once a variety has been protected it is put on the market, and any other breeder can then take that material, cross with it and do onward work.
If I understand it correctly—this is an area that is changing rapidly—there is still uncertainty, as Jonathan Napier said, about what can and cannot be protected. Patenting genes is very difficult, so it is more likely that the technology will be protected than the genes themselves. Even so, there could be some instances where there is some level of protection around a particular trait.
There are schemes now being set up that would allow the breeder’s exemption still to apply in the event of a licensing for a particular gene-edited trait in that variety. So those systems are being set up by industry at the moment, because ultimately there is a win-win there, because the licence holder of the intellectual property will want to see that out there at some level, and the plant breeders will want to use the material. I am not an expert in this area, and I am not a legal expert, but I understand that there are schemes being set up to take account of that. That is only in the instances where stuff is actually protectable; most stuff probably won’t be protectable, so the breeder’s exemption will still apply and people can still cross with it.
The bigger issue—the one raised by Jonathan—is that if you have an overly burdensome regulatory landscape of pre-authorisation to take something to market, for many that will be the thing that kills the technology. It is really important that that proportionality remains. It is only for things that may substantially affect nutrition that you would go down a route whereby the FSA would even class it under novel food regulations. I would expect that the majority of things being developed are agronomic traits, which would—as they do in many jurisdictions, such as Canada—sit outside the purview of food standards and are not classed as novel food in any way. They would progress to the market just as conventionally bred things do at the moment.
Deidre Brock
Q
Dr Harrison: Do you mean in terms of additional—
Deidre Brock
If they take over and buy out smaller breeders, for example.
Dr Harrison: You have to look at the situation. The market is one thing, and the Bill is talking about gene-editing technologies and whether they are substantially different. Personally, I do not think that the two are really related.
Deidre Brock
Although it is certainly bound up in the arguments about gene editing and genetic modification.
Dr Harrison: In many ways, among the small and medium-sized enterprises such as Bill’s, in a landscape such as the UK, where there is a lot of innovation happening, there are start-ups starting now that want to do breeding and gene editing, so you may well see the opposite happening: a democratisation of the process and more people entering the market as the barrier to entry is much lower because of the regulation change.
Professor Oldroyd: The food production sector is no different from any other sector in this free market economy. I hear a lot of concerns about a few companies owning most of the seeds, but I do not hear the same about a few companies owning most of the drugs, cars, phones, clothes or any other product. That is a reality of our free market economy. The food production system is just like any other sector; there are major players who have a sizeable part of the market share.
Richard made a very important point. The phenomenal restrictions that are being put on traditional genetic modification have actually meant that only the big players that have deep pockets can use that technology. I feel as though we have ended up in the situation that most people feared, where a few companies have total control of a technology, and that is principally because of the cost of releasing those traits. If we follow the Bill and treat them as equivalent to conventional breeding, we absolutely liberate the technology for SMEs to get in the game. At the moment, they could not afford to do that with GM.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
Q
I do not think that is a model that I would want to apply to food. Some of us would like to see something more robust that did not make the mistakes that we have made on pharmaceuticals, for example. Food supply is critical, especially as we move through the 21st century with the climate crisis and a growing population. When I was asking you questions as a BBC journalist a long time ago, I was always struck by your passion for the science and for communicating the science. As currently constructed, does the Bill provide the protections we need? Outside your laboratories, away from the pure science, there are free-market corporations for which the bottom line is the end game and the main driver. Do you feel that this science is beyond abuse and beyond being used in the same way that perhaps big pharma have cornered those markets?
Lastly, I understand the notion that reducing barriers opens up the market to small and medium-sized companies, but the history of any industry shows us that big players begin to hoover up small players over decades, and you end up back in an oligopoly or monopoly situation. That does not necessarily have to happen, but that is what usually happens with new tech. There is a free-for-all when everyone piles in, but ultimately people sell up and move on, and the big companies hoover up. When you get past the science and it reaches the real world, do you feel that there is the opportunity for abuse? Does the Bill protect us from that?
Professor Oldroyd: With the caveat of clause 3, legislating gene editing as equivalent to conventional breeding is the best way to allow small to medium-sized enterprises to become involved in the technology. If you really want to see a break in major corporate ownership, lowering the barriers to how you get a product from that technology is almost certainly going to facilitate that. As I said earlier, the big problem currently with GM is that it is so costly to release a GM variety that only “the big four” can afford to do that. I think that taking this approach will help that ownership of lines.
Certainly from me, as a researcher, the Bill as it currently stands greatly facilitates me to work directly with plant breeders and move products through the conventional plant breeding mechanism into the market and on to the consumer. Some of that plant breeding is in the big four, but quite a bit of it is not. Those are more the medium-sized enterprises, not necessarily BASF or Bayer, although they do have a role in some of that. I think the current Bill will certainly facilitate that broadening of ownership of the technology and a speeding up of the impact to the consumer.
Dr Harrison: If I could add one small point, our public research institutes in the UK have a pivotal role to play here. We do research funded by the Government in this area and we publish that. We can protect it before or we can just publish it so it is free and able to be used by many.
You could really think strategically about how those research organisations are used to direct change in the way that one would want to see, so that varieties come on to the market either nearly complete, so breeders can take them up, which is often what happens, or even release complete varieties, as happens in many other countries, from public funded research organisations. Again, that allows freedom of choice, so varieties come on to the market that have traits that are desirable and do not suffer from the problem you point out, which is that some small companies may become subsumed into larger companies.
Thinking about it more broadly—this is outside the scope of the Bill—there is an absolute opportunity for the UK to lead on bringing those traits to the point at which they can be taken to market, in a variety of different ways that are not just dependent on the big four.
Kerry McCarthy
Q
Professor Oldroyd: I am probably the best person to answer that, because my research is entirely focused on trying to remove the need for the addition of phosphate and nitrate as inorganic fertilisers for food production. I am absolutely driven by a desire to have sustainable productivity for both rich and poor world farmers. Historically, I got most, if not all, of my money from the British or European Governments, but now, as I said, I get money from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and also from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. In that regard, it is absolutely policy driven for sustainable productivity for smallholder farmers.
Dr Harrison: I echo that. For the UKRI-funded research that NIAB delivers there are two key components. One is scientific discovery. When you are working in crops, that is about strategic discoveries of things that are important to the strategic objectives of the research councils. Of course, BBSRC is the primary funder of agricultural research in the UK. It is absolutely in that zone of looking at how crop science and net zero intersect and how we can generate more sustainable farming systems. Much of the research, even if it is discovery and frontier bioscience, always has a strategic element to it.
Kerry McCarthy
Q
Dr Harrison: There is certainly a clear research strategy.
Professor Oldroyd: Absolutely. In fact, it is more driven by that policy. The drive for sustainability is very much an active area of research in the public sector, probably more so than in the private sector. A lot of the public sector research is pushing towards some of those policy issues, in contrast to the private sector, which is looking principally at productivity.
Kerry McCarthy
Q
Professor Oldroyd: I guess so. The subsidies are changing quickly.
Kerry McCarthy
Q
Professor Oldroyd: In the case of my research, we hope that what we are testing right now in the field are lines that will be productive at lower levels of treatment of phosphate as a component of fertiliser. By that it is absolutely measurable how much fertiliser you are putting on the field relative to your productivity. The landscape for subsidies for farming is changing rapidly, and I think within that there are great opportunities for incentives for farmers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and sequester more carbon in the soil. The challenge will be how you measure that, and it is probably going to be by encouraging farming practices that we know on average reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Dr Harrison: I think you absolutely have to measure it at a farming system level; the genetics alone, in isolation, will not do it. Of course, the system that we have at the moment, the value for cultivatable use, includes some public good traits, for example, disease resistance traits, which are ones that have a clearly measurable environmental benefit, because you are reducing the amount of fungicide sprays and so on. There is absolutely scope to look at that system and ask what additional measures could be put in place to ensure that the varieties, whether conventionally bred or using new breeding technologies, have some level of enhanced environmental service. That is a big opportunity for the UK, because we sit outside the common catalogue, so we can define our own value for cultivatable use and national listing system. Again, we could be progressive in the way that we look at this, and lead the way in making sure that the things that breeders are asked to do to put varieties on the market meet the wider policy objectives of sustainable farming and emissions reductions.
Jo Churchill
Q
The Chair
May I jump in here? We have about four and a half minutes left, and Daniel Zeichner wants to ask a question as well.
Professor Oldroyd: A lot of eyes are focused on this country at the moment, with regard to how we approach this. We have to recognise that we influence quite a bit. Countries in sub-Saharan Africa are absolutely looking to Europe, to the UK, for leadership on this. Our position will influence internationally how these technologies are legislated for. Certainly, we have a lot. I am excited about the potential to drive up food production for smallholders, as well as the sustainability of farming practices here in the UK. The opportunities are immense. Definitely, having this, the ability to use gene editing, will facilitate that delivery both to smallholder farmers and to UK farmers.
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is definitely paying attention to what is happening here in the UK. With regard to additional investment, this Bill opens up opportunities for the UK. We are already a leader—we really are a leader in agricultural research—and I think it will position us even more greatly to be spearheading the impact of all that agricultural research.
Dr Harrison: I, too, see a big opportunity for the UK not only to lead, but to garner additional investment. At NIAB, where we operate in both the private and public sectors, we have seen on both sides a big increase in the attention given to the services we offer to industry and academia for crop transformation and gene editing. I definitely think there is an opportunity here. In the kind of ecosystems that you see around major university cities such as Cambridge, there are a lot of start-ups that are very much trying to bridge the gap between the need to use crop science to transform food and farming to be sustainable, and the use of new technologies. A definite opportunity.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Dr Harrison: Personally, I would say that, and not just for this Bill and gene editing. If one wants a public good test, one should apply it to everything in terms of crop varieties, and not single out gene edited varieties as a unique case. I return to my comments on looking at the listing system and making sure that, again, it is proportionate. Breeders have to spend a lot of money bringing varieties to market, so if there was public good funding coming from Government, it should be to support breeders in developing those varieties that have enhanced public good traits. You should look at it in the round.
Professor Oldroyd: I think it would be very hard to define what is not a public good. Production is for the public good. We have to have production. Production tends to be where the private sector focuses—it is total productivity—but it has raised productivity across the past century. That has certainly given it a competitive edge as individual industries, but it has meant that we have kept our production up with the growing population and the growing demand. That is public good. I would find it very hard to differentiate what is public good from what is not public good when trying to manage such legislation.
Daniel Zeichner
I think we might find some examples, but that is for another day.
The Chair
That draws us neatly to the end of the time allocated for this session. A big thank you to Dr Richard Harrison and Professor Giles Oldroyd.
Examination of Witness
Sam Brooke gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Sam Brooke, chief executive of the British Society of Plant Breeders, who will be giving evidence in person. We have until 4.50 pm for this session. Before we open the questions with the Minister, could you please introduce yourself?
Sam Brooke: Good afternoon, everyone. I am Sam Brooke, and I represent the British Society of Plant Breeders, which is a not-for-profit society. We currently represent 80 members of the plant breeding sector, which is virtually 100% of the plant breeding industry in the UK. As you can imagine, because we have 80 members, we range from one-man bands and SMEs to multinational breeders, so we have a very good coverage of the breeding industry in the UK. Our main aim is to continue to promote plant breeding, the importance of genetics, and the importance of seed and where it fits into the scheme of things.
Jo Churchill
Q
Sam Brooke: From our perspective and that of our members, the legislation offers huge opportunities. It will definitely open up investment in the UK for plant breeders. When the European Court of Justice ruled in 2018 to legislate precision breeding techniques as genetically modified organisms, around 70% of our members classed as SMEs ceased investment in those new technologies because of the expense and political uncertainty around being able to bring those products to market. From our point of view, it is critical that these new techniques are now available and can be utilised.
We believe that the legislation will naturally bring the cost of those new techniques down, giving a broader range of our members greater access. As I have mentioned, we have guys who are literally one-man bands, who are breeding locally in the Cambridgeshire area where we are based, and we also have the bigger multinational companies. You have mentioned being fair and equitable: breeders have already established a network of trait licensing platforms, which we see working very well across the UK and Europe. A very successful vegetable trait licensing platform is already established, and an agricultural trait licensing platform is being established as we speak. That is a fantastic way of ensuring that those traits are available across all breeders and all entities, of all shapes and sizes, which is great, because it means they have access to broader diversity, more technologies and more traits. That is really important.
Jo Churchill
Q
Sam Brooke: As a whole, the BSPB is incredibly supportive of the Bill and what it is trying to achieve. Our main concern would be around clause 3 and a risk assessment around food and feed. All the scientific evidence would show that there is no greater risk in using these technologies than in using what we currently are in conventional or traditional breeding—or whatever we want to call it—so I feel that there is no reason for that extra risk assessment step. We are very concerned that that could act as a blocker to early stage research and development.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
The key issue is getting the balance right between reassuring the public and following the science. However, to many of us, this Bill looks very thin on the “reassuring the public” side—so much so that, despite the FSA and its polling showing that the public would really like more information, as the Bill stands, that is not the way it will be. How convinced are you that the issue of public confidence will be resolved in favour of the science?
Sam Brooke: Having lived and breathed plant breeding for just over 20 years, I think we should have shouted more, and earlier, about how regulated the industry is, both at plant-breeding and seed level. We have a rigorous testing system in the national list process. Each variety undergoes at least two years of testing before it comes to the market. Every variety must be on that UK national list before it can go into sale. All that is underpinned, obviously, by laws on food safety, novel foods, and so on. We have this incredible history of safety of plant breeding in the UK, and of bringing those products into the market in a safe, sensible and secure way.
On top of the registration process, we also have seed marketing legislation, which really protects the user. Naturally, it protects the consumer in that it ensures that all seeds that go out into the market meet a common and prescribed standard. I think that is really important, and it is probably our fault as breeders that we have not shouted in the past about how legislated the process of producing new varieties and seeds actually is. That is what we need to go out and talk about, and tell the consumers. I am a consumer—we are all consumers—and I think, had consumers had more information and knowledge about how regulated varieties and seeds already are, we might already be a step closer to having that absolute trust.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Sam Brooke: We are absolutely not against full transparency of breeding methods. Most breeders have already taken their own initiative to highlight, on their websites and social media platforms, how varieties are produced. I think it was back in March 2021 that we wrote to the Secretary of State, George Eustice, and said, “No, BSPB is absolutely up for transparency on the breeding process.” It is just that the best way of doing that is through the chain.
We have worked with DEFRA and looked at how we can easily bring that step into the national list process by highlighting what breeding process was used, because we already do, to a certain extent. For example, if it was a hybridised crop, we would have to highlight if it was cytoplasmic male sterility or a chemical-hybridising agent system, so we are already doing that. That, for me, would be another step forward and would support the public register, which is in the Bill and which we absolutely support.
Deidre Brock
Q
Sam Brooke: Naturally, we have been following EU legislation and have been historically aligning, quite rightly, with EU legislation on this, where we have our nearest trading partners and the majority of plant breeders. Because it is such an expensive industry, the majority of plant breeders are breeding at least for Europe if not internationally, because varieties travel quite nicely, especially to our nearest countries in the EU. We align with that. The key difference is probably that we have a lot of expertise in the UK and we want to keep that, because plant breeders are based here and actively breeding here—they have labs and food trials here and we have this fantastic, world-leading research and development in the likes of NIAB, John Innes and Rothamsted.
Deidre Brock
Q
Sam Brooke: No, I think the Bill has the potential to open up the technology a lot more. It will naturally open up what traits are available both publicly and privately, but I would imagine especially publicly. The majority of new traits that have come through historically have come through publicly.
Deidre Brock
Q
Sam Brooke: For me, it is all about choice. That is the most important thing. We are not going to get great investment in these new technologies if these commercial business cannot make some money somewhere along the line. We have to be able to protect that IP, which we already do very well in the UK with our current royalty system. We currently protect new varieties and IP on varieties very successfully, which makes us a great area for investment in plant breeding. I would like to see that maintained.
As I mentioned, there are different trait licensing platforms already available. For example, Corteva is one of the big ones, as we may want to describe them, which has already initiated its own platform for accessing its traits. I do not think it should be seen as a concern. There are already breeder exemptions around using new varieties, and I do not see this being any different when we get to using precision technology.
The Chair
If there are no further questions, we will bring this session to a close.
Examination of Witness
Dr Alan Tinch gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear evidence from Dr Alan Tinch, vice-president of genetics at the Centre for Aquaculture Technologies. He is appearing via Zoom, as we can all see, and we have about 20 minutes for this session. Could the witness please introduce himself? Thank you also for joining a little bit earlier.
Dr Tinch: No problem. I joined five minutes early just to be prepared. My name is Alan Tinch. I work for the Centre for Aquaculture Technologies, which is a company involved in developing technologies for use in fish breeding and aquaculture. I work on projects in genetics, genomics and gene editing. In terms of my background, I am a geneticist. I graduated from the University of Edinburgh and Roslin Institute in Scotland many years ago. I have worked on a number of different species, both terrestrial and aquatic. Throughout my career, I have worked on genetics, genetic development of breeding programmes and developing new systems for improvement of livestock.
Jo Churchill
Q
Dr Tinch: That is an interesting question. I think all livestock breeding is now very much international, so it is difficult for small companies based in one country to operate successfully. There are a number of large international operators in genetics. In aquaculture in particular, we are not as far down the development of the species as some of the terrestrial species. We have been farming and breeding fish for about 40 to 50 years, so we are domesticating many of the species already. We are working hard to improve things such as disease resistance. There is good evidence, and we have seen very good examples, of genes that can be used to improve health and welfare of fish—particularly with Atlantic salmon, where a Scottish group identified a gene that accounted for over 80% of the variation of disease resistance. That was bred into the salmon populations and is now in most farmed salmon populations, making them resistant to the infectious pancreatic necrosis virus.
I see the implementation of gene editing allowing us to do similar things. Without having to go into the field, if you like, and look for animals that are carrying favourable mutations, we are able to identify genes that affect things like disease resistance, make targeted changes in those genes and make fish resistant as a result. I think that is a very positive way of taking breeding forward. It is not the only tool in the toolbox, but it certainly allows us to do some very interesting and valuable things for the health and welfare of the animals we farm.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Dr Tinch: That is a tough question. The association between improving the ability of animals to perform and changing disease resistance, and the idea that that means we are going to increase stocking density and make welfare worse, is very simplistic, and it is not as simple as that. That is not the way farmers tend to operate, and it is not the way that breeders operate practically. That argument is raised quite often as being a reason not to improve farm animals, but it is not like that.
We should use the technologies that we have to improve animals. We are putting them in a farming environment that is different from the environment they evolved in. We have to adapt them, using genetics, to the farming environment, and that is what we aim to do. We aim to improve health, welfare and the sustainability of the animals from an economic point of view and an ecological point of view, and we use a number of different methods to take that forward. The tool is genetics, and gene editing is the next step forward in our ability to change different things. We should look at how we aim to improve animals in a constructive and welfare-driven way.
On the trade issues, if the legislation put us in a position where we were restricted in the use of the technology, we would be faced with the problem of people farming gene edited animals in other countries, and we would not be as competitive. We are already seeing gene edited animals being farmed in Japan, for example, and there is very permissive legislation in places such as Canada and Australia. I think those countries will be the first to bring in this technology. I see that coming first in some of the economic traits, and we will face competition as a result—maybe not in the species that they are planning and gene editing at the moment, but as it comes through the system in these areas, we will see our industries being uncompetitive in their performance.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Dr Tinch: If the legislation puts in place a system whereby gene edited animals would need to be labelled, you would need to have parallel systems. My argument would be that gene editing is a means of creating genetic variation that is identical to the variation that would occur naturally. As a consequence of that, we are not seeing products that are different.
If I identified a gene for disease resistance in a group of animals in the population that I was farming and bred it into the population for supply into the food chain, or I gene-edited the animal with the same genetic change—the same mutation—those animals would be identical in their genetics and performance, but if we labelled them and identified them differently, we would be creating two levels of animals within the production system that are essentially different. That would cause more problems than required in terms of the science behind the technology and the proportionality of how we are dealing with that lack of genetic difference.
Deidre Brock
Q
Dr Tinch: The key difference—let me know if I get too technical, as I do not want to drift away—is in the amount of time it takes to go from generation to generation. Some aquaculture species have a very short generation interval and can grow up and produce eggs quite quickly. For a lot of the warm water species that are farmed, and imported and exported around the world, we could move quite quickly because they have a short generation interval and they produce large numbers of eggs, so we could quickly be in a situation where we are producing animals with gene edits. That would be species like shrimp and tilapia. Shrimp are consumed at high levels in the UK. Tilapia are not, but they are still consumed at high rates around the world.
Atlantic salmon are much slower in terms of their growth and maturation. It takes at least three years—probably four years—to go through that cycle from egg to egg. From a practical point of view, we are not going to do it in one generation—it would be a couple of generations—so for Atlantic salmon we are talking at least four years, probably nearer eight years, until there were significant numbers of Atlantic salmon edited in the populations.
Deidre Brock
Q
Dr Tinch: Well, if I go back to the example of the gene that was discovered in Scottish populations for disease resistance, it was described in 2008 and was at high levels in commercial populations in 2015-16. Do not quote me exactly on those numbers, but it was that sort of timescale to go from identifying the animals to using them in breeding, going through the multiplication system and coming into production. If we were able to do that, and the technology would allow us to move as quickly as that in some populations by editing the gene, making the change and then breeding from those animals, we could move as quickly as that—a generation and a half to get it to high levels in the population.
The process that breeders go through normally to assess their animals is as you describe: if you discover a mutation, you look at it in the population, look at its effects on a number of different traits, and judge that it is an animal that is capable of performing well in the production environment. If everything is favourable, you then take it forward into production. That was the example relating to infectious pancreatic necrosis in Atlantic salmon. The gene had an effect on disease resistance and it did not have any perceivable effects on any other traits. For the sorts of traits we are talking about in Atlantic salmon, the case would be the same: we would evaluate it within the populations in the breeding programme—typically thousands of animals—and then as that data builds up and everything works out, we would expand that to the commercial populations.
We could go as fast as that. Obviously, with short-generation species with higher rates of reproduction, we could go faster than that. That process of identifying the animal, looking at its performance across a number of traits and judging that is a process that can move at the timescale I have described.
Deidre Brock
Q
Dr Tinch: To go back to that position—
The Chair
Just before you answer that question, may I ask you not to lean too far forward into the mic, because we will miss your face, and we do not want that? Could you stay neatly there for lip readers who need to follow you?
Dr Tinch: No problem. On labelling—going back to the position that says the genetics we are talking about is indistinguishable and identical variation that occurs in the wild and in farm populations—if we say that they are identical, then logically I see no reason to label that. The product is the same, the means by which it was generated is slightly different, but it is identical, to all intents and purposes, to a mutation that would have occurred naturally. I see no need for labelling.
Deidre Brock
Q
Dr Tinch: That is a different question.
Deidre Brock
Given agriculture is a subject of some contention in Scotland at times, what do you think?
Dr Tinch: It has been a hugely successful industry in Scotland. Your public opinion is interesting. To give a broad analogy, the other example of products being very close in terms of their composition and quality but labelled for production-system differences is organic farming. There is a drive there that says, “Okay, people are interested in the production system and they ask the product to be labelled to identify it as premium.” There is that precedent, but I go back to the position that says these are products that have identical composition. They are produced in different ways at the point where the mutation is either discovered or produced by gene editing, but they are identical at point of sale. I see no reason for labelling that, unless, like with organics, there is a premium for that sort of production system.
Deidre Brock
Q
Dr Harrison: Similar discussions are going on. A position on describing technologies where the outcome is the same but the technology used to produce it is different has been adopted, as it has been in a number of other countries—Canada and Australia. The principle of recognising that the product that is being farmed is the same as one that would have occurred naturally is being adopted by several countries. The danger is that we might come out of line with that.
The influence that Norway has over the UK and Atlantic farming industry is interesting in that it is a major player in the Scottish industry. Norway’s industry is technology led; Atlantic salmon farming is technology led and it will take the technology forward. I would expect that Norway takes its responsibilities as farmers and guardians of the livestock seriously, and farms according to good practice. The technology can be used as a means of improving performance, health and welfare of our animals. We should bring those sorts of technologies forward and use them. Those are the arguments that have been made in Norway as well.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
Q
Dr Tinch: Absolutely. I am a graduate of the University of Edinburgh and studied at the Roslin Institute, and have collaborated on a number of projects with scientists at Roslin in aquaculture, developing genetic solutions to disease resistance and applying those in populations. We are a local leader in terms of our ability to understand these technologies, develop them to the point of application and then deliver them through production systems.
The danger if we do not lead in that area is that the technology will move elsewhere. I now work for an American company working in gene editing in agriculture. I am not saying the reason I am doing that is because there is a lack of investment in the UK, but there is certainly lots of investment outside the UK in the technology and a lot of the technology is going to be applied in breeding programmes outside of the UK in areas where the legislation looks as if it is more permissive.
The UK model, particularly through the BBSRC and identifying projects that will have meaning within industry, is a very good example of how science should be applied and carried out. I have benefited from that on a personal level and a company level, in terms of my career development and the development of companies I have worked for.
The danger is that if we do not allow the application of new technologies, we will become part of the second lane in the use of this technology. I would not like to see that. Our approach as a country towards animal welfare and the way that we set up farming systems is world class. In many cases, we lead the way in the development of technologies. We have some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world and we will continue to review that, I understand, in a constructive way. We have very high standards in farming. If we prevent this sort of technology from being employed because of a precautionary principle, which is one of the areas where technology gets held back—“There’s a slight chance that there may be a problem that results from this technology, so we shouldn’t do it”— that is regressive. I do not think that is the way that we should take science forward.
We should understand the risks, evaluate the risks and look at the technologies. Where they are able to be used for good purposes, we should take them forward. That is the case for gene editing. If you look at the way that the research is lining up, and the way that the breeding companies are talking about the traits that they are going to use, these are examples of taking the technology forward to benefit animal welfare and the sustainability of animal production, and we should be one of the early adopters of the technology.
David Duguid
Q
Dr Tinch: I think there are some challenges. If it turns out in the detail to become regressive—if it becomes restrictive—that would act against the development of the technology. We should look to taking this forward by applying the technology in a constructive way. The detail should allow us to work that out and look for examples where we are taking animal welfare forward.
The Chair
There are only eight or nine seconds left, so we will not get another question in. I was hoping to get Kerry McCarthy in there, but we will not. I thank Dr Alan Tinch for being our witness.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Gareth Johnson.)
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Sixth sitting)
Tuesday 28th June 2022
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 View all Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 28 June 2022 - (28 Jun 2022)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few reminders for the Committee. Please switch any electronic devices to silent. No food or drink is permitted during Committee sittings, except for water, which is provided on the tables. Hansard colleagues will be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 29, in clause 1, page 1, line 14, at end insert—
“(c) details of how Her Majesty’s Government will ensure that the levelling-up missions are aligned with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal to end hunger and ensure access by all people, in particular the poor and people in vulnerable situations, including infants, to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year round.”
Mrs Lewell-Buck
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Mark. The amendments simply ask that the Government align the levelling-up missions with the United Nations sustainable development goal to end hunger and ensure access by all people—the poor and people in vulnerable situations, including infants—to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year round. The amendments also ask that that be measured by tracking the prevalence of undernourishment and moderate or severe food insecurity in the population, based on the food insecurity experience scale.
It is astonishing that in a Bill that attempts to level up all parts of the UK, not once is hunger or food insecurity mentioned, despite the Prime Minister acknowledging that it is not possible to level up the country without reducing the number of children living in poverty. There are 14.5 million people living in poverty across our country. Poverty among children and pensioners was rising for the six years prior to covid, along with a resurgence of Victorian diseases associated with malnutrition, such as scurvy and rickets.
Surely the Government must have grasped that in order for at least five of their own missions to succeed, people need to have access to food. Living standards, education, skills, health and wellbeing are all deeply impacted upon if people live in a household marked by hunger. Pre-pandemic, over 2 million children started their school day with a gnawing hunger in their stomach. No matter how impressive a teacher is, if a child is worrying about where their next meal may come from, they simply do not learn. Overall, the physical, emotional and mental health links to hunger are well documented.
The Government’s own reporting in the family resources survey, which was only made possible after years of campaigning to implement my Food Insecurity Bill, shows that households in the north-east are more likely struggle to afford food than those anywhere else in the country. It would be completely misguided to think that we can level up the country without addressing this issue. Due to the pandemic, soaring inflation and limited Government support to mitigate the impact of rising living costs, those figures will be far worse in the coming years, without concerted and committed Government action.
By making a clear commitment in the Bill to tackle growing levels of hunger, the Government are signalling that they understand and are willing to act, and to be held to account for that action. They signed up to sustainable development goal 2 in 2015, with the aim to end hunger. The Minister for South Asia, North Africa, the United Nations and the Commonwealth—in the other place—recently reconfirmed the UK’s commitment to achieving the goals by 2030, stressing that the SDGs remain a globally recognised framework for building back better from coronavirus, in line with the Prime Minister’s levelling-up priorities. That makes it even more surprising that hunger is missing from the Bill.
If not in this Bill, how will the Government measure the prevalence of hunger in line with their levelling-up commitments? Or are the Prime Minister’s comments just more of the empty rhetoric that we have become so accustomed to from this Government? So far, the Government’s performance has been inadequate to combat hunger and food insecurity. The SDG tracker figures for 2020 to 2021 show that over 4 million people are regularly going hungry or do not have access to nutritious food on a regular basis. The Food Foundation has found that the number of food-insecure households is rising, with figures for 2022 so far show prevalence in nearly 5 million households, with 2 million children suffering. If it were not for the estimated 2,300 food banks in this country, those adults and children would be completely without food. That should be a source of great shame for those on the Government Benches.
The regional disparities that the Bill supposedly aims to level out are most stark when we consider the fact that life expectancy in my part of the world, the north-east, is six years less for men and seven years less for women than it is in the south-east. The pandemic has revealed the serious underlying health inequalities in this country. Increasing healthy life expectancy is a huge challenge, and public health funding was a crucial part of achieving that mission. However, the most recent allocation saw councils receive a real-terms cut—another example of the Government’s actions not matching their levelling-up rhetoric.
The cross-party Environmental Audit Committee reported in 2019 that, when it came to sustainable development goal 2,
“the UK is not performing well enough or performance is deteriorating”.
The Government-commissioned national food strategy found that diet is the leading cause of avoidable harm to our health, but the Government have ignored Henry Dimbleby’s recommendation to increase eligibility for free school meals. Adult and child obesity levels are one of the metrics used to assess the success of the mission to improve life expectancy, yet today, on the anniversary of the Government’s child obesity plan, it has been reported that 70% of commitments have been delayed or have disappeared.
If the Government are serious about levelling up, tackling food insecurity is vital to achieving the levelling-up White Paper’s missions on education, skills, wellbeing, living standards, health and life expectancy. As Anna Taylor, chief executive of the Food Foundation, has said:
“If the Government wants to really get to grips with the issue, a comprehensive approach to levelling-up must tackle food insecurity head on.”
Accepting this simple and cost-neutral amendment would signal that this Government accept, at long last, that people are going hungry on their watch and that they are prepared to do something about it. I sincerely hope the Minister has carefully considered my amendments, and I look forward to his response.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for South Shields on tabling these two really important amendments, which it is right for this Committee and the Government to consider. I want to reflect on the source of food poverty and some of the challenges we face.
Fifty years ago, 20% of household income was spent on food, roughly speaking. Today, again roughly speaking, that figure is 10%. That is not a comment on our leaving the European Union; it is an observation that over the past 40-odd years the UK has effectively subsidised food without ever really debating whether that was a good thing or the correct policy. The fact that direct allocation of funding to food production in this country is being phased out is going to have an impact on the price of food, and if we care about levelling up within and between communities, and about tackling poverty and all the consequences that the hon. Lady has rightly mentioned, we are surely going to care about that impact.
I wonder whether Ministers consider that ensuring the United Kingdom does what it can to tackle the rising cost of food, not least by being able to produce more of it itself, is part of their brief and their mission. It depends on who one believes, but about 55%, roughly speaking, of the food that British people eat is produced in the United Kingdom. If we are moving away from a form of direct payments to farmers and towards payments for producing public goods—which, in principle, I am in favour of—we need to be mindful of what the consequences will be. As the Government seek to withdraw direct payments for farmers as they move towards their new scheme, unless they do so well and carefully, there will be consequences. We will see fewer farmers and less food produced, which will have an impact on the price of food on supermarket shelves across this country.
Also, when levelling up our own country, we surely do not want to be responsible for adding to global poverty in the process. If we by accident or design reduce the amount of food we produce as a country, we will add not only to need in our country, but to our demand for food imported from other countries. Getting on for 100% of the grain consumed by people in north Africa and the middle east comes from Ukraine, Russia and Belarus, so we can see a huge problem there. The United Kingdom fishing in the same market as north African and middle eastern countries for its food—food that we could be producing ourselves—is a reminder that if we, by accident or design, produce less food ourselves, we are actively putting the world’s poorest people in an even more marginal position.
I am keen for the Minister to accept the hon. Lady’s amendments and to consider the impact of levelling up as a whole, not just on the poorest people in our communities, but across the world.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Mark. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields on her amendments and the powerful case she made for them. I agreed with her completely. She is absolutely right that there will be no levelling up if we have hunger in our communities. Just as a child cannot do much hungry, in our communities people will not be able to access those better opportunities that we hope for them, and that we believe levelling up will drive for them, if they are hungry. Measures in her Food Insecurity Bill would do much to tackle such issues. I hope the Minister is minded to reflect on that.
My hon. Friend’s points about the obesity strategy were well made. That is a salutary case, which tells us a little about some of the risks ahead with levelling up. A year ago, I was the shadow Minister in that area, and that strategy was the big priority of the day for the Government—“Don’t worry about us. We’re going to drive that forward and it will make all the difference”—because at the time the Prime Minister had personal investment in it. Now the Prime Minister’s personal focus is considerably elsewhere from whether the nation is overweight. As a result, a number of things have been dropped—every Sunday we find out which more have been dropped—perhaps in recognition of political considerations, rather than public health ones. That is what we risk with levelling up, if we do not get such things on the face of the Bill, instead relying on good will and trust, which today there might be plenty of, but tomorrow different people will be in our chairs and the agenda will have moved on. That is important.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the points he is making, and to my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields. A bigger point should be made: while the second sustainable development goal is clearly for zero hunger, the first goal is for no poverty. Here we have a matrix of 17 ambitions that will, in effect, level up areas across the world. We are talking about having levelling-up missions. Given that the Government are way off target on many of the SDGs, first, is there not a risk that we might well be repeating that exercise in the levelling-up agenda and, secondly, with two sets of matrices, should they not be integrated so that the levelling-up missions can be mapped on to the SDGs?
Alex Norris
My hon. Friend makes an important point. If as a nation we are genuinely seeking to do both those things—as I hope the Minister will say that we are—they need to be done together. As my hon. Friend said, they should be mapped on to each other, so that the actions that we will talk about shortly drive the activity and the outputs that we all want to see.
Turning to the amendments, and reflecting on the contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for South Shields and for York Central, it is important to state that the sustainable development goals are for all of us. They are not a worthy set of indicators and actions held at a global level that apply to those around the world who have the least and need the most support; they are analogous to levelling up in the sense that they apply around the world and in every community in some way, even if that way is different. Climate, for example, is an area to which we all need to contribute in our different ways, yet all of us will benefit. Those with the most, of which we are one, might have the best means to make the strongest contribution.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Neil O'Brien)
Let me start by addressing some of the wider and important points made by the hon. Member for South Shields and then move on to the narrower issue of the amendment. The hon. Member made an impassioned speech and some important observations about the big differences between life expectancy in different parts of the country. The differences were also highlighted in our White Paper. We are doing a number of things to directly tackle those problems, both on the income side that she talked about and the health side.
With regard to help for poorer households, the universal credit taper rate cut will help lower-income families keep more of their earnings. It makes nearly 2 million households about £1,000 better off if they work full time. The increase in the national living wage introduced by this Government makes full-time workers about £1,000 better off, and as it goes up towards two thirds of medium earnings, it will be one of the highest minimum wages in the world. We are investing about £1.1 billion over this spending review for employment support for the sick and disabled, and we have the £1 billion support fund for those households that are most in need during this difficult period.
We are all keen to do everything we can to try to reduce the reliance on foodbanks. That is why we have reviewed the role of sanctions in the benefit system. There will always be sanctions and rules in the benefit system, but we need to ensure that they are proportionate and avoid people unnecessarily finding themselves without benefits. We have expanded free school meals to all five to seven-years-olds, benefiting about 1.3 million children. We have spent £24 million on extending school breakfasts.
We are taking action on the health side of the ledger. The introduction of the soft drinks industry levy—the sugar tax, as some call it—has led to the average person consuming the equivalent of one fewer 250 ml sugary drink per week. It has been a huge success, and one of the most successful of its kind anywhere in the world. Through the forthcoming health disparities White Paper, we will continue to go further on that issue. Community diagnostic facilities will be a part of the story, as well as the overall increase in NHS investment. There are a lot of things happening on the vital agenda that the hon. Lady talked about.
Likewise, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale made a profound point: the fundamental questions of food security and production, and the way they have been framed for the last 40 years, have changed. There is now a global under-supply challenge. He was quite right to say that that must make us rethink, and that is why we are investing heavily in our farm transition plan, spending about £270 million on innovation to help farming communities and farmers. However, there was a bigger and more profound point in what he said.
The hon. Member for York Central talked about the need to integrate the agendas of the sustainable development goals and the levelling-up missions. We are doing that, although in a different way from that suggested in the amendments. The country is committed to delivery of the UN sustainable development goals by 2030, including the goal to end hunger and ensure access by all people to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year round.
The Bill is designed to establish the framework for missions, not the content of the missions themselves. The framework provides ample opportunity to scrutinise the substance of the missions against a range of Government policies, including the sustainable development goals and health data. All Departments are responsible for aspects of the sustainable development goals that relate to their respective remits. Departments articulate how they are working towards those goals in their outcome delivery plans.
The last outcome delivery plan from Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office included information that is relevant to the goals raised in the amendments. The next iteration of those departmental outcome delivery plans will also include information about how Departments are working towards their levelling-up mission. Those documents will simultaneously address progress on the UN missions and on our levelling-up mission, so we will have an integrated view. We think that is the appropriate place in which to make the link mentioned by the hon. Member for York Central between levelling-up missions and the UN sustainable development goals.
Mission 7, which addresses healthy life expectancy, is already linked to nutrition and food. The Government’s food strategy, for example, committed to reducing the healthy life expectancy gap between local areas, where it is highest and lowest, by 2030; to adding five years to healthy life expectancy by 2035, as I said earlier; to reducing the proportion of the population who live with diet-related illnesses; and to committing to increasing the proportion of healthier food that is sold. In its forthcoming health disparities White Paper, the Department of Health and Social Care will set out missions to address, among other things, diet-related ill health.
All those measures will feed through to healthy life expectancy data, which already underpins the health mission. As a consequence, the amendment is unnecessary, so I ask the hon. Member for South Shields to withdraw it.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I will keep my comments brief as I do not wish to detain the Committee too long.
The Minister listed ways in which the Government are helping, but I politely remind him that people on universal credit have a five-week wait with no money at all. Pensions, benefits and wages are nowhere near keeping pace with inflation. The fact that the Government have had to put in emergency support funds to help families is indicative of their failure to help the hardest hit for such a long time.
I will not press the amendments to a vote on this occasion, but this is not the last time I will talk about this topic in Committee. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Alex Norris
I beg to move amendment 14, in clause 1, page 1, line 14, at end insert—
“(2A) The first statement of levelling-up missions must include—
(a) a requirement to improve pay, employment and productivity of every UK region by 2030, with the gap between the top performing and other areas closing,
(b) a requirement to increase domestic public investment in Research and Development outside the Greater South East by at least 40% by 2030 and at least one-third over the Spending Review period,
(c) a requirement by 2030 to improve local public transport connectivity across the UK with improved services, simpler fares and integrated ticketing,
(d) a requirement by 2030 for there to be nationwide gigabit-capable broadband and 4G coverage, with 5G coverage for the majority of the population,
(e) a requirement by 2030 the number of primary school children achieving the expected standard in reading, writing and maths to have significantly increased so that in England 90% of children will achieve the expected standard, and the percentage of children meeting the expected standard in the worst performing areas will have increased by over a third,
(f) a requirement that by 2030 the number of people successfully completing high-quality skills training will have significantly increased in every area of the UK,
(g) a requirement that by 2030 the gap in Healthy Life Expectancy (HLE) between local areas where it is highest and lowest will have narrowed, and by 2035 HLE will rise by 5 years,
(h) a requirement that by 2030, well-being will have improved in every area of the UK, with the gap between top performing and other areas closing,
(i) a requirement that by 2030 people’s satisfaction with their town centre and engagement in local culture and community, will have risen in every area of the UK, with the gap between the top performing and other areas closing,
(j) a requirement that by 2030, renters will have a secure path to ownership with the number of first-time buyers increasing in all areas; and for the number of non-decent rented homes to have fallen by 50%, with the biggest improvements in the lowest performing areas,
(k) a requirement that by 2030 homicide, serious violence, and neighbourhood crime will have fallen, focused on the worst-affected areas,
(l) a requirement that by 2030, every part of England that requests one will have a devolution deal with powers at or approaching the highest level of devolution and a simplified, long-term funding settlement, and
(m) a requirement to build Northern Powerhouse Rail, a high-speed rail line, between Leeds and Manchester.”
This amendment would require the statement of levelling-up missions to include the levelling-up missions detailed in the Levelling Up White Paper.
One of the quirks of the Bill is that although the Government have kept their commitment to enshrining levelling-up missions in law, they have not enshrined “the” levelling-up missions in law. Clause 1 states only that a Minister of the Crown will set out those missions at some point, but there is no sense of what that means, so I want to explore that and hear from the Minister about it.
So much effort, light and heat went into heralding the new dawn of the levelling-up mission, and into the release of the White Paper and all the press releases—each releasing a bit of the same information every time—and so much work went on in the Chamber, including all the oral questions, but all we ever hear about is the Secretary of State and those missions that drive him out of bed every morning; he cannot do anything but those missions. They are the whole reason we are here—the centrepiece of the Government’s domestic agenda—but they are completely absent from the Bill.
Indeed, the Minister himself nearly fell into that very trap in the debate on amendment 13, when he addressed a point from my hon. Friend the Member for York Central and said, on one of the missions she is very enthusiastic about, “That is why we are putting it into the Bill.” In fact, we are doing no such thing. We are not putting anything into the Bill. We are putting missions into the Bill, but there is no sense or prescription of what they are. The Committee is being asked to fly blind and trust that these will be very good things that really ought to be the focus of the Government of the day, but we just do not know what they are.
That is compounded by the fact that we are also working without an impact assessment. I raised that point on Second Reading, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), when she asked the Minister for Housing, who was winding up the debate, to confirm that an impact assessment will be published and when that would happen. The Minister responded:
“Yes, there will be, and it will come at the second stage of Committee.”—[Official Report, 8 June 2022; Vol. 715, c. 914.]
I am not quite sure what “the second stage of Committee” means in that context, but I do know that we do not have an impact assessment now. We are in a really odd situation where the Government are telling us that they have this centrepiece domestic commitment to levelling up that will right all the wrongs of everything they have done over the past 12 years—“Don’t worry, we’ll get this right now!”—but they cannot even tell us what impact it will have.
I put it to the Minister—hopefully he will tell me I am wrong—that none of this will make much of a difference, will it? The Government want to enshrine the missions in law, but the Minister cannot even say what they are. The Government want to change the missions themselves without the engagement of Parliament. They set them for five-year cycles, but they want to be able to move away from that, too. They do not want any independence in the system either—we have had that debate already.
This legislation is light and substance-less. Both the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), and myself have been criticised by the Secretary of State for saying, “Is this it?” when it comes to this agenda. However, once again, we are left to ask, “Is this it?” There seems to be no substance to the legislation; there is certainly no demonstration of it. I hope the Minister can address that.
In the absence of even the most basic analysis of what the Government themselves think they are going to deliver, we are being told that they ought to be left unfettered by ministerial decree to set the direction for levelling up. However, they cannot even tell us what they are seeking to achieve. That seems so odd and indicative of qualified commitment; we hear of strong commitment, but this is qualified commitment.
Amendment 14 is not the most elegant amendment that I have ever managed, but it seeks to address the issue that I have outlined. It does nothing more than add back to the Bill the Government’s own levelling-up missions—plus another of their centrepiece commitments that they have discarded along the way, because it was in my mind. Those commitments were important enough for the White Paper, so I think they might be important enough for us to have a quick look at them today. I will not go through them all.
The amendment would add back in a commitment to improve the pay, employment and productivity of every region in the UK by 2030, while closing the gaps between the best and worst off. We know from the recent Resolution Foundation report that, outside of London, no progress has been made in this area during my adult lifetime. In fact, this lack of overall income change hides growing gaps in investment and self-employment income, driven by richer households in London and the south-east. The report also found that the Government’s investment plans will not move the dial on this issue. Again, it is perhaps no surprise that that commitment is not on the face of the Bill.
The second commitment is to research and development investment. The Minister made reference to research and development spending outside the south-east to at least three different witnesses that I can think of, and he has referenced it in two debates we have had so far. We support him in this venture, as it is really important. Why is the commitment not in the Bill? I cannot imagine that will change. When he mentioned it earlier, he talked about it in the context of the spending review period and the fact that that spending review will end at some point. Surely, the one-third element at least will be met in that time and the 40% element will be met by 2030. Otherwise, why has it been set so often?
Moving on a little, it is, perhaps, not a huge surprise that pledges around education, healthy life expectancy and wellbeing no longer feature in the legislation, given the record over the last decade. We will have plenty of time to talk housing, but that is not much better either.
I had hoped we would be able to probe the commitments, if they were on the face of the Bill. Perhaps the Minister will give us a commitment or a direction of travel on that. It might save us the bother of drafting a new clause, if we heard a commitment that the Minister and his colleagues were going to make levelling-up missions a statutory objective of the Homes and Communities Agency—Homes England to its friends. Indeed, they might be minded to say that all non-executive agencies that sit under the Department will have levelling up as one of their core missions. I hope the Minister can address that point. Then at the end of the amendment, we also make reference to Northern Powerhouse Rail—an oft-promised, core part of the levelling-up programme that has been downgraded too.
Rachael Maskell
I thank my hon. Friend for his opening remarks on amendment 14, which I wholeheartedly support. I want to talk first about the importance of the Bill. There are 325 pages about levelling up, yet not a mention of the indices that the levelling-up agenda will be focused around. That seems somewhat bizarre when they are so fundamental to addressing the inequalities and disparities across the country. Therefore, it is crucial that in clause 1 of the Bill we talk about what we are going to be focusing on.
The National Health Service Act 1946—right up to the Lansley changes in 2012—talked about all the areas in which healthcare would be delivered. When that was taken out, we suddenly saw a postcode lottery. I certainly do not want to see postcode lotteries around levelling up, because that would defeat the objective of the exercise. I believe it is really important to sew the missions into the Bill, so that we know what we are focusing on. I appreciate that the Minister may want to consider some of them again, so I will come on to that shortly.
Earlier today, I talked about the drivers to levelling up and their importance. We heard in evidence about the cluster economy, and I have talked much about the levelling up that that will bring to my city. The economic investment would bring inward investment and booming research in academia around those key cluster pieces, creating jobs, opportunities and skills. That will have a substantial impact on people’s income and ability to have agency in our society. It will also address the grotesque inequalities and injustices across all our communities.
We heard the Minister earlier listing off the Government investments. It is not just about capital spend. It has to be about revenue spend. Revenue spend, which we have seen from other funding sources, has a significant impact on shifting inequalities. I think about the skills agenda and other areas. I trust that we will have the right focus when we look at where to place those investments to accelerate opportunity for our constituents.
Sitting within the employment framework is the transport framework, which we had a discussion about earlier. In amendment 14, proposed new paragraphs (c) and (m) demonstrate the difference that good transport infrastructure could make to where investment goes and how that relates to communities. For example, the distance between York and Hull is just 37.1 miles, and yet the fastest train takes 54 minutes and the average journey is one hour and eight minutes. If those two cities were connected by better transport links, the bioeconomy of York could fire the energy and fuel economy of the Humber and vice versa. We would then start seeing real intersectionality and those economies would be more than the sum of their parts. We would then start to see opportunities coming to areas of significant deprivation in Hull, and to my city of York. Such connectivity is crucial, which is why I welcome the aims of the amendment.
If we think about London, we see how easy it is to connect over such distances, and we see its booming economy. The evidence pays out: where the infrastructure is lacking, that impacts on the opportunities otherwise available. I say that about the hard-core transport infrastructure, but the same could be said about the digital infrastructure. The further people are from urban cores, particularly from London, and particularly in rural areas, the weaker the digital infrastructure.
Let me turn to proposed new paragraphs (e) and (f). A skills economy is important to the creation of a stronger economy. Higher York is an initiative that brings together the two further education colleges as well as the two universities and together they are working to build the economy of York. I hope that the Minister can start seeing the pieces of the jigsaw come together as the cluster economy, the skills and the transport infrastructure have the multiplier effect. The amendments are so crucial to Labour because we want to ensure that we are building the picture as opposed to pieces of it being in different places. This is about the connectivity between them.
Proposed new paragraphs (g) and (h) relate to the physical and mental health of our communities. I want to draw on the work of Professor Sir Michael Marmot. I am sure that we all are familiar with the work that he has conducted over a significant time, which has demonstrated that economic disparity is the greatest contributor to health inequality. Alongside that work is that of Dame Carol Black and the epidemiologists Professor Kate Pickett and Professor Richard Wilkinson. They have made the case to demonstrate how living in particular regions and nations determine people’s life chances, and in turn that disparity dictates people’s opportunities in some many different respects.
If we look across the nation, we know that in 2010 the disparity in male life expectancy in the most deprived areas of England was 10.3 years. I have to say that that disparity has shortened and that the gap for women is now 8.3 years. Those are important indicators, and that is why a measurement of life expectancy should be included in the Bill—so that we can focus on what can be achieved from it. Just in York, I know that there is eight-year life expectancy gap between those who live in Copmanthorpe and Wheldrakes and those who live in Clifton and Westfield—affluence versus poverty. We know that is a driver of other negative factors.
On top of people’s wellbeing, their satisfaction in their own local community is also important. That is why proposed new paragraph (i) is so important. I know that the Professor Kate Pickett has been looking at the inequality of power. I hope much of the Bill will address that inequality, although I have some concern about that.
Our constituents are not able to determine their destiny. They do not have agency or a voice in the future of their communities, and that includes decisions about the type of housing being built and whether it is for external investors to buy, as opposed to being for them to have a foothold. We must look at this point of agency and opportunity in order to build satisfaction. When people are happier, that builds identity and pride in place, which is important for the wider cultural context of society, so this is an important thing to hardwire into the legislation.
I recognise proposed new paragraph (j) talks about housing security. I am sure we will talk about that a lot over the course of the coming months, because it is too important not to keep bringing up. I know the impact it is having on my communities, with more and more people being pushed out and their identity and opportunities being taken away. It is important to draw on what we heard in the evidence sessions about that, and from our own experience, as we seek to amend the Bill. I trust the Minister will be more open to amendments as we work through the Bill, because it is crucial that we get this right. This may be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for us in this place and for our constituents, as they seek the main thing that is important for future stability.
Publicly funded projects should not suck money out of a locality, but regrettably that is what is happening. They take land for profit and leave little by way of legacy, frustrating the opportunity such projects have to make an impact in a local area. In future debates, I will refer a lot to York Central, where public land and public money does not guarantee either levelling up or public good. As a result, we want to see significant change in the legislation to ensure that we are maximising our public assets to benefit communities. Housing is such an example.
External investors will purchase luxury developments on the York Central site, and Homes England has indicated that the area could well turn into “Airbnb Central” in the middle of York, fuelling the hen and stag economy we are trying to steer away from, while denying people in my city the chance to get a franchise into housing. Even worse, the situation is heating up the housing market, meaning that it is running away from people in my community. That is why I hope we can bring the significant change we need to the legislation.
When the Government invest in projects, we want to ensure that they level up communities and provide opportunity. That is why these clauses are so important. They are looking at the housing context but they focus on optimising the social, economic and environmental benefits for communities, and we heard much in the evidence session to support that.
I am glad that the Government have recognised the importance of criminal justice and, I trust, will address such issues through a public health approach. To break the cycle of crime, we need proper investment in communities. The work of Professors Pickett and Wilkinson draws attention to how socioeconomic disadvantage pushes people into criminality. Therefore, it is important for us to look at how we disaggregate that to ensure the right interventions are put in place to draw people out of that environment and into a safer place.
Proposed new paragraph (l) addresses the disparities in devolution, which we will explore later in the Bill. It is really important that we look at that. Part 2 focuses on the different powers that combined county authorities are going to be able to draw down. Of course, our local communities’ existing powers are often drawn up and taken away, as opposed to more powers being given. Disparities in the powers of the CCAs start to mean that we are not talking about levelling up, because they have different authorities, controls and abilities to invest.
Neil O’Brien
I hope that I can make the hon. Member for Nottingham North happy—that is my main goal in life—but I do have to point out that there is a tension at the heart of the amendment. On the one hand, he wants us to commit to saying that our levelling-up missions will be the levelling-up missions, but his amendment changes those missions in a number of ways, to add in, as he said, various things that were in his mind at the time as he was drafting it. He said he could not see the case for diverging from the levelling-up missions and I agree, which is why we will not be able to accept this amendment, which seeks to change the missions.
We have said on numerous occasions that the missions in the White Paper are our missions for levelling up and uniting the country. It has always been the Government’s intention—this is where I hope I can make the hon. Member happy—that the first such statement would contain the missions from the levelling-up White Paper. If that is the intent of the amendment, I am happy to say that I can reconfirm that that is what we are doing here.
The hon. Member also asked about public bodies. As he will probably remember, we committed in the White Paper to introduce a requirement for public bodies to have an objective of reducing geographical variations where they are relevant to their business area. The Treasury and Cabinet Office are taking that objective forward as part of the public bodies reform programme. That work is ongoing.
It is not that we disagree with some of the objectives in the amendment; we want to stick to the missions that we set out in the White Paper, rather than change them via the amendment. For example, it is worth picking up his point about Northern Powerhouse Rail, a project that is hugely dear to my heart, and the hon. Member for York Central also made an important point. When we make these huge improvements and major investments, particularly in the section between Leeds and Manchester, the benefits radiate out to a much wider area—everywhere from York to Liverpool, up to the north-east and across, for those of us coming up from the midlands as well.
The wider story about what happened with rail in the north is that we inherited a situation where the rail franchise for the north had been let in 2004 on a no-growth basis, based on pessimistic assumptions about growth in the north. As a result, we had this scenario where someone would be at the top of the escalators in Leeds station looking down on a “Ben-Hur”-style crowd of a huge number of people, and a tiny train with two carriages would turn up and they would all try to cram on it. It was unsatisfactory, and we put that right in subsequent franchises.
We also had the infamous Pacer trains from my childhood still rattling around the north, giving northerners a second-class rail service. I am glad to say that, through ministerial direction, we got rid of those unsatisfactory trains and now have sleek bullet trains running the trans-Pennine service. Of course, we are now going further through the integrated rail plan and building an entirely new line between Warrington and Marsden as part of the £96 billion investment, which will cut journey times between Leeds and Manchester from 55 minutes to 33 minutes.
As part of the wider investments, we will cut journey times between Leeds and Bradford from 20 minutes to 12 minutes, and there will also be big improvements between the midlands and the north. For example, journey times between Leeds and Birmingham will go from 118 minutes to 79 minutes, but the improvements go right across the north. It is not that we do not share the exciting objective to improve northern rail, as first set out in the then Chancellor’s speech in 2014, but we want to do the other thing that the shadow Minister asked us to do, which is to stick to our levelling-up missions, as worked out with great care in the White Paper. That is why we oppose the amendment.
To take on some of the wider points that have been made, it is true that missions may need to evolve over time, and we may talk more about this in subsequent parts of today’s session. If the missions were to appear in legislation—I know that the amendment talks only about the first statement—the process to adjust them in the future would become unhelpfully rigid and time-consuming, potentially meaning that they would not be revised and would become less relevant to policy. Previous Governments have known this too, as public service agreements were not set out in law but were still a powerful tool to organise Government policy.
Flexibility is about ensuring that missions remain relevant and ambitious. Missions should ratchet up, not down, as performance improves. For example, fantastic progress is being made towards the gigabit broadband mission, with more than two thirds of homes and businesses covered—up from single-digit figures just a couple of years ago—so it may well be appropriate to increase the ambition of that mission in the future as our certainty levels increase.
None of the missions we talked about earlier is necessarily bound by the spending review period, so they will need changing over time. As drafted, the Bill gives Parliament and the public the opportunity to scrutinise the missions when the statement of levelling-up missions is laid. The hon. Member for Nottingham North implied that there would be subtle changes without anyone debating them, but we would have to make a statement to Parliament, so Parliament will debate them; there is no lack of transparency whatsoever. I hope that by recommitting to our levelling-up missions, I have put his mind at ease, and I hope that I have also explained why we oppose the amendment, which would change our levelling-up missions.
Alex Norris
I am grateful to colleagues for their responses. My hon. Friend the Member for York Central made a good point about focus, but she also mentioned revenue spending, which I know is something that Ministers understand. That is part of understanding that these things will be not just a priority of the day, but a priority for the years ahead, which means having them written down. I asked only for a day, but I am sure we could a little better than that. There is still a strong case for them to be there in statute for all to see.
My hon. Friend also mentioned York to Hull, and the arguments that she made are similar to arguments that I could make about Nottingham to Leicester or Coventry, but they also make me think of other broken rail promises. The midland main line electrification has been announced, unannounced and re-announced so many times, and HS2 involves broken promises. The Minister talked about these being programmes delivered from first promises in 2014, but the reality is that it feels like some of the promises are coming on Pacer trains up to the north, and they do not all get there. That is what leaves me with a slight lack of confidence.
My hon. Friend the Member for York Central talked about the laying of the jigsaw, which was an elegant way to put it. That is what we are trying to do here. It is not a series of disparate engagements, but one collective one. She also talked about Marmot, and that is why we should put things in law rather than just have reviews and advisory exercises. If we spent the time implementing Marmot that we have spent debating the outcomes—and not seemingly disagreeing very much—goodness me, we would be levelling up from a much higher platform.
My hon. Friend made a point about the environment, Dr Benwell’s evidence was so important. It is one of those little things that I wish I could just click my fingers and do for my community. I represent the outer estates of a big city which, like many cities in the midlands and the north, is surrounded by country parks and former pits, and there are so many that we cannot get to from the estate because there is no way of getting in. I wish we could just do those things. Those are the kinds of simple interventions that would really make a difference if we really committed to them, and I am sad that we have not got that in statute.
Rachael Maskell
Line 7 of the Bill says that a “statement of levelling-up missions” will be made. Obviously, that means that there is not anything in statute or in secondary legislation. This is something that Government are clearly pouring in a lot of energy and time into just to make a statement. Is that not a bit weak?
Alex Norris
That is certainly what I had in mind when I tabled the amendment. It is not enough for me. We have already said that we are not going to have any independence in the system and are not going to be able to codify the resourcing for levelling up, and we are now being asked not even to codify what levelling up really is. It is just too much to ask.
That is an important point on which to segue to what the Minister said. He said that he seeks to make me happy, and I am very glad to hear that. I can at least reassure him that I am always happy—certainly in this place. I am also optimistic and hopeful about doing better, which is why I come to this Committee with such a spring in my step. I seek to help him to do that.
The Minister said that the Government cannot accept these amendments because they have gone through the filter of my head. I think that is a little naughty, in the sense that these are the Government’s own promises—this is not freelancing on my part—but if that were the case, he could of course have tabled his own version that is closer to the original version in the White Paper. If he did that, we would accept it and move on to the next item on the agenda. He could have done that in the published Bill or through an amendment. He has not sought to do that, so I am not sure the drafting is the issue; I think it is the point of substance.
I am grateful that the Minister committed that the first edition will be faithful to the White Paper. I appreciate that and take it as it is intended. The problem, however, is that it will not be sent to us until some point later this year—I am not sure when precisely, but it will certainly be a lot colder than it is now—and the reality is that the Minister may not be sat there in that point. There may be a reshuffle. We read that online every day. The Prime Minister has got to keep his MPs in line in some way, and he is going to have to work out how all the jobs he has offered to people, which in many cases will be the same ones, will work. Once he has done that, the Ministers will change. The Minister will be very suitable for promotion to the Cabinet—I have no doubt about that—so he is asking me to take it on trust with the person who follows him when I do not know who that person will be. As I say, the culture of the Government is not strong, and as a result I cannot accept it on that basis, so I will press the amendment to a Division.
Before I finish, I am grateful for what the Minister said about the non-exec agencies and housing. I appreciate him addressing those points.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Alex Norris
I beg to move amendment 4, clause 1, page 2, line 6, at end insert—
“(4A) A statement of levelling-up missions must be accompanied by an action plan which sets out details of how Her Majesty’s Government intends to deliver these missions by the target date.”
This amendment would require the Government to publish an action plan alongside a statement of levelling-up missions which sets out how they will deliver the missions.
The amendment seeks to improve clause 1 so that the statement of missions is accompanied by a proper action plan to show how those missions will be delivered. For the three or so years that levelling up has been in our political lexicon, there have been significant struggles to define what it is. The White Paper and the Bill did not settle that matter, I would gently say. There is a breadth of ground covered by the White Paper—everyone would accept that. The numerous promises made regarding levelling up cover an enormous range of public policy. The danger in that is the energy settles and stops at that high-level, broad approach; there is political consensus on those things as priorities, but there is little detail. That is what we have at the moment.
To make sense of the Bill, we need action plans that demonstrate how the missions will be achieved. That is what amendment 4 would add to the Bill, by requiring that alongside the statement of levelling-up missions is a tabled action plan that shows how the missions will be met by the target date. The Government touch on that in the White Paper, which says:
“Levelling up requires a focused, long-term plan of action”.
Chapter 3 of the White Paper—the policy programme—is supposed to address that plan. Much of it is taken up by restatements of the case for action established elsewhere in the document, and the rest is several disparate initiatives that are supposed to contribute. There is not really a sense of how they will contribute, what proportion of the contribution they will make and by when. The common theme of many of those initiatives is that that they were already happening, or would have happened, with or without the White Paper or Bill, and that makes me question whether they will really be a meaningful part of levelling up.
We have no way of knowing whether the aggregate of what is in the White Paper adds up to a levelled-up country. That is compounded by the absence of an impact assessment for us to consider—which also really will not do. We have no idea, but we are being asked to take on trust that the breadth of the Government’s programme—none of which will be committed to law—will deliver on levelling up. I do not think that will do. I have no doubt that there is lots of proper planning and co-ordination between various Departments. There will need to be lots of engagement between central Government and different layers of government: mayors; combined authorities; county combined authorities, once we get to part 2; councils; town councils; parish councils; and neighbourhood forums. There are a lot of stakeholders to have a say.
If levelling up is not something that happens to people, but is instead a partnership between central Government and local government—between leaders and the public—then everybody needs to know what role they are expected to play and what contribution they are making to the whole. I am sure that this work must have been done internally already by Ministers with support from the Department. I cannot imagine that a simple publication of such work is likely to prove too onerous a requirement. It would add to transparency and give the Committee more confidence.
Rachael Maskell
I agree with my hon. Friend, because it feels that it could become a bit of a tick-box exercise otherwise. We would all be incredibly concerned if that were the case. In order to level up, surely there would need to be RAG rating of priorities; there would need to be Gant charts in order to work across the Departments to understand where those priorities fit and how they are scheduled together. Would it not make sense to have an action plan to drive the agenda, rather than putting initiatives forward and ticking boxes?
Alex Norris
That is exactly right. The RAG rating point is well made—it is what we would expect. There are lots of former councillors in the room, and that is what we would expect at local authority level, so it is not too much to ask central Government either. That would help us to address one of our concerns on the Opposition Benches.
I have no doubt that whatever happens between now and the next general election or the next eight years to the end of the 2030 mission, the Government will present the policy as a success—that is what Governments do. My concern is that it will be a political spinning of an expression of progress rather than a real one. But having the action plans beneath and seeing whether those individual actions have actually been delivered would make a significant difference to building confidence. Again, it would help with clarity of purpose, because it would show precisely what we are hoping to achieve.
The scope of the policy is vast—it will touch on every domestic policy area. It will be cross-departmental, but there still needs to be significant individual programmes to deliver on it. We might need to know what those individual programmes are, to give clarity on how the Government intend to achieve that.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
Bearing in mind that the Government have had 12 years to come up with this policy, although they are able to say what will they do, they cannot say how they will do it. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is easy to conclude that the Government might not be really committed to delivering any of it?
Alex Norris
That is my concern. My biggest anxiety is that the Government have got to this point, after a long time in government and with the highly publicised problems that they face, a little out of ideas and energy. The omissions may amount to a to-do list, which we make when we have loads to do that we never quite get to. We write the to-do list because that is a small step in the right direction. I fear that without concrete, clear, public and transparent action plans, that is what they will be. They will not be in the Bill, but things suddenly will not be on the to-do list anymore, because they have stopped being a priority.
We need a laser-like focus on the problems we face in this country, not imprecise policies with imprecise actions that lead to policy failures and end up devaluing the levelling up brand, breaking public confidence and not delivering for people. That is not what people want. There is expectation across the country that levelling up will happen, will matter and will be different. At the moment, we cannot tell our constituents how and why that will be the case other than in quite a broad and abstract way, which does not mean an awful lot on the street and at estate level.
Sadly, I cannot say to councillors or residents, “This is what they were trying to drive from the centre, and this is your role in it. Don’t just sit back and wait to be levelled up—participate. Here are the things that you get to participate in.” At the moment, we cannot say that and I hope we might be able to do a little better.
Tim Farron
Clause 1(4) states that
“levelling-up missions must specify a target date for…delivery”
but without an action plan, we are playing into the hands of people who think that we in this place say stuff and never mean to deliver it. If the Minister were serious about delivering on those missions, an action plan seems a simple request. This feels like a project with no project management. There are end goals but no staging posts to get there.
I have a couple of quick examples. Let us say we were going to try to set a target that I believe we need, and I hope others will agree, of 150,000 new social rented properties every year. For any kind of construction-based outcome that we want, whether housing, industry or environmental projects, we need a construction workforce. The action plan and the project management would include the setting up and sourcing of that workforce, long before the delivery date. The hon. Member for York Central talked about Airbnb in York, which is also a massive issue for us in the Lake district and the rest of Cumbria. If we wanted to give local authorities and communities power to regulate their housing stock so that we had equality and built and kept homes for people to live in, to be part of the workforce and the community, rather than allowing them to bleed out into the Airbnb sector, we would need to do things along the way to achieve that. There would need to be a planning department big enough, with people qualified enough.
These missions, with target dates for delivery, but no action plan to deliver them, is project management without the management. That is foolish. I do not see why the Government will not accept that.
Neil O'Brien
I have a mix of bad and good news for the hon. Member for Nottingham North. The bad news is that we will resist the amendment. The good news is that he can, even within this Committee sitting, achieve the legislation that he wants. Let me explain.
The Bill sets out the framework for delivering on our levelling-up missions and places a statutory duty on the Government to publish an annual report on progress, as we have discussed. The Government agree with the principle behind the amendment that the delivery of levelling-up missions must be accompanied by detailed actions from the Government to drive change. Of course it must—that is why we have already published an action plan setting out details of how we plan to take the agenda forward, in the form of our levelling-up White Paper.
That is also why we have specified the importance of having an action plan in the Bill. We will be coming to clause 2 shortly—I hope the hon. Gentleman will support it standing part—and subsection (2)(c) already places a statutory obligation on the Government to produce an annual report on levelling-up, which must include,
“what Her Majesty’s Government plans to do in the future to deliver each of those levelling-up missions.”
That already includes the action plan that the hon. Gentleman seeks. Therefore, while I agree completely with the sentiment behind the amendment, it is not necessary and I ask the hon. Member to withdraw it.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for the responses. I agree with everything that the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, said about the steps. Looking to 2030, we need to know what the incremental moments are, what we need to prepare and what skills people might need to access those jobs. That was a point well made.
I am also grateful to the Minister, though my opinion differs significantly. I do not think that the White Paper presents an action plan. I think the third chapter is anything but, and I would be slightly anxious if that is what action plans are likely to look like in the future. Most points have no date on them and no sense of what contribution they make. It is a list of things that might contribute; a plan of actions, maybe, but it is not an action plan.
The Minister’s point on clause 2 is helpful—that is partly why we laid this probing amendment—but if what comes with that report is the series of actions that are in the White Paper, that is likely to cause disappointment. I hope that when we do see a report, it will be a bit more detailed on contributions and timeframes and, critically—this is the bit that will be hard for the Government to do—on saying which areas are doing well and which are doing badly. I suspect that may be a point of difference.
I do not think there is a need to labour the amendment any further. The point has been made. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Norris
To wrap up our discussions so far, this is the beginning of the Bill, where the Government are staking out their territory on a major part of their domestic agenda. It is concerning that attempts to add independence into the system, to get real analysis of the resources and to get the Government to state in law what they are trying to do have all been rebuffed. We need to do better if the legislation is to be really meaningful and drive us forward. That is not a reason for us to oppose clause 1 at this point, but I hope we can get to a little more detail in the subsequent clauses and build some confidence in Parliament that this is going to be a process with some teeth.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Annual etc reports on delivery of levelling-up missions
Alex Norris
I beg to move amendment 6, in clause 2, page 3, leave out subsections (4) and (5).
This amendment would remove the provision allowing the Secretary of State to discontinue a levelling-up mission.
Clause 2 brings forward the welcome obligation on Ministers to report annually, as discussed previously. Suitably frequent analysis of ongoing work is an important part of knowing that we are going in the right direction. However, subsections (4) and (5) give Ministers an unfettered ability to drop missions they no longer like. My amendment would delete that provision. Subsection (4) reads:
“If Her Majesty’s Government considers that it is no longer appropriate for it to pursue a levelling-up mission in the current statement of levelling-up missions, the report may state that Her Majesty’s Government no longer intends to pursue that mission, instead of dealing with the matters mentioned in subsection (2)”.
Subsection (2) details the nature of the reports, as the Minister said. We think that is too strong a provision for Ministers to reserve for themselves.
It is now more than two and half years since the 2019 election, and we have been on a journey of trying to work out what levelling up is. We have been on a journey in the first part of the Bill, and we are still led to believe that this is a strong and crucial part of the Government’s domestic agenda. Ministers have waxed lyrical about the importance of the missions, which the Secretary of State described as
“clear, ambitious… underpinned by metrics by which we can be held to account to drive the change that we need.”—[Official Report, 2 February 2022; Vol. 708, c. 312.]
I am not quite sure that we have seen that so far. We are led to believe that the missions are so important—important enough for an annual report—but that has failed already because the missions are now non-specific.
The vagaries have then been added to with subsections (4) and (5), which give Ministers the freedom to drop a mission with a message of discontinuation if they are failing to meet one or have not done enough. That seems too much. Ministers need to be held to account for their promises. The statements are required for a period of five years, so the missions should be taken through to the end of that period. The Secretary of State said that he wants accountability
“to drive the change that we need.”—[Official Report, 2 February 2022; Vol. 708, c. 312.]
But that feels difficult to believe if, at the first opportunity to legislate on the matter, Ministers insert subsections that allow them to move away from their commitments.
Rachael Maskell
I share my hon. Friend’s concern. If this was easy, we could have been levelling up the country for the past 40, 50 or 100 years, but that has not happened. I am sure that progress will be made on some of the objectives, but the difficult stuff that will really bring about the necessary transformation to address the disparities that people face could be dropped, meaning that disadvantage will be sustained. Does he agree that five years is a short time for comparison, and it should be sustained over, say, a Parliament?
Alex Norris
Yes, and it is reasonable to ask that these long-term commitments be sustained for that period of time.
The goal here is to ensure that promises are acted on and implemented in a timely fashion. The fear is that these subsections just give a future Government with less interest in levelling up—a Government who find themselves distracted by other matters of the day, or who prioritise other things—an easy out to junk the missions wholesale. They will say, “These need to be refined into smaller, more focused missions.” That is how it will go, and then they will slowly get broader and less meaningful and we will not have the longer-term action plans on statute and slowly they will just disappear.
Subsections (4) and (5) are a real risk to delivery. Ministers may just be too tempted when times are difficult. The journey over the eight years to deal with the missions is going to be very difficult; there will be moments when it feels very hard, even hopeless, to deliver on them. Having the temptation to withdraw may be too much. The missions are too important. We have to have a stronger check.
Secondly, there is the issue of accountability. If central Government and Parliament are entering into a partnership with our communities to level up our country, how does that partnership work if one party can just walk away without consultation, without engagement and without explanation? There would be a political bunfight. We have lots of political bunfights here, so I am not sure it would register. The whole thing would just get lost in the downward spiral of political discourse. We should not support that.
Local areas would be planning. The great thing about levelling up, the slightly longer-term vision and the commitments made in the White Paper, is that we have sent out a call to communities saying, “This is what is going to happen in future.” The Minister has mentioned research and development. The White Paper says to communities, “Prioritise this sort of work. We will seek to invest in you. Prepare the ground for that investment in your community, because we are going to do things differently and you could benefit from it.” What a great thing to say to local communities.
How will that work if the next week the Minister can suddenly say, “Actually, we don’t want to do that any more; that is not what is good for the country and we are not going to do it”? Suddenly, what they were planning on is no longer a priority. That is just another way that this is not a partnership of equals.
If we allow these easy outs in the Bill, we are once again risking not meeting the expectations of our constituents. That would be a disaster for the goals, but it would also be a disaster for trust and confidence in this place. The annual reports are such an important part of the driving progress—in my book, they are probably the most important part. Why not do them without the opt-outs? That would be a much stronger position to take.
Neil O'Brien
The purpose of giving the Government the ability to discontinue a mission is to allow for policy to adapt to changing circumstances, not to avoid scrutiny. If our purpose was to avoid scrutiny, we would not have written into the Bill the requirement for a statement to Parliament when they are changed. Missions are long term by definition. That is an important feature, but it does not alter the fact that the world, and with it what are good policy objectives, can change.
By allowing the Government to discontinue a mission, subject to setting out the reasons for doing so, the Bill gives necessary discretion to Governments to adjust policy priorities over time. There may be very good reasons for wanting to discontinue a mission. The Government may want to be more ambitious. For example, we are making fantastic progress on our digital mission and we want to push ourselves harder to deliver more of what is needed. We may want to respond to changing events, such as the unprecedented pandemic, to tackle the most pressing issues facing the country, rather than being forced to deliver missions that are no longer appropriate.
Subsections (4) and (5), which the amendment would delete, make that clear. They stipulate that if a Government no longer intend to pursue a levelling-up mission, they must state that intention clearly in the annual report and, crucially, provide reasons for its discontinuation. That level of transparency allows both Houses of Parliament and the public to scrutinise the decision and determine whether it was reasonable. If a Government were seen to be abandoning a mission for poor reasons, they would be held to account.
Rachael Maskell
Will the Minister give an example of why one of the 12 missions he has set out in the White Paper would be abandoned?
Neil O'Brien
I gave an example earlier of the R&D mission, which is specific to this spending review. It says we will increase R&D spending by a third over the spending review period. That mission will no longer have meaning after the spending review period, because it will have happened, so we will need to change the mission.
Let me give the hon. Lady another example about which I am optimistic. On local leadership, the mission at the moment is that by 2030 every part of England that wants a high-level devolution deal will have one. There is a lot of work in getting the devolution deals ready, as she knows better than most, but it is possible that we will be able to go even further.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
On a point of clarification, the Minister has been talking about changing the missions, but subsections (4) and (5), as I read them, are about scrapping the missions. Surely some rewording is needed here.
Neil O'Brien
There is a continuity between those two things. We might get rid of something and replace it with something that is in the same space. The subsections just give a clear framework for how that works—transparency, the statement to Parliament, the debate, and so on and so forth. I am not totally clear about the policy intent behind the amendment: is the idea that missions should be changeable only through primary legislation? Is that the concept here?
Mrs Lewell-Buck
On another point of clarification, subsection (4) clearly states
“no longer intends to pursue that mission”,
but the examples the Minister is giving are about changing missions, and perhaps improving them. They are very different things.
Neil O'Brien
Once we have delivered our commitment to increase R&D spending outside the greater south-east by a third over the spending review period, it will no longer be possible logically for us to continue that mission. That will just not be possible, as a matter of logic, so we will discontinue the mission. I hope that puts the hon. Lady’s mind at ease.
The hon. Member for Nottingham North has the look of a man who is about to intervene, but I will take an intervention from the hon. Member for York Central.
Rachael Maskell
I am more concerned now than I was. We know that levelling up is going to take a concerted effort over a significant period of time, but it sounds as though this is now a list of initiatives that are being ticked off and which are short term, as opposed to achieving the transformation that Labour wants to see. It seems almost as though we have a disparity of language between the two sides. We would see missions evolving so as to develop the parity that we long to see across the country, whereas the Government are just talking about short-term initiatives. Is this really levelling up? I question that. Are we going to see the opportunity for significant investment to bring about the transformation our communities desperately need?
Neil O'Brien
I respect the hon. Lady enormously, but the Government are setting out a series of ambitious, long-term missions over the horizon to 2030 and publishing unprecedented detail on how we will analyse progress on those missions, which is not something I remember the Labour Government doing at any point during their time in office. There is a degree to which I am happy to listen to criticisms, but I note that there is a track record that we can discuss as well.
Members of the Committee have a sense of why we oppose the amendment. If we are serious about having a long-term agenda, which we are, we need the flexibility to adjust, tighten, ratchet up and go further on all these things, because things change over time. That is necessary for an ambitious mission to 2030 to endure.
The hon. Member for Nottingham North raised the prospect of me still being here in 2030—in his eyes, a grisly prospect, and possibly a grisly prospect in my eyes as well—but he knows in his heart of hearts, as I do, that a degree of flexibility needs to be built in if we want to have a long-term agenda and to adjust to changes in circumstances. Over such a period, things change.
Alex Norris
I confess that I am a little disappointed. To an extent, we are seeking to save Ministers from themselves. The Minister started by saying that there is no desire to avoid scrutiny—well, that is really good. These proposals would not be in the Bill in the way they are if that were the Government’s goal. I am not sure that has quite passed the clause 1 debate test. However, the point is that it is not real scrutiny if these things can just be dropped quietly—if it is a difficult day or two, and then the rest of the time they are on easy street—so I am not sure about that.
Similarly, I felt a level of disbelief at the idea that this might prevent Ministers from doing better. Of course these things do not prevent them from doing better. They would not need to discontinue a mission because they were doing too well at it; I cannot see why that would be the case. Surely these stretched targets would be the minimum, rather than the maximum.
The Minister relies on the point about R&D again. There is a question about whether that is a mission or just an input. If the Minister is saying today that, as written in the White Paper, it has already in-built its obsolescence over the next couple of years, I gently say to him that he has just reserved for himself the power to write the missions. We want them to put in the ones that are in the White Paper, but if he wishes to enhance them and do better than what is in the White Paper, he will find us very willing partners in that. I just cannot believe that doing these things too quickly means that they need to be discontinued. If only that were the case.
It feels that this is a bit of an easy out for Ministers, and I do not think it enhances the Bill. We will probably take this issue on again when we debate clause 4, so at this point I will not press the amendment to a Division, but we will return to it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Norris
I wish briefly to ask the Minister a question that relates to the second part of the evidence from Will Tanner—I mentioned the first bit earlier. He said:
“In a second but similar way, I think there is a missed opportunity in terms of not aligning that reporting framework against a Treasury set of fiscal events. Ultimately, levelling up is so interdependent with tax and spend policy that if the Treasury is reporting at different times, particularly around changing tax measures or making large public spending decisions through the spending review, there is the risk that levelling up falls through the cracks of the way the Government make major decisions, rather than being completely aligned as a whole of Government mission”.––[Official Report, Levelling-up and Regeneration Public Bill Committee, 23 June 2022; c. 144, Q179.]
For my understanding, I want to ask the Minister when he thinks the reports tabled under clause 2 are likely to fall in the year, and whether he is minded to align them with financial events—either the one that happens in the spring or the one that happens in the autumn.
Neil O'Brien
That is an important question. I will not answer it today, and it may depend on the circumstances. Will Tanner’s point is the same sort of point that I was making about R&D and the spending review commitment. There needs to be an introduction of costs to do this. Fiscal events and spending reviews are hugely important events, in terms of achieving all the things we are trying to achieve. It is not something that I can answer today. It is a sensible question, and we will think about it further.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
Reports: Parliamentary scrutiny and publication
Alex Norris
I beg to move amendment 7, in clause 3, page 3, line 28, leave out “120” and insert “30”.
This amendment would reduce the period of time by which a report under section 2 must be laid before each House of Parliament to 30 days.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 8, in clause 3, page 3, line 32, leave out “120” and insert “30”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 7.
Alex Norris
Clause 3 adds a little more detail to the reporting requirement set out in clause 2, which we have just debated. We support the idea of annual reporting to help determine whether we are on target to achieve what we are seeking as country, but subsections (1) and (3) both state that the reports must be published within 120 calendar days of the end of the reporting period. That is far too long.
The point of reporting is to understand how well—or otherwise—progress is being made, not just so that we can have a political debate about whether the Government are any good. The point is to be able to correct the course, change resourcing or make any number of decisions to ensure that goals are hit. Giving up a third of the year is simply too much. Amendment 7 seeks to reduce that to 30 days, to allow much more time in the following year to correct the course.
I hope that is not an onerous burden; I assume that Ministers and their teams will not wait until the last day of the reporting period to start preparations. I would like to think that Ministers will have a monthly—if not weekly or daily—grip of the progress made, as this is the centrepiece of the domestic programme. That report ought to be a formalising of work already done in the name of good Government. I hope we might find the Minister in listening mode.
Tim Farron
There appears to be a bit of a pattern of the Government not having the confidence of their convictions in the Bill. We are not to have an independent review body, we are not specifying the amount of resource for individual missions, and there is no action plan. Now we are to have an annual report a third of the way through the next reporting period. If the Government do have confidence in what they are seeking to do, surely they would not wish to avoid live scrutiny, which they might do for 120 days into the next period. I support the amendments and I hope that the Government will consider at least reducing the amount of time after the reporting period, if not down to 30 days then at least to somewhat less than 120.
Neil O'Brien
We will resist the amendments, for reasons of pure practicality. The Bill states that the annual report under clause 2 has to be laid before each House of Parliament within 120 days of the year that the report covers. That is to allow the relevant data and official statistics to be published and any corresponding analysis for the annual report to be completed. That means sufficient time to prepare a quality report.
The statistics covered in the report will include some of the most advanced and up-to-date metrics and methodologies available. That will be an enormous data-driven exercise, building on some of the new institutions I talked about earlier. It is right to give the Government sufficient time to deliver a high-quality report. Reducing the time from 120 days to 30 days risks the annual report being published without key pieces of data being available, from example from the Office for National Statistics. That would undermine the accountability role that the annual report is meant to play. Given those constraints, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Alex Norris
I agree with the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale that a pattern is emerging. The Government seemingly want to reserve a huge amount of leeway when reviewing the success, or otherwise, of the programme. At every stage there seems to be broad reserved powers for how they will explain what is and is not happening. That is a real shame and it projects a lack of confidence and, I suggest, assertion in this agenda.
Rachael Maskell
By turning down the opportunity for an independent body to review, the Minister is articulating that the Government do not have the know-how and resources to deliver a timely report on the levelling-up objectives. Surely those two agendas come together.
Alex Norris
I find it hard to believe, too. I believe in the brilliance of the British civil service. I think this could be done.
Neil O'Brien
A point to bring out is that it is not merely about the resources of Government to pull together the information; a lot of the ONS data that Opposition Members want to see will simply not be available, because the ONS publishes things on the lag—we do not get the year’s data for a particular thing on the day the year ends, so there is a time lag. We are extremely interested in producing more granular and useful data, reducing those time lags, but there are time lags and the report would simply not contain the information that we all want to see if we reduced the amount of time available, because we would be eating into the ONS time lag.
Alex Norris
That, however, is set against the point that was made in the opening debate about the annex to the White Paper, which was presented to us as a suite of impactful metrics, updateable as we proceeded, and with which we could keep score—it was even suggested at one point that we might even be able to do it ourselves, but the Minister said, “Don’t worry, the Government will do that.” Ironically, given the nature of the clause, I feel that the goalposts are starting to move a bit on this point as well. We have a lot of time left in Committee and the Bill generally has a long way to run, so I hope that the Minister will reflect on the debate and see whether there is a compromise somewhere in the middle. At this stage, I am happy to give him the room to do so, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Changes to mission progress methodology and metrics or target dates
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Norris
I am really surprised that the Minister wants to do this formally. I understand that with the previous clauses we had already covered much of the meat that would have been considered in a stand part debate, but clause 4 is a significant part of the Bill.
Subsection (1) states that the clause
“applies if a Minister of the Crown considers that the mission progress methodology and metrics, or the target date for the delivery of a levelling-up mission, in the current statement of levelling-up missions should be changed.”
Under subsection (2)(a), that allows that Minister to
“revise the current statement of levelling-up missions so as to change the mission progress methodology and metrics or (as the case may be) target date”,
and all that they have to do in return is put out a statement saying that is what they want to do, laying it before Parliament and publishing it. As with the debate we had on clause 2, I thought that such a change would be worthy of discussion, if nothing else.
That is at the heart of the Opposition’s criticism of the Bill, and Ministers know that. We think that the thing is being set up broadly and loosely so that, crucially, when they do not succeed, they can move the goalposts and get away with it. That strikes to the core of the weakness in the Government’s case and in their commitment to this agenda, which is supposedly so central to their domestic policy. Any such move would be worthy of discussion, and we Opposition Front Benchers do not support the provision.
We will seek to divide on the clause because, again, it simply reserves too much power to Ministers seeking to evade and avoid being honest about what they have and have not been able to deliver. That is not a good thing. As we have seen on a number of occasions, the Bill is already building in why it is likely not to succeed, or certainly why this Government will not make a success of it. The point is that any changes would be worthy of discussion, so I cannot support the clause.
Neil O'Brien
The clause provides the ability to amend the methodology and metrics that support the levelling-up missions, or to amend the target dates for delivery in between the normal reporting cycle. The intention is to allow the metrics that support the levelling-up missions to be updated if the relevant data sources change or improve.
Although the technical annex to the White Paper represents the state of the art as of the start of this year, we are actively working to improve all the different data sources in it. For instance, the ONS might publish a new data source that is relevant to one of the missions, and it may be relevant to formally add that data source to the list of metrics that the annual report will monitor.
Indeed, as we heard in oral evidence, the ONS is, for the first time, working on a single metric for the whole of the UK, so that we have a single multiple deprivation index. That is exactly the sort of data source that we might want to use. The country and Parliament would expect the Government to use the latest, best and most granular data in evaluating their progress towards delivering the levelling-up missions.
Under subsection (2), the Minister of the Crown “must publish a statement” setting out reasons for the change, and
“lay the revised statement of levelling-up missions before…Parliament and then publish it”,
so that it is all done in an entirely transparent way. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Norris
I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 5, page 6, line 5, leave out from “which” to end of subsection (11) and insert—
“both conditions in subsection (12) have been met.
12. The conditions are that—
(a) the House of Commons, and
(b) the House of Lords
has passed a Motion of the form in subsection (13).
13. The form of the Motion is—
That this House approves the revisions to the statement of levelling-up missions made under section 5 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2022 and laid before Parliament on [date].”
This amendment would require both Houses of Parliament to approve revisions to the statement of levelling-up missions to be approved by both Houses of Parliament before they have effect.
In the light of the significant autonomy that the Government have carved out for themselves in the Bill—on which we have so far been unable to move them at all—the amendment would rebalance a little the relationship between the Executive and Parliament. The journey of the Bill so far has been a bit displeasing.
Clause 1 establishes five non-explicit year-long missions, and as we were unable to move the Government on that matter, we will have to trust them that those are the same missions as in the White Paper. Clause 2 establishes the annual reports, but there is no acceptance of the need for independence in establishing the real picture behind—if I may say so—the fluff. That is a real shame. Clause 3 establishes that those reports will land roughly four months into the annual cycle, which is far too late. That measure is designed for ministerial convenience rather than effective decision making or leadership. Clause 4 gives Ministers the scope to change virtually everything about the missions and to move the goalposts should it suit them.
We have now reached clause 5, which obliges Ministers to review the missions in a five-year cycle at their instigation and, again, change the missions should it suit them. If clause 1 had included the missions, and if clause 5 were a counterpart to it—perhaps as clause 2—that would have addressed the Minister’s concerns about changes in circumstances over time, and it would have addressed a lot of the Opposition’s concerns about the Government’s commitment to the missions and whether they will just move things at their convenience. If the annual reporting had then been in clause 3, we probably would have had something with which we could all agree.
Instead, levelling up has been left as purely the function of the Executive. They can add, subtract or do whatever they please, when they please. If they do not hit a target, that is fine; they can change the target. If the date is not convenient for a target, they can ignore it or change it. If progress is not being made, “Well, we don’t really need to tell anybody.” As the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale says, these are not the actions of a Government who are really confident of this agenda and have such a grasp of it that we can sit here and say that they will deliver on it. I am quite sceptical about, given what we have seen so far.
There are welcome provisions in the Bill about statements being tabled, but there will be no votes on that. If the Government want to make a significant policy change, we will not have the opportunity to represent our constituents and make their voices heard, so that they can play their role as partners in levelling up and express their opinions on the direction of policy. I find it really hard that such a significant national project, which is seeking to fundamentally change the governance of this country, as stated in the White Paper and outlined in the Bill, does not include a space for debate and vote. I think that is the least that we should be able to ask for.
Amendment 11 is quite simple. It would require the statement of missions under the clause 5 powers to be approved by both Houses of Parliament before they take effect. That is a pretty modest fetter. The Government of the day, I suspect, will want to reset these missions in line with what they have said in an election. They will presumably be able to get their business through Parliament, and I would think that those in the other place would not be keen to hold up things that were settled in an election, so that is likely to be relatively easy. Instead, we have too much of a gap there.
It is important that we act now to embed Parliament in the processes set out in the Bill. If this is about decentralisation—I expect that is what we will see in part 2—then it cannot have, right at the outset, the Executive at the centre, hoarding yet more power, with such a command and say over policy areas. In fact, the effect of the first five clauses is to detach those areas away from Parliament and give them to the Executive, for them to horde for themselves. When the Government make significant policy decisions, whether on Trident, tax changes or the uprating of benefits and pensions, they have to come to this place, either downstairs or upstairs. Our constituents then get to hear what we say about those changes and our views on them before we then come to a vote. Why not on levelling up too?
That means proper debate as well. Currently, statements are to be tabled. I would be keen to hear from the Minister that those will not be written ministerial statements but oral statements with the chance for debate and discussion, because, again, that is a fundamental function of this place. This issue has so much importance to all right hon. and hon. Members, because it is vital to all of us. As we have said before, this is not an issue of north versus south, or London versus the rest of the country. I have no doubt that every constituency will have an element somewhere that will be covered by the levelling up missions that we want to see. All of us will want to have a say on that and, more importantly, to give our communities their say on it. Any revisions could drastically change policy and have far-reaching implications, and we would not quite be able to do what we are here to do.
As I say, we have tried to move the Government on greater independence and transparency, clarity of resources and perhaps constraining Ministers just a little on what they can change at the stroke of a pen. We have not moved them there, and this is a final backstop on that through a parliamentary vote. I hope that the Minister, having heard the basis of the amendment and how keen we are for it, might be minded to support it.
Rachael Maskell
I wish to make a couple of quick points at this juncture. The amendment goes to the heart of whether this is an autocratic or democratic Government. Enabling Parliament to bring forward a motion to debate and discuss, and giving it the opportunity to reform and bring forward new missions, is surely at the heart of what the Bill is all about. That is particularly the case because the impact is not just on Government Departments, but on all of the agencies across our country and our communities themselves. Therefore, being able to scrutinise that process, and to have a debatable motion in Parliament, is really important to ensure that we get it right.
My second point is a bit of learning from me on what is behind the White Paper. My understanding is that if we are to address inequality in our country—which we absolutely must—and the disparities experienced across our communities, which frustrates us all, then we have to look long term at how we achieve that. What the Minister has said clearly today is that the process is more about ticking boxes on a few manifesto pledges than actually getting to the heart of the issues that have been driving inequality across our communities for decades. Thus, this is not really a levelling-up Bill; it is a manifesto-check Bill. It does not really address those entrenched inequalities that I am sure Members across the House want to see addressed. I do not believe that can be achieved unless it is the goal at the heart of the Bill. The Bill, as it stands, is about short-termism, rather than the sustained investment we require.
I therefore urge the Minister to accept the amendment, not least because—going back to what Dr Benwell said—there is a very important omission in the legislation about our natural environment. Climate change is the biggest driver of global inequality, as well as a massive factor in national inequality, and the biggest challenge facing us all—something that one day the Treasury will have to address. It is essential that we enable Parliament to have a say over the direction of the levelling-up missions.
Neil O'Brien
The Bill already provides for significant parliamentary oversight. This is the first time in any regional policy that the Government have set clear long-term missions in this way. It is the first time there has been a clear statement of how those missions will be monitored, evaluated and judged. The Bill requires that statements of levelling-up missions, the annual report, revisions to the missions, and indeed revisions to the metrics supporting the missions, are all laid before the Houses of Parliament. That provides numerous unprecedented opportunities for Parliament to debate and scrutinise the activity of the Government pertaining to levelling up.
It would be disproportionate also to require that both Houses of Parliament approve the addition or discontinuation of missions. The hon. Member for Nottingham North said that the upper House would not be keen to hold things up, but it is all about proportionality. It is a concern that is already addressed in the Bill, because clause 2 stipulates, in subsections (4) and (5), that if a Government no long intend to pursue a levelling-up mission, they must state that very clearly in the annual report and, crucially, provide reasons for its discontinuation. That will allow both Houses of Parliament and the public to scrutinise the decision and determine whether it is reasonable. If the Government are seen to be abandoning the mission for the wrong reasons, then they will of course be held to account.
The Bill strikes the right balance between explaining and justifying changes to missions in a transparent and accountable way, without requiring both Houses of Parliament explicitly to approve them. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Nottingham North to withdraw the amendment.
Alex Norris
As my hon. Friend the Member for York Central has pointed out, we have raised many good questions today about what is really behind the White Paper and how deep the commitment is. There is a risk of tick-box compliance. My fear of that has only grown, and we are left with the lingering question of whether the Bill really will be transformative. There are just so many get-outs to allow Ministers to get away with it.
In his response, the Minister said that this is the first time the Government have set such missions. I gently suggest that the Government have not set anything yet. They have set that there will be missions; we are told what they are likely to be, but they are not set in stone. We are once again taking lots of things on confidence.
The Minister talked about opportunities for debate. I hope that was, at least obliquely, assent that the measures will be tabled in oral statements rather than written ones, so we have a genuine chance to debate them. I worry that the requirements could be complied with through a written ministerial statement rather than an oral one. If I am wrong, I will gladly take an intervention.
It is exceptionally brave of the Minister to use subsections (4) and (5) of clause 2 as a defence. He already knows that the Opposition think those are particularly weak provisions. He says those should give us confidence that Parliament is protected and that the Government will do what they say they will, when those are the very provisions that allow the Government to not do so. Instead, he wants us to rely on some sense of public conversation and thinks that would resolve the matter. That does not give me an awful lot of confidence.
That gets back to the heart of what we are doing. The initiator of levelling up has to be the centre; they have parliamentary initiative. Levelling up is a partnership across national Government and, hopefully, the whole of Parliament, sub-regional and regional government, local government, parish and town councils, as well as on every street and estate. We should all have a say and a part in it, but at the moment there is one partner who says they are committed—every other partner is completely committed—but they want to reserve the right to remove, amend or change their commitment to the agenda as it suits them. It seems that they do not particularly what to talk about or engage on the matter beyond that nebulous sense of public conversation.
I say to the Minister that the public conversation is already taking place. He looks at the same polling as I do. He knows about the lack of public confidence in this place to deliver anything at all. As the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale said with sobering effect earlier about the Government’s commitment to the levelling-up agenda, they know what the public think of them. This is just another brick in that wall; politicians making a press release promise, but not particularly interested in then doing the hard, scary and lonely work required to deliver on that. Every community group we go to, and our local authorities, which are calling for devolution too, says, “We want to help. We want to be part of this process.” Parliament offers a direct way of having that say and being that conduit. I sometimes wish we were better at it, but we are that conduit—imperfect though we are.
Instead, at every opportunity we are trying to say, “Involve someone other than yourself. Please don’t think that this is a Government programme that will be delivered centrally.” Every time we do that, I am afraid that it is being rebuffed. It comes back to the question asked by colleagues about whether that means there is that warts-and-all commitment to do levelling up, even when is hard or when it might be time to receive criticism. I have not seen that at all so far.
I will not push the amendment to a Division, because we want to return to the matter at a later stage, but this is a fundamental point, and I hope that over the weeks and months ahead that we might hear something better on it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 5 and 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Miss Dines.)
Online Safety Bill (Sixteenth sitting)
Tuesday 28th June 2022
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Online Safety Act 2023 View all Online Safety Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 28 June 2022 - (28 Jun 2022)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Please be kind enough to make sure that your mobile phones are switched off.
New Clause 4
Duty to disclose information to OFCOM
“(1) This section sets out the duties to disclose information to OFCOM which apply in relation to all regulated user-to-user services.
(2) A regulated user-to-user service must disclose to OFCOM anything relating to that service of which that regulator would reasonably expect notice.
(3) This includes —
(a) any significant changes to its products or services which may impact upon its performance of its safety duties;
(b) any significant changes to its moderation arrangements which may impact upon its performance of its safety duties;
(c) any significant breaches in respect of its safety duties.”—(Barbara Keeley.)
This new clause creates a duty to disclose information to Ofcom.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Good morning, Sir Roger. The new clause would require regulated companies to disclose proactively to the regulator material changes in its operations that may impact on safety, and any significant breaches as a result of its safety duties. Category 1 services should be under regulatory duties to disclose proactively to the regulator matters about which it could reasonably expect to be informed. For example, companies should notify Ofcom about significant changes to their products and services, or to their moderation arrangements, that may impact on the child abuse threat and the company’s response to it. A similar proactive duty already applies in the financial services sector. The Financial Conduct Authority handbook states:
“A firm must deal with its regulators in an open and cooperative way, and must disclose to the FCA appropriately anything relating to the firm of which that regulator would reasonably expect notice.”
The scope of the duty we are suggesting could be drawn with sufficient clarity so that social media firms properly understand their requirements and companies do not face unmanageable reporting burdens. Such companies should also be subject to red flag disclosure requirements, whereby they would be required to notify the regulator of any significant lapses in, or changes to, systems and processes that compromise children’s safety or could put them at risk. For example, if regulation had been in place over the last 12 months, Facebook might reasonably have been expected to report on the technology and staffing issues to which it attributes its reduced detection of child abuse content.
Experience from the financial services sector demonstrates the importance of disclosure duties as a means of regulatory intelligence gathering. Perhaps more importantly, they provide a useful means of hard-wiring regulatory compliance into company decisions on the design and operation of their sites.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Thank you for chairing this meeting, Sir Roger. I have a quick question for the Minister that relates to the new clause, which is a reasonable request for a duty on providers to disclose information to Ofcom. We would hope that the regulator had access to that information, and if companies are making significant changes, it is completely reasonable that they should have to tell Ofcom.
I do not have any queries or problems with the new clause; it is good. My question for the Minister is—I am not trying to catch anyone out; I genuinely do not know the answer—if a company makes significant changes to something that might impact on its safety duties, does it have to do a new risk assessment at that point, or does it not have to do so until the next round of risk assessments? I do not know the answer, but it would be good if the direction of travel was that any company making drastic changes that massively affected security—for example, Snapchat turning on the geolocation feature when it did an update—would have to do a new risk assessment at that point, given that significant changes would potentially negatively impact on users’ safety and increase the risk of harm on the platform.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Chris Philp)
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. As the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South said, the new clause is designed to introduce a duty on providers to notify Ofcom of anything that Ofcom could reasonably be expected to be notified of.
The Bill already has extremely strong information disclosure provisions. I particularly draw the Committee’s attention to clause 85, which sets out Ofcom’s power to require information by provision of an information notice. If Ofcom provides an information notice—the particulars of which are set out in clause 86—the company has to abide by that request. As the Committee will recall, the strongest sanctions are reserved for the information duties, extending not only to fines of up to 10% or service discontinuation—unplugging the website, as it were; there is also personal criminal liability for named executives, with prison sentences of up to two years. We take those information duties extremely seriously, which is why the sanctions are as strong as they are.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North asked what updates would occur if there were a significant design change. I draw the Committee’s attention to clause 10, which deals with children’s risk assessment duties, but there are similar duties in relation to illegal content and the safety of adults. The duty set out in clause 10(2), which cross-refers to schedule 3, makes it clear. The relevant words are “suitable and sufficient”. Clearly if there were a massive design change that would, in this case, adversely affect children, the risk assessment would not be suitable and sufficient if it were not updated to reflect that design change. I hope that answers the hon. Lady’s question.
Turning to the particulars of the new clause, if we incentivise companies to disclose information they have not been asked for by Ofcom, there is a danger that they might, through an excessive desire to comply, over-disclose and provide a torrent of information that would not be very helpful. There might also be a risk that some companies that are not well intentioned would deliberately dump enormous quantities of data in order to hide things within it. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South, mentioned an example from the world of financial services, but the number of companies potentially within the scope of the Bill is so much larger than even the financial services sector. Some 25,000 companies may be in scope, a number that is much larger—probably by one order of magnitude, and possibly by two—than the financial services sector regulated by the FCA. That disparity in scale makes a significant difference.
Given that there are already strong information provision requirements in the Bill, particularly clause 85, and because of the reasons of scale that I have mentioned, I will respectfully resist the new clause.
Barbara Keeley
We believe that the platforms need to get into disclosure proactively, and that this is a reasonable clause, so we will push it to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Barbara Keeley
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Throughout these debates it has been clear that we agree on both sides that the Online Safety Bill must be a regime that promotes the highest levels of transparency. This will ensure that platforms can be held accountable for their systems and processes. Like other regulated industries, they must be open and honest with the regulator and the public about how their products work and how they keep users safe.
As we know, platforms duck and dive to avoid sharing information that could make life more difficult for them or cast them in a dim light. The Bill must give them no opportunity to shirk their responsibilities. The Bill enables the largest platforms to carry out a risk assessment safe in the knowledge that it may never see the light of day. Ofcom can access such information if it wants, but only following a lengthy process and as part of an investigation. This creates no incentive for platforms to carry out thorough and proper risk assessments. Instead, platforms should have to submit these risk assessments to Ofcom not only on request but as a matter of course. Limiting this requirement to only the largest platforms will not overload Ofcom, but will give it the tools and information it needs to oversee an effective regime.
In addition, the public have a right to know the risk profile of the services they use. This happens in all other regulated industries, with consumers having easy access to the information they need to make informed decisions about the products they use. At present, the Bill does not give users the information they deserve about what to expect online. Parents in particular will be empowered by information about the risk level of platforms their children use. Therefore, it is imperative that risk assessments are made publicly available, as well as submitted to the regulator as a matter of course.
Kirsty Blackman
I have a couple of comments on the point about parental empowerment. I have been asked by my children for numerous apps. I have a look at them and think, “I don’t know anything about this app. I have never seen or heard of it before, and I have no idea the level of user-to-user functionality in this app.” Nowhere is there a requirement for this information to be set out. There is nowhere that parents can easily find this information.
With iPhones, if a kid wants an app, they have to request it from their parent and their parents needs to approve whether or not they get it. I find myself baffled by some of them because they are not ones that I have ever heard of or come across. To find out whether they have that level of functionality, I have to download and use the app myself in the way that, hopefully, my children would use it in order to find out whether it is safe for them.
A requirement for category 1 providers to be up front and explain the risks and how they manage them, and even how people interact with their services, would increase the ability of parents to be media literate. We can be as media literate as we like, but if the information is not there and we cannot find it anywhere, we end up having to make incredibly restrictive decisions in relation to our children’s ability to use the internet, which we do not necessarily want to make. We want them to be able to have fun, and the information being there would be very helpful, so I completely agree on that point.
My other point is about proportionality. The Opposition moved new clause 4, relating to risk assessments, and I did not feel able to support it on the basis of the arguments that the Minister made about proportionality. He made the case that Ofcom would receive 25,000 risk assessments and would be swamped by the number that it might receive. This new clause balances that, and has the transparency that is needed.
It is completely reasonable for us to put the higher burden of transparency on category 1 providers and not on other providers because they attract the largest market share. A huge percentage of the risk that might happen online happens with category 1 providers, so I am completely happy to support this new clause, which strikes the right balance. It answers the Minister’s concerns about Ofcom being swamped, because only category 1 providers are affected. Asking those providers to put the risk assessment on their site is the right thing to do. It will mean that there is far more transparency and that people are better able to make informed decisions.
Chris Philp
I understand the intention behind the new clause, but I want to draw the Committee’s attention to existing measures in the Bill that address this matter. I will start with the point raised by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, who said that as a parent she would like to be able to see a helpful summary of what the risks are prior to her children using a new app. I am happy to say to her that that is already facilitated via clause 13(2), which appears at the top of page 13. There is a duty there
“to summarise in the terms of service the findings of the most recent adults’ risk assessment of a service”,
including the levels of risk, and the nature and severity of those risks. That relates specifically to adults, but there is an equivalent provision relating to children as well.
Kirsty Blackman
I just gently say that if there is a requirement for people to sign up or begin to go through the sign-up process in order to see the terms of service, that is not as open and transparent. That is much more obstructive than it could be. A requirement for providers to make their terms of service accessible to any user, whether or not they were registered, would assist in the transparency.
Chris Philp
I think the terms of service are generally available to be viewed by anyone. I do not think people have to be registered users to view the terms of service.
In addition to the duty to summarise the findings of the most recent risk assessment in relation to adults in clause 13(2), clause 11 contains obligations to specify in the terms of service, in relation to children, where children might be exposed to risks using that service. I suggest that a summary in the terms of service, which is an easy place to look, is the best way for parents or anybody else to understand what the risks are, rather than having to wade through a full risk assessment. Obviously, the documents have not been written yet, because the Bill has not been passed, but I imagine they would be quite long and possibly difficult to digest for a layperson, whereas a summary is more readily digestible. Therefore, I think the hon. Lady’s request as a parent is met by the duties set out in clause 11, and the duties for adults are set out in clause 13.
Barbara Keeley
The Minister seems to be resisting so many measures that have been put forward that would improve transparency, particularly by making information publicly available. As I made clear, the public have a right to know the risk profile of the services they use. We have debated this issue reasonably exhaustively now. Therefore, I will press the new clause to a Division.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Good morning, Sir Roger. As my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South mentioned when speaking to new clause 11, Labour has genuine concerns about supply chain risk assessment duties. That is why we have tabled new clause 13, which seeks to ensure enforcement of liability for supply chain failures that amount to a breach of one of the specified duties drawing on existing legislation.
As we know, platforms, particularly those supporting user-to-user generated content, often employ services from third parties. At our evidence sessions we heard from Danny Stone of the Antisemitism Policy Trust that this has included Twitter explaining that racist GIFs were not its own but were provided by another service. The hands-off approach that platforms have managed to get away with for far too long is exactly what the Bill is trying to fix, yet without this important new clause we fear there will be very little change.
We have already raised issues with the reliance on third party providers more widely, particularly content moderators, but the same problems also apply to some types of content. Labour fears a scenario in which a company captured by the regulatory regime established by the Bill will argue that an element of its service is not within the ambit of the regulator simply because it is part of a supply chain, represented by, but not necessarily the responsibility of, the regulated services.
The contracted element, supported by an entirely separate company, would argue that it is providing business-to-business services. That is not user-to-user generated content per se but content designed and delivered at arm’s length, provided to the user-to-user service to deploy to its users. The result would likely be a timely, costly and unhelpful legal process during which systems could not be effectively regulated. The same may apply in relation to moderators, where complex contract law would need to be invoked.
We recognise that in UK legislation there are concerns and issues around supply chains. The Bribery Act 2010, for example, says that a company is liable if anyone performing services for or on the company’s behalf is found culpable of specific actions. We therefore strongly urge the Minister to consider this new clause. We hope he will see the extremely compelling reasons why liability should be introduced for platforms failing to ensure that associated parties, considered to be a part of a regulated service, help to fulfil and abide by relevant duties.
Chris Philp
The new clause seeks to impose liability on a provider where a company providing regulated services on its behalf does not comply with the duties in the Bill. The provider would be liable regardless of whether it has any control over the service in question. We take the view this would impose an unreasonable burden on businesses and cause confusion over which companies are required to comply with the duties in the Bill.
As drafted, the Bill ensures legal certainty and clarity over which companies are subject to duties. Clause 180 makes it clear that the Bill’s duties fall on companies with control over the regulated service. The point about who is in control is very important, because the liability should follow the control. These companies are responsible for ensuring that any third parties, such as contractors or individuals involved in running the service, are complying with the Bill’s safety duties, so that they cannot evade their duties in that way.
Companies with control over the regulated service are best placed to keep users safe online, assess risk, and put in place systems and processes to minimise harm, and therefore bear the liability if there is a transgression under the Bill as drafted. Further, the Bill already contains robust provisions in clause 161 and schedule 14 that allow Ofcom to hold parent and subsidiary companies jointly liable for the actions of other companies in a group structure. These existing mechanisms promote strong compliance within groups of companies and ensure that the entities responsible for breaches are the ones held responsible. That is why we feel the Bill as drafted achieves the relevant objectives.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 15—Media literacy strategy—
“(1) OFCOM must prepare a strategy which sets out how they intend to undertake their duty to promote media literacy in relation to regulated user-to-user services and regulated search services under section (Duty to promote media literacy: regulated user-to-user services and search services).
(2) The strategy must—
(a) set out the steps OFCOM propose to take to achieve the pursuit of the objectives set out in section (Duty to promote media literacy: regulated user-to-user services and search services),
(b) set out the organisations, or types of organisations, that OFCOM propose to work with in undertaking the duty;
(c) explain why OFCOM considers that the steps it proposes to take will be effective;
(d) explain how OFCOM will assess the extent of the progress that is being made under the strategy.
(3) In preparing the strategy OFCOM must have regard to the need to allocate adequate resources for implementing the strategy.
(4) OFCOM must publish the strategy within the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which this section comes into force.
(5) Before publishing the strategy (or publishing a revised strategy), OFCOM must consult—
(a) persons with experience in or knowledge of the formulation, implementation and evaluation of policies and programmes intended to improve media literacy;
(b) the advisory committee on disinformation and misinformation, and
(c) any other person that OFCOM consider appropriate.
(6) If OFCOM have not revised the strategy within the period of 3 years beginning with the day on which the strategy was last published, they must either—
(a) revise the strategy, or
(b) publish an explanation of why they have decided not to revise it.
(7) If OFCOM decides to revise the strategy they must—
(a) consult in accordance with subsection (3), and
(b) publish the revised strategy.”
This new clause requires Ofcom to publish a strategy related to their duty to promote media literacy of the public in relation to regulated user-to-user services and search services.
New clause 16—Media literacy strategy: progress report—
“(1) OFCOM must report annually on the delivery of the strategy required under section (Duty to promote media literacy: regulated user-to-user services and search services).
(2) The report must include—
(a) a description of the steps taken in accordance with the strategy during the year to which the report relates; and
(b) an assessment of the extent to which those steps have had an effect on the media literacy of the public in that year.
(3) The assessment referred to in subsection (2)(b) must be made in accordance with the approach set out by OFCOM in the strategy (see section (Duty to promote media literacy: regulated user-to-user services and search services) (2)(d).
(4) OFCOM must—
(a) publish the progress report in such manner as they consider appropriate; and
(b) send a copy of the report to the Secretary of State who must lay the copy before Parliament.”
This new clause is contingent on NC15.
Alex Davies-Jones
The UK has a vast media literacy skills and knowledge gap, which leaves the population at risk of harm. Indeed, research from Ofcom found that a third of internet users are unaware of the potential for inaccurate or biased information. Similarly, about 61% of social media users who say they are confident in judging whether online content is true or false actually lack the skills to do so.
Good media literacy is our first line of defence against bad information online. It can make the difference between decisions based on sound evidence and decisions based on poorly informed opinions that can harm health and wellbeing, social cohesion and democracy. Clause 103 of the draft Bill proposed a new media duty for Ofcom to replace the one in section 11 of the Communications Act 2003, but sadly the Government scrapped it from the final Bill.
Media literacy initiatives in the Online Safety Bill are now mentioned only in the context of risk assessments, but there is no active requirement for internet companies to promote media literacy. The draft Bill’s media literacy provision needed to be strengthened, not cut. New clauses 14, 15 and 16 would introduce a new, stronger media literacy duty on Ofcom, with specific objectives. They would require the regulator to produce a statutory strategy for delivering on it and then to report on progress made towards increasing media literacy under the strategy. There is no logical reason for the Minister not to accept these important new clauses or work with Labour on them.
Over the past few weeks, we have debated a huge range of issues that are being perpetuated online as we speak, from vile, misogynistic content about women and girls to state-sponsored disinformation. It is clear that the lessons have not been learned from the past few years, when misinformation was able to significantly undermine public health, most notably throughout the pandemic. Harmful and, more importantly, false statistics were circulated online, which caused significant issues in encouraging the uptake of the vaccine. We have concerns that, without a robust media literacy strategy, the consequences of misinformation and disinformation could go further.
The issues that Labour has raised about the responsibility of those at the top—the Government—have been well documented. Only a few weeks ago, we spoke about the Secretary of State actually contributing to the misinformation discourse by sharing a picture of the Labour leader that was completely out of context. How can we be in a position where those at the top are contributing to this harmful discourse? The Minister must be living in a parallel universe if he cannot see the importance of curbing these harmful behaviours online as soon as possible. He must know that media literacy is at the very heart of the Bill’s success more widely. We genuinely feel that a strengthened media literacy policy would be a huge step forward, and I sincerely hope that the Minister will therefore accept the justification behind these important new clauses.
Kirsty Blackman
I agree entirely on these new clauses. Although the Bill will make things safer, it will do that properly only if supported by proper media literacy and the upskilling of everybody who spends any portion of their lives online. They all need better media literacy, and I am not excluding myself from that. Everybody, no matter how much time they have spent online, can learn more about better ways to fact-check and assess risk, and about how services use our data.
I pay tribute to all those involved in media literacy—all the educators at all levels, including school teachers delivering it as part of the curriculum, school teachers delivering it not as part of the curriculum, and organisations such as CyberSafe Scotland in my constituency, which is working incredibly hard to upskill parents and children about the internet. They also include organisations such as the Silver City Surfers in Aberdeen, where a group of young people teaches groups of elderly people how to use the internet. All those things are incredibly helpful and useful, but we need to ensure that Ofcom is at the top of that, producing materials and taking its duties seriously. It must produce the best possible information and assistance for people so that up-to-date media literacy training can be provided.
As we have discussed before, Ofcom’s key role is to ensure that when threats emerge, it is clear and tells people, “This is a new threat that you need to be aware of,” because the internet will grow and change all the time, and Ofcom is absolutely the best placed organisation to be recognising the new threats. Obviously, it would do that much better with a user advocacy panel on it, but given its oversight and the way it will be regulating all the providers, Ofcom really needs to take this issue as seriously as it can. It is impossible to overstate the importance of media literacy, so I give my wholehearted backing to the three new clauses.
Kim Leadbeater (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
I rise to speak in favour of new clauses 14 to 16, on media literacy. As we have discussed in Committee, media literacy is absolutely vital to ensure that internet users are aware of the tools available to protect themselves. Knowledge and understanding of the risks online, and how to protect against them, are the first line of defence for us all.
We all know that the Bill will not eliminate all risk online, and it will not entirely clean up the internet. Therefore, ensuring that platforms have robust tools in place, and that users are aware of them, is one of the strongest tools in the Bill to protect internet users. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd said, including the new clauses in the Bill would help to ensure that we all make decisions based on sound evidence, rather than on poorly informed opinions that can harm not just individuals but democracy itself. The new clauses, which would place a duty on Ofcom to promote media literacy and publish a strategy, are therefore crucial.
I am sure we all agree about the benefits of public health information that informs us of the role of a healthy diet and exercise, and of ways that we can adopt a healthier lifestyle. I do not want to bring up the sensitive subject of the age of members of the Committee, as it got me into trouble with some of my younger colleagues last week, but I am sure many of us will remember the Green Cross Code campaign, the stop smoking campaigns, the anti-drink driving ads, and the powerful campaign to promote the wearing of seatbelts—“Clunk click every trip”. These were publicly funded and produced information campaigns that have stuck in our minds and, I am sure, protected thousands of lives across the country. They laid out the risks and clearly stated the actions we all need to take to protect ourselves.
When it comes to online safety, we need a similar mindset to inform the public of the risks and how we can mitigate them. Earlier in Committee, the right hon. Member for Basingstoke, a former Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, shared her experience of cyber-flashing and the importance of knowing how to turn off AirDrop to prevent such incidents from occurring in the first place. I had no idea about this simple change that people can make to protect themselves from such an unpleasant experience. That is the type of situation that could be avoided with an effective media literacy campaign, which new clauses 14 to 16 would legislate for.
I completely agree that platforms have a significant duty to design and implement tools for users to protect themselves while using platforms’ services. However, I strongly believe that only a publicly funded organisation such as Ofcom can effectively promote their use, explain the dangers of not using them and target such information at the most vulnerable internet users. That is why I wholeheartedly support these vital new clauses.
Chris Philp
The Government obviously recognise and support the intent behind the new clause, which is to make sure that work is undertaken by Ofcom specifically, and the Government more widely, on media literacy. That is important for the reasons laid out by the hon. Members for Aberdeen North and for Batley and Spen.
Ofcom already has a statutory duty to promote media literacy in relation to electronic media, which includes everything in scope of the Bill and more beyond. That is set out in the Communications Act 2003, so the statutory duty exists already. The duty proposed in new clause 14 is actually narrower in scope than the existing statutory duty on Ofcom, and I do not think it would be a very good idea to give Ofcom an online literacy duty with a narrower scope than the one it has already. For that reason, I will resist the amendment, because it narrows the duties rather than widens them.
I would also point out that a number of pieces of work are being done non-legislatively. The campaigns that the hon. Member for Batley and Spen mentioned—dating often, I think, back to the 1980s—were of course done on a non-legislative basis and were just as effective for it. In that spirit, Ofcom published “Ofcom’s approach to online media literacy” at the end of last year, which sets out how Ofcom plans to expand, and is expanding, its media literacy programmes, which cover many of the objectives specified in the new clause. Therefore, Ofcom itself has acted already—just recently—via that document.
Finally, I have two points about what the Government are doing. First, about a year ago the Government published their own online media literacy strategy, which has been backed with funding and is being rolled out as we speak. When it comes to disinformation more widely, which we have debated previously, we also have the counter-disinformation unit working actively on that area.
Therefore, through the Communications Act 2003, the statutory basis exists already, and on a wider basis than in these new clauses; and, through the online media literacy strategy and Ofcom’s own approach, as recently set out, this important area is well covered already.
Alex Davies-Jones
We feel that we cannot have an online safety Bill without a core digital media literacy strategy. We are disappointed that clause 103 was removed from the draft Bill. We do not feel that the current regime, under the Communications Act 2003, is robust enough. Clearly, the Government do not think it is robust enough, which is why they tried to replace it in the first place. We are sad to see that now replaced altogether. We fully support these new clauses.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Kirsty Blackman
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I tabled new clause 17 in relation to protected characteristics because of some of the points made by Danny Stone. I missed the relevant evidence session because unfortunately, at the time, I was in the Chamber, responding to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am referring to some of the points made by Danny Stone in the course of the evidence session in relation to the algorithmic prompts that there are in search functions.
We have an issue with search functions; we have an issue with the algorithmic prompts that there are in search functions. There is an issue if someone puts in something potentially derogatory, if they put in something relating to someone with a protected characteristic. For example, if someone were to type “Jews are”, the results that they get with those algorithmic prompts can be overwhelmingly racist, overwhelmingly antisemitic, overwhelmingly discriminatory. The algorithm should not be pushing those things.
To give organisations like Google some credit, if something like that is highlighted to them, they will address it. Some of them take a long time to sort it, but they will have a look at it, consider sorting it and, potentially, sort it. But that is not good enough. By that point, the damage is done. By that point, the harm has been put into people’s minds. By that point, someone who is from a particular group and has protected characteristics has already seen that Google—or any other search provider—is pushing derogatory terms at people with protected characteristics.
I know that the prompts work like that because of artificial intelligence; firms are not intentionally writing these terms in order to push them towards people, but the AI allows that to happen. If such companies are going to be using artificial intelligence—some kind of software algorithm—they have a responsibility to make sure that none of the content they are generating on the basis of user searches is harmful. I asked Google about this issue during one of our evidence sessions, and the response they gave was, “Oh, algorithmic prompts are really good, so we should keep them”—obviously I am paraphrasing. I do not think that is a good enough argument. I do not think the value that is added by algorithmic prompts is enough to counter the harm that is caused by some of those prompts.
As such, the new clause specifically excludes protected characteristics from any algorithm that is used in a search engine. The idea is that if a person starts to type in something about any protected characteristic, no algorithmic prompt will appear, and they will just be typing in whatever they were going to type in anyway. They will not be served with any negative, harmful, discriminatory content, because no algorithmic prompt will come up. The new clause would achieve that across the board for every protected characteristic term. Search engines would have to come up with a list of such terms and exclude all of them from the work of the algorithm in order to provide that layer of protection for people.
I do not believe that that negative content could be in any way balanced by the potential good that could arise from somebody being able to type “Jews are” and getting a prompt that says “funny”. That would be a lovely, positive thing for people to see, but the good that could be caused by those prompts is outweighed by the negativity, harm and pain that is caused by the prompts we see today, which platforms are not quick enough to act on.
As I say, the harm is done by the time the report is made; by the time the concern is raised, the harm has already happened. New clause 17 would prevent that harm from ever happening. It would prevent anybody from ever being injured in any way by an algorithmic prompt from a search engine. That is why I have tabled that new clause, in order to provide a level of protection for any protected characteristic as defined under the Equality Act 2010 when it comes to search engine prompts.
Barbara Keeley
The problem underlying the need for this new clause is that under the Bill, search services will not have to address or risk assess legal harm to adults on their sites, while the biggest user-to-user services will. As Danny Stone of the Antisemitism Policy Trust told us in evidence, that includes sites such as Google and Microsoft Bing, and voice search assistants including Amazon’s Alexa and Apple’s Siri. Search services rightly highlight that the content returned by a search is not created or published by then, but as the hon. Member for Aberdeen North has said, algorithmic indexing, promotion and search prompts provided in the search bar are their responsibility. As she has pointed out, and as we have heard in evidence sessions, those algorithms can cause significant harm.
Danny Stone told us on 26 May:
“Search returns are not necessarily covered because, as I say, they are not the responsibility of the internet companies, but the systems that they design as to how those things are indexed and the systems to prevent them going to harmful sites by default are their responsibility, and at present the Bill does not address that.”––[Official Report, Online Safety Public Bill Committee, 26 May 2022; c. 130, Q207.]
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North mentioned the examples from Microsoft Bing that Danny gave in his evidence—“Jews are” and “gays are”. He gave other examples of answers that were returned by search services, such as using Amazon Alexa to search, “Is George Soros evil?” The response was, “Yes, he is.” “Are the White Helmets fake?” “Yes, they are set up by an ex-intelligence officer.” The issue is that the search prompts that the hon. Member has talked about are problematic, because just one person giving an answer to Amazon could prompt that response. The second one, about the White Helmets, was a comment on a website that was picked up. Clearly, that is an issue.
Danny Stone’s view is that it would be wise to have something that forces search companies to have appropriate risk assessments in place for the priority harms that Parliament sets, and to enforce those terms and conditions consistently. It is not reasonable to exempt major international and ubiquitous search services from risk assessing and having a policy to address the harms caused by their algorithms. We know that leaving it up to platforms to sort this out themselves does not work, which is why Labour is supporting the new clause proposed by our SNP colleague.
Chris Philp
It is important to make clear how the Bill operates, and I draw the Committee’s attention in particular to clauses 23 to 26, which deal with the risk assessment and safety duties for search services. I point in particular to clause 23(5)(a), which deals with the risk assessment duties for illegal content. The provision makes it clear that those risk assessments have to be carried out
“taking into account (in particular) risks presented by algorithms used by the service”.
Clause 25 relates to children’s risk assessment duties, and subsection (5)(a) states that children’s risk assessment duties have to be carried out
“taking into account (in particular) risks presented by algorithms”.
The risks presented by algorithms are expressly accounted for in clauses 23 and 25 in relation to illegal acts and to children. Those risk assessment duties flow into safety duties as we know.
By coincidence, yesterday I met with Google’s head of search, who talked about the work Google is doing to ensure that its search work is safe. Google has the SafeSearch work programme, which is designed to make the prompts better constructed.
In my view, the purpose of the new clause is covered by existing provisions. If we were to implement the proposal—I completely understand and respect the intention behind it, by the way—there could be an unintended consequence in the sense that it would ban any reference in the prompts to protected characteristics, although people looking for help, support or something like that might find such prompts helpful.
Through a combination of the existing duties and the list of harms, which we will publish in due course, as well as legislating via statutory instrument, we can ensure that people with protected characteristics, and indeed other people, are protected from harmful prompts while not, as it were, throwing the baby out with the bathwater and banning the use of certain terms in search. That might cause an unintended negative consequence for some people, particularly those from marginalised groups who were looking for help. I understand the spirit of the new clause, but we shall gently resist it.
Kirsty Blackman
The Minister has highlighted clauses 23 and 25. Clause 25 is much stronger than clause 23, because clause 23 includes only illegal content and priority illegal content, whereas clause 25 goes into non-designated content that is harmful to children. Some of the things that we are talking about, which might not be on the verge of illegal, but which are wrong and discriminatory, might not fall into the categories of illegal or priority illegal content unless the search service, which presumably an organisation such as Google is, has a children’s risk assessment duty. Such organisations are getting a much easier ride in that regard.
I want to make the Minister aware of this. If he turns on Google SafeSearch, which excludes explicit content, and googles the word “oral” and looks at the images that come up, he will see that those images are much more extreme than he might imagine. My point is that, no matter the work that the search services are trying to do, they need to have the barriers in place before that issue happens—before people are exposed to that harmful or illegal content. The existing situation does not require search services to have enough in place to prevent such things happening. The Minister was talking about moderation and things that happen after the fact in some ways, which is great, but does not protect people from the harm that might occur. I very much wish to press the new clause to the vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 45—Sharing of information relating to counter-disinformation—
“(1) The Secretary of State must produce a report setting out any steps the Secretary of State has taken to tackle the presence of disinformation on Part 3 services.
(2) The purpose of the report is to assist OFCOM in carrying out its regulatory duties under this Act.
(3) The first report must be submitted to OFCOM and laid before Parliament within six months of this Act being passed.
(4) Thereafter, the Secretary of State must submit an updated report to OFCOM and lay it before Parliament at least once every three months.”
Kirsty Blackman
My hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire is not present and he had intended to move this new clause. If the Committee does not mind, I will do more reading and look at my notes more than I would normally when giving a speech.
Misinformation and disinformation arise during periods of uncertainty, either acutely, such as during a terror attack, or over a long period, as with the pandemic. That often includes information gaps and a proliferation of inaccurate claims that spread quickly. Where there is a vacuum of information, we can have bad actors or the ill-informed filling it with false information.
Information incidents are not dealt with effectively enough in the Bill, which is focused on regulating the day-to-day online environment. I accept that clause 146 gives the Secretary of State powers of direction in certain special circumstances, but their effectiveness in real time would be questionable. The Secretary of State would have to ask Ofcom to prioritise its media literacy function or to make internet companies report on what they are doing in response to a crisis. That is just too slow, given the speed at which such incidents can spread.
The new clause might involve Ofcom introducing a system whereby emerging incidents could be reported publicly and different actors could request the regulator to convene a response group. The provision would allow Ofcom to be more proactive in its approach and, in I hope rare moments, to provide clear guidance. That is why the new clause is a necessary addition to the Bill.
Many times, we have seen horrendous incidents unfold on the internet, in a very different way from how they ever unfolded in newspapers, on news websites or among people talking. We have seen the untold and extreme harm that such information incidents can cause, as significant, horrific events can be spread very quickly. We could end up in a situation where an incident happens and, for example, a report spreads that a Muslim group was responsible when there is absolutely no basis of truth to that. A vacuum can be created and bad actors step into it in order to spread discrimination and lies, often about minority groups who are already struggling. That is why we move the new clause.
For the avoidance of doubt, new clause 45, which was tabled by Labour, is also to be debated in this group. I am more than happy to support it.
Alex Davies-Jones
As we know, the new clause would give Ofcom a proactive role in identifying and responding to misinformation incidents that can occur in a moment of crisis. As we have discussed, there are huge gaps in the Bill’s ability to sufficiently arm Ofcom with the tools it will likely need to tackle information incidents in real time. It is all very well that the Bill will ensure that things such as risk assessments are completed, but, ultimately, if Ofcom is not able to proactively identify and respond to incidents in a crisis, I have genuine concerns about how effective this regulatory regime will be in the wider sense. Labour is therefore pleased support the new clause, which is fundamental to ensuring that Ofcom can be the proactive regulator that the online space clearly needs.
The Government’s methods of tackling disinformation are opaque, unaccountable and may not even work. New clause 45, which would require reporting to Parliament, may begin to address this issue. When Ministers are asked how they tackle misinformation or disinformation harms, they refer to some unaccountable civil service team involved in state-based interference in online media.
I thank those at Carnegie UK Trust for their support when researching the following list, and for supporting my team and me to make sense of the Bill. First, we have the counter-disinformation unit, which is based in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and intends to address mainly covid issues that breach companies’ terms of service and, recently, the Russia-Ukraine conflict. In addition, the Government information cell, which is based in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, focuses on war and national security issues, including mainly Russia and Ukraine. Thirdly, there is the so-called rapid response unit, which is based in the Cabinet Office, and mainly tackles proactive counter-messaging.
Those teams appear to nudge service providers in different ways where there are threats to national security or the democratic process, or risks to public health, yet we have zero record of their effectiveness. The groups do not publish logs of action to any external authority for oversight of what they raise with companies using the privilege authority of Her Majesty’s Government, nor do they publish the effectiveness of their actions. As far as we know, they are not rooted in expert independent external advisers. That direct state interference in the media is very worrying.
In our recent debate on amendment 83, which calls on the Government to include health misinformation and disinformation in the Bill, the Minister clearly set out why he thinks the situation is problematic. He said,
“We have established a counter-disinformation unit within DCMS whose remit is to identify misinformation and work with social media firms to get it taken down. The principal focus of that unit during the pandemic was, of course, covid. In the past three months, it has focused more on the Russia-Ukraine conflict, for obvious reasons.
In some cases, Ministers have engaged directly with social media firms to encourage them to remove content that is clearly inappropriate. For example, in the Russia-Ukraine context, I have had conversations with social media companies that have left up clearly flagrant Russian disinformation. This is, therefore, an area that the Government are concerned about and have been acting on operationally already.”––[Official Report, Online Safety Public Bill Committee, 14 June 2022; c. 408.]
Until we know more about those units, the boundary between their actions and that of a press office remains unclear. In the new regulatory regime, Ofcom needs to be kept up to date on the issues they are raising. The Government should reform the system and bring those units out into the open. We support Carnegie’s longer term strategic goal to set up a new external oversight body and move the current Government functions under Ofcom’s independent supervision. The forthcoming National Security Bill may tackle that, but I will leave that for the Minister to consider.
There must be a reporting system that requires the Government to set out their operational involvement with social media companies to address misinformation and disinformation, which is why we have tabled new clause 45. I hope the Minister will see that the current efforts in these units are hugely lacking in transparency, which we all want and have learned is fundamental to keep us all safe online.
Chris Philp
We agree that it is important that the Bill contains measures to tackle disinformation and misinformation that may emerge during serious information incidents, but the Bill already contains measures to address those, including the powers vested in the Secretary of State under clause 146, which, when debated, provoked some controversy. Under that clause, the Secretary of State will have the power to direct Ofcom when exercising its media literacy functions in the context of an issue of public health or safety or national security.
Moreover, Ofcom will be able to require platforms to issue a public statement about the steps they are taking to respond to a threat to public health or safety or to national security. As we discussed, it is appropriate that the Secretary of State will make those directions, given that the Government have the access to intelligence around national security and the relevant health information. Ofcom, as a telecoms regulator, obviously does not have access to that information, hence the need for the Secretary of State’s involvement.
Kirsty Blackman
I do not think the urgency and speed that are needed for these incidents is adequately covered by the Bill, so I would like to push new clause 18 to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Kirsty Blackman
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I think you are probably getting fed up with me, Sir Roger, so I will try my best not to speak for too long. The new clause is one of the most sensible ones we have put forward. It simply allows Ofcom to ask regulated services to submit to Ofcom
“a specific piece of research held by the service”
or
“all research the service holds”
on a specific topic. It also allows Ofcom to product a report into
“how regulated services commission, collate, publish and make use of research.”
The issues that we heard raised by Frances Haugen about the secretive nature of these very large companies gave us a huge amount concern. Providers will have to undertake risk assessments on the basis of the number of users they have, the risk of harm to those users and what percentage of their users are children. However, Ofcom is just going to have to believe the companies when they say, “We have 1 million users,” unless it has the ability to ask for information that proves the risk assessments undertaken are adequate and that nothing is being hidden by those organisations. In order to find out information about a huge number of the platforms, particularly ones such as Facebook, we have had to have undercover researchers posing as other people, submitting reports and seeing how they come out.
We cannot rely on these companies, which are money-making entities. They exist to make a profit, not to make our lives better. In some cases they very much do make our lives better—in some cases they very much do not—but that is not their aim. Their aim is to try to make a profit. It is absolutely in their interests to underplay the number of users they have and the risk faced by people on their platforms. It is very much in their interest to underplay how the algorithms are firing content at people, taking them into a negative or extreme spiral. It is also in their interests to try to hide that from Ofcom, so that they do not have to put in the duties and mitigations that keep people safe.
We are not asking those companies to make the information public, but if we require them to provide to Ofcom their internal research, whether on the gender or age of their users, or on how many of their users are viewing content relating to self-harm, it will raise their standards. It will raise the bar and mean that those companies have to act in the best interests—or as close as they can get to them—of their users. They will have to comply with what is set out in the Bill and the directions of Ofcom.
I see no issue with that. Ofcom is not going to share the information with other companies, so that they could subvert competition law. Ofcom is a regulator; it literally does not do that. Our proposal would mean that Ofcom has the best, and the most, information in order to take sensible decisions to properly regulate the platforms. It is not a difficult provision for the Minister to accept.
Barbara Keeley
The transparency requirements set out in the Bill are welcome but limited. Numerous amendments have been tabled by the Opposition and by our colleagues in the SNP to increase transparency, so that we can all be better informed about the harms around us, and so that the regulator can determine what protections are needed for existing and emerging harms. This new clause is another important provision in that chain and I speak in support of it.
We know that there is research being undertaken all the time by companies that is never published—neither publicly nor to the regulator. As the hon. Member for Aberdeen North said, publishing research undertaken by companies is an issue championed by Frances Haugen, whose testimony last month the Committee will remember. A few years ago, Frances Haugen brought to the public’s attention the extent to which research is held by companies such as Facebook—as it was called then—and never reaches the public realm.
Billions of members of the public are unaware that they are being tracked and monitored by social media companies as subjects in their research studies. The results of those studies are only published when revealed by brave whistleblowers. However, their findings could help charities, regulators and legislators to recognise harms and help to make the internet a safer place. For example, Frances Haugen leaked one Facebook study that found that a third of teenage girls said Instagram made them feel worse about their bodies. Facebook’s head of safety, Antigone Davis, fielded questions on this issue from United States Senators last September. She claimed that the research on the impact of Instagram and Facebook to children’s health was “not a bombshell”. Senator Richard Blumenthal responded:
“I beg to differ with you, Ms Davis, this research is a bombshell. It is powerful, gripping, riveting evidence that Facebook knows of the harmful effects of its site on children and that it has concealed those facts and findings.”
It is this kind of cover-up that new clause 19 seeks to prevent.
I remind the Committee of one more example that Frances Haugen illustrated to us in her evidence last month. Meta conducts frequent analyses of the estimated age of its users, which is often different from the ages they submit when registering, both among adults and children. Frances told us that Meta does this so that adverts can be targeted more effectively. However, if Ofcom could request this data, as the new clause would require, it would give an important insight into how many under-13s were in fact creating accounts on Facebook. Ofcom should be able to access such information, so I hope hon. Members and the Minister will support the new clause as a measure to increase transparency and support greater protections for children.
Chris Philp
Let me start by saying that I completely agree with the premise of the new clause. First, I agree that these large social media companies are acting principally for motives of their own profit and not the public good. Secondly, I agree with the proposition that they are extremely secretive, and do not transparently and openly disclose information to the public, the Government or researchers, and that is a problem we need to solve. I therefore wholeheartedly agree with the premise of the hon. Member for Aberdeen North’s new clause and her position.
However, I am honestly a bit perplexed by the two speeches we have just heard, because the Bill sets out everything the hon. Members for Aberdeen North and for Worsley and Eccles South asked for in unambiguous, black and white terms on the face of the Bill—or black and green terms, because the Bill is published on green paper.
Clause 85 on page 74 outlines the power Ofcom has to request information from the companies. Clause 85(1) says very clearly that Ofcom may require a person
“to provide them with any information”—
I stress the word “any”—
“that they require for the purpose of exercising, or deciding whether to exercise, any of their online safety functions.”
Ofcom can already request anything of these companies.
For the avoidance of doubt, clause 85(5) lists the various things Ofcom can request information for the purpose of and clause 85(5)(l)—on page 75, line 25— includes for
“the purpose of carrying out research, or preparing a report, in relation to online safety matters”.
Ofcom can request anything, expressly including requesting information to carry out research, which is exactly what the hon. Member for Aberdeen North quite rightly asks for.
The hon. Lady then said, “What if they withhold information or, basically, lie?” Clause 92 on page 80 sets out the situation when people commit an offence. The Committee will see that clause 92(3)(a) states that a person “commits an offence” if
“the person provides information that is false in a material respect”.
Again, clause 92(5)(a) states that a person “commits an offence” if
“the person suppresses, destroys or alters, or causes or permits the suppression, destruction or alteration of, any information required to be provided.”
In short, if the person or company who receives the information request lies, or falsifies or destroys information, they are committing an offence that will trigger not only civil sanctions—under which the company can pay a fine of up to 10% of global revenue or be disconnected—but a personal offence that is punishable by up to two years in prison.
I hope I have demonstrated that clauses 85 and 92 already clearly contain the powers for Ofcom to request any information, and that if people lie, destroy information or supress information as they do as the moment, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen North rightly says they do, that will be a criminal offence with full sanctions available. I hope that demonstrates to the Committee’s satisfaction that the Bill does this already, and that it is important that it does so for the reasons that the hon. Lady set out.
Kirsty Blackman
I have a question for the Minister that hopefully, given the Committee’s work, he might be able to answer. New clause 19(2)(b) would give Ofcom the power to require services to submit to it
“all research the service holds on a topic specified by OFCOM.”
Ofcom could say, “We would like all the research you have on the actual age of users.”
My concern is that clause 85(1) allows Ofcom to require companies to provide it
“with any information that they require for the purpose of exercising, or deciding whether to exercise, any of their online safety functions.”
Ofcom might not know what information the company holds. I am concerned that Ofcom is able to say, as it is empowered to do by clause 85(1), “Could you please provide us with the research piece you did on under-age users or on the age of users?”, instead of having a more general power to say, “Could you provide us with all the research you have done?” I am worried that the power in clause 85(1) is more specific.
Kirsty Blackman
If the Minister holds on for two seconds, he will get to make an actual speech. I am worried that the power is not general enough. I would very much like to hear the Minister confirm what he thinks.
Chris Philp
I am not going to make a full speech. I have conferred with colleagues. The power conferred by clause 85(1) is one to require any information in a particular domain. Ofcom does not have to point to a particular research report and say, “Please give me report X.” It can ask for any information that is relevant to a particular topic. Even if it does not know what specific reports there may be—it probably would not know what reports there are buried in these companies—it can request any information that is at all relevant to a topic and the company will be obliged to provide any information relevant to that request. If the company fails to do so, it will be committing an offence as defined by clause 92, because it would be “suppressing”, to use the language of that clause, the information that exists.
I can categorically say to the hon. Lady that the general ability of Ofcom is to ask for any relevant information—the word “any” does appear—and even if the information notice does not specify precisely what report it is, Ofcom does have that power and I expect it to exercise it and the company to comply. If the company does not, I would expect it to be prosecuted.
Kirsty Blackman
Given that clarification, I will not press the new clause. The Minister has made the case strongly enough and has clarified clause 85(1) to my satisfaction. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 23
Priority illegal content: violence against women and girls
“(1) For the purposes of this Act, any provision applied to priority illegal content should also be applied to any content which—
(a) constitutes,
(b) encourages, or
(c) promotes
violence against women or girls.
(2) ‘Violence against women and girls’ is defined by Article 3 of the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence (‘the Istanbul Convention’).” —(Alex Davies-Jones.)
This new clause applies provisions to priority illegal content to content which constitutes, encourages or promotes violence against women and girls.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Alex Davies-Jones
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This new clause would apply provisions applied to priority illegal content also to content that constitutes, encourages or promotes violence against women and girls. As it stands, the Bill is failing women and girls. In an attempt to tackle that alarming gap, the new clause uses the Istanbul convention definition of VAWG, given that the Home Secretary has so recently agreed to ratify the convention—just a decade after was signed.
The Minister might also be aware that GREVIO—the Group of Experts on Action against Violence against Women and Domestic Violence—which monitors the implementation of the Istanbul convention, published a report in October 2021 on the digital dimension of violence against women and girls. It stated that domestic laws are failing to place the abuse of women and girls online
“in the context of a continuum of violence against women that women and girls are exposed to in all spheres of life, including in the digital sphere.”
The purpose of naming VAWG in the Bill is to require tech companies to be responsible for preventing and addressing VAWG as a whole, rather than limiting their obligations only to specific criminal offences listed in schedule 7 and other illegal content. It is also important to note that the schedule 7 priority list was decided on without any consultation with the VAWG sector. Naming violence against women and girls will also ensure that tech companies are held to account for addressing emerging forms of online hate, which legislation is often unable to keep up with.
We only need to consider accounts from survivors of online violence against women and girls, as outlined in “VAWG Principles for the Online Safety Bill”, published in September last year, to really see the profound impact that the issue is having on people’s lives. Ellesha, a survivor of image-based sexual abuse, was a victim of voyeurism at the hands of her ex-partner. She was filmed without her consent and was later notified by someone else that he had uploaded videos of her to Pornhub. She recently spoke at an event that I contributed to—I believe the right hon. Member for Basingstoke and others also did—on the launch of the “Violence Against Women and Girls Code of Practice”. I am sure we will come to that code of practice more specifically on Report. Her account was genuinely difficult to listen to.
This is an issue that Ellesha, with the support of EVAW, Glitch, and a huge range of other organisations, has campaigned on for some time. She says:
“Going through all of this has had a profound impact on my life. I will never have the ability to trust people in the same way and will always second guess their intentions towards me. My self confidence is at an all time low and although I have put a brave face on throughout this, it has had a detrimental effect on my mental health.”
Ellesha was informed by the police that they could not access the websites where her ex-partner had uploaded the videos, so she was forced to spend an immense amount of time trawling through all of the videos uploaded to simply identify herself. I can only imagine how distressing that must have been for her.
Pornhub’s response to the police inquiries was very vague in the first instance, and it later ignored every piece of following correspondence. Eventually the videos were taken down, likely by the ex-partner himself when he was released from the police station. Ellesha was told that Pornhub had only six moderators at the time—just six for the entire website—and it and her ex-partner ultimately got away with allowing the damaging content to remain, even though the account was under his name and easily traced back to his IP address. That just is not good enough, and the Minister must surely recognise that the Bill fails women in its current form.
If the Minister needs any further impetus to genuinely consider the amendment, I point him to a BBC report from last week that highlighted how much obscene material of women and girls is shared online without their consent. The BBC’s Angus Crawford investigated Facebook accounts and groups that were seen to be posting pictures and videos of upskirting. Naturally, Meta—Facebook’s owner—said that it had a grip on the problem and that those accounts and groups had all been removed, yet the BBC was able to find thousands of users sharing material. Indeed, one man who posted videos of himself stalking schoolgirls in New York is now being investigated by the police. This is the reality of the internet; it can be a powerful, creative tool for good, but far too often it seeks to do the complete opposite.
I hate to make this a gendered argument, but there is a genuine difference between the experiences of men and women online. Last week the Minister came close to admitting that when I queried whether he had ever received an unsolicited indecent picture. I am struggling to understand why he has failed to consider these issues in a Bill proposed by his Department.
The steps that the Government are taking to tackle violence against women and girls offline are broadly to be commended, and I welcome a lot of the initiatives. The Minister must see sense and do the right thing by also addressing the harms faced online. We have a genuine opportunity in the Bill to prevent violence against women and girls online, or at least to diminish some of the harms they face. Will he please do the right thing?
Chris Philp
The shadow Minister is right to raise the issue of women and girls being disproportionately—one might say overwhelmingly—the victims of certain kinds of abuse online. We heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke, the shadow Minister and others set that out in a previous debate. The shadow Minister is right to raise the issue.
Tackling violence against women and girls has been a long-standing priority of the Government. Indeed, a number of important new offences have already been and are being created, with protecting women principally in mind—the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour, set out in the Serious Crime Act 2015 and amended in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021; the creation of a new stalking offence in 2012; a revenge porn offence in 2015; and an upskirting offence in 2019. All of those offences are clearly designed principally to protect women and girls who are overwhelmingly the victims of those offences. Indeed, the cyber-flashing offence created by clause 156 —the first time we have ever had such an offence in this jurisdiction—will, again, overwhelmingly benefit women and girls who are the victims of that offence.
All of the criminal offences I have mentioned—even if they are not mentioned in schedule 7, which I will come to in a moment—will automatically flow into the Bill via the provisions of clause 52(4)(d). Criminal offences where the victim is an individual, which these clearly all are, automatically flow into the provisions of the Bill, including the offences I just listed, which have been created particularly with women in mind.
Dame Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
I hope that my hon. Friend will discuss the Law Commission’s recommendations on intimate image abuse. When I raised this issue in an earlier sitting, he was slightly unsighted by the fact that the recommendations were about to come out—I can confirm again that they will come out on 7 July, after some three years of deliberation. It is unfortunate that will be a week after the end of the Committee’s deliberations, and I hope that the timing will not preclude the Minister from mopping it up in his legislation.
Chris Philp
I thank my right hon. Friend for her question and for her tireless work in this area. As she says, the intimate image abuse offence being worked on is an extremely important piece in the jigsaw puzzle to protect women, particularly as it has as its threshold—at least in the previous draft—consent, without any test of intent, which addresses some points made by the Committee previously. As we have discussed before, it is a Ministry of Justice lead, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend will make representations to MOJ colleagues to elicit a rapid confirmation of its position on the recommendations, so that we can move to implement them as quickly as possible.
I remind the Committee of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which was also designed to protect women. Increased penalties for stalking and harassment have been introduced, and we have ended the automatic early release of violent and sex offenders from prison—something I took through Parliament as a Justice Minister a year or two ago. Previously, violent and sex offenders serving standard determinate sentences were often released automatically at the halfway point of their sentence, but we have now ended that practice. Rightly, a lot has been done outside the Bill to protect women and girls.
Let me turn to what the Bill does to further protect women and girls. Schedule 7 sets out the priority offences—page 183 of the Bill. In addition to all the offences I have mentioned previously, which automatically flow into the illegal safety duties, we have set out priority offences whereby companies must not just react after the event, but proactively prevent the offence from occurring in the first place. I can tell the Committee that many of them have been selected because we know that women and girls are overwhelmingly the victims of such offences. Line 21 lists the offence of causing
“intentional harassment, alarm or distress”.
Line 36 mentions the offence of harassment, and line 37 the offence of stalking. Those are obviously offences where women and girls are overwhelmingly the victims, which is why we have picked them out and put them in schedule 7—to make sure they have the priority they deserve.
Kirsty Blackman
The Minister is making a good speech about the important things that the Bill will do to protect women and girls. We do not dispute that it will do so, but I do not understand why he is so resistant to putting this on the face of the Bill. It would cost him nothing to do so, and it would raise the profile. It would mean that everybody would concentrate on ensuring that there are enhanced levels of protection for women and girls, which we clearly need. I ask him to reconsider putting this explicitly on the face of the Bill, as he has been asked to do by us and so many external organisations.
Chris Philp
I completely understand and accept the point that there are groups of people in society who suffer disproportionate harms, as we have debated previously, and that obviously includes women and girls. There are of course other groups as well, such as ethnic minorities or people whose sexual orientation makes them the target of completely unacceptable abuse in a way that other groups do not suffer.
I accept the point about having this “on the face of the Bill”. We have debated this. That is why clauses 10 and 12 use the word “characteristic”—we debated this word previously The risk assessment duties, which are the starting point for the Bill’s provisions, must specifically and expressly—it is on the face of the Bill—take into account characteristics, first and foremost gender, but also racial identity, sexual orientation and so on. Those characteristics must be expressly addressed by the risk assessments for adults and for children, in order to make sure that the special protections or vulnerabilities or the extra levels of abuse people with those characteristics suffer are recognised and addressed. That is why those provisions are in the Bill, in clauses 10 and 12.
A point was raised about platforms not responding to complaints raised about abusive content that has been put online—the victim complains to the platform and nothing happens. The hon. Members for Pontypridd and for Aberdeen North are completely right that this is a huge problem that needs to be addressed. Clause 18(2) places a duty—they have to do it; it is not optional—on these platforms to operate a complaints procedure that is, in paragraph (c),
“easy to access, easy to use (including by children)”
and that, in paragraph (b),
“provides for appropriate action to be taken”.
They must respond. They must take appropriate action. That is a duty under clause 18. If they do not comply with that duty on a systemic basis, they will be enforced against. The shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Aberdeen North are quite right. The days of the big platforms simply ignoring valid complaints from victims have to end, and the Bill will end them.
Kim Leadbeater
I am extremely impressed by the Minister’s knowledge of the Bill, as I have been throughout the Committee’s sittings. It is admirable to see him flicking from page to page, finding where the information about violence against women and girls is included, but I have to concur with the hon. Member for Aberdeen North and my Front-Bench colleagues. There is surely nothing to be lost by specifically including violence against women and girls on the face of the Bill.
Chris Philp
I hope I have made very clear in everything I have said, which I do not propose to repeat, that the way the Bill operates, in several different areas, and the way the criminal law has been constructed over the past 10 years, building on the work of previous Governments, is that it is designed to make sure that the crimes committed overwhelmingly against women and girls are prioritised. I think the Bill does achieve the objective of providing that protection, which every member of this Committee wishes to see delivered. I have gone through it in some detail. It is woven throughout the fabric of the Bill, in multiple places. The objective of new clause 23 is more than delivered.
In conclusion, we will be publishing a list of harms, including priority harms for children and adults, which will then be legislated for in secondary legislation. The list will be constructed with the vulnerability of women and girls particularly in mind. When Committee members see that list, they will find it reassuring on this topic. I respectfully resist the new clause, because the Bill is already incredibly strong in this important area as it has been constructed.
Alex Davies-Jones
The Bill is strong, but it could be stronger. It could be, and should be, a world-leading piece of legislation. We want it to be world-leading and we feel that new clause 23 would go some way to achieving that aim. We have cross-party support for tackling violence against women and girls online. Placing it on the face of the Bill would put it at the core of the Bill—at its heart—which is what we all want to achieve. With that in mind, I wish to press the new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Barbara Keeley
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 24 would enable users to bring civil proceedings against providers when they fail to meet their duties under part 3 of the Bill. As has been said many times, power is currently skewed significantly against individuals and in favour of big corporations, leading people to feel that they have no real ability to report content or complain to companies because, whenever they do, there is no response and no action. We have discussed how the reporting, complaints and super-complaints mechanisms in the Bill could be strengthened, as well as the potential merits of an ombudsman, which we argued should be considered when we debated new clause 1.
In tabling this new clause, we are trying to give users the right to appeal through another route—in this case, the courts. As the Minister will be aware, that was a recommendation of the Joint Committee, whose report stated:
“While we recognise the resource challenges both for individuals in accessing the courts and the courts themselves, we think the importance of issues in this Bill requires that users have a right of redress in the courts. We recommend the Government develop a bespoke route of appeal in the courts to allow users to sue providers for failure to meet their obligations under the Act.”
The Government’s response to that recommendation was that the Bill would not change the current situation, which allows individuals to
“seek redress through the courts in the event that a company has been negligent or is in breach of its contract with the individual.”
It went on to note:
“Over time, as regulatory precedent grows, it will become easier for individuals to take user-to-user services to court when necessary.”
That seems as close as we are likely to get to an admission that the current situation for individuals is far from easy. We should not have to wait for the conclusion of the first few long and drawn-out cases before it becomes easier for people to fight companies in the courts.
Some organisations have rightly pointed out that a system of redress based on civil proceedings in the courts risks benefiting those with the resources to sue—as we know, that is often the case. However, including that additional redress system on the face of the Bill should increase pressure on companies to fulfil their duties under part 3, which will hopefully decrease people’s need to turn to the redress mechanism.
If we want the overall system of redress to be as strong as possible, individuals must have the opportunity to appeal failures of a company’s duty of care as set out in the Bill. The Joint Committee argued that the importance of the issues dealt with by the Bill requires that users have a right of redress in the courts. The Government did not respond to that criticism in their formal response, but it is a critical argument. A balancing act between proportionate restrictions and duties versus protections against harms is at the heart of this legislation, and has been at the heart of all our debates. Our position is in line with that of the Joint Committee: these issues are too important to deny individuals the right to appeal failures of duty by big companies through the courts.
Chris Philp
I agree with the shadow Minister’s point that it is important to make sure social media firms are held to account, which is the entire purpose of the Bill. I will make two points in response to the proposed new clause, beginning with the observation that the first part of its effect is essentially to restate an existing right. Obviously, individuals are already at liberty to seek redress through the courts where a company has caused that individual to suffer loss through negligence or some other behaviour giving rise to grounds for civil liability. That would, I believe, include a breach of that company’s terms of service, so simply restating in legislation a right that already exists as a matter of law and common law is not necessary. We do not do declaratory legislation that just repeats an existing right.
Secondly, the new clause creates a new right of action that does not currently exist, which is a right of individual action if the company is in breach of one of the duties set out in part 3 of the Bill. Individuals being able to sue for a breach of a statutory duty that we are creating is not the way in which we are trying to construct enforcement under the Bill. We will get social media firms to comply through Ofcom acting as the regulator, rather than via individuals litigating these duties on a case-by-case basis. A far more effective way of dealing with the problems, as we discussed previously when we debated the ombudsman, is to get Ofcom to deal with this on behalf of the whole public on a systemic basis, funded not by individual litigants’ money, which is what would happen, at least in the first instance, if they had to proceed individually. Ofcom should act on behalf of us all collectively—this should appeal to socialists—using charges levied from the industry itself.
That is why we want to enforce against these companies using Ofcom, funded by the industry and acting on behalf of all of us. We want to fix these issues not just on an individual basis but systemically. Although I understand the Opposition’s intent, the first part simply declares what is already the law, and the second bit takes a different route from the one that the Bill takes. The Bill’s route is more comprehensive and will ultimately be more effective. Perhaps most importantly of all, the approach that the Bill takes is funded by the fees charged on the polluters—the social media firms—rather than requiring individual citizens, at least in the first instance, to put their hand in their own pocket, so I think the Bill as drafted is the best route to delivering these objectives.
Barbara Keeley
I will say a couple of things in response to the Minister. It is individuals who are damaged by providers breaching their duties under part 3 of the Bill. I understand the point about—
Barbara Keeley
Yes, but it is not systems that are damaged; it is people. As I said in my speech, the Government’s response that, as regulatory precedent grows, it will become easier over time for individuals to take user-to-user services to court where necessary clearly shows that the Government think it will happen. What we are saying is: why should it wait? The Minister says it is declaratory, but I think it is important, so we will put the new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Kim Leadbeater
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 25 would place an obligation on Ofcom to report annually to Parliament with an update on the effectiveness of the Online Safety Bill, which would also indicate Ofcom’s ability to implement the measures in the Bill to tackle online harms.
As we have discussed, chapter 7 of the Bill compels Ofcom to compile and issue reports on various aspects of the Bill as drafted. Some of those reports are to be made public by Ofcom, and others are to be issued to the Secretary of State, who must subsequently lay them before Parliament. However, new clause 25 would place a direct obligation on Ofcom to be transparent to Parliament about the scale of harms being tackled, the type of harms encountered and the effectiveness of the Bill in achieving its overall objectives.
The current proposal in clause 135 for an annual transparency report is not satisfactory. Those transparency reports are not required to be laid before Parliament. The clause places vague obligations on reporting patterns, and it will not give Parliament the breadth of information needed to allow us to decide the Online Safety Bill’s effectiveness.
Clause 149 is welcome. It will ensure that a review conducted by the Secretary of State in consultation with Ofcom is placed before Parliament. However, that review is a one-off that will provide just a small snapshot of the Bill’s effectiveness. It may not fully reflect Ofcom’s concerns as the regulator, and most importantly it will not disclose the data and information that Parliament needs to accurately assess the impact of the Bill.
Kirsty Blackman
Does the hon. Member agree with me that there is no point in having world-leading legislation if it does not actually work?
Kim Leadbeater
I agree with the hon. Member wholeheartedly. It should be Parliament that is assessing the effectiveness of the Bill. The Committee has discussed many times how groundbreaking the Bill could be, how difficult it has been to regulate the internet for the first time, the many challenges encountered, the relationship between platforms and regulator and how other countries will be looking at the legislation as a guide for their own regulations. Once this legislation is in place, the only way we can judge how well it is tackling harm in the UK is with clear public reports detailing information on what harms have been prevented, who has intervened to remove that harm, and what role the regulator—in this case Ofcom—has had in protecting us online.
New clause 25 will place a number of important obligations on Ofcom to provide us with that crucial information. First, Ofcom will report annually to Parliament on the overall effectiveness of the Act. That report will allow Ofcom to explore fully where the Act is working, where it could be tightened and where we have left gaps. Throughout the Bill we are heaping considerable responsibility on to Ofcom, and it is only right that Ofcom is able to feedback publicly and state clearly where its powers allow it to act, and where it is constrained and in need of assistance.
Secondly, new clause 25 will compel Ofcom to monitor, collate and publish figures relating to the number of harms removed by category 1 services, which is an important indicator for us to know the scale of the issue and that the Act is working.
Thirdly, we need to know how often Ofcom is intervening, compared with how often the platforms themselves are acting. That crucial figure will allow us to assess the balance of regulation, which assists not only us in the UK but countries looking at the legislation as a guide for their own regulation.
Finally, Ofcom will detail the harms removed by type to identify any areas where the Act may be falling short, and where further attention may be needed.
I hope the Committee understands why this information is absolutely invaluable, when we have previously discussed our concerns that this groundbreaking legislation will need constant monitoring. I hope it will also understand why the information needs to be transparent in order to instil trust in the online space, to show the zero-tolerance approach to online harms, and to show countries across the globe that the online space can be effectively regulated to protect citizens online. Only Parliament, as the legislature, can be an effective monitor of that information. I hope I can count on the Government’s support for new clause 25.
Barbara Keeley
I speak in support of new clause 25. As my hon. Friend has argued, transparency is critical to the Bill. It is too risky to leave information and data about online harms unpublished. That is why we have tabled several amendments to the Bill to increase reporting, both to the regulator and publicly.
New clause 25 is an important addition that would offer an overview of the effectiveness of the Bill and act as a warning bell for any unaddressed historical or emerging harms. Not only would such a report benefit legislators, but the indicators included in the report would be helpful for both Ofcom and user advocacy groups. We cannot continue to attempt to regulate the internet blind. We must have the necessary data and analysis to be sure that the provisions in the Bill are as effective as they can be. I hope the Minister can support this new clause.
Chris Philp
The idea that a report on Ofcom’s activities be delivered to Parliament so that it can be considered is an excellent one. In fact, it is such an excellent idea that it has been set out in statute since 2002: the Office of Communications Act 2002 already requires Ofcom to provide a report to the Secretary of State on the carrying out of all of its functions, which will include the new duties we are giving Ofcom under the Bill. The Secretary of State must then lay that report before each House of Parliament. That is a well-established procedure for Ofcom and for other regulatory bodies. It ensures the accountability of Ofcom to the Department and to Parliament.
I was being slightly facetious there, because the hon. Member for Batley and Spen is quite right to raise the issue. However, the duty she is seeking to create via new clause 25 is already covered by the duties in the Office of Communications Act. The reports that Ofcom publish under that duty will include their new duties under the Bill. Having made that clear, I trust that new clause 25 can be withdrawn.
Kim Leadbeater
I would like to press new clause 25 to a Division. It is important that it is included in the Bill.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Alex Davies-Jones
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish and lay before Parliament a report on the harms caused to users by synthetic media content, also known as deepfakes. The report must contain particular reference to the harms caused to those working in the entertainment industry.
The Government define artificial intelligence as
“technologies with the ability to perform tasks that would otherwise require human intelligence, such as visual perception, speech recognition, and language translation”.
That kind of technology has advanced rapidly in recent years, and commercial AI companies can be found across all areas of the entertainment industries, including voice, modelling, music, dance, journalism and gaming—the list goes on.
One key area of development is AI-made performance synthetisation, which is the process of creating a synthetic performance. That has a wide range of applications, including automated audiobooks, interactive digital avatars and “deepfake” technology, which often, sadly, has more sinister implications. Innovation for the entertainment industry is welcome and, when used ethically and responsibly, can have various benefits. For example, AI systems can create vital sources of income for performers and creative workers. From an equalities perspective, it can be used to increase accessibility for disabled workers.
However, deepfake technology has received significant attention globally due to its often-malicious application. Deepfakes have been defined as,
“realistic digital forgeries of videos or audio created with cutting-edge machine learning techniques.”
An amalgamation of artificial intelligence, falsification and automation, deepfakes use deep learning to replicate the likeness and actions of real people. Over the past few years, deepfake technology has become increasingly sophisticated and accessible. Various apps can be downloaded for free, or a low cost, to utilise deepfake technology.
Deepfakes can cause short-term and long-term social harms to individuals working in the entertainment industry, and to society more broadly. Currently, deepfakes are mostly used in pornography, inflicting emotional and reputational damage, and in some cases violence towards the individual—mainly women. The US entertainment union, the Screen Actors Guild, estimates that 96% of deepfakes are pornographic and depict women, and 99% of deepfake subjects are from the entertainment industry.
However, deepfakes used without consent pose a threat in other key areas. For example, deepfake technology has the power to alter the democratic discourse. False information about institutions, policies, and public leaders, powered by a deepfake, can be exploited to spin information and manipulate belief. For example, deepfakes have the potential to sabotage the image and reputation of a political candidate and may alter the course of an election. They could be used to impersonate the identities of business leaders and executives to facilitate fraud, and also have the potential to accelerate the already declining trust in the media.
Alongside the challenges presented by deepfakes, there are issues around consent for performers and creative workers. In a famous case, the Canadian voiceover artist Bev Standing won a settlement after TikTok synthesised her voice without her consent and used it for its first ever text-to-speech voice function. Many artists in the UK are also having their image, voice or likeness used without their permission. AI systems have also started to replace jobs for skilled professional performers because using them is often perceived to be a cheaper and more convenient way of doing things.
Audio artists are particularly concerned by the development of digital voice technology for automated audiobooks, using the same technology used for digital voice assistants such as Siri and Alexa. It is estimated that within one or two years, high-end synthetic voices will have reached human levels. Equity recently conducted a survey on this topic, which found that 65% of performers responding thought that the development of AI technology poses a threat to employment opportunities in the performing arts sector. That figure rose to 93% for audio artists. Pay is another key issue; it is common for artists to not be compensated fairly, and sometimes not be paid at all, when engaging with AI. Many artists have also been asked to sign non-disclosure agreements without being provided with the full information about the job they are taking part in.
Government policy making is non-existent in this space. In September 2021 the Government published their national AI strategy, outlining a 10-year plan to make Britain a global AI superpower. In line with that strategy, the Government have delivered two separate consultations looking at our intellectual property system in relation to AI.
The Chair
Order. I am sorry, but I must interrupt the hon. Lady to adjourn the sitting until this afternoon, when Ms Rees will be in the Chair.
Before we leave the room, my understanding is that it is hoped that the Bill will report this afternoon. That is a matter for the usual channels; it is nothing to do with the Chair. However, of course, it is an open-ended session, so if you are getting close to the mark, you may choose to go on. If that poses a problem for Ms Rees, I am prepared to take the Chair again to see it through if we have to. On the assumption that I do not, thank you all very much indeed for the courtesy you have shown throughout this session, which has been exemplary. I also thank the staff; thank you very much.
Online Safety Bill (Seventeenth sitting)
Tuesday 28th June 2022
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Online Safety Act 2023 View all Online Safety Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 28 June 2022 - (28 Jun 2022)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
Before we adjourned, I was discussing the Government’s national artificial intelligence strategy and the two separate consultations launched by the Government to look at the intellectual property system in relation to AI. In those consultations, the Intellectual Property Office recognised that AI
“is playing an increasing role in...artistic creativity.”
However, specific questions about reviewing or enhancing performers’ rights were notably absent from both Government consultations. If the UK Government really want to make Britain a global AI and creative superpower, strengthening the rights of performers and other creatives must be at the heart of the national AI strategy.
Another key challenge is that our intellectual property framework is desperately out of date. Currently, performers have two sets of rights under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988: the right to consent to the making of a recording of a performance; and the right to control the subsequent use of such recordings, such as the right to make copies. However, as highlighted by Dr Mathilde Pavis, senior lecturer in law at the University of Exeter, AI-made performance synthetisation challenges our intellectual property framework because it reproduces performances without generating a recording or a copy, and therefore falls outside the scope of the Act. An unintended consequence is that people are left vulnerable to abuse and exploitation. Without effective checks and balances put in place by the Government, that will continue. That is why 93% of Equity members responding to a recent survey stated that the Government should introduce a new legal protection for performers, so that a performance cannot be reproduced by AI technology without the performer’s consent.
Advances in AI, including deepfake technology, have reinforced the urgent need to introduce image rights—also known as personality rights or publicity rights. That refers to
“the expression of a personality in the public domain”,
such as an individual’s name, likeness or other personal indicators. Provision of image rights in law enables performers to safeguard meaningful income streams, and to defend their artistic integrity, career choices, brand and reputation. More broadly, for society, it is an important tool for protecting privacy and allowing an individual to object to the use of their image without consent.
In the UK, there is no codified law of image rights or privacy. Instead, we have a patchwork of statutory and common-law causes of action, which an individual can use to protect various aspects of their image and personality. However, none of that is fit for purpose. Legal provision for image rights can be found around the world, so the Government here can and should do more. For example, some American states recognise the right through their statute, and some others through common law. California has both statutory and common-law strains of authority, which protect slightly different forms of the right.
The Celebrities Rights Act of 1985 was passed in California and extended the personality rights for a celebrity to 70 years after their death. In 2020, New York State passed a Bill that recognised rights of publicity for “deceased performers” and “deceased personalities”. Guernsey has created a statutory regime under which image rights can be registered. The legislation centres on the legal concept of a “personnage”— the person or character behind a personality that is registered. The image right becomes a property right capable of protection under the legislation through registration, which enables the image right to be protected, licensed and assigned.
The Minister will know that Equity is doing incredible work to highlight the genuine impact that this type of technology is having on our creative industry and our performers. He must therefore see the sense in our new clause, which would require the Government at least to consider the matter of synthetic media content, which thus far they have utterly failed to do.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Chris Philp)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Ms Rees. I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Pontypridd, for raising the issues that she has done about synthetic and digitally manipulated content, which we are very conscious of. We are conscious of the risk of harm to those who work in the entertainment industry and of course, in particular, to victims of deepfake pornography.
We take intellectual property infringement extremely seriously. The Government have recently published a counter-infringement strategy, setting out a range of steps that we intend to take to strengthen the whole system approach to tackling infringement of intellectual property rights. It is widely acknowledged that the United Kingdom has an intellectual property framework that is genuinely world leading and considered among the best in the world. That includes strong protections for performers’ rights. We intend that to continue. However, we are not complacent and the law is kept under review, not least via the counter-infringement strategy I mentioned a moment ago.
Harmful synthetic media content, including the deepfakes that the hon. Member for Pontypridd mentioned, is robustly addressed by the safety duties set out in the Bill in relation to illegal content—much deepfake content, if it involves creating an image of someone, would be illegal—as well as content that could be harmful to children and content that will be on the “legal but harmful” adult list. Those duties will tackle the most serious and illegal forms of deepfake and will rightly cover certain threats that undermine our democracy. For example, a manipulated media image that contained incitement to violence, such as a deepfake of a politician telling people to attack poll workers because they are rigging an election, would obviously already fall foul of the Bill under the illegal duties.
In terms of reporting and codes of practice, the Bill already requires Ofcom to produce codes of practice setting out the ways in which providers can take steps to reduce the harm arising from illegal and harmful content, which could include synthetic media content such as deepfakes where those contain illegal content.
Alex Davies-Jones
The Minister uses the example of a deepfake of a politician inciting people to attack poll workers during an election. Given some of the technology is so advanced that it is really difficult to spot when the deepfakes actually occur, could it be argued that Ofcom as regulator or even the platforms themselves would be adverse to removing or reporting the content as it could fall foul of the democratic content exemption in the Bill?
Chris Philp
The democratic content protection that the shadow Minister refers to, in clause 15, is not an exemption; it is a duty to take into account content of democratic importance. That is on line 34 of page 14. When making a decision, it has to be taken into account—it is not determinative; it is not as if a politician or somebody involved in an election gets a free pass to say whatever they like, even if it is illegal, and escapes the provisions of the Bill entirely. The platform simply has to take it into account. If it was a deepfake image that was saying such a thing, the balancing consideration in clause 15 would not even apply, because the protection applies to content of democratic importance, not to content being produced by a fake image of a politician.
Alex Davies-Jones
It is important that we get this right. One of our concerns on clause 15, which we have previously discussed, relates to this discussion of deepfakes, particularly of politicians, and timeframes. I understand the Minister’s point on illegal content. If there is a deepfake of a politician—on the eve of poll, for example—widely spreading disinformation or misinformation on a platform, how can the Minister confidently say that that would be taken seriously, in a timely manner? That could have direct implications on a poll or an election. Would the social media companies have the confidence to take that content down, given clause 15?
Chris Philp
The protections in clause 15—they are not exemptions—would only apply to content that is of bona fide, genuine democratic importance. Obviously, a deepfake of a politician would not count as genuine, democratic content, because it is fake. If it was a real politician, such as the hon. Lady, it would benefit from that consideration. If it was a fake, it would not, because it would not be genuine content of democratic importance.
It is also worth saying that if—well, I hope when—our work with the Law Commission to review the criminal law related to the non-consensual taking and sharing of internet images is taken forward, that will then flow into the duties in the Bill. Deepfakes of internet images are rightly a concern of many people. That work would fall into the ambit of the Bill, either via clause 52, which points to illegal acts where there is an individual victim, or schedule 7, if a new internet image abuse were added to schedule 7 as a priority offence. There are a number of ways in which deepfakes could fall into the ambit of the Bill, including if they relate to extreme pornography.
The new clause would require the production of a report, not a change to the substantive duties in the Bill. It is worth saying that the Bill already provides Ofcom with powers to produce and publish reports regarding online safety matters. Those powers are set out in clause 137. The Bill will ensure that Ofcom has access to the information required to prepare those reports, including information from providers about the harm caused by deepfakes and how companies tackle the issue. We debated that extensively this morning when we talked about the strong powers that already exist under clause 85.
The hon. Lady has raised important points about intellectual property, and I have pointed to our counter-infringement strategy. She raised important points about deepfakes both in a political context and in the context of especially intimate images being generated by AI. I hope I have set out how the Bill addresses concerns in those areas. The Bill as drafted addresses those important issues in a way that is certainly adequate.
Alex Davies-Jones
I welcome the Minister’s comments and I am grateful for his reassurance on some of the concerns that were raised. At this stage we will not press the matter to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 27
OFCOM: power to impose duties on regulated services
“OFCOM: power to impose duties on regulated services
(1) OFCOM may carry out an assessment of the risk of harm posed by any regulated service.
(2) Where OFCOM assess a service to pose a very high risk of harm, OFCOM may, notwithstanding the categorisation of the service or the number or profile of its users, impose upon the service duties equivalent to—
(a) the children’s risk assessment duties set out in sections 10 and 25 of this Act; and
(b) the safety duties protecting children set out in sections 11 and 26 of this Act.”—(Kirsty Blackman.)
This new clause enables Ofcom to impose on any regulated service duties equivalent to the children’s risk assessment duties and the safety duties protecting children.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This is another attempt to place a higher bar and more requirements on regulated services that are likely to cause the most serious risks of harm. The Minister has consistently said that he is keen to consider regulating the companies and platforms that have the highest potential risk of harm more strictly than the normal regime would allow. Some of the platforms would not be category 1 on the basis that they have a small number of members, but the potential for harm—radicalisation, extremism, severe damage to people or extreme pornography—is very high.
I am not yet happy that the Minister has provided an adequate answer to the question about the regulation of the highest-risk platforms that do not meet the category 1 thresholds. If he is unwilling to accept this amendment or any of the other amendments tabled by the Opposition on this specific issue, I hope that he will give consideration to a Government amendment on Report or when the Bill goes through the House of Lords in order that this loose end can be tied up.
As I have said before—I do not want go too much over comments that I have made previously—it is reasonable for us to have a higher bar and a more strict regulation regime on specific platforms that Ofcom will easily be able to identify and that create the highest harm. Again, as I have said, this is another way of going about it. The new clause suggests that if Ofcom assesses that a service poses a very high risk of harm, it might, notwithstanding the categorisation of that service, require it to perform the children’s risk assessment duties and the safety duties protecting children. This is specifically about the children’s risk assessment.
I have previously raised concerns about not being able to accurately assess the number of child users that a service has. I am still not entirely comfortable that platforms will be able to accurately assess the number of child users they have, and therefore they might not be subject to the child user requirements, because they have underplayed or understated the number of children using their service, or because there are only a few hundred children using the service, which is surely massively concerning for the wellbeing of those few hundred children.
I hope the Minister can give us some comfort that he is not just considering what action to take, but that he will take some sort of action on Report or when the Bill proceeds through the House of Lords.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair again, Ms Rees. I rise to speak in support of new clause 27.
We have argued that the Government’s approach to categorising services fails to take account of the harms that could result from smaller services. I understand that a risk-based approach rather than a size-based approach is being considered, and that is welcome. The new clause would go some way to improving the categorisation of services as it stands. It is critical that there are ways for Ofcom to assess companies’ risk of harm to users and to place additional duties on them even when they lie outside the category to which they were initially assigned. Ofcom should be able to consult any organisation that it sees fit to consult, including user advocacy groups and civil society, in assessing whether a service poses
“a very high risk of harm”.
Following that, Ofcom should have powers to deliver the strictest duties on companies that expose adults to the most dangerous harms. That should always be proportionate to the risk of harm.
Labour supports the new clause and the arguments made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North.
Chris Philp
I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeen North for raising those considerations, because protecting children is clearly one of the most important things that the Bill will do. The first point that it is worth drawing to the Committee’s attention again is the fact that all companies, regardless of the number of child users they may have, including zero child users, have duties to address illegal content where it affects children. That includes child sexual exploitation and abuse content, and illegal suicide content. Those protections for the things that would concern us the most—those illegal things—apply to companies regardless of their size. It is important to keep that in mind as we consider those questions.
It is also worth keeping in mind that we have designed the provisions in clause 31 to be a bit flexible. The child user condition, which is in clause 31(3) on page 31 of the Bill, sets out that one of two tests must be met for the child user condition to be met. The condition is met if
“there is a significant number of children who are users of the service…or…the service…is of a kind likely to attract a significant number of users who are children.”
When we debated the issue previously, we clarified that the word “user” did not mean that they had to be a registered user; they could be somebody who just stumbles across it by accident or who goes to it intentionally, but without actually registering. We have built in a certain amount of flexibility through the word “likely”. That helps a little bit. We expect that where a service poses a very high risk of harm to children, it is likely to meet the test, as children could be attracted to it—it might meet the “likely to attract” test.
New clause 27 would introduce the possibility that even when there were no children on the service and no children were ever likely to use it, the duties would be engaged—these duties are obviously in relation to content that is not illegal; the illegal stuff is covered already elsewhere. There is a question about proportionality that we should bear in mind as we think about this. I will be resisting the new clause on that basis.
However, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen North said, I have hinted or more than hinted to the Committee previously that we have heard the point that has been made—it was made in the context of adults, but applies equally to children here—that there is a category of sites that might have small numbers of users but none the less pose a high risk of harm, not harm that is illegal, because the “illegal” provision applies to everybody already, but harm that falls below the threshold of illegality. On that area, we heard hon. Members’ comments on Second Reading. We have heard what members of the Committee have had to say on that topic as well. I hope that if I say that that is something that we are reflecting on very carefully, the hon. Member for Aberdeen North will understand that those comments have been loudly heard by the Government. I hope that I have explained why I do not think new clause 27 quite works, but the point is understood.
Kirsty Blackman
I appreciate the Minister’s comments, but in the drafting of the new clause, we have said that Ofcom “may” impose these duties. I would trust the regulator enough not to impose the child safety duties on a site that literally has no children on it and that children have no ability to access. I would give the regulator greater credit than the Minister did, perhaps accidentally, in his comments. If it were up to Ofcom to make that decision and it had the power to do so where it deemed that appropriate, it would be most appropriate for the regulator to have the duty to make the decision.
I wish to press the new clause to a Division.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Kirsty Blackman
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause attempts to address an asymmetry in the Bill in relation to the lack of user empowerment features for child users. As far as I am aware, there is no requirement for user empowerment functions for child users in the Bill. The new clause would require that if a service has to have user empowerment features in place for adults, then
“OFCOM may require a service to provide equivalent features designed specifically for child users.”
Ofcom would be able then to provide guidance on how those user empowerment features for child users would work.
This provision is especially important for the fairly small number of platforms and providers that are very much aimed at children, and where the vast majority of users are children. We are not talking about Facebook, for example, although if Facebook did have child user empowerment, it would be a good thing. I am thinking about organisations and games such as Roblox, which is about 70% children; Fortnite, although it has quite a lot of adult users too; and Minecraft, which has significant numbers of child users. On those platforms that are aimed at children, not having a child-centred, child-focused user empowerment requirement is an oversight. It is missing from the Bill.
It is important that adults have the ability to make privacy choices about how they use sites and to make choices about some of the content that they can see on a site by navigating the user empowerment functions that exist. But it is also important for children to have that choice. I do not see why adults should be afforded that level of choice and flexibility over the way that they use platforms and the providers that they engage with, but children should not. We are not just talking here about kids who are eight: we are talking about children far older, and for whom adult-centred, adult-written user empowerment functions may not be the best option or as easy to access as ones that are specifically focused on and designed for children.
I have had a discussion with the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children about the user empowerment functions for child users. We have previously discussed the fact that complaints features have to be understandable by the users of services, so if the Minister is unwilling to accept the new clause, will he give some consideration to what happens when the provider of the platform is marketing that platform to children?
The Roblox website is entirely marketed as a platform for children. It is focused in that way, so will the Minister consider whether Ofcom should be able to require differential user empowerment functions, particularly in cases where the overwhelming majority of users are children? Also, it would not be beyond the wit of man for platforms such as Facebook to have two differential user empowerment functions based on whether somebody is under the age of 18—whether they are a child or an adult—because users tell Facebook their date of birth when signing up. We have talked a lot about age verification and the ways in which that could work.
I would appreciate it if the Minister would consider this important matter. It is something that is lacking at the moment, and we are doing our children a disservice by not providing them with the same functionality that we are providing, or requiring, for adult users.
Barbara Keeley
Labour argued in favour of greater empowerment provisions for children during the debate on new clause 3, which would have brought in a user advocacy body for children. YoungMinds has pointed out that many young people are unaware of the Bill, and there has been little engagement with children regarding its design. I am sure members of the Committee would agree that the complexity of the Bill is evidence enough of that.
New clause 28 would make the online world more accessible for children and increase their control over the content they see. We know that many children use category 1 services, so they should be entitled to the same control over harmful content as adults. As such, Labour supports the new clause.
Chris Philp
I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeen North for her, as ever, thoughtful comments on the new clause. She has already referred to the user empowerment duties for adults set out in clause 57, and is right to say that those apply only to adults, as is made clear in the very first line of subsection (1) near the bottom of page 52.
As always, the hon. Lady’s analysis of the Bill is correct: the aim of those empowerment duties is to give adults more control over the content they see and the people with whom they interact online. One of the reasons why those empowerment duties have been crafted specifically for adults is that, as we discussed in a freedom of expression context, the Bill does not ultimately censor free speech regarding content that is legal but potentially harmful. Platforms can continue to display that information if their policies allow, so we felt it was right to give adults more choice over whose content they see, given that it could include content that is harmful but falls on the right side of the legal threshold.
As Members would expect, the provisions of the Bill in relation to children are very difficult to the provisions for adults. There are already specific provisions in the Bill that relate to children, requiring all social media companies whose platforms are likely to be accessed by children—not just the big ones—to undertake comprehensive risk assessments and protect children from any kind of harmful activity. If we refer to the children’s risk assessment duties in clause 10, and specifically clause 10(6)(e), we see that those risk assessments include an assessment looking at the content that children will encounter and—critically—who they might encounter online, including adults.
To cut to the chase and explain why user empowerment has been applied to adults but not children, the view was taken that children are already protected a lot more than adults through the child risk assessment duties and child safety duties. Therefore, they do not need the user empowerment provisions because they are already—all of them, regardless of whether they choose to be verified or not—being protected from harmful content already by the much stronger provisions in the Bill relating to children. That is why it was crafted as it is.
Kirsty Blackman
It does make sense, and I do understand what the Minister is talking about in relation to clause 10 and the subsections that he mentioned. However, that only sets out what the platforms must take into account in their child risk assessments.
If we are talking about 15-year-olds, they are empowered in their lives to make many decisions on their own behalf, as well as decisions guided by parents or parental decisions taken for them. We are again doing our children a disservice by failing to allow young people the ability to opt out—the ability to choose not to receive certain content. Having a requirement to include whether not these functionalities exist in a risk assessment is very different from giving children and young people the option to choose, and to decide what they do—and especially do not—want to see on whichever platform they are interacting on.
I have previously mentioned the fact that if a young person is on Roblox, or some of those other platforms, it is difficult for them to interact only with people who are on their friends list. It is difficult for that young person to exclude adult users from contacting them. A lot of young people want to exclude content, comments or voice messages from people they do not know. They want to go on the internet and have fun and enjoy themselves without the risk of being sent an inappropriate message or photo and having to deal with those things. If they could choose those empowerment functions, that just eliminates the risk and they can make that choice.
Chris Philp
Could I develop the point I was making earlier on how the Bill currently protects children? Clause 11, which is on page 10, is on safety duties for children—what the companies have to do to protect children. One thing that they may be required by Ofcom to do, as mentioned in subsection (4)(f), is create
“functionalities allowing for control over content that is encountered, especially by children”.
Therefore, there is a facility to require the platforms to create the kind of functionalities that relate actually, as that subsection is drafted, to not just identity but the kind of content being displayed. Does that go some way towards addressing the hon. Lady’s concern?
Kirsty Blackman
That is very helpful. I am glad that the Minister is making clear that he thinks that Ofcom will not just be ignoring this issue because the Bill is written to allow user empowerment functions only for adults.
I hope the fact that the Minister kindly raised clause 11(4) will mean that people can its importance, and that Ofcom will understand it should give consideration to it, because that list of things could have just been lost in the morass of the many, many lists of things in the Bill. I am hoping that the Minister’s comments will go some way on that. Notwithstanding that, I will press the new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Kirsty Blackman
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I mentioned this in earlier consideration. The issue was raised with me by Mencap, specifically in relation to the people it represents who have learning disabilities and who have a right to access the internet just as we all do. They should be empowered to use the internet with a level of safety and be able to access complaints, to make content reports and to use the user empowerment functions. Everybody who is likely to use the platforms should be able to access and understand those functions.
Will the Minister make it clear that he expects Ofcom, when drafting guidance about the user empowerment functions and their accessibility, the content reporting and the complaints procedures, to consult people about how those things work? Will he make it clear that he hopes Ofcom will take into account the level of accessibility? This is not just about writing things in plain English—or whatever that campaign is about writing things in a way that people can understand—it is about actually speaking to groups that represent people with learning disabilities to ensure that content reporting, the empowerment functions and the complaints procedures are accessible, easy to find and easy to understand, so that people can make the complaints that they need to make and can access the internet on an equal and equitable basis.
Barbara Keeley
I rise to speak in support of the new clause. Too often people with learning disabilities are left out of discussions about provisions relevant to them. People with learning disabilities are disproportionately affected by online harms and can receive awful abuse online.
At the same time, Mencap has argued that social media platforms enable people with learning disabilities to develop positive friendships and relationships. It is therefore even more important that people with learning disabilities do not lose out on the features described in clause 14, which allow them to control the content to which they are exposed. It is welcome that clauses 17, 18, 27 and 28 specify that reporting and complaints procedures must be easy to access and use.
The Bill, however, should go further to ensure that the duties on complaints and reporting explicitly cater to adults with learning disabilities. In the case of clause 14 on user empowerment functions, it must be made much clearer that those functions are easy to access and use. The new clause would be an important step towards ensuring that the Bill benefits everyone who experiences harms online, including people with learning disabilities. Labour supports the new clause.
Chris Philp
I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeen North once again for the thoughtfulness with which she has moved her new clause. To speak first to the existing references to accessibility in the Bill, let me start with user empowerment in clause 14.
Clause 14(4) makes it clear that the features included in “a service in compliance” with the duty in this clause must be made available to all adult users. I stress “all” because, by definition, that includes people with learning disabilities or others with characteristics that mean they may require assistance. When it comes to content reporting duties, clause 17(2)—line 6 of page 17—states that it has to be easy for any “affected persons” to report the content. They may be people who are disabled or have a learning difficulty or anything else. Clause 17(6)(d) further makes it clear that adults who are “providing assistance” to another adult are able to raise content reporting issues.
There are references in the Bill to being easy to report and to one adult assisting another. Furthermore, clause 18(2)(c), on page 18, states that the complaints system has to be
“easy to use (including by children)”.
It also makes it clear through the definition of “affected person”, which we have spoken about, that an adult assisting another adult is allowed to make a complaint on behalf of the second adult. Those things have been built into the structure of the Bill.
Furthermore, to answer the question from the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, I am happy to put on record that Ofcom, as a public body, is subject to the public sector equality duty, so by law it must take into account the ways in which people with certain characteristics, such as learning disabilities, may be impacted when performing its duties, including writing the codes of practice for user empowerment, redress and complaints duties. I can confirm, as the hon. Member requested, that Ofcom, when drafting its codes of practice, will have to take accessibility into account. It is not just a question of my confirming that to the Committee; it is a statutory duty under the Equality Act 2010 and the public sector equality duty that flows from it.
I hope that the words of the Bill, combined with that statutory public sector equality duty, make it clear that the objectives of new clause 29 are met.
Barbara Keeley
The Minister mentioned learning difficulties. That is not what we are talking about. Learning difficulties are things such as dyslexia and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Learning disabilities are lifelong intellectual impairments and very different things—that is what we are talking about.
Chris Philp
I am very happy to accept the shadow Minister’s clarification. The way that clauses 14, 17 and 18 are drafted, and the public sector equality duty, include the groups of people she referred to, but I am happy to acknowledge and accept her clarification.
Barbara Keeley
That is fine, but I have a further point to make. The new clause would be very important to all those people who support people with learning disabilities. So much of the services that people use do not take account of people’s learning disabilities. I have done a huge amount of work to try to support people with learning disabilities over the years. This is a very important issue to me.
There are all kinds of good examples, such as easy-read versions of documents, but the Minister said when batting back this important new clause that the expression “all adult users” includes people with learning disabilities. That is not the case. He may not have worked with a lot of people with learning disabilities, but they are excluded from an awful lot. That is why I support making that clear in the Bill.
We on the Opposition Benches say repeatedly that some things are not included by an all-encompassing grouping. That is certainly the case here. Some things need to be said for themselves, such as violence against women and girls. That is why this is an excellent new clause that we support.
Kirsty Blackman
I thank the Minister, particularly for providing the clarification that I asked for about who is likely to be consulted or taken into account when Ofcom is writing the codes of practice. Notwithstanding that, and particularly given the rather excellent speech from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South, I am keen to press the new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Kirsty Blackman
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I drafted this new clause following a number of conversations and debates that we had in Committee about how the Act will be scrutinised. How will we see whether the Act is properly achieving what it is supposed to achieve? We know that there is currently a requirement in the Bill for a review to take place but, as has been mentioned already, that is a one-off thing; it is not a rolling update on the efficacy of the Act and whether it is achieving the duties that it is supposed to achieve.
This is particularly important because there are abilities for the Secretary of State to make changes to some of the Act. Presumably the Government would not have put that in if they did not think there was a possibility or a likelihood that changes would have to be made to the Act at some future point. The Bill is certainly not perfect, but even from the Government’s point of view it is not perfect for all time. There is a requirement for the Act to be updated; it will have to change. New priority harms may have to be added. New details about different illegal acts may have to be added to the duties. That flexibility is given, and the Secretary of State has that flexibility in a number of cases.
If the Act were just going to be a standing thing, if it were not going to be updated, it would never be future-proof; it would never work in the changing world that we have. We know that this legislation has taken a very long time to get here. We have been sadly lacking in significant regulation in the online world for more than 20 years, certainly. For a very long time we have not had this. Now that the Act is here—or it will be once the Bill passes through both Houses of Parliament—we want it to work.
That is the point of every amendment we have tabled: we are trying to make the Bill better so that it works and can keep people as safe as possible. At the moment, we do not know how safe the internet will be as a result of the Bill. Even once it begins to be implemented, we will not have enough information on the improvements it has created to be able to say, “Actually, this was a world-leading piece of legislation.”
It may be that the digital regulation committee that I am suggesting in this new clause has a look regularly at the implementation of the Bill going forward and says, “Yep, that’s brilliant.” The committee might look at the implementation and the increasing time we spend online, with all the harms that can come with that, and says, “Actually, you need to tweak that a bit” or, “That is not quite fulfilling what it was intended to.” The committee might also say, “This brand new technology has come in and it is not entirely covered by the Act as it is being implemented.” A digital regulation committee was proposed by the Joint Committee, I think, to scrutinise implementation of the legislation.
The Government will say that they will review—they always do. I have been in so many Delegated Legislation Committees that involve the Treasury and the Government saying, “Yes, we keep everything under review—we always review everything.” That line is used in so many of these Committees, but it is just not true. In January I asked the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport
“how many and what proportion of (a) primary and (b) secondary legislation sponsored by (i) their Department…has undergone a post legislative review”.
It was a written question I put to a number of Departments including DCMS. The reply I got from the Minister here was:
“The number of post legislative reviews the Department has undertaken on primary and secondary legislation in each of the last five years is not held within the Department.”
The Government do not even know how many pieces of primary or secondary legislation they have reviewed. They cannot tell us that all of them have been reviewed. Presumably, if they could tell us that all of them have been reviewed, the answer to my written question would have been, “All of them.” I have a list of the number they sponsored. It was six in 2021, for example. If the Department had reviewed the implementation of all those pieces of legislation, I would expect it to be shouting that from the rooftops in response to a written question. It should be saying, “Yes, we are wonderful. We have reviewed all these and found that most of them are working exactly as we intended them to.”
I do not have faith in the Government or in DCMS—nor pretty much in any Government Department. I do not have faith in their ability or intention to adequately and effectively review the implementation of this legislation, to ensure that the review is done timeously and sent to the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, or to ensure those proper processes that are supposed to be in place are actually in place and that the Bill is working.
It is unfortunate for the Minister that he sent me that reply earlier in the year, but I only asked the question because I was aware of the significant lack of work the Government are doing on reviewing whether or not legislation has achieved its desired effect, including whether it has cost the amount of money they said it would, whether it has kept the amount of people safe that they said it would, and that it has done what it needs to do.
I have a lack of faith in the Government generally, but specifically on this issue because of the shifting nature of the internet. This is not to take away from the DCMS Committee, but I have sat on a number of Select Committees and know that they are very busy—they have a huge amount of things to scrutinise. This would not stop them scrutinising this Act and taking action to look at whether it is working. It would give an additional line of scrutiny, transparency and defence, in order to ensure that this world-leading legislation is actually world-leading and keeps people safe in the way it is intended to.
Alex Davies-Jones
It is an honour to support the new clause moved by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North. This was a recommendation from the Joint Committee report, and we believe it is important, given the sheer complexity of the Bill. The Minister will not be alarmed to hear that I am all in favour of increasing the scrutiny and transparency of this legislation.
Having proudly served on the DCMS Committee, I know it does some excellent work on a very broad range of policy areas, as has been highlighted. It is important to acknowledge that there will of course be cross-over, but ultimately we support the new clause. Given my very fond memories of serving on the Select Committee, I want to put on the record my support for it. My support for this new clause is not meant as any disrespect to that Committee. It is genuinely extremely effective in scrutinising the Government and holding them to account, and I know it will continue to do that in relation to both this Bill and other aspects of DCMS. The need for transparency, openness and scrutiny of this Bill is fundamental if it is truly to be world-leading, which is why we support the new clause.
Chris Philp
I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss this issue once again. I want to put on the record my thanks to the Joint Committee, which the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire sat on, for doing such fantastic work in scrutinising the draft legislation. As a result of its work, no fewer than 66 changes were made to the Bill, so it was very effective.
I want to make one or two observations about scrutinising the legislation following the passage of the Bill. First, there is the standard review mechanism in clause 149, on pages 125 and 126, which provides for a statutory review not before two years and not after five years of the Bill receiving Royal Assent.
Kirsty Blackman
On that review function, it would help if the Minister could explain a bit more why it was decided to do that as a one-off, and not on a rolling two-year basis, for example.
Chris Philp
That is a fairly standard clause in legislation. Clearly, for most legislation and most areas of Government activity, the relevant departmental Select Committee would be expected to provide the ongoing scrutiny, so ordinarily the DCMS Committee would do that. I hear the shadow Minister’s comments: she said that this proposal is not designed in any way to impugn or disrespect that Committee, but I listened to the comments of the Chair of that Committee on Second Reading, and I am not sure he entirely shares that view—he expressed himself in quite forthright terms.
On the proposal, we understand that the Joint Committee did valuable work. This is an unusual piece of legislation, in that it is completely groundbreaking. It is unlike any other, so the case for a having a particular Committee look at it may have some merits. I am not in a position to give a definitive Government response to that because the matter is still under consideration, but if we were to establish a special Committee to look at a single piece of legislation, there are two ways to do it. It could either be done in statute, as the new clause seeks, or it could be done by Standing Orders.
Generally speaking, it is the practice of the House to establish Committees by Standing Orders of the House rather than by statute. In fact, I think the only current Committee of the House established by statute—Ms Rees, you will correct me if I am wrong, as you are more of an expert on these matters than me—is the Intelligence and Security Committee, which was established by the Intelligence Services Act 1994. That is obviously very unusual, because it has special powers. It looks into material that would ordinarily be classified as secret, and it has access to the intelligence services. It is a rather unusual Committee that has to be granted special powers because it looks into intelligence and security matters. Clearly, those considerations do not apply here. Were a particular Committee to be established, the right way of doing that would not be in statute, as the new clause proposes, but via the Standing Orders of the House, if that is something that Parliament wants to do.
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
As another member of the Joint Committee, I totally understand the reasoning. I want to put on record my support for setting up a Committee through the approach the Minister mentioned using statutory instruments. I will not support the new clause but I strongly support the Joint Committee continuing in some form to enable scrutiny. When we look forward to the metaverse, virtual reality and all the things that are coming, it is important that that scrutiny continues. No offence to Opposition colleagues, but I do not think the new clause is the right way to do that. However, the subject is worth further exploration, and I would be very supportive of that happening.
Chris Philp
First, let me also put on record my thanks to my hon. Friend for his service on the Joint Committee. He did a fantastic job and, as I said, the Committee’s recommendations have been powerfully heard. I thank him for his acknowledgment that if one were to do this, the right way to do it would be through Standing Orders. I have heard the point he made in support of some sort of ongoing special committee. As I say, the Government have not reached a view on this, but if one were to do that, I agree with my hon. Friend that Standing Orders would be the right mechanism.
One of the reasons for that can be found in the way the new clause has been drafted. Subsections (5) and (6) say:
“The membership and Chair of the Committee shall be appointed by regulations made by the Secretary of State…the tenure of office of members of, the procedure of and other matters…shall be set out in regulations made by the Secretary of State.”
I know those regulations are then subject to approval by a resolution of the House, but given the reservations expressed by Opposition Members about powers for the Secretary of State over the last eight sitting days, it is surprising to see the new clause handing the Secretary of State—in the form of a regulation-making power—the power to form the Committee.
That underlines why doing this through Standing Orders, so that the matter is in the hands of the whole House, is the right way to proceed, if that is something we collectively wish to do. For that reason, we will not support the new clause. Obviously, we will get back to the House in due course once thinking has been done about potential Committees, but that can be done as a separate process to the legislation. In any case, post-legislative scrutiny will not be needed until the regime is up and running, which will be after Royal Assent, so that does not have enormous time pressure on it.
A comment was made about future-proofing the Bill and making sure it stays up to date. There is a lot in that, and we need to make sure we keep up to date with changing technologies, but the Bill is designed to be tech agnostic, so if there is change in technology, that is accommodated by the Bill because the duties are not specific to any given technology. A good example is the metaverse. That was not conceived or invented prior to the Bill being drafted; none the less, it is captured by the Bill. The architecture of the Bill, relying on codes of practice produced by Ofcom, is designed to ensure flexibility so that the codes of practice can be kept up to date. I just wanted to make those two points in passing, as the issue was raised by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North.
Kirsty Blackman
The reason the new clause is drafted in that way is because I wanted to recognise the work of the Joint Committee and to take on board its recommendations. If it had been entirely my drafting, the House of Lords would certainly not have been involved, given that I am not the biggest fan of the House of Lords, as its Members are not elected. However, the decision was made to submit the new clause as drafted.
The Minister has said that the Government have not come to a settled view yet, which I am taking as the Minister not saying no. He is not standing up and saying, “No, we will definitely not have a Standing Committee.” I am not suggesting he is saying yes, but given that he is not saying no, I am happy to withdraw the new clause. If the Minister is keen to come forward at a future stage with suggestions for changes to Standing Orders, which I understand have to be introduced by the Leader of the House or the Cabinet Office, then they would be gladly heard on this side of the House. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 38
Adults’ risk assessment duties
“(1) This section sets out duties which apply in relation to internet services within section 67(2).
(2) A duty to take appropriate steps to keep an adults’ risk assessment up to date, including when OFCOM makes any significant change to a risk profile that relates to services of the kind in question.
(3) Before making any significant change to any aspect of a service’s design or operation, a duty to carry out a further suitable and sufficient adults’ risk assessment relating to the impacts of that proposed change.
(4) A duty to make and keep a written record, in an easily understandable form, of every risk assessment under subsections (2) and (3).
(5) An “adults’ risk assessment” of a service of a particular kind means an assessment of the following matters, taking into account the risk profile that relates to services of that kind—
(a) the user base;
(b) the level of risk of adults who are users of the service encountering, by means of the service, each kind of priority content that is harmful to adults (with each kind separately assessed).
(6) An “adults’ risk assessment” of a service of a particular kind means an assessment of the following matters, taking into account the risk profile that relates to services of that kind—
(a) the user base;
(b) the level of risk of adults who are users of the service encountering, by means of the service, each kind of priority content that is harmful to adults (with each kind separately assessed), taking into account (in particular) algorithms used by the service, and how easily, quickly and widely content may be disseminated by means of the service;
(c) the level of risk of harm to adults presented by different kinds of priority content that is harmful to adults;
(d) the level of risk of harm to adults presented by priority content that is harmful to adults which particularly affects individuals with a certain characteristic or members of a certain group;
(e) the level of risk of functionalities of the service facilitating the presence or dissemination of priority content that is harmful to adults, identifying and assessing those functionalities that present higher levels of risk;
(f) the different ways in which the service is used, and the impact of such use on the level of risk of harm that might be suffered by adults;
(g) the nature, and severity, of the harm that might be suffered by adults from the matters identified in accordance with paragraphs (b) to (f);
(h) how the design and operation of the service (including the business model, governance, use of proactive technology, measures to promote users’ media literacy and safe use of the service, and other systems and processes) may reduce or increase the risks identified.
(7) In this section references to risk profiles are to the risk profiles for the time being published under section 83 which relate to the risk of harm to adults presented by priority content that is harmful to adults.
(8) The provisions of Schedule 3 apply to any assessment carried out under this section in the same way they apply to any relating to a Part 3 service.”—(John Nicolson.)
This new clause applies adults’ risk assessment duties to pornographic sites.
Brought up, and read the First time.
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 39—Safety duties protecting adults—
“(1) This section sets out duties which apply in relation to internet services within section 67(2).
(2) A duty to summarise in the terms of service the findings of the most recent adults’ risk assessment of a service (including as to levels of risk and as to nature, and severity, of potential harm to adults).
(3) A duty to include provisions in the terms of service specifying, in relation to each kind of priority content that is harmful to adults that is to be treated in a way described in subsection (3), which of those kinds of treatment is to be applied.
(4) These are the kinds of treatment of content referred to in subsection (3)—
(a) taking down the content;
(b) restricting users’ access to the content.
(5) A duty to explain in the terms of service the provider’s response to the risks relating to priority content that is harmful to adults (as identified in the most recent adults’ risk assessment of the service), by reference to—
(a) any provisions of the terms of service included in compliance with the duty set out in subsection (3), and
(b) any other provisions of the terms of service designed to mitigate or manage those risks.
(6) If provisions are included in the terms of service in compliance with the duty set out in subsection (3), a duty to ensure that those provisions—
(a) are clear and accessible, and
(b) are applied consistently in relation to content which the provider reasonably considers is priority content that is harmful to adults or a particular kind of priority content that is harmful to adults.
(7) If the provider of a service becomes aware of any non-designated content that is harmful to adults present on the service, a duty to notify OFCOM of—
(a) the kinds of such content identified, and
(b) the incidence of those kinds of content on the service.
(8) In this section—
“adults’ risk assessment” has the meaning given by section 12;
“non-designated content that is harmful to adults” means content that is harmful to adults other than priority content that is harmful to adults.”
This new clause applies safety duties protecting adults to regulated provider pornographic content.
New clause 40—Duties to prevent users from encountering illegal content—
“(1) This section sets out duties which apply in relation to internet services within section 67(2).
(2) A duty to operate an internet service using proportionate systems and processes designed to—
(a) prevent individuals from encountering priority illegal content that amounts to an offence in either Schedule 6 or paragraphs 17 and 18 of Schedule 7 by means of the service;
(b) minimise the length of time for which the priority illegal content referred to in subsection (a) is present;
(c) where the provider is alerted by a person to the presence of the illegal content referred to in subsection (a), or becomes aware of it in any other way, swiftly take down such content.
(3) A duty to operate systems and processes that—
(a) verify the identity and age of all persons depicted in the content;
(b) obtain and keep on record written consent from all persons depicted in the content;
(c) only permit content uploads from verified content providers and must have a robust process for verifying the age and identity of the content provider;
(d) all uploaded content must be reviewed before publication to ensure that the content is not illegal and does not otherwise violate its terms of service;
(e) unloaded content must not be marketed by content search terms that give the impression that the content contains child exploitation materials or the depiction of non–consensual activities;
(f) the service must offer the ability for any person depicted in the content to appeal to remove the content in question.”
This new clause applies duties to prevent users from encountering illegal content to regulated providers of pornographic content.
John Nicolson
Big porn, or the global online pornography industry, is a proven driver of big harms. It causes the spread of image-based sexual abuse and child sexual abuse material. It normalises sexual violence and harmful sexual attitudes and behaviours, and it offers children easy access to violent, sexist and racist sexual content, which is proven to cause them a whole range of harms. In part, the Government recognised how harmful pornography can be to children by building one small aspect of pornography regulation into the Bill.
The Bill is our best chance to regulate the online pornography industry, which it currently does not mention. Over two decades, the porn industry has shown itself not to be trustworthy about regulating itself. Vanessa Morse, the head of the Centre to End All Sexual Exploitation, said:
“If we fail to see the porn industry as it really is, efforts to regulate will flounder.”
If the Minister has not yet read CEASE’s “Expose Big Porn” report, I recommend that he does so. The report details some of the harrowing harms that are proliferated by porn companies. Importantly, these harms are being done with almost zero scrutiny. We all know who the head of Meta or the chief executive officer of Google is, but can the Minister tell me who is in charge of MindGeek? This company dominates the market, yet it is almost completely anonymous—or at least the high heid yins of the company are.
New clause 38 seeks to identify pornography websites as providers of category 1 services, introduce a relevant code of practice and designate a specific regulator, in order to ensure compliance. Big porn must be made to stop hosting illegal extreme porn and the legal but harmful content prohibited by its own terms of service. If anyone thought that social media platforms were indifferent to a harm taking place on their site, they pale in comparison with porn sites, which will do the absolute minimum that they can. To show the extent of the horrible searches allowed, one video found by CEASE was titled “Oriental slave girl tortured”. I will not read out some of the other titles in the report, but there are search terms that promote non-consensual activity, violence, incest and racial slurs. For example, “Ebony slave girl” is a permitted term. This is just one of the many examples of damaging content on porn sites, which are perpetuating horrific sexual practices that, sadly, are too often being viewed by children.
Over 80% of the UK public would support strict new porn laws. I really think there is an appetite among the public to introduce such laws. The UK Government must not pass up this opportunity to regulate big porn, which is long overdue.
Barbara Keeley
As we heard from the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire, new clauses 38 to 40 would align the duties on pornographic content so that both user-to-user sites and published pornography sites are subject to robust duties that are relevant to the service. Charities have expressed concerns that many pornography sites might slip through the net because their content does not fall under the definition of “pornographic content” in clause 66. The new clauses aim to address that. They are based on the duties placed on category 1 services, but they recognise the unique harms that can be caused by pornographic content providers, some of which the hon. Member graphically described with the titles that he gave. The new clauses also contain some important new duties that are not currently in the Bill, including the transparency arrangements in new clause 39 and important safeguards in new clause 40.
The Opposition have argued time and again for publishing duties when it comes to risk assessments. New clause 39 would introduce a duty to summarise in the terms of service the findings of the most recent adult risk assessments of a service. That is an important step towards making risk assessments publicly accessible, although Labour’s preference would be for them to be published publicly and in full, as I argued in the debate on new clause 9, which addressed category 1 service risk assessments.
New clause 40 would introduce measures to prevent the upload of illegal content, such as by allowing content uploads only from verified content providers, and by requiring all uploaded content to be reviewed. If the latter duty were accepted, there would need to be proper training and support for any human content moderators. We have heard during previous debates about the awful circumstances of human content moderators. They are put under such pressure for that low-paid work, and we do not want to encourage that.
New clause 40 would also provide protections for those featured in such content, including the need for written consent and identity and age verification. Those are important safeguards that the Labour party supports. I hope the Minister will consider them.
Chris Philp
I thank the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire for raising these issues with the Committee. It is important first to make it clear that websites providing user-to-user services are covered in part 3 of the Bill, under which they are obliged to protect children and prevent illegal content, including some forms of extreme pornography, from circulating. Such websites are also obliged to prevent children from accessing those services. For user-to-user sites, those matters are all comprehensively covered in part 3.
New clauses 38, 39 and 40 seek to widen the scope of part 5 of the Bill, which applies specifically to commercial pornography sites. Those are a different part of the market. Part 5 is designed to close a loophole in the original draft of the Bill that was identified by the Joint Committee, on which the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire and my hon. Friend the Member for Watford served. Protecting children from pornographic content on commercial porn sites had been wrongly omitted from the original draft of the Bill. Part 5 of the Bill as currently drafted is designed to remedy that oversight. That is why the duties in part 5 are narrowly targeted at protecting children in the commercial part of the market.
A much wider range of duties is placed by part 3 on the user-to-user part of the pornography market. The user-to-user services covered by part 3 are likely to include the largest sites with the least control; as the content is user generated, there is no organising mind—whatever gets put up, gets put up. It is worth drawing the distinction between the services covered in part 3 and part 5 of the Bill.
In relation to part 5 services publishing their own material, Parliament can legislate, if it chooses to, to make some of that content illegal, as it has done in some areas—some forms of extreme pornography are illegal. If Parliament thinks that the line is drawn in the wrong place and need to be moved, it can legislate to move that line as part of the general legislation in this area.
I emphasise most strongly that user-to-user sites, which are probably what the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire was mostly referring to, are comprehensively covered by the duties in part 3. The purpose of part 5, which was a response to the Joint Committee’s report, is simply to stop children viewing such content. That is why the Bill has been constructed as it has.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Alex Davies-Jones
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would give Ofcom the power to co-operate with other regulators for the purposes of tackling harm from illegal content, and for criminal investigations and proceedings. The Minister will be aware that the vast range of human and business activity covered online presents a complex map of potential harms. Some harms will fall into or be adjacent to the purview of other regulators with domain-specific expertise. The relationship formalised through the Digital Regulation Cooperation Forum is well known. Indeed, Ofcom already has a working relationship with the Advertising Standards Authority and the Internet Watch Foundation, among others. Within this regulatory web, Ofcom will have the most relevant powers and expertise, so many regulators will look to it for help in tackling online safety issues. The Minister must recognise that public protection will most effectively be achieved through regulatory interlock. To protect people, Ofcom should be empowered to co-operate with others and to share information. The Bill should, therefore, as much as it can, enable Ofcom to work with other regulators and share online safety information with them.
Ofcom should also be able to bring the immense skills of other regulators into its work. The Bill gives Ofcom the general ability to co-operate with overseas regulators, but, with the exception of references to consulting the Information Commissioner’s Office when drawing up codes of practice and various items of guidance, the Bill is largely silent on co-operation with UK regulators.
The Communications Act 2003 limits the UK regulators with which Ofcom can share information—excluding the ICO, for instance—yet the Online Safety Bill takes a permissive approach to overseas regulators. The Bill should extend co-operation and information sharing in respect of online safety to include regulators overseeing the offences in schedule 7, the primary priority and priority harms to children, and the priority harms to adults.
Elsewhere in regulation, the Financial Conduct Authority has a general duty to co-operate. The same should apply here. Increasing safety through co-operation between relevant regulators is most easily achieved through our new clause, which will allow Ofcom to co-operate more widely. That is limited to co-operation in respect of harmful illegal content, harms to children and priority harms to adults. It is implicit that Ofcom will share information only with the regulators responsible for those precise matters. We have spoken frequently about the importance of co-operation, collaboration and consultation. This simple new clause would help to remedy the slight limitations placed on Ofcom in the Bill.
Ms Rees, with your permission, at this point—because this is likely to be my last contribution to the Bill Committee—[Interruption.] For shame. I place on record my sincere thanks to you and Sir Roger for chairing these Committee sittings, as well as all the Hansard staff, the Clerks, the Table Office, our civil servants, the Doorkeepers, the tech staff and broadcasting team who enable our proceedings to be broadcast to the public, and all members of the Committee for allowing great scrutiny of this legislation to take place. I look forward to continuing that scrutiny on Report.
Barbara Keeley
I will take this opportunity, as my hon. Friend has done, to add a few words of thanks. She has already thanked all the people in this place who we should be thanking, including the Clerks, who have done a remarkable job over the course of our deliberations with advice, drafting, and support to the Chair. I also thank the stakeholder organisations. This Bill is uniquely one in which the stakeholders—the children’s charities and all those other organisations—have played an incredible part. I know from meetings that they have already advertised that those organisations will continue playing that part over the coming weeks, up until Report. It has been fantastic.
Finally, I will mention two people who have done a remarkable amount of work: my researcher Iona and my hon. Friend’s researcher Freddie, who have done a huge amount to help us prepare speaking notes. It is a big task, because this is a complex Bill. I add my thanks to you, Ms Rees, for the way you have chaired this Committee. Please thank Sir Roger on our behalf as well.
Kirsty Blackman
Seeing as we are not doing spurious points of order, I will also take the opportunity to express our thanks. The first one is to the Chairs: thank you very much, Ms Rees and Sir Roger, for the excellent work you have done in the Chair. This has been a very long Bill, and the fact that you have put up with us for so long has been very much appreciated.
I thank all the MPs on the Committee, particularly the Labour Front-Bench team and those who have been speaking for the Labour party. They have been very passionate and have tabled really helpful amendments—it has been very good to work with the Labour team on the amendments that we have put together, particularly the ones we have managed to agree on, which is the vast majority. We thank Matt Miller, who works for my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire. He has been absolutely wonderful. He has done an outstanding amount of work on the Bill, and the amazing support that he has given us has been greatly appreciated. I also thank the Public Bill Office, especially for putting up with the many, many amendments we submitted, and for giving us a huge amount of advice on them.
Lastly, I thank the hundreds of organisations that got in touch with us, and the many people who took the time to scrutinise the Bill, raise their concerns, and bring those concerns to us. Of those hundreds of people and organisations, I particularly highlight the work of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. Its staff have been really helpful to work with, and I have very much appreciated their advice and support in drafting our amendments.
Chris Philp
I feel slightly out of place, but I will add some concluding remarks in a moment; I should probably first respond to the substance of the new clause. The power to co-operate with other regulators and share information is, of course, important, but I am pleased to confirm that it is already in the Bill—it is not the first time that I have said that, is it?
Clause 98 amends section 393(2)(a) of the Communications Act 2003. That allows Ofcom to disclose information and co-operate with other regulators. Our amendment will widen the scope of the provision to include carrying out the functions set out in the Bill.
The list of organisations with which Ofcom can share information includes a number of UK regulators—the Competition and Markets Authority, the Information Commissioner, the Financial Conduct Authority and the Payment Systems Regulator—but that list can be amended, via secondary legislation, if it becomes necessary to add further organisations. In the extremely unlikely event that anybody wants to look it up, that power is set out in subsections (3)(i) and (4)(c) of section 393 of the Communications Act 2003. As the power is already created by clause 98, I hope that we will not need to vote on new clause 41.
I echo the comments of the shadow Minister about the Digital Regulation Cooperation Forum. It is a non-statutory body, but it is extremely important that regulators in the digital arena co-operate with one another and co-ordinate their activities. I am sure that we all strongly encourage the relevant regulators to work with the DRCF and to co-operate in this and adjacent fields.
I will bring my remarks to a close with one or two words of thanks. Let me start by thanking Committee members for their patience and dedication over the nine days we have been sitting—50-odd hours in total. I think it is fair to say that we have given the Bill thorough consideration, and of course there is more to come on Report, and that is before we even get to the House of Lords. This is the sixth Bill that I have taken through Committee as Minister, and it is by far the most complicated and comprehensive, running to 194 clauses and 15 schedules, across 213 pages. It has certainly been a labour. Given its complexity, the level of scrutiny it has received has been impressive—sometimes onerous, from my point of view.
The prize for the most perceptive observation during our proceedings definitely goes to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, who noticed an inconsistency between use of the word “aural” in clause 49 and “oral” in clause 189, about 120 pages later.
I certainly thank our fantastic Chairs, Sir Roger Gale and Ms Rees, who have chaired our proceedings magnificently and kept us in order, and even allowed us to finish a little early, so huge thanks to them. I also thank the Committee Clerks for running everything so smoothly and efficiently, the Hansard reporters for deciphering our sometimes near-indecipherable utterances, and the Officers of the House for keeping our sittings running smoothly and safely.
I also thank all those stakeholders who have offered us their opinions; I suspect that they will continue to do so during the rest of the passage of the Bill. Their engagement has been important and very welcome. It has really brought external views into Parliament, which is really important.
I conclude by thanking the people who have been working on the Bill the longest and hardest: the civil servants in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. Some members of the team have been working on the Bill in its various forms, including White Papers and so on, for as long as five years. The Bill has had a long gestation. Over the last few months, as we have been updating the Bill, rushing to introduce it, and perhaps even preparing some amendments for Report, they have been working incredibly hard, so I give a huge thanks to Sarah Connolly and the whole team at DCMS for all their incredible work.
Finally, as we look forward to Report, which is coming up shortly, we are listening, and no doubt flexibility will be exhibited in response to some of the points that have been raised. I look forward to working with members of the Committee and Members of the House more widely as we seek to make the Bill as good as it can be. On that note, I will sit down for the last time.
The Chair
Before I ask Alex Davies-Jones whether she wishes to press the new clause to a vote, I thank you all for the very respectful way in which you have conducted proceedings. It is much appreciated. Let me say on behalf of Sir Roger and myself that it has been an absolute privilege to co-chair this Bill Committee.
Dame Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
On a point of order, Ms Rees. On behalf of the Back Benchers, I thank you and Sir Roger for your excellent chairpersonships, and the Minister and shadow Ministers for the very courteous way in which proceedings have taken place. It has been a great pleasure to be a member of the Bill Committee.
Alex Davies-Jones
I am content with the Minister’s assurance that the provisions of new clause 41 are covered in the Bill, and therefore do not wish to press it to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Schedule 2
Recovery of OFCOM’s initial costs
Recovery of initial costs
1 (1) This Schedule concerns the recovery by OFCOM of an amount equal to the aggregate of the amounts of WTA receipts which, in accordance with section 401(1) of the Communications Act and OFCOM’s statement under that section, are retained by OFCOM for the purpose of meeting their initial costs.
(2) OFCOM must seek to recover the amount described in sub-paragraph (1) (“the total amount of OFCOM’s initial costs”) by charging providers of regulated services fees under this Schedule (“additional fees”).
(3) In this Schedule—
“initial costs” means the costs incurred by OFCOM before the day on which section 75 comes into force on preparations for the exercise of their online safety functions;
“WTA receipts” means the amounts described in section 401(1)(a) of the Communications Act which are paid to OFCOM (certain receipts under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006).
Recovery of initial costs: first phase
2 (1) The first phase of OFCOM’s recovery of their initial costs is to take place over a period of several charging years to be specified in regulations under paragraph 7 (“specified charging years”).
(2) Over that period OFCOM must, in aggregate, charge providers of regulated services additional fees of an amount equal to the total amount of OFCOM’s initial costs.
(3) OFCOM may not charge providers additional fees in respect of any charging year which falls before the first specified charging year.
(4) OFCOM may require a provider to pay an additional fee in respect of a charging year only if the provider is required to pay a fee in respect of that year under section 71 (and references in this Schedule to charging providers are to be read accordingly).
(5) The amount of an additional fee payable by a provider is to be calculated in accordance with regulations under paragraph 7.
Further recovery of initial costs
3 (1) The second phase of OFCOM’s recovery of their initial costs begins after the end of the last of the specified charging years.
(2) As soon as reasonably practicable after the end of the last of the specified charging years, OFCOM must publish a statement specifying—
(a) the amount which is at that time the recoverable amount (see paragraph 6), and
(b) the amounts of the variables involved in the calculation of the recoverable amount.
(3) OFCOM’s statement must also specify the amount which is equal to that portion of the recoverable amount which is not likely to be paid or recovered. The amount so specified is referred to in sub-paragraphs (4) and (5) as “the outstanding amount”.
(4) Unless a determination is made as mentioned in sub-paragraph (5), OFCOM must, in aggregate, charge providers of regulated services additional fees of an amount equal to the outstanding amount.
(5) The Secretary of State may, as soon as reasonably practicable after the publication of OFCOM’s statement, make a determination specifying an amount by which the outstanding amount is to be reduced, and in that case OFCOM must, in aggregate, charge providers of regulated services additional fees of an amount equal to the difference between the outstanding amount and the amount specified in the determination.
(6) Additional fees mentioned in sub-paragraph (4) or (5) must be charged in respect of the charging year immediately following the last of the specified charging years (“year 1”).
(7) The process set out in sub-paragraphs (2) to (6) is to be repeated in successive charging years, applying those sub-paragraphs as if—
(a) in sub-paragraph (2), the reference to the end of the last of the specified charging years were to the end of year 1 (and so on for successive charging years);
(b) in sub-paragraph (6), the reference to year 1 were to the charging year immediately following year 1 (and so on for successive charging years).
(8) Any determination by the Secretary of State under this paragraph must be published in such manner as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(9) Sub-paragraphs (4) and (5) of paragraph 2 apply to the charging of additional fees under this paragraph as they apply to the charging of additional fees under that paragraph.
(10) The process set out in this paragraph comes to an end in accordance with paragraph 4.
End of the recovery process
4 (1) The process set out in paragraph 3 comes to an end if a statement by OFCOM under that paragraph records that—
(a) the recoverable amount is nil, or
(b) all of the recoverable amount is likely to be paid or recovered.
(2) Or the Secretary of State may bring that process to an end by making a determination that OFCOM are not to embark on another round of charging providers of regulated services additional fees.
(3) The earliest time when such a determination may be made is after the publication of OFCOM’s first statement under paragraph 3.
(4) A determination under sub-paragraph (2)—
(a) must be made as soon as reasonably practicable after the publication of a statement by OFCOM under paragraph 3;
(b) must be published in such manner as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(5) A determination under sub-paragraph (2) does not affect OFCOM’s power—
(a) to bring proceedings for the recovery of the whole or part of an additional fee for which a provider became liable at any time before the determination was made, or
(b) to act in accordance with the procedure set out in section 120 in relation to such a liability.
Providers for part of a year only
5 (1) For the purposes of this Schedule, the “provider” of a regulated service, in relation to a charging year, includes a person who is the provider of the service for part of the year.
(2) Where a person is the provider of a regulated service for part of a charging year only, OFCOM may refund all or part of an additional fee paid to OFCOM under paragraph 2 or 3 by that provider in respect of that year.
Calculation of the recoverable amount
6 For the purposes of a statement by OFCOM under paragraph 3, the “recoverable amount” is given by the formula—
C – (F – R) - D
where—
C is the total amount of OFCOM’s initial costs,
F is the aggregate amount of the additional fees received by OFCOM at the time of the statement in question,
R is the aggregate amount of the additional fees received by OFCOM that at the time of the statement in question have been, or are due to be, refunded (see paragraph 5(2)), and
D is the amount specified in a determination made by the Secretary of State under paragraph 3 (see paragraph 3(5)) at a time before the statement in question or, where more than one such determination has been made, the sum of the amounts specified in those determinations.
If no such determination has been made before the statement in question, D=).
Regulations about recovery of initial costs
7 (1) The Secretary of State must make regulations making such provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate in connection with the recovery by OFCOM of their initial costs.
(2) The regulations must include provision as set out in sub-paragraphs (3), (4) and (6).
(3) The regulations must specify the total amount of OFCOM’s initial costs.
(4) For the purposes of paragraph 2, the regulations must specify—
(a) the charging years in respect of which additional fees are to be charged, and
(b) the proportion of the total amount of initial costs which OFCOM must seek to recover in each of the specified charging years.
(5) The following rules apply to provision made in accordance with sub-paragraph (4)(a)—
(a) the initial charging year may not be specified;
(b) only consecutive charging years may be specified;
(c) at least three charging years must be specified;
(d) no more than five charging years may be specified.
(6) The regulations must specify the computation model that OFCOM must use to calculate fees payable by individual providers of regulated services under paragraphs 2 and 3 (and that computation model may be different for different charging years).
(7) The regulations may make provision about what OFCOM may or must do if the operation of this Schedule results in them recovering more than the total amount of their initial costs.
(8) The regulations may amend this Schedule or provide for its application with modifications in particular cases.
(9) Before making regulations under this paragraph, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) OFCOM,
(b) providers of regulated user-to-user services,
(c) providers of regulated search services,
(d) providers of internet services within section 67(2), and
(e) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
Interpretation
8 In this Schedule—
“additional fees” means fees chargeable under this Schedule in respect of the recovery of OFCOM’s initial costs;
“charging year” has the meaning given by section76;
“initial charging year” has the meaning given by section76;
“initial costs” has the meaning given by paragraph 1(3), and the “total amount” of initial costs means the amount described in paragraph 1(1);
“recoverable amount” has the meaning given by paragraph 6;
“specified charging year” means a charging year specified in regulations under paragraph 7 for the purposes of paragraph 2.” —(Chris Philp.)
This new Schedule requires Ofcom to seek to recover their costs which they have incurred (before clause 75 comes into force) when preparing to take on functions as the regulator of services under the Bill by charging fees to providers of services.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
The Chair
New schedule 1 was tabled by Carla Lockhart, who is not on the Committee. Does any Member wish to move new schedule 1? No.
We now come to the final Question in the proceedings. The Committee has finished its work.
Bill, as amended, to be reported.
Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill (Second sitting)
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Chair
The Committee agreed this morning not to meet in private to discuss the lines of questioning but to go straight to the questioning, starting with the Minister, then the shadow Minister and other Members. Are we happy to proceed with that? Okay. We can bring in our panel of witnesses.
Examination of Witnesses
Professor Robin Lovell-Badge and Alessandro Coatti gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Professor Lovell-Badge: I should say that dealing with plants and animals is not my day job—I work at an institute that is better known for medical research—but I do know an awful lot about genome editing methods and genetically modified organism techniques. I chair the Royal Society’s genetic technologies group, in which we discuss plants, animals and humans in this context. I helped to develop the Royal Society’s submission to the whole process at various stages.
I guess the main point that the Royal Society has been trying to make is that we are a little uncomfortable with having yet more regulations based on techniques rather than outcomes. For us, it would make much more sense to focus on the outcome—the purpose of what you are doing—rather than on the method you are using, partly because scientific methods evolve so rapidly that it is hard to keep track. When reading the first part of the Bill, which includes the definitions, I struggle in some places to understand exactly how certain techniques would fit into it. That is one issue.
If the argument is that genome-edited plants and animals are essentially the same as those that could be bred by traditional methods, yes, that certainly can be the case, but it is not always the case. To give one simple example, if you have two genes right next to each other in the genome, and they both need to be altered to have the trait that you are after—that is possible in normal circumstances—you can do that with genome editing, because you can target both genes at the same time. To do that by conventional, traditional breeding methods may be impossible, however, and it would certainly take an awfully long time to ever get both changes together in the genome. When two genes are next to one another, it is very hard to separate them in normal breeding processes.
There are all these complications that I envisage because that is what I do—I think about the techniques all the time. If your approach is based on outcomes, it is easier to justify, “I’m doing this; the outcome is this.” You can also judge what effect your change has on other things like farming practices, environment and so on. This is a little bit narrower, I think, in that respect.
The Chair
Thank you. Alessandro, please introduce yourself to the Committee, and then you will have questions from members of the Committee.
Alessandro Coatti: With pleasure. Thank you for having me today. I am one of the science policy officers at the RSB. I am biologist by training, and particularly a molecular and cellular biologist. At the society, I provide support to our animal sciences group. I look a lot at policy and research developments in the animal science field, so less so in the plant sciences, which are very important for the Bill. I have been involved, however, in writing our response to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs consultation on the future regulations in genetic technologies, and that is why I am here today.
I agree with Robin Lovell-Badge’s statement and with the approach that the RS takes. The RSB has also argued that it would be better to have regulations based on looking at the traits and products that you would develop using the technologies, and to monitor the impact in risk assessments of the outcomes, or the impact of the organisms. However, in our response we envisioned a bit of what is happening with the Bill, because there is a need to enable development and innovation on a faster timescale, in the sense that the United Kingdom has inherited the EU regulations that have a process-based trigger. They are designed to list a lot of technologies that are “modern” biotechnologies and not block their use, but make it subject to additional risk assessments simply because the technologies were new 30 years ago. They pulled out some of those techniques to create exemptions, to allow the use of mutagenesis in plant breeding in the past few decades.
Basically, we inherited that, so in a way I see what the Bill is trying to do: to define a new category of exempted organisms from that GMO framework that would allow research and innovation to progress faster in this country at this stage. However, this should not be the end of the story. There are good things in the Bill, but in order for the technologies to be properly regulated in the future, a move towards a truly trait and product-based regulation, which looks at the outcome, is really important.
I also commend the report of the Regulatory Horizons Council on regulations in genetic technologies. They consulted us and many other stakeholders, and they have provided a view on how the evolution of regulation in the UK could proceed.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Jo Churchill)
Q
Professor Lovell-Badge: I am, yes.
Jo Churchill
I would like to take a little from the narrative that you have given us, and from something that you stated in your returns to the consultation. Thank you for saying that the Bill has been consulted on widely; we are trying to get it right, so any advice would be gratefully received. You stated:
“If appropriately managed, precision breeding offers a route to achieving many potential and much-need benefits to society.”
That rather articulates your argument that it is outcomes-based. With that in mind, you stated that you support the advice of the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment that precision breeding poses no greater risk than traditional breeding methods. Can you explain why, and can you refer to whether you think the current regulatory framework has held up? I think that was what you were saying in the narrative about research and development. Where would you go with that regulatory framework in order to optimise the R&D so that we can evolve into being outcomes-based, both in environmental and human health terms?
Professor Lovell-Badge: Right. There is a lot there.
Jo Churchill
There is a lot there, but there was a lot in your opening remarks to try to encapsulate.
Professor Lovell-Badge: The first question was about risk, I believe. Generally, on the risk of a random mutation versus a genome-edited one, you are actually better off with a genome-edited one because you know what you are doing. Of course, there can be some examples where you might not know exactly what is happening. There is very little mention of human health in here and so there is concern about zoonosis, where an animal virus can jump to humans, for example. You could, in theory, make what you think is a fairly simple change to give a trait that you want, but inadvertently you allow an animal virus to jump to humans. That needs to be looked at, in terms of risk. Exactly the same thing can happen with traditional breeding, but I imagine it is not generally looked at. That is a risk.
Alessandro Coatti: The case that Robin used before is quite important, where you think about adding multiple changes to genes in the same organism. The Bill covers plants and animals, but it does not cover micro-organisms, which are an interesting aspect that we can discuss later. You also really have to think about the fact that the dynamics of the genomic changes in different organisms are different, just like the way they reproduce is different. The type of gene flow that you would see in plants is different from the one you would see in animals.
The case that Robin was discussing of adding multiple changes in neighbouring genes in an animal is harder, through traditional breeding, than it has been in plants. For example, you can mutagenise into this very big screening. You might get to that point faster in plants than in animals. Perhaps the fast pace where this technology now allows development is not, as you say, either a morally or a practically neutral question. It is interesting that the Government have decided to frame it as something that could have arisen through traditional breeding or spontaneously. There is a reason why that is. However, at some point, it becomes a bit stretched, because in traditional breeding it would take many generations, and it would be quite hard to do it in certain animals.
However, this is again talking about the techniques. When it comes to adding those two traits in neighbouring genes, you might end up actually making the life of the animal way better. That is why you look at the outcomes. By using genome editing, people have corrected genetic defects that have arisen traditionally in breeding, for example of cattle. There is this Japanese breed of cattle that has a genetic syndrome. With genome editing, they corrected it because it was due to a single gene. In fact, even if it were very unlikely that you might have done it with traditional breeding, it is a very valuable use and we should do that because it enhances the welfare and the health of the animal.
Jo Churchill
Q
Professor Lovell-Badge: The question would be: if someone made a plant or an animal where you have targeted two adjacent genes, would that be permitted or not under these rules? It is hard to think that it might be, because you could not simply do it by traditional methods. You might have to wait thousands of years and it would cost you a lot of money. That is the question.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Q
I want to explore something slightly different: the role of advisory bodies. You began to touch on that in your last answer. The Bill at the moment is very thin on what the advisory bodies are there to do. In some of your written evidence, both your organisations suggested that the different bodies should have some kind of remit to look at the wider public good. Could you say a little bit about that? I have been taken by the example of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, or some aspects of the work that it does.
Professor Lovell-Badge: I have been very much involved in the HFEA public engagement exercises. When you are considering a broad area, or potential uses and outcomes, it is really important to have proper public engagement, including democracy, dialogue, or however you want to refer to it, where you really get to understand what the public will think about a topic.
When it comes to assessing technical aspects, it will be challenging. It is fine to have a lay member on a panel, but I do not know whether consulting the public about really detailed, technical issues might be challenging. It depends on what the advisory committee’s role is and whether it is to look more broadly at potential uses and outcomes or to focus on the specific techniques that are being used.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Professor Lovell-Badge: This is another point. I was a bit confused because there is quite a lot of emphasis in the Bill on animal welfare and how they would have a role to play in that. If you are doing an experiment with an animal, you have to have Home Office approval. Animal welfare is a top priority. Many of the things that you might want to do would already be weeded out at that stage. If you wanted to make an animal that felt no pain, for example, you might just about be able to get away with justifying that for research purposes, but certainly not for developing any product.
The regulations about welfare are already there. Sure, it is important to have some input into your advisory committee that says, “This has to be looked at. Have they thought about all the consequences of what they are doing?” Exactly how you would achieve that under the Bill, I am not certain.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Professor Lovell-Badge: I know little about that.
Alessandro Coatti: It is an interesting new player, welcomed by many parties across the House. It looks like it will be an expert committee. Mostly the members will be people with relevant expertise in veterinary sciences, potentially neuroscience, so it would not be an arena for a public dialogue, but that is not to say that they cannot commission it and then take recommendations on board. In my view, they could play a role, but it would be hard. The new animal welfare committee that would overlook the authorisations in the Bill would look at a notifier that said, “We want to do this on an animal, but we do not foresee any health or welfare implications for it.” That committee would focus very much on the health and welfare of the single individual animal, but it is not clear to me whether it would consider higher-level questions such as, “What does it mean for the production of that livestock, the density, the husbandry and so on?”
Of course, the existing DEFRA Animal Welfare and Animal Sentience Committees could be brought in. You could say, “We have a new line of pigs that are resistant to this disease. On paper, it looks very good, because we made a very small, tailored change to a part of it, not a rough deletion of an entire gene. The animals under research and development look fine in contained circumstances and they are well. Would you be happy for us to license them to go on to a breeding trial to expand the number of animals from the 20 in the research study to 200, and to map whether there are any health and welfare impacts on a bigger number of animals?” Those committees could advise the new animal welfare committee on that matter.
Following on from that, the bigger question is: “What do we want for UK farming, agriculture and so on?” That is one of those pillar questions that bigger Government policy, not the Bill, will resolve.
Professor Lovell-Badge: My colleague makes a very good point. If you take things out into the field, the conditions are different from lab conditions in which you originally generated the animals. If you introduce another breeding programme, or a different genetic background, the consequences of what you have done could change. It is the same with traditional breeding, but on all those things, there needs to be long-term feedback. As you would have with humans in clinical trials, you get a phase 3 clinical trial in which you get a lot of people feeding back information—much more than in a phase 2 trial—and then there is always post-market reporting whereby any adverse effects are notified over the years.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Professor Lovell-Badge: Nor do I.
Alessandro Coatti: Under clause 11, when a marketing notice is given in relation to a precision bred animal, the Secretary of State reserves the right to get information from the notifier, over a specified period of time, about the health and welfare of the animal, so that is already covered in the Bill.
Professor Lovell-Badge: But how you do that is not clear.
Alessandro Coatti: No, and a lot will depend on very good guidance from DEFRA or ACRE about how to do that. But that power is in the Bill, at least.
Again, the need for post-marketing monitoring comes down to the trade that you are introducing, not whether you use a technique. It will be important for whoever advises the Secretary of State to be able to tell them, “This change warrants longer-term monitoring, but this other one does not, because we have seen it in the species over many years. This is just a better way of doing it, and it will not dramatically alter what we already know about the trait.”
Professor Lovell-Badge: Remember, many genes have effects in multiple tissues, so you may be focused on changing something—modifying CCR5 for HIV resistance, for example—but not realise that it may also be active and play some role in the brain. That is a clear example of where you may have an issue.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Q
“competition, innovation, consumer and environmental impacts”
should be included in the Bill. Would you agree that there is insufficient detail on that in the Bill currently?
Professor Lovell-Badge: I think I would agree it is insufficient. You have to factor in everything: the environment, farming practice—how whatever you are doing, whether it is with plant or animal, is going to fit in with or change farming practices. I think there needs to be a lot more thought about those issues.
Alessandro Coatti: I am not entirely sure I agree. Could you tell me again—those people said that the Government have not made a case for deregulation of these organisms?
Deidre Brock
Q
Professor Lovell-Badge: It depends. If you are saying it is the same as traditional breeding, then yes, it is probably the same, often, or very similar.
Alessandro Coatti: The case for deregulation—let us put it that way—is that basically, with these technologies, you can achieve changes in the genome that are potentially done already in traditional breeding. You are just doing it in a more energy and resource-efficient way—faster, etc. So there is definitely a policy case for this Bill, because research and innovation in this country can really provide those beneficial traits in plants and animals that we desperately need at the moment.
On the question whether this Bill captures all the potential impacts on the environment, for example, from a release of one of these organisms, you would think that the organisms that are passed through this Bill will not particularly need extra monitoring relative to the traditionally bred counterpart, if you see what I mean.
However, there could be boundaries or grey areas where a change could have arisen traditionally but it is not so common. Therefore, the committee should be able to trigger an additional risk assessment; and in my view, it looks like it can. Now, the question is this. On the environmental risk assessment, there is not much detail in the Bill—that is true—so it will be down to ACRE to provide more detailed guidance and analysis on how it would want the environmental risk assessment to be done.
Deidre Brock
Q
Professor Lovell-Badge: That is a hard one. The EU will have to change—that is my view—because it is going to be way behind other countries, too. We are not talking just about the UK and the EU; we are also talking about the US, Canada, Argentina and other countries. If the whole regulation about genetically modified organisms and genome editing is not made more compatible with actually getting on and doing stuff that is useful, the EU will suffer, because it will ultimately—
Deidre Brock
But the impact here, in the UK, on trade? Obviously, it is the UK’s largest trading partner, so if it continues to be—
Professor Lovell-Badge: I can imagine there could be an impact. It is hard for me to tell what that might be. It is not my area of expertise at all.
Alessandro Coatti: Yes, I would not be able to discuss in detail how that might be. You probably need to have experts on it. But I am aware that the Food Standards Agency has produced a report on these changes in regulations and this evolution across the globe, and there is definitely a case for the UK to try—we say we would like the UK to lead the way, as it has done with the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008. The UK could still lead the way by making legislation—regulation—that other countries would copy, but there is already a lot out there, so it has to harmonise with the regulations in other countries, such as Japan and Canada. It seems like the Bill is going one step in that direction. In terms of the relationship with the EU, as the closest economic partner and one of the biggest markets that the UK trades with, it is important for the UK, not necessarily to slow down excessively, but to maintain dialogue with the EU Commission while it reviews. The UK in the past has created legislation that the EU has then taken on. For example, when it comes to animals and research, the UK has led the way on the protections—eventually the EU adopted some of those elements. Even though the EU is not politically obliged to anymore, it could still value that.
Professor Lovell-Badge: You may be about to get to labelling. I think the registry is a good idea, because if someone wants to import something from the UK, at least it is then obvious that it could have been genome edited—otherwise they might not know.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
Q
Alessandro Coatti: In our response we commented mainly on plants and animals, while making some reference to other uses. There are already leading labs in the UK looking at genome-edited livestock species, for example, and how doing genome editing in those species could be beneficial on many levels. I am quite sympathetic to the fact that animals are included in the Bill, even though there is less of a history of genome editing, and genetic modification, in animals than there is in plants.
It seems to me that more safeguards are added here for animals than for plants. There is animal health and welfare assessment as part of the Bill. With animals, it seems clear to me—but Robin can correct me—that genome editing can be used quite safely. We are talking about the techniques and the process, not the outcomes and the traits. If you look at the techniques with the animals, with a number of species you can be pretty sure that you are making the right change in the genome that you wanted and that you are not adding unwanted changes anywhere else. We can say that there are not many additional risks when it comes to technique, relative to traditional breeding. However, that still has to be caveated a bit.
Professor Lovell-Badge: Some of the methods of genome editing are now so efficient and precise that I do not think it is a great concern, but you always have to check. There are good ways of checking what you have done and what you have got. I would not be that concerned. You would have to check the original animal that has been modified, but once you get to subsequent generations, you will be pretty certain of exactly what you have, and of anything wrong. The methods are being used in humans for somatic genome editing. We know a lot about them and how accurate and safe they can be.
Alessandro Coatti: We pointed out two things in relation to the methodological aspects. Robin mentioned one aspect before: how the gene relates to the phenotype. You change something and then you have a trait change in the animal. Some genes have functions in different organs and tissues, so you want to ensure that by doing something you are not messing up something else. That can be done and has to be done as part of the Bill—you should make sure that it will be done.
The other question is about the reproductive techniques you sometimes use to work on the embryos. Those can also have health and welfare implications for the animals, but it should all come down to an expert committee reviewing the application for the genome edited animals, which could say, “Okay, it looks like they checked everything they should have on the technique.”
The Chair
Order. Sorry to interrupt, but that is the end of the time allocated for this panel. I want to thank the panel very much for coming today to give evidence.
Examination of Witnesses
William Angus, Professor Johnathan Napier and Professor Nigel Halford gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from William Angus, owner of Angus Wheat Consultants Ltd, who will join us via Zoom, Professor Johnathan Napier, research group leader, and Professor Nigel Halford, who is a crop scientist. Both are from Rothamsted Research and are with us in person. Could you introduce yourselves for the record? I will go first to William Angus.
William Angus: My name is Bill Angus—christened William, but anyway. I am a wheat breeder, and my job is to breed new varieties of wheat. I have been doing it for quite a long time. I started in the public sector at the Plant Breeding Institute, and then moved to the private sector with Nickerson. I started my own wheat breeding and oat activities in 2016, which has resulted in us being the largest privately owned wheat and oat breeder in the UK. That is not too hard, because the agricultural landscape is dominated by multinationals. I am also vice-chairman of the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre board of trustees in Mexico. This is the largest publicly funded wheat programme on the planet, breeding for 200 million hectares. To put that into context, that is 100 times the size of the UK. Their focus is primarily on the developing world.
Professor Napier: Hello. My name is Johnathan Napier. I am a project leader at Rothamsted Research. I am a plant biotechnologist. I have a degree—PhD and DSc—from the University of Nottingham. Rothamsted is a publicly funded research institute. I am passionate about using basic research for public good and translation. I am very keen to see the research move beyond just discovery. I ran the first gene edited field trials in the UK in 2018. I have run GM field trials at Rothamsted since 2011 or 2012, and I am looking forward to talking with you.
Professor Halford: I am Nigel Halford. I am also at Rothamsted Research. I have been there a long time—all through the biotech period. In fact, I was involved in GM wheat trials in Bristol in the 1990s. Like Johnathan, I am very passionate about taking our research through to products that are actually going to help British farming, agriculture and consumers. I am currently running a gene edited wheat field trial at Rothamsted. We are looking at reducing the acrylamide content of wheat products, so it is a food safety target.
Jo Churchill
Q
From the point of view of small and medium-sized enterprises, do you think this Bill will help smaller players to have some access to market, or would you like to see this Bill enable smaller breeders, such as yourself, to have access to these technologies?
William Angus: That is a good question. I have worked for a large multinational company. I was interested to hear both Johnathan and Nigel talk passionately about public good—that is what I do. When I was at the PBI this was part of your culture and it became part of my culture when I was at Limagrain.
I love the entrepreneurial spirit that we have in the UK. We started off this, which may be considered by some to be a slight mission of madness, but I had the opportunity to do it. We started in my lounge, then we moved to the greenhouse and then the garage, and now we have built up quite a significant activity.
I am worried about perhaps an agenda that this could be dominated by large multinationals, although one of the joys of wheat-breeding globally over the last 100-plus years has been the freedom to exchange germplasm. As soon as we start putting constraints on that, as soon as we start having people talking about ownership of genes and ownership of genetic material, or licensing genes that are already in the public domain, it starts to fill me with a great sense of foreboding.
Also, being on the CIMMYT board, I am really concerned and very passionate about the smallholder farmers that we have around the world. It has changed my life being on CIMMYT, in that it opened my eyes to the fact that there are millions and millions of people in very dire circumstances. Many people do not realise that the vast majority of farmers in the world are women.
So, yes, I am concerned about that and I would like to see some mechanisms whereby the freedom that currently exists for small companies, or individuals, to start up is not diminished. Therefore, I hope that some protection will be put in place.
Johnathan and Nigel may agree or disagree, but what we have in the UK is that, if you go back 40 years ago, we had a publicly dominating plant-feeding activity in the PBI. We have a really mature situation now. Globally, we are probably the best, and I have seen a lot around the world, of having these public-private partnerships. These guys at Rothamsted, or the John Innes Centre, or whatever, cannot take it to the market and we have a wonderful relationship with them, in that they do the fundamental research and then we, as the plant breeders, translate it into the field. And I include the multinationals in that.
We have a very mature situation and we must make sure that, whatever comes out of this Bill, that relationship is not damaged in any way and continues.
Jo Churchill
Q
However, I will direct my next question to both professors, in the hope that you both cover it to a degree. You have both expressed a passion, and have longevity about looking at this issue, and I think it was Professor Halford who said that he was involved in the GM trials in the ’90s. Can you please help us to understand how far we have come and say what benefits we should try to capture through this Bill in order to drive things forward?
Professor Halford: Any target you can think of for plant breeding—whether it is something that aids farmers, such as nitrogen-use efficiency or simplifying weed control, climate resilience, which is an urgent problem that we have to address in agriculture, or the kind of things that we are working on, benefits to consumers—gene editing can play a role in it. It is not sweeping anything else aside, but it certainly enables you to do some things that other methods in plant breeding do not allow you to do. That is what we are talking about.
Professor Napier: Nigel and I are veterans of the GM of the ’90s, the problems that emerged from that and the hiatus of seeing none of our research translated for a decade. Then, at Rothamsted, we restarted GM field trials in 2012, just because we realised that there was this urgent need to translate the research. The UK has a fantastic reputation for doing basic plant sciences, making lots of fantastic discoveries in labs, but that is no good to feed people or to solve the challenges of climate change and food security. You cannot eat promise; you really need a product.
The reason I am in agriculture is that it is the ultimate scalable solution: once you demonstrate that you can grow something in one field, you can grow it in a million fields. But until you have actually done it in the first field, you do not know whether the technology works. That is the exciting thing that has already changed in the regulation in the past few months—it is easier to do experimental gene edited field trials. Nigel and I are doing those at Rothamsted under the new regulations, and that is great, that is enabling. That is what we need.
We want to enable the technology to advance, which is not to say that we ignore the importance of safety and all those other things. On one level, it goes without saying that those are important, but it should not go without saying—you have to say that those are of paramount importance. What we want is enabling regulation. I am not totally sure I have answered your question, but it gives you the idea.
Jo Churchill
Q
Professor Napier: That is exactly right. Even if you look at the situation in the US, which is imagined to be the most tolerant and enabling of regulatory environments for GM, for example, it still costs probably $10 million to deregulate a crop. That is an utter barrier to entry to any small or medium-sized enterprise. The reason why the market is dominated by the large corporations is that they are the only people who can afford to pay those costs. If the barrier to entry is lower, basically you make it much more open to the more entrepreneurial, smaller, nimbler but less deep-pocketed organisations.
Professor Halford: The GM revolution is now a generation old. It is a 20th-century technology. We see varieties in the Americas and Asia with multiple input traits, output traits, insect resistance, herbicide tolerance, high lysine with a cherry on the top. None of that is available here—absolutely nothing, not a single GM crop plant grown commercially in the UK. We have completely missed the boat on that one, and it is really important that we do not miss the next boat.
We will have to go some way to persuade plant breeding companies, biotechnology companies, that there is a market in the UK. Currently, I can tell you, nobody is thinking about developing a GM or GE commercial crop for the UK or Europe. We will have to have regulation in place that gives breeders confidence that when they get their product to market, they can actually sell it. If my wheat all pans out, it works really well and I hand it to breeders to incorporate into their breeding programmes, we are still talking probably five to 10 years before we could possibly see anything on the market. That is a lot of work and investment. So farmers need to be confident that, at the end of that, they have a market.
The Chair
I remind people that we have until 3.15 pm for this session. A couple of Members have caught my eye. I will start with Daniel Zeichner.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
William Angus: At the moment, what I would like to see is no change to the status quo. Let us take this as an example: company A produces a variety and he introduces a trait into that variety. In two years’ time, once that variety has been added to the UK national list, another breeder can use that trait. That is the freedom to operate. It is really important that that is sustained and that people are not locked out of new developments. What may happen—this is an area I feel quite uncomfortable with—is that we may start to see larger organisations move the goalposts in terms of trying to stop other breeders from using genetic resources that have been developed.
Now, I am quite happy—here, we develop our own genetic resources and we give those away freely, to anybody. If anybody on the Committee would like some wheat, I will send them some genetics, no problem at all. That is freedom to operate. That is really all that I would look for—that we do not change the current status so that people think that, somehow, a naturally developed product or a GE product is any different, and that there is still that freedom to operate.
Can I make one comment on Johnathan and Nigel’s remarks? I have sat on a number of Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council committees. I chaired the horticulture and potato initiative and so on. I am not saying this because they are here, but the UK is absolutely blessed with the best public research on wheat around the world. They are absolutely right to make the point about the fact that this is not developed as well as it could be, primarily because the promotion system is based on paper publications. It is lovely to hear both of these guys talking about taking stuff to the market. That would be another comment that I would make. It is great to hear.
Going back to your question, let us be careful that there are mechanisms in place to protect this freedom of exchange of germplasm that happens not just in the UK but globally. It is really important that we do that. There have been steps in America to patent genes. We really must not go down that route. In my opinion, it will stifle innovation and it would put the control of our food supplies in the hands of large multinationals, which I would be very concerned about.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
William Angus: Yes. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say it occurs naturally and then I am going to change it and now it is different. I agree.
It is very difficult when I come from the environment I do—my views tend to be slightly different from those who come from large multinational companies—but I think it is a really important point, that we protect innovation from big companies and so on, but that we also protect the right of individuals to start up their own businesses. The way I look on it is, you know, Richard Branson started Virgin Atlantic—he was allowed to do that. One man started with one aeroplane, and off he went; brilliant, great, good for him. It would be sad if people like that or companies such as easyJet were excluded from the market because someone said, “This is an aeroplane, and you’re not allowed to fly it.” I would like to reiterate that we need that protection in there.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Professor Napier: I think it was mentioned earlier that with innovation, it probably needs to be developed as a public-private partnership, which sort of implies that there needs to be a market pull. Using the term “market” can be slightly perturbing because, in reality, the drivers for what we want to see translated are much bigger than the economics. They are things like global climate change, food security and all the global pandemics associated with malnutrition and overconsumption. Those are the challenges enshrined in sustainable development goals and things like that. Those are the things that we should be occupying ourselves with. We need to use everything we can to try to fix those challenges. Rothamsted and other places like that—in fact, everybody—should be working towards those goals and overcoming those challenges.
Listening to what Bill said about IP, I spend an enormous amount of time thinking about IP because it is an area that I have to think about a lot. The beauty about the UK is that we have a really strong research use exemption, which allows us to operate in a way that is not encumbered, at least at the research level, by IP. We are in a really good place. I think the bigger barrier to innovation is what I have already mentioned: it is not IP but the cost of regulatory approval. That is why I am so worried that in new legislation, if we start building in layers of costs associated with more regulation, we are just replicating what we had previously under the EU regulation. I think that would be an enormous missed opportunity if we go down that road. That is my personal view.
Deidre Brock
Q
Professor Napier: You cannot patent a gene. There was a case in the US that made it quite clear that you cannot hold a patent on a gene. That legal precedent is quite clear, from the famous case of Myriad. I am not too worried about that. In reality, it is analogous to what you see in the pharmaceutical sector and relates exactly to your point about understanding the drivers for innovation. You need to couple it with economics.
All these things are moving parts, which you need to make the whole thing work. To pull it forward, you need to have an economic case and some form of protecting your invention—patents are a good way of doing that. The example I always give is that my mobile phone probably has 2,000 patents-worth of components in. Nobody gets upset about that. It is about understanding how you can best use this technology. I also do not want to sound like some sort of gung-ho free marketeer, because I am absolutely not. I work in a Government-supported institute. I do not work in the private sector. I probably want the best of both worlds.
Professor Halford: As public sector scientists, at times in our careers we have been told we should be patenting everything, and at times in our careers we have said, “Well, it's unethical to be patenting this stuff.” I think we have a pretty robust patents system. You cannot patent discoveries of genes; you have to patent an invention. That seems to have worked for mobile phones and it works with pharmaceuticals, many of which are biologicals. I do not see why it cannot work in crop high technology.
Deidre Brock
Q
Professor Halford: We have used CRISPR-Cas9 to knock out a gene that makes an amino acid called asparagine, which gets converted to acrylamide. That is our target.
Deidre Brock
You are giving Hansard a few challenges today.
Professor Halford: Acrylamide is a processing contaminant, so it only forms during processing; it is not in the plant. For consumers, it is not an issue—we could talk about that all day—but it is quite a big regulatory compliance issue for the food industry. We are trying to reduce the potential for acrylamide to form during processing by reducing the amount of asparagine in the grain of the wheat. That is where we are at the moment.
Because you do a GM step to put the CRISPR machinery into the plant, some of those components are still in most of the plants we have, so the field trial is running under GM regulations at the moment. The editing has been done, and it has worked. We have very low asparagine wheat grain growing in the glasshouse, at least. We are in the process of crossing away the GM bit, and we do have some plants now—not in the field trial, but under glass—that are now GM-free. They are a qualifying higher plant, and we have registered them as such.
Deidre Brock
Q
Professor Halford: We have five plant breeders working with us. If it pans out in the field and it all looks good, we could hand our genotypes over to those breeders and they could start incorporating the trait into their breeding lines. That process would take probably five to 10 years. We have five years’ consent to run the field trials. You need several years before you are going to convince a breeder that your trait is stable and it will give them what they need. There is nothing rapid about the process.
Clive Lewis
Q
Professor Napier: In my opinion, it is regulatory approval that is the barrier.
Clive Lewis
Why? What does that do?
Professor Napier: It is mainly the cost and the uncertainty. If you think about the way GM crops are regulated, for example, in the US it will cost you something like $10 million and take several years to get regulatory approval. In Europe, you could spend that money two or three times over, and because the approval process also has a political component, it will never be approved, so you have this uncertainty. From an entrepreneurial point of view and a commercialisation point of view, what you want is certainty. Even if you think, “Okay, the horizon is five years and I know I need to spend $10 million,” at least you know what it is. If there is uncertainty, I am not going to go on “Dragons’ Den” and say, “Here is my pitch. I don’t know how much it’s going to cost. I don’t know how long it’s going to take. Can I have some money, please?” I suspect they will tell me to—
Clive Lewis
Q
I am interested in your views, as individuals who operate in the private-public sphere. When it comes to food security and the climate crisis, I would have thought that profit maximisation will probably not be the route map to solving those problems. What is going to be needed is a private-public partnership where we get the best of both, but some things may cost more. It is going to cost us to tackle the climate crisis; it is going to cost us to ensure that we can feed the world with a climate crisis in the 21st century, so it is even more important that we get the regulatory framework right and that it is robust. Freedom from regulations for businesses means freedoms against consumers, the public and those who do not have access to those sciences to be able to utilise them.
Professor Halford: Look at what has happened to GM technology in Europe. The last GM crop approved for cultivation in Europe was approved in 2010, I think. Only one GM crop is grown to any extent in Europe, and that got approval before it became difficult in the mid-’90s. So nothing is happening—for climate resilience or anything else.
Clive Lewis
That is the extreme version, isn’t it?
Professor Halford: Everyone pats themselves on the back and says, “We’ve got a great regulatory framework,” but nothing is happening. Burkina Faso has more experience—
Clive Lewis
Q
Professor Halford: The simple answer is that it has to be proportionate to the risk. You can also compare gene editing to what we have already. We already have chemical and radiation mutants; that technology has been going around since the 1950s. They are already on the market, with exactly the same kinds of genetic changes that gene editing introduces, but completely random.
Clive Lewis
Q
Professor Halford: You could make exactly the same comment about anything in plant breeding. The argument is, “Why should you look at gene editing as being different?” Is it more risky? Is it more likely to be misused? I would say no.
Clive Lewis
Q
Professor Napier: I know what you are trying to say. I tried to write an article about this a couple of years ago, taking the example of Golden rice, which was developed to deliver a public good and took decades to get to market. Why? Because it had been demonetarised. Effectively, all the economic drivers had been taken out of it, so the impetus for it to be delivered to market was not there. You could not monetarise it, which on one level is exactly as it should be: why should you be monetarising what is effectively misery—childhood blindness and things like that? But it also basically depowers the way the world works—the way that modern economies work. That is just the way of the world, isn’t it? We all know that.
I understand what you are saying. For us, we really want to see stuff applied and translated. People get far too hung up about intellectual property. I am not an IP lawyer, but I know a lot about IP. People feel it is a hindrance in plant biotechnology, but compared with the costs of getting regulatory approval, IP is not the barrier. The reason why we have all these big corporations dominating the field of plant biotechnology is that they are the only people who can afford regulatory approval.
When we ran GM field trials in 2012 at Rothamsted, there were big demonstrations about it. Most of the people had come from the Occupy London demonstration, so they were anti-globalisation protesters. They were protesting about the globalisation and corporatisation of the world; they were not actually that concerned about GM. That is not to dismiss their concerns, but that is what they were really worried about. You can end up conflating a whole load of things and saying, “These are all the things that people should worry about,” but I am not sure that is what you need to worry about. It sounds like I am telling you what to do, but I am absolutely not. There are other things to think about in the Bill.
Professor Halford: If you are going to say that you should regulate how people use the technology—can you do that?
Clive Lewis
Q
I am sorry, Mr Angus, that I have not brought you into this conversation very well, but that is not my job. If you would like to come back on anything—
The Chair
William Angus, would you like to say a few words on this subject?
William Angus: Yes, and I assure you that I will be brief. First of all, I have some comments about various things. This is not a short-term solution. It has been bandied about by many that this is like, “Oh, well, in three years we can do this and that.” We can develop genetic resources in three years already; we do not need that. I am actually a really big supporter of gene editing. I think it allows us to short-circuit when we have major key traits that will be of significant global benefit. Gene editing comes into that very well.
We already have a very strong regulatory system for national listing of varieties. The Committee may or may not know that currently, before we can put varieties into the marketplace, they have to go through a pretty robust national listing system. They have to be distinct, uniform and stable, and they also have to have a value for cultivation and use, so those mechanisms are already in place. I would feel confident that, by beefing them up a bit, we could cover the regulatory issues without huge quantities of over-regulation in terms of entry to the market.
I want to make the point that this is not the shortcut that people perceive it to be, because once you have your trait of interest, you then have to transfer it into a variety or something that is genetically good; then you have your in-house testing process, which is usually three to four years; then you have two years of statutory tests; then your wheat, for instance, gets a recommended listing, and then you have two or three years of seed modification. The idea that we can somehow wave a magic wand with gene editing and create something within three years is complete nonsense; it would take 10 or 11 years. This is the thing about plant breeding: it is a long-term venture.
I am weird—I admit that I am slightly strange. You are quite right that all the big companies are profit-driven. I have absolutely no interest in money, but as a plant breeder you can make a huge difference, not only globally but domestically. I suspect that if you have had a bit of bread today, you will have had part of a variety that I was involved with. That gives me a huge amount of satisfaction, and I hope you enjoyed the bread. That is what plant breeders do: it is about impact. Now that I work on a more global scale, it is helping so many people whom I have met who live on $2 a day. That is really the important part. I do not necessarily represent the interests of large multinationals, I am afraid.
The Chair
Thank you, William. We have less than a minute left. I know the Minister wants a quick question—it is less than a minute for your question and the answer.
Jo Churchill
Q
Professor Napier: Yes.
Professor Halford: Yes.
William Angus: Yes.
Jo Churchill
This feels like “Britain’s Got Talent”. There we go; we have finished before 3.15 pm.
The Chair
That brings this session to an end. I thank all our contributors for a really informative session.
Examination of Witnesses
Roger Kerr, Steven Jacobs, Joanna Lewis and Christopher Atkinson gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Roger Kerr, chief executive, and Steven Jacobs, business development manager, both of Organic Farmers & Growers, and from Joanna Lewis, policy and strategy director, and Christopher Atkinson, head of standards, both of the Soil Association. All the witnesses are with us in person. We have until 3.50 pm for the session. Will each of you in turn introduce yourself for the record, and then we will come to questions?
Roger Kerr: My name is Roger Kerr. I am chief executive of Organic Famers & Growers. I am also a trustee of the Organic Research Centre, which is an independent organic research organisation. I am also a director of the Organic Trade Board.
Steven Jacobs: I am Steven Jacobs. I am the business development manager for Organic Farmers & Growers.
Joanna Lewis: I am Joanna Lewis. I am the policy and strategy director for the Soil Association and a trustee at the Food Ethics Council and at Sustain, the alliance for food and farming.
Christopher Atkinson: Hello. I am Chris Atkinson. I am head of standards at the Soil Association charity. I am also an elected board member of IFOAM Organics Europe, our European umbrella organisation.
Jo Churchill
Q
Christopher Atkinson: Organic is a regulated activity, so the requirements for organic production, including separation and segregation, are laid out in law. In the UK, that is currently a retained European regulation, No. 834. That mandates an inspection and certification system based on international norms for product certification. The way in which producers who are under the control system specified in the regulation notify their activity and interaction with independent third-party certifiers, such as Organic Famers & Gowers and the Soil Association, is described in that regulation.
It is very much a farm-to-fork regulation: it covers all parts of the production process, from the farm, beyond the farm gate, right through to the point of sale. There is complete traceability, which is overseen by the certification bodies and maintained through record keeping and some elements of testing and checking, which are carried out both by those who are subject to the regulation and by the certification bodies that oversee their activity.
Roger Kerr: The question was also about the risk of GM to the supply chain.
Christopher Atkinson: Yes. At the moment, there is prohibition of GMOs in organic production, and organic producers rely on the current labelling regime to verify and identify freedom from GM. There is also a testing regime based on detection thresholds for GM specified in the legislation, and there are duties both on the producers and on the certification bodies to apply those requirements.
Jo Churchill
Q
Joanna Lewis: Your mention of PRRS offers a good way to explain why the global organic movement currently does not support the genetic engineering approach. That movement is very much founded on the principle that you harness natural processes to stop pest and disease problems arising in the first place. For instance, PRRS is widely accepted to be a disease that arises from industrial farming systems as a result of overcrowding. The crucial thing is to make sure that there is a public interest test at the heart of the Bill, and that is what we are calling for.
We noted that the Regulatory Policy Committee has raised a red flag about the impact assessment—I am sure that it has been discussed before. We found that the impact assessment had overlooked three crucial areas: first, clearly, the freedom of choice for citizens; secondly, the needs and interests of organic agroecological farmers and growers, who have a key role to play in the Government’s ambitions for a sustainable farming transition; and, thirdly, the impact on the Government’s ability to achieve their own really important legal biodiversity and climate targets, and to address their professed concern about animal welfare and their desire to improve those welfare standards.
One does not need to doubt the good intentions of the research institutions that are involved in the research, but there are strong commercial drivers at play here. It is no accident that current and recent developments on gene editing of crops relates overwhelmingly to herbicide resistance. When you have four companies controlling 60% of the global seed market and two of them, Bayer-Monsanto and ChemChina, which owns Syngenta, account for more than half the agrichemical market, it is no accident that there is that commercial bias.
When it comes to the interests of farm animals, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics held a public dialogue on gene editing and farmed animals. The concern expressed by the public, now backed by the support of the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, and Sciencewise—I am on the oversight group for that dialogue—was clearly centred not so much on the distinctions between gene editing and conventional breeding, but on the fact that the direction of travel for conventional breeding had been to prioritise traits that came at the expense of animal welfare and which facilitated the keeping of animals in inhumane industrial farming systems. The concern was that gene editing might accelerate that trend.
That brings us back to the question of where the public interest test is that could allow the Government to do more than just presuppose and gamble on the benefits of this for climate, nature and health. Norway has developed a gene technology Act, which places that public interest test at its heart. I do not know if that has been discussed yet, but there is a test that requires evidence of community benefit and support for sustainable development, so we would like to see that considered in the deliberation of this Bill.
Steven Jacobs: Just to pick up on where we stand as an organic control body, our role is to maintain integrity through the whole chain of custody, from farm to fork and from seed to shelf. You cannot necessarily tell that a bottle of milk is organic by testing it—actually, there could be tests for that. You can tell a bottle of milk is organic because we have inspected every stage of the process. According to our licensees—and we license more than half the organic land in this country—that is not onerous. They already do various certifications, such as Red Tractor. Our inspectors will be able to do two, three or four of those in one visit. Asking the same question can generate two, three or four certification requirements.
The situation we have is one where there is an established market. In this country, it is worth around £3 billion. Globally, it is worth around $100 billion. It has been going for 60 or 70 years. The regulatory regime has been in existence since the early ’90s. That integrity is accepted in the marketplace and is being bought by shoppers. In the consultation, something like 85% of respondents said it was not that they necessarily objected to gene editing, but they would like to see existing regulatory frameworks upheld. We work in a regulatory framework. We have ISO standards. We are audited by a Government-approved auditor every year. That is how we ensure that that integrity is maintained. For us, those customers have said they do not want GE or GM.
Jo Churchill
Right, okay. I am not sure that I entirely understand why you feel it would be any different with GE, which is a completely different technique—with all due respect—from GM. If I could tease out that animal welfare point, you are predicating your argument on the idea that everything is detrimental on a welfare front. Surely the eradication of avian flu—particularly as we have had the challenge in the last year—would be beneficial to free-range birds as well. I am keen that the rest of the Committee has its chance to contribute, though.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Roger Kerr: From an organic regulatory basis, as Chris has already indicated, GE is still defined as GM. We need to be much clearer about what GE is being defined as, and we still do not have that clarity. As things stand, it is not allowed within the organic regulation, so the risk is where there is a lack of co-existence measures in place, which means that organic crops are contaminated. Organic consumers make these purchasing decisions because they believe they are avoiding GM, and that is a right they should have.
By not having robust co-existence measures in place, we are obviously putting our consumers at risk, because they are purchasing organic products on the basis that they do not believe they are consuming GM. It is a personal choice—I am not saying that you should not—and the organic sector is not saying per se that we should not have genetic editing. What we are saying is that it is incompatible with organic. Organic is out there, and there is a market for it, as Steve has clearly stated. There is a significant opportunity, both domestically and internationally, for the UK organic sector.
We should protect the organic sector, and there should be some visibility in terms of GE—where it is being grown, what is being grown and what the potential risks associated with that are for the organic sector—so we can ensure that the organic sector remains free from GM or GE, as it is at the moment. There is concern that if we are looking to provide consumers with the choice of having GE or not, we will end up with quite a significant cost within the supply chain to ensure co-existence, in terms of space and time, between GM and non-GM. This is not organic per se; it is just GM and non-GM. We will then have to have extra storage, more vehicle movements and a much higher level of testing. There are concerns that, without real clarity about what is going on and where the potential points of contamination arise, a significant cost will be borne by the food sector, which is already under significant pressure.
Joanna Lewis: I understand that you are addressing us as the organic industry and the organic sector, but I just want to reiterate that the Soil Association is a charity of 70 years’ standing that represents all citizens, farmers, growers and scientists who want to see a mainstream transition to agroecological farming and regenerative farming for climate, nature and health.
The response to the consultation on the Bill—85% of people and businesses were opposed—reflects a deeper unease not just about the safety issues and technicalities around the distinction between gene editing and GMOs. That is what I was trying to bring through with reference to the Nuffield Council on Bioethics’s public dialogue. It is really important to emphasise the very legitimate public concerns about the fact that breeding as a whole—plant and animal breeding—has been on an unhelpful trajectory that is not up to the challenge of the Government’s goals on sustainable farming transition. We therefore need to ensure that we are not accelerating that trend through carte blanche deregulation.
There is an opportunity to put good governance at the heart of this Bill, set that public interest test, and ensure full supply chain traceability, transparency and labelling for citizens who want and deserve the right to choose whether this is the solution for them. I would not want it narrowed down to saying we are representing an economic sector. This is a broader movement, and it is very much one for mainstream transition.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Joanna Lewis: I would really recommend that you look to Norway’s gene technology Act. I have not gone through it line by line, but it feels like a valuable precedent from a country that also sits outside the European Union and is looking at what governance can apply—to make sure we are not just presupposing the benefits. Commercial drivers are not given free rein, and if there is to be a relaxation of regulation, you can do it with the confidence that it is going in the direction of supporting more sustainable farming. I believe the test that it set is that something is of community benefit and supports sustainable development. I do not know whether that is fully adequate, but it is a precedent that is out there and merits some consideration.
Deidre Brock
Q
Christopher Atkinson: You are right in supposing that we feel the measures are insufficient. We need a high degree of traceability and the ability for organic producers in particular to understand where crops are being grown and the risk of contamination.
Roger Kerr: The other aspect is that, as we have heard from previous speakers, there is not going to be a significant amount of investment in producing this material unless there is sufficient visibility over where it is, because of the likelihood that it will disappear into the food system and the businesses that have developed the technology will not be able to recover the costs. There is an issue in understanding the full and public visibility over where these crops are being grown, who is growing them and where they are going, so that there is the opportunity to see where that product has gone, so that people can recover their investment.
Steven Jacobs: The Bill says that the organism is
“a marketable precision bred organism”
and
“the qualifying progeny of a marketable precision bred organism”.
One of the issues is what will happen if there are—and we are assuming there will be—many precision bred events put into one product, whether that is livestock or crops. In crops, for instance, you can have stacked traits. The issue is around that crop being bred with something else and some of those traits being passed over, perhaps unknowingly.
We have seen incidents where herbicide resistance has gone out into the wilder environment and that has caused problems. For instance, there was a case on the Swiss-Italian border where herbicide-resistant oilseed rape that was not grown in Switzerland was found on the railway. It had leaked out of the railway carriages. That is a problem because they spray herbicide to keep the railway sidings—all the ballast—stabilised. Now, they have a situation where there is a herbicide-resistant weed in a location that would normally be sprayed in order to keep the railway safe. There are incidents where one would need to see some measure of traceability in order to evaluate. It is not just our need; I would suggest that there is a public and commercial need.
Roger Kerr: On livestock, take a genetically edited bull, for argument’s sake—I have picked cows because I like cows. He will have sired innumerable daughters that will go on to be crossed back. They may be crossed back with a non-GE sire. At what point do they become non-GE? Obviously, going back through their parentage, there will be GE material in there. From our point of view—from an organic standpoint—the question is: at what point is it no longer a genetically edited animal, if its forebears were genetically edited? There is a lot of concern around how we manage this issue, how those things are defined and who, ultimately, owns the genetic material within that animal, albeit it is the great-great-great-great-granddaughter of something. There are concerns there.
Joanna Lewis: It also feels that the solution in terms of implementing supply chain transparency, traceability and labelling is eminently achievable. It does not feel like a big barrier to bring that into the scope of the Bill in order to address those concerns and allow the legitimate needs of citizens who reserve the right to choose to reject this technology, and to preserve the integrity of organic systems. We are obviously at a point in time where the industry is buzzing with big data supply chain solutions and wanting a whole new resurgence in food labelling to show the citizen everything about the provenance, origin and production practices of their food. It should not be a big barrier to this Bill’s intent to include that requirement for full supply chain transparency and labelling.
Deidre Brock
Q
All witnesses indicated assent.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Q
Some witnesses who gave evidence this morning said that it is not the Bill that is at fault. There is a completely separate argument, they said, about whether we want to increase the intensification and industrialisation of animal farming. Where do you sit on that argument? They said that the animal welfare codes deal with some of the concerns. I would say, however, that they are not operating in the right way at the moment, because we already allow a degree of intensification and, to my mind, animal welfare standards are not good.
On the separate issue of increasing yields from animals, cows produce an awful lot more milk than they would have done a few decades ago, and certainly a lot more milk than they need to feed their own calves. Where do you sit on the use of this technology for that purpose? Finally, do you think that the Bill’s provision for the Secretary of State to refer things to a welfare advisory body is a sufficient safeguard? Sorry, that was an awful lot of questions, and you do not have much time to answer.
Joanna Lewis: You asked whether you can separate the intention of gene editing to solve animal welfare problems from the broader challenge of facilitating the perpetuation of systems that result in very poor animal welfare. I think it is important that we bring these together—as the public brought them together in the Nuffield Council on Bioethics public dialogue. We know that conventional animal breeding trends have been to prioritise greater yield, litter size and fast growth over the welfare of sentient animals, and we know that the argument for gene editing is partly that it speeds things up and is likely, therefore, to accelerate those trends. The public were saying, through that dialogue, that this is where they want to see governance. They want the Government to come in and say, “This is our vision for the future of animal farming. This is how it is going to become a higher welfare system that also delivers for climate, nature and health. This is the role we want to see gene editing play in that context.”
I know that you will be hearing evidence from Compassion in World Farming on Thursday, and I know that amendments will be proposed to try to make sure that there are additional tests—which could be linked to the Secretary of State’s powers, secondary regulation or the role of the welfare advisory body—on whether these traits are going to focus on yield, litter size and fast growth and cause lasting harm to the welfare of the animal. Also, are they going to perpetuate, facilitate or enable a farming system that is very detrimental to the welfare of animals? Those are the amendments that will be coming through from animal welfare bodies.
Roger Kerr: In terms of the disease-resistance issue, we have to be really careful about how we approach this. What we have seen, albeit through the use of antibiotics, is the reduction of disease. Again, unfortunately, I am referring back to the dairy industry. We have seen farmers driven to reduce cell counts in dairy cows to a point where the cow’s immune system has been suppressed to such a degree that the more virulent diseases come in, because there is not the natural, more benign flora around any more. Therefore, you have cows going down with E. coli and other things, which is killing them. We have seen this continual drive to reduce the immune system and reduce the cell count.
What we have found more recently is that allowing the cow to have a more natural immune system actually allows it to live a longer and healthier life. We have to be really careful when we start talking about disease that we do not start messing with something but then find that we end up with a whole lot of unintended consequences in terms of opening the animal up to other disease implications. Ultimately, we will just end up on the same old wheel of trying to continually firefight because the animal is going down with disease.
On the yield aspect, again, we can keep saying, “Oh, well, we can genetically breed them to produce high yield,” but what we find is that the longevity of the animals is massively impacted. These cows that can produce 12,000 or 15,000 litres of milk do not live very long because, unfortunately, cows are just not designed to do that. We have to be really careful about what we consider to be a farm animal and what it is there for. If we continue to drive it, we are effectively supercharging its physiology, and therefore it will ultimately not be able to live as long.
Using cows as an example, if you go into a collecting yard or a cubicle shed, you will see the cows breathing really quickly, even though they are lying down, because their physiology is going so fast. What we are effectively doing at the moment is turning what was a very low-input, low-output animal into a Formula 1 car. Unsurprisingly, they do not cope with it and they fall over. What we are doing now in terms of genetically editing is stepping that up a whole other gear. We have to be really careful about what it is that we are seeking to achieve here, and I think we have to look, in terms of welfare, not only at disease resistance but at longevity, quality of life and ability to withstand other disease impacts.
Kerry McCarthy
Q
Roger Kerr: It can affect—
The Chair
Order. I just point out that we only have just over two minutes.
Roger Kerr: Sorry. Chris was going to say something.
Christopher Atkinson: Going back to what you said about what sort of tests should be applied to animals by any regulatory committee, the Farm Animal Welfare Committee introduced the concept of a good life for animals. Our view of animal health and welfare is based on positive aspects of an animal’s life. You have referred to the codes of practice; generally, they are based on absences of harm. For a long time in animal welfare science, absence of harm was equated with good welfare. We have moved significantly beyond that, so we would encourage you to look at the good life framework and ensure that those tests for a good life for animals are applied to any traits and outcomes.
Roger Kerr: On your point about slaughterhouses, we talk about a good life, but we also talk about a good death. It is important to recognise that a lot of stress is experienced when animals have to be moved a significant distance, or even away from the farm and environments that they are familiar with. The fundamental issue is how many abattoirs we have and how far animals have to move. To say, “Oh, well actually, what we’ll do is we’ll genetically manipulate their genes so that we can transport them hundreds of miles before we kill them,” seems to be a perverse and illogical approach.
Kerry McCarthy
Q
Roger Kerr: I am not sure. We were talking about dairy cows, which, as you know, are not bred to be eaten. Beef animals would be different again. There is an issue around stress with killing an animal, but that is more about the environment that it is in. I think we should look at that in a holistic way in terms of the environment and not necessarily just say, “Let’s tweak something so that we can still treat—”
The Chair
Order. I am afraid that I am going to have to bring the session to an end. Our allocated time is over. I thank you all for another interesting session.
Examination of Witnesses
Dr Richard Harrison and Professor Giles Oldroyd gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Dr Harrison: I am Richard Harrison and I am director of crop research at NIAB. NIAB is an independent research organisation based around the country. It receives both public and private funding, and it sits in the area of strategic and translational research in crops. My role in NIAB is as the director of Cambridge Crop Research, which encompasses most of the arable crop research we do in the organisation. That include genetics, biotechnology and some of the statutory work that we deliver in seed certification and variety valuation for the Animal and Plant Health Agency on behalf of DEFRA. My own research is in the area of plant-microbe interactions in complex trait genetics. Most of that work has been done over the past 10 years in horticultural crops—strawberries, cherries, raspberries and other tasty things—where my group have worked on disease resistance but also developed and implemented gene editing technologies in those crops.
Professor Oldroyd: I am Professor Giles Oldroyd. I am professor of crop sciences at the University of Cambridge. I am a fellow of the Royal Society and I am director of the Crop Science Centre, which is an alliance between the University of Cambridge and NIAB. I am the University of Cambridge component of that alliance. My research focuses on how we improve the sustainability of farming systems, with a particular focus on removing the need for inorganic fertilisers from farming. I work on driving sustainability in developed-world farming, but also for smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa. I get most of my funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. I currently have a field trial ongoing in Cambridge that uses a combination of genetically modified lines as well as genetically edited lines.
Jo Churchill
Q
Professor Oldroyd: I think that the current Bill would be truly transformative in our ability to see impact from the foundational research that happens in many of our universities around the country. The UK is a world leader in plant sciences. It has been very frustrating for plant scientists to struggle to see impact from their research because of the restrictions that are placed on the release of potential products from their work.
I believe that gene editing is equivalent to what you can achieve from conventional natural processes, but the level of precision that it provides allows us to do things in a way that we could not—or found it difficult to do—when restricted to only what is available in the natural diversity of that crop. It really does allow us to move things from the lab to the field to the consumer in a manner that is much more straightforward, to apply the phenomenal knowledge that we have developed in plant research in the UK over the last 30 or 40 years, and really to drive what I believe is a crucial transformation in food production. We have phenomenal challenges facing us: we have to feed a growing population, drive sustainability and cope with climate change, all over the next 30 years. That is not easy and we cannot do it with our hands tied behind our backs.
Dr Harrison: I could not agree more with that synopsis. One of the major strengths in the UK is our fundamental research base. Over the past 30 years, we really have understood at a deep level how genes function—in plants and in animals—and the ability not only to capture what is there in nature through conventional breeding, but to use technologies that allow the directed introduction of mutations that could occur naturally but are not necessarily present or are not in the right pre-adapted germplasm. Bringing those into the gene pool and using them for crop and animal improvement is, as Giles says, transformative to our abilities to address the major challenges that we face in food production and the sustainability of food production.
Jo Churchill
Q
Professor Oldroyd: There are currently very tight restrictions on validating the health and safety of GM products. For products produced by conventional breeding, we also have tests with regards to their performance in the environment, their performance relative to other varieties and their health. We have a robust regulatory framework in place that addresses the safety of the consumer, and it has served us well over many decades. I cannot think of an example where we can say, “Okay, this line has caused genuine risk to human health,” and that is because of the regulatory framework that exists.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
My questions are about public confidence. We know that this has been a vexed debate over many years. There is fantastic science being done in Cambridge, but it often strikes me that the wider public have very little idea about it; that is hardly a unique issue there. Do you think there are sufficient measures in the Bill to secure the public confidence that is needed? If not, what extra could be put in to secure that?
Dr Harrison: The key point is proportionality. In all the preamble to the Bill, it is suggested that there is a proportionate response to how the technology is regulated. What we must never forget about gene editing and the scope of the types of changes that can be introduced is that they are indistinguishable from nature, so fundamentally we are not doing anything that could not happen or arise through natural processes.
The level and proportionality of the regulation of, and the transparency of, those products is important, and it is important that the public are aware, which I suppose is why there are systems in the Bill to register intent to put into the existing system gene edited products, but I do not think we need to stretch much beyond that. We have, as Bill Angus said, very well established regulatory frameworks in which to evaluate the performance of crops. We have the DUS system—distinctiveness, uniformity and stability—and we have the value for cultivatable use system. They have shown over many years that when varieties are put on the market, they are safe. The legislation that exists beyond that gives any country the right, if they find a problem with a variety, to remove that from what is the common catalogue in the EU, or, in our case, from our national list. As long as the proportionality is adhered to, the Bill is appropriate.
Professor Oldroyd: There are a lot of studies that have looked at the general public’s position on biotechnology. There are really only a few at either extreme—who absolutely support it outright or who are very scared of it. Most of the general public are looking to people like me—to scientists—and to the regulatory framework to define what is safe to consume.
Within precision breeding, as is intrinsic to the Bill, is the fact that these are events that could happen by exactly the same natural diversity and so already could be introduced, theoretically, through a conventional breeding process. One of the issues is that some—in particular, those on the previous panel—have taken as a presumption that anything that is biotechnology is inherently dangerous, and that is not correct. It is not correct to say that just because it is being developed by this mechanism there is an inherent danger in that approach. That is the erroneous position to take when comparing with conventional breeding.
We use many varieties that have been generated by mutagenesis breeding, by double haploid production. These are conventional breeding approaches. There is very little about gene editing that is different from that in the end product; it is just how you get to that event.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Dr Harrison: My personal view is that I do not think there is any scientific rationale to have additional labelling criteria for gene-edited products, because they are fundamentally indistinguishable from nature. There is a sort of logical incoherence in saying, “Well, they are indistinguishable in nature, yet we must discriminate and show that they are different.” I think there is transparency in the system because there is a register. When farmers choose to grow varieties or there is a protected chain of production to discriminate one set of things from another, people are growing varieties—it is not magicked out of thin air. When people are planting, they will know whether it is a gene-edited variety or not. That is the point at which the choice can be made. I do not think there is any scientific rationale for then extending that labelling requirement to the post-marketing of products.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Dr Harrison: Everybody has said, and many panels have shown, that there is a need, when you are bringing a new technology into the market, to have an additional level of transparency in order to inspire public confidence. I think the question is what level of balance you need for public confidence. I think that the registers are there in order to say, “This is a product that has been produced with this technology,” and there is therefore then the ability for people to choose it, should they want to. That is what I see them being there for—to give people freedom of choice.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Dr Harrison: That is why I was saying that, at the time of planting, people can choose. The supply chain fits around that decision, at that point, much as it does with other production systems. To distinguish a gene-edited product on the basis that it is somehow different from a conventionally bred product is the thing that I am saying is a bit logically incoherent.
Professor Oldroyd: If I may add to that, the Bill itself states that only those that are considered to be equivalent to something that could be achieved by natural transformation are included under the Bill. So by definition we are saying that this product could be achieved by more conventional methods. Therefore, it is illogical to separate it out at some later stage and say, “This product is different”, when intrinsic to the Bill is the fact that it is not different. That is the only way it can be taken forward.
Daniel Zeichner
Which begs the question of why you had to register. However, I think we could probably go round in circles on this. Chair, I am quite happy for us to move on to other questioners.
Deidre Brock
Q
Professor Oldroyd: Let me describe how we get to the point. For instance, I have some gene-edited material out in the field right now and we measure everything we can possibly measure in that material, from its effect. These are affecting plant microbial interactions, so we are particularly looking, for instance, at what is happening in the soil. We have the wild type and we have the gene-edited line, so we can precisely compare, to understand any differences in the local environment caused by the gene-edited type or the wild type. That is intrinsic to the research programme and we have to do those field trials before anything even gets close to commercialisation.
Therefore, intrinsic to working with this material is that we are already putting it out in the field. If I then hand it to breeder, they will then be doing breeding in their lines with that material and also doing extensive field trials, testing many factors, according to their performance relative to other lines. Ultimately, if it gets released as a variety, then NIAB, under the jurisdiction from the Government, tests and compares those lines relative to other lines on their performance in the field.
So there are many points along this track where we are actually testing the performance—as a researcher myself; as a breeding company; and then as NIAB, creating the recommended list. There are multiple factors all along the way that are already intrinsic to the process.
Deidre Brock
Q
Professor Oldroyd: That is the process that we have put in for mutation breeding, for instance. For mutation breeding, I irradiate the seed to create mutations in the seed, look for the lines that give a trait that is useful, and then breed that into the conventional lines. That is already happening; it underpins a lot of our food production and we have a regulatory framework to ensure that what we are actually releasing out into the world is safe and effective.
Deidre Brock
Q
Professor Oldroyd: I think it is certainly sufficient for assessing the validity of material produced by methods that are no different from what happens in nature.
Deidre Brock
Q
Dr Harrison: Yes.
Deidre Brock
What are your thoughts with regard to, say, Mr Angus’s previous points about the ownership of genes or the licensing of genes, and trying to ensure that that does not become a problem for breeders such as Mr Angus, or indeed for growers. We have discussed that in a few panels, so I just wondered how his point could be addressed.
Dr Harrison: Bill was talking about the breeder’s exemption, which means that once a variety has been protected it is put on the market, and any other breeder can then take that material, cross with it and do onward work.
If I understand it correctly—this is an area that is changing rapidly—there is still uncertainty, as Jonathan Napier said, about what can and cannot be protected. Patenting genes is very difficult, so it is more likely that the technology will be protected than the genes themselves. Even so, there could be some instances where there is some level of protection around a particular trait.
There are schemes now being set up that would allow the breeder’s exemption still to apply in the event of a licensing for a particular gene-edited trait in that variety. So those systems are being set up by industry at the moment, because ultimately there is a win-win there, because the licence holder of the intellectual property will want to see that out there at some level, and the plant breeders will want to use the material. I am not an expert in this area, and I am not a legal expert, but I understand that there are schemes being set up to take account of that. That is only in the instances where stuff is actually protectable; most stuff probably won’t be protectable, so the breeder’s exemption will still apply and people can still cross with it.
The bigger issue—the one raised by Jonathan—is that if you have an overly burdensome regulatory landscape of pre-authorisation to take something to market, for many that will be the thing that kills the technology. It is really important that that proportionality remains. It is only for things that may substantially affect nutrition that you would go down a route whereby the FSA would even class it under novel food regulations. I would expect that the majority of things being developed are agronomic traits, which would—as they do in many jurisdictions, such as Canada—sit outside the purview of food standards and are not classed as novel food in any way. They would progress to the market just as conventionally bred things do at the moment.
Deidre Brock
Q
Dr Harrison: Do you mean in terms of additional—
Deidre Brock
If they take over and buy out smaller breeders, for example.
Dr Harrison: You have to look at the situation. The market is one thing, and the Bill is talking about gene-editing technologies and whether they are substantially different. Personally, I do not think that the two are really related.
Deidre Brock
Although it is certainly bound up in the arguments about gene editing and genetic modification.
Dr Harrison: In many ways, among the small and medium-sized enterprises such as Bill’s, in a landscape such as the UK, where there is a lot of innovation happening, there are start-ups starting now that want to do breeding and gene editing, so you may well see the opposite happening: a democratisation of the process and more people entering the market as the barrier to entry is much lower because of the regulation change.
Professor Oldroyd: The food production sector is no different from any other sector in this free market economy. I hear a lot of concerns about a few companies owning most of the seeds, but I do not hear the same about a few companies owning most of the drugs, cars, phones, clothes or any other product. That is a reality of our free market economy. The food production system is just like any other sector; there are major players who have a sizeable part of the market share.
Richard made a very important point. The phenomenal restrictions that are being put on traditional genetic modification have actually meant that only the big players that have deep pockets can use that technology. I feel as though we have ended up in the situation that most people feared, where a few companies have total control of a technology, and that is principally because of the cost of releasing those traits. If we follow the Bill and treat them as equivalent to conventional breeding, we absolutely liberate the technology for SMEs to get in the game. At the moment, they could not afford to do that with GM.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
Q
I do not think that is a model that I would want to apply to food. Some of us would like to see something more robust that did not make the mistakes that we have made on pharmaceuticals, for example. Food supply is critical, especially as we move through the 21st century with the climate crisis and a growing population. When I was asking you questions as a BBC journalist a long time ago, I was always struck by your passion for the science and for communicating the science. As currently constructed, does the Bill provide the protections we need? Outside your laboratories, away from the pure science, there are free-market corporations for which the bottom line is the end game and the main driver. Do you feel that this science is beyond abuse and beyond being used in the same way that perhaps big pharma have cornered those markets?
Lastly, I understand the notion that reducing barriers opens up the market to small and medium-sized companies, but the history of any industry shows us that big players begin to hoover up small players over decades, and you end up back in an oligopoly or monopoly situation. That does not necessarily have to happen, but that is what usually happens with new tech. There is a free-for-all when everyone piles in, but ultimately people sell up and move on, and the big companies hoover up. When you get past the science and it reaches the real world, do you feel that there is the opportunity for abuse? Does the Bill protect us from that?
Professor Oldroyd: With the caveat of clause 3, legislating gene editing as equivalent to conventional breeding is the best way to allow small to medium-sized enterprises to become involved in the technology. If you really want to see a break in major corporate ownership, lowering the barriers to how you get a product from that technology is almost certainly going to facilitate that. As I said earlier, the big problem currently with GM is that it is so costly to release a GM variety that only “the big four” can afford to do that. I think that taking this approach will help that ownership of lines.
Certainly from me, as a researcher, the Bill as it currently stands greatly facilitates me to work directly with plant breeders and move products through the conventional plant breeding mechanism into the market and on to the consumer. Some of that plant breeding is in the big four, but quite a bit of it is not. Those are more the medium-sized enterprises, not necessarily BASF or Bayer, although they do have a role in some of that. I think the current Bill will certainly facilitate that broadening of ownership of the technology and a speeding up of the impact to the consumer.
Dr Harrison: If I could add one small point, our public research institutes in the UK have a pivotal role to play here. We do research funded by the Government in this area and we publish that. We can protect it before or we can just publish it so it is free and able to be used by many.
You could really think strategically about how those research organisations are used to direct change in the way that one would want to see, so that varieties come on to the market either nearly complete, so breeders can take them up, which is often what happens, or even release complete varieties, as happens in many other countries, from public funded research organisations. Again, that allows freedom of choice, so varieties come on to the market that have traits that are desirable and do not suffer from the problem you point out, which is that some small companies may become subsumed into larger companies.
Thinking about it more broadly—this is outside the scope of the Bill—there is an absolute opportunity for the UK to lead on bringing those traits to the point at which they can be taken to market, in a variety of different ways that are not just dependent on the big four.
Kerry McCarthy
Q
Professor Oldroyd: I am probably the best person to answer that, because my research is entirely focused on trying to remove the need for the addition of phosphate and nitrate as inorganic fertilisers for food production. I am absolutely driven by a desire to have sustainable productivity for both rich and poor world farmers. Historically, I got most, if not all, of my money from the British or European Governments, but now, as I said, I get money from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and also from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. In that regard, it is absolutely policy driven for sustainable productivity for smallholder farmers.
Dr Harrison: I echo that. For the UKRI-funded research that NIAB delivers there are two key components. One is scientific discovery. When you are working in crops, that is about strategic discoveries of things that are important to the strategic objectives of the research councils. Of course, BBSRC is the primary funder of agricultural research in the UK. It is absolutely in that zone of looking at how crop science and net zero intersect and how we can generate more sustainable farming systems. Much of the research, even if it is discovery and frontier bioscience, always has a strategic element to it.
Kerry McCarthy
Q
Dr Harrison: There is certainly a clear research strategy.
Professor Oldroyd: Absolutely. In fact, it is more driven by that policy. The drive for sustainability is very much an active area of research in the public sector, probably more so than in the private sector. A lot of the public sector research is pushing towards some of those policy issues, in contrast to the private sector, which is looking principally at productivity.
Kerry McCarthy
Q
Professor Oldroyd: I guess so. The subsidies are changing quickly.
Kerry McCarthy
Q
Professor Oldroyd: In the case of my research, we hope that what we are testing right now in the field are lines that will be productive at lower levels of treatment of phosphate as a component of fertiliser. By that it is absolutely measurable how much fertiliser you are putting on the field relative to your productivity. The landscape for subsidies for farming is changing rapidly, and I think within that there are great opportunities for incentives for farmers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and sequester more carbon in the soil. The challenge will be how you measure that, and it is probably going to be by encouraging farming practices that we know on average reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Dr Harrison: I think you absolutely have to measure it at a farming system level; the genetics alone, in isolation, will not do it. Of course, the system that we have at the moment, the value for cultivatable use, includes some public good traits, for example, disease resistance traits, which are ones that have a clearly measurable environmental benefit, because you are reducing the amount of fungicide sprays and so on. There is absolutely scope to look at that system and ask what additional measures could be put in place to ensure that the varieties, whether conventionally bred or using new breeding technologies, have some level of enhanced environmental service. That is a big opportunity for the UK, because we sit outside the common catalogue, so we can define our own value for cultivatable use and national listing system. Again, we could be progressive in the way that we look at this, and lead the way in making sure that the things that breeders are asked to do to put varieties on the market meet the wider policy objectives of sustainable farming and emissions reductions.
Jo Churchill
Q
The Chair
May I jump in here? We have about four and a half minutes left, and Daniel Zeichner wants to ask a question as well.
Professor Oldroyd: A lot of eyes are focused on this country at the moment, with regard to how we approach this. We have to recognise that we influence quite a bit. Countries in sub-Saharan Africa are absolutely looking to Europe, to the UK, for leadership on this. Our position will influence internationally how these technologies are legislated for. Certainly, we have a lot. I am excited about the potential to drive up food production for smallholders, as well as the sustainability of farming practices here in the UK. The opportunities are immense. Definitely, having this, the ability to use gene editing, will facilitate that delivery both to smallholder farmers and to UK farmers.
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is definitely paying attention to what is happening here in the UK. With regard to additional investment, this Bill opens up opportunities for the UK. We are already a leader—we really are a leader in agricultural research—and I think it will position us even more greatly to be spearheading the impact of all that agricultural research.
Dr Harrison: I, too, see a big opportunity for the UK not only to lead, but to garner additional investment. At NIAB, where we operate in both the private and public sectors, we have seen on both sides a big increase in the attention given to the services we offer to industry and academia for crop transformation and gene editing. I definitely think there is an opportunity here. In the kind of ecosystems that you see around major university cities such as Cambridge, there are a lot of start-ups that are very much trying to bridge the gap between the need to use crop science to transform food and farming to be sustainable, and the use of new technologies. A definite opportunity.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Dr Harrison: Personally, I would say that, and not just for this Bill and gene editing. If one wants a public good test, one should apply it to everything in terms of crop varieties, and not single out gene edited varieties as a unique case. I return to my comments on looking at the listing system and making sure that, again, it is proportionate. Breeders have to spend a lot of money bringing varieties to market, so if there was public good funding coming from Government, it should be to support breeders in developing those varieties that have enhanced public good traits. You should look at it in the round.
Professor Oldroyd: I think it would be very hard to define what is not a public good. Production is for the public good. We have to have production. Production tends to be where the private sector focuses—it is total productivity—but it has raised productivity across the past century. That has certainly given it a competitive edge as individual industries, but it has meant that we have kept our production up with the growing population and the growing demand. That is public good. I would find it very hard to differentiate what is public good from what is not public good when trying to manage such legislation.
Daniel Zeichner
I think we might find some examples, but that is for another day.
The Chair
That draws us neatly to the end of the time allocated for this session. A big thank you to Dr Richard Harrison and Professor Giles Oldroyd.
Examination of Witness
Sam Brooke gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Sam Brooke, chief executive of the British Society of Plant Breeders, who will be giving evidence in person. We have until 4.50 pm for this session. Before we open the questions with the Minister, could you please introduce yourself?
Sam Brooke: Good afternoon, everyone. I am Sam Brooke, and I represent the British Society of Plant Breeders, which is a not-for-profit society. We currently represent 80 members of the plant breeding sector, which is virtually 100% of the plant breeding industry in the UK. As you can imagine, because we have 80 members, we range from one-man bands and SMEs to multinational breeders, so we have a very good coverage of the breeding industry in the UK. Our main aim is to continue to promote plant breeding, the importance of genetics, and the importance of seed and where it fits into the scheme of things.
Jo Churchill
Q
Sam Brooke: From our perspective and that of our members, the legislation offers huge opportunities. It will definitely open up investment in the UK for plant breeders. When the European Court of Justice ruled in 2018 to legislate precision breeding techniques as genetically modified organisms, around 70% of our members classed as SMEs ceased investment in those new technologies because of the expense and political uncertainty around being able to bring those products to market. From our point of view, it is critical that these new techniques are now available and can be utilised.
We believe that the legislation will naturally bring the cost of those new techniques down, giving a broader range of our members greater access. As I have mentioned, we have guys who are literally one-man bands, who are breeding locally in the Cambridgeshire area where we are based, and we also have the bigger multinational companies. You have mentioned being fair and equitable: breeders have already established a network of trait licensing platforms, which we see working very well across the UK and Europe. A very successful vegetable trait licensing platform is already established, and an agricultural trait licensing platform is being established as we speak. That is a fantastic way of ensuring that those traits are available across all breeders and all entities, of all shapes and sizes, which is great, because it means they have access to broader diversity, more technologies and more traits. That is really important.
Jo Churchill
Q
Sam Brooke: As a whole, the BSPB is incredibly supportive of the Bill and what it is trying to achieve. Our main concern would be around clause 3 and a risk assessment around food and feed. All the scientific evidence would show that there is no greater risk in using these technologies than in using what we currently are in conventional or traditional breeding—or whatever we want to call it—so I feel that there is no reason for that extra risk assessment step. We are very concerned that that could act as a blocker to early stage research and development.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
The key issue is getting the balance right between reassuring the public and following the science. However, to many of us, this Bill looks very thin on the “reassuring the public” side—so much so that, despite the FSA and its polling showing that the public would really like more information, as the Bill stands, that is not the way it will be. How convinced are you that the issue of public confidence will be resolved in favour of the science?
Sam Brooke: Having lived and breathed plant breeding for just over 20 years, I think we should have shouted more, and earlier, about how regulated the industry is, both at plant-breeding and seed level. We have a rigorous testing system in the national list process. Each variety undergoes at least two years of testing before it comes to the market. Every variety must be on that UK national list before it can go into sale. All that is underpinned, obviously, by laws on food safety, novel foods, and so on. We have this incredible history of safety of plant breeding in the UK, and of bringing those products into the market in a safe, sensible and secure way.
On top of the registration process, we also have seed marketing legislation, which really protects the user. Naturally, it protects the consumer in that it ensures that all seeds that go out into the market meet a common and prescribed standard. I think that is really important, and it is probably our fault as breeders that we have not shouted in the past about how legislated the process of producing new varieties and seeds actually is. That is what we need to go out and talk about, and tell the consumers. I am a consumer—we are all consumers—and I think, had consumers had more information and knowledge about how regulated varieties and seeds already are, we might already be a step closer to having that absolute trust.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Sam Brooke: We are absolutely not against full transparency of breeding methods. Most breeders have already taken their own initiative to highlight, on their websites and social media platforms, how varieties are produced. I think it was back in March 2021 that we wrote to the Secretary of State, George Eustice, and said, “No, BSPB is absolutely up for transparency on the breeding process.” It is just that the best way of doing that is through the chain.
We have worked with DEFRA and looked at how we can easily bring that step into the national list process by highlighting what breeding process was used, because we already do, to a certain extent. For example, if it was a hybridised crop, we would have to highlight if it was cytoplasmic male sterility or a chemical-hybridising agent system, so we are already doing that. That, for me, would be another step forward and would support the public register, which is in the Bill and which we absolutely support.
Deidre Brock
Q
Sam Brooke: Naturally, we have been following EU legislation and have been historically aligning, quite rightly, with EU legislation on this, where we have our nearest trading partners and the majority of plant breeders. Because it is such an expensive industry, the majority of plant breeders are breeding at least for Europe if not internationally, because varieties travel quite nicely, especially to our nearest countries in the EU. We align with that. The key difference is probably that we have a lot of expertise in the UK and we want to keep that, because plant breeders are based here and actively breeding here—they have labs and food trials here and we have this fantastic, world-leading research and development in the likes of NIAB, John Innes and Rothamsted.
Deidre Brock
Q
Sam Brooke: No, I think the Bill has the potential to open up the technology a lot more. It will naturally open up what traits are available both publicly and privately, but I would imagine especially publicly. The majority of new traits that have come through historically have come through publicly.
Deidre Brock
Q
Sam Brooke: For me, it is all about choice. That is the most important thing. We are not going to get great investment in these new technologies if these commercial business cannot make some money somewhere along the line. We have to be able to protect that IP, which we already do very well in the UK with our current royalty system. We currently protect new varieties and IP on varieties very successfully, which makes us a great area for investment in plant breeding. I would like to see that maintained.
As I mentioned, there are different trait licensing platforms already available. For example, Corteva is one of the big ones, as we may want to describe them, which has already initiated its own platform for accessing its traits. I do not think it should be seen as a concern. There are already breeder exemptions around using new varieties, and I do not see this being any different when we get to using precision technology.
The Chair
If there are no further questions, we will bring this session to a close.
Examination of Witness
Dr Alan Tinch gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear evidence from Dr Alan Tinch, vice-president of genetics at the Centre for Aquaculture Technologies. He is appearing via Zoom, as we can all see, and we have about 20 minutes for this session. Could the witness please introduce himself? Thank you also for joining a little bit earlier.
Dr Tinch: No problem. I joined five minutes early just to be prepared. My name is Alan Tinch. I work for the Centre for Aquaculture Technologies, which is a company involved in developing technologies for use in fish breeding and aquaculture. I work on projects in genetics, genomics and gene editing. In terms of my background, I am a geneticist. I graduated from the University of Edinburgh and Roslin Institute in Scotland many years ago. I have worked on a number of different species, both terrestrial and aquatic. Throughout my career, I have worked on genetics, genetic development of breeding programmes and developing new systems for improvement of livestock.
Jo Churchill
Q
Dr Tinch: That is an interesting question. I think all livestock breeding is now very much international, so it is difficult for small companies based in one country to operate successfully. There are a number of large international operators in genetics. In aquaculture in particular, we are not as far down the development of the species as some of the terrestrial species. We have been farming and breeding fish for about 40 to 50 years, so we are domesticating many of the species already. We are working hard to improve things such as disease resistance. There is good evidence, and we have seen very good examples, of genes that can be used to improve health and welfare of fish—particularly with Atlantic salmon, where a Scottish group identified a gene that accounted for over 80% of the variation of disease resistance. That was bred into the salmon populations and is now in most farmed salmon populations, making them resistant to the infectious pancreatic necrosis virus.
I see the implementation of gene editing allowing us to do similar things. Without having to go into the field, if you like, and look for animals that are carrying favourable mutations, we are able to identify genes that affect things like disease resistance, make targeted changes in those genes and make fish resistant as a result. I think that is a very positive way of taking breeding forward. It is not the only tool in the toolbox, but it certainly allows us to do some very interesting and valuable things for the health and welfare of the animals we farm.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Dr Tinch: That is a tough question. The association between improving the ability of animals to perform and changing disease resistance, and the idea that that means we are going to increase stocking density and make welfare worse, is very simplistic, and it is not as simple as that. That is not the way farmers tend to operate, and it is not the way that breeders operate practically. That argument is raised quite often as being a reason not to improve farm animals, but it is not like that.
We should use the technologies that we have to improve animals. We are putting them in a farming environment that is different from the environment they evolved in. We have to adapt them, using genetics, to the farming environment, and that is what we aim to do. We aim to improve health, welfare and the sustainability of the animals from an economic point of view and an ecological point of view, and we use a number of different methods to take that forward. The tool is genetics, and gene editing is the next step forward in our ability to change different things. We should look at how we aim to improve animals in a constructive and welfare-driven way.
On the trade issues, if the legislation put us in a position where we were restricted in the use of the technology, we would be faced with the problem of people farming gene edited animals in other countries, and we would not be as competitive. We are already seeing gene edited animals being farmed in Japan, for example, and there is very permissive legislation in places such as Canada and Australia. I think those countries will be the first to bring in this technology. I see that coming first in some of the economic traits, and we will face competition as a result—maybe not in the species that they are planning and gene editing at the moment, but as it comes through the system in these areas, we will see our industries being uncompetitive in their performance.
Daniel Zeichner
Q
Dr Tinch: If the legislation puts in place a system whereby gene edited animals would need to be labelled, you would need to have parallel systems. My argument would be that gene editing is a means of creating genetic variation that is identical to the variation that would occur naturally. As a consequence of that, we are not seeing products that are different.
If I identified a gene for disease resistance in a group of animals in the population that I was farming and bred it into the population for supply into the food chain, or I gene-edited the animal with the same genetic change—the same mutation—those animals would be identical in their genetics and performance, but if we labelled them and identified them differently, we would be creating two levels of animals within the production system that are essentially different. That would cause more problems than required in terms of the science behind the technology and the proportionality of how we are dealing with that lack of genetic difference.
Deidre Brock
Q
Dr Tinch: The key difference—let me know if I get too technical, as I do not want to drift away—is in the amount of time it takes to go from generation to generation. Some aquaculture species have a very short generation interval and can grow up and produce eggs quite quickly. For a lot of the warm water species that are farmed, and imported and exported around the world, we could move quite quickly because they have a short generation interval and they produce large numbers of eggs, so we could quickly be in a situation where we are producing animals with gene edits. That would be species like shrimp and tilapia. Shrimp are consumed at high levels in the UK. Tilapia are not, but they are still consumed at high rates around the world.
Atlantic salmon are much slower in terms of their growth and maturation. It takes at least three years—probably four years—to go through that cycle from egg to egg. From a practical point of view, we are not going to do it in one generation—it would be a couple of generations—so for Atlantic salmon we are talking at least four years, probably nearer eight years, until there were significant numbers of Atlantic salmon edited in the populations.
Deidre Brock
Q
Dr Tinch: Well, if I go back to the example of the gene that was discovered in Scottish populations for disease resistance, it was described in 2008 and was at high levels in commercial populations in 2015-16. Do not quote me exactly on those numbers, but it was that sort of timescale to go from identifying the animals to using them in breeding, going through the multiplication system and coming into production. If we were able to do that, and the technology would allow us to move as quickly as that in some populations by editing the gene, making the change and then breeding from those animals, we could move as quickly as that—a generation and a half to get it to high levels in the population.
The process that breeders go through normally to assess their animals is as you describe: if you discover a mutation, you look at it in the population, look at its effects on a number of different traits, and judge that it is an animal that is capable of performing well in the production environment. If everything is favourable, you then take it forward into production. That was the example relating to infectious pancreatic necrosis in Atlantic salmon. The gene had an effect on disease resistance and it did not have any perceivable effects on any other traits. For the sorts of traits we are talking about in Atlantic salmon, the case would be the same: we would evaluate it within the populations in the breeding programme—typically thousands of animals—and then as that data builds up and everything works out, we would expand that to the commercial populations.
We could go as fast as that. Obviously, with short-generation species with higher rates of reproduction, we could go faster than that. That process of identifying the animal, looking at its performance across a number of traits and judging that is a process that can move at the timescale I have described.
Deidre Brock
Q
Dr Tinch: To go back to that position—
The Chair
Just before you answer that question, may I ask you not to lean too far forward into the mic, because we will miss your face, and we do not want that? Could you stay neatly there for lip readers who need to follow you?
Dr Tinch: No problem. On labelling—going back to the position that says the genetics we are talking about is indistinguishable and identical variation that occurs in the wild and in farm populations—if we say that they are identical, then logically I see no reason to label that. The product is the same, the means by which it was generated is slightly different, but it is identical, to all intents and purposes, to a mutation that would have occurred naturally. I see no need for labelling.
Deidre Brock
Q
Dr Tinch: That is a different question.
Deidre Brock
Given agriculture is a subject of some contention in Scotland at times, what do you think?
Dr Tinch: It has been a hugely successful industry in Scotland. Your public opinion is interesting. To give a broad analogy, the other example of products being very close in terms of their composition and quality but labelled for production-system differences is organic farming. There is a drive there that says, “Okay, people are interested in the production system and they ask the product to be labelled to identify it as premium.” There is that precedent, but I go back to the position that says these are products that have identical composition. They are produced in different ways at the point where the mutation is either discovered or produced by gene editing, but they are identical at point of sale. I see no reason for labelling that, unless, like with organics, there is a premium for that sort of production system.
Deidre Brock
Q
Dr Harrison: Similar discussions are going on. A position on describing technologies where the outcome is the same but the technology used to produce it is different has been adopted, as it has been in a number of other countries—Canada and Australia. The principle of recognising that the product that is being farmed is the same as one that would have occurred naturally is being adopted by several countries. The danger is that we might come out of line with that.
The influence that Norway has over the UK and Atlantic farming industry is interesting in that it is a major player in the Scottish industry. Norway’s industry is technology led; Atlantic salmon farming is technology led and it will take the technology forward. I would expect that Norway takes its responsibilities as farmers and guardians of the livestock seriously, and farms according to good practice. The technology can be used as a means of improving performance, health and welfare of our animals. We should bring those sorts of technologies forward and use them. Those are the arguments that have been made in Norway as well.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
Q
Dr Tinch: Absolutely. I am a graduate of the University of Edinburgh and studied at the Roslin Institute, and have collaborated on a number of projects with scientists at Roslin in aquaculture, developing genetic solutions to disease resistance and applying those in populations. We are a local leader in terms of our ability to understand these technologies, develop them to the point of application and then deliver them through production systems.
The danger if we do not lead in that area is that the technology will move elsewhere. I now work for an American company working in gene editing in agriculture. I am not saying the reason I am doing that is because there is a lack of investment in the UK, but there is certainly lots of investment outside the UK in the technology and a lot of the technology is going to be applied in breeding programmes outside of the UK in areas where the legislation looks as if it is more permissive.
The UK model, particularly through the BBSRC and identifying projects that will have meaning within industry, is a very good example of how science should be applied and carried out. I have benefited from that on a personal level and a company level, in terms of my career development and the development of companies I have worked for.
The danger is that if we do not allow the application of new technologies, we will become part of the second lane in the use of this technology. I would not like to see that. Our approach as a country towards animal welfare and the way that we set up farming systems is world class. In many cases, we lead the way in the development of technologies. We have some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world and we will continue to review that, I understand, in a constructive way. We have very high standards in farming. If we prevent this sort of technology from being employed because of a precautionary principle, which is one of the areas where technology gets held back—“There’s a slight chance that there may be a problem that results from this technology, so we shouldn’t do it”— that is regressive. I do not think that is the way that we should take science forward.
We should understand the risks, evaluate the risks and look at the technologies. Where they are able to be used for good purposes, we should take them forward. That is the case for gene editing. If you look at the way that the research is lining up, and the way that the breeding companies are talking about the traits that they are going to use, these are examples of taking the technology forward to benefit animal welfare and the sustainability of animal production, and we should be one of the early adopters of the technology.
David Duguid
Q
Dr Tinch: I think there are some challenges. If it turns out in the detail to become regressive—if it becomes restrictive—that would act against the development of the technology. We should look to taking this forward by applying the technology in a constructive way. The detail should allow us to work that out and look for examples where we are taking animal welfare forward.
The Chair
There are only eight or nine seconds left, so we will not get another question in. I was hoping to get Kerry McCarthy in there, but we will not. I thank Dr Alan Tinch for being our witness.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Gareth Johnson.)
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Freedom of Religion or Belief: International Conference
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the UK-hosted International Conference on the Freedom of Religion or Belief.
Colleagues, the world is changing. We cannot be complacent about peace and stability. We need only look to Ukraine to see that. Millions of people today are being denied their freedom of religion or belief. FORB violations are getting worse in severity and scale. Across the world, people are losing their jobs, education, homes, livelihoods, families, freedom and access to justice, and even life itself, simply on account of what they believe. People are being discriminated against, marginalised, beaten, threatened, tortured and killed, and too often by their own Governments—the very Governments with a duty to protect their citizens’ freedom of religion or belief.
Why should that be, in the 21st century? Key exacerbating factors include rising intolerance and oppression by authoritarian regimes such as China, Myanmar and Afghanistan; frequent terrorist attacks by extremist groups, as in Nigeria, which now often function transnationally; the use, or rather misuse, of increasingly sophisticated technology to oppress minority groups; and the increasing FORB abuses during the covid pandemic.
We must actively protect free societies, and FORB is essential to that. When FORB goes, so many other basic human rights fall away too—yes, freedoms of speech, expression and association, but also access to healthcare, food and work, and even liberty and life itself. Discrimination damages democracies. Persecution impedes the development of the skills and talents of all, and impoverishes economies, so religious freedom is not just a benefit to those with religious beliefs; it is a benefit to all.
When President Roosevelt, one of the driving forces behind the establishment of the United Nations, envisioned a world of peaceful coexistence between nations, he stressed the need for four essential freedoms to exist in any stable, secure, democratic society: freedom of expression, freedom from want, freedom from fear and freedom of belief. When FORB is respected, societies are more likely to be stable and secure, and to flourish economically. They are less prone to extremist attacks. So it is not to put too fine a point on it to say that in promoting FORB we are promoting peace. Indeed, promoting FORB is essential to securing global peace, and doing so now is as critical as ever.
The UK Government are deeply concerned about the increase in FORB violations globally and see defending FORB as a human rights priority, as part of what our Foreign Secretary calls the international network of liberty, so the UK is next week hosting a major international conference in central London—the 2022 international ministerial conference on freedom of religion or belief.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
There is clearly a great deal of interest among parliamentarians about when the independent review—the Truro report—will be published. Will my hon. Friend, who is the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief, confirm that publication is at hand? Will she also make it clear that as the Truro review is a manifesto commitment, although there is clearly more work to do on it, there is no question whatever of work on specific recommendations ceasing just because the review is taking place?
Fiona Bruce
I thank my hon. Friend for that important question. Work is indeed in hand, and I concur with his view that work on that manifesto commitment and on the recommendations of the Truro review must continue. It is far from complete.
At the ministerial conference on freedom of religion or belief, we will welcome hundreds of delegates from over 60 countries, around half of which will be represented by Government Ministers. We will also welcome faith and belief leaders and representatives, civil society activists, academics and—importantly—FORB abuse survivors with their powerful accounts to tell. On 5 and 6 July, after a keynote speech from the Foreign Secretary, we will hold sessions on promoting FORB in the face of global challenges; early warning, and atrocity prevention; FORB and education; promoting FORB in the digital world; engaging the next generation; the multiple vulnerabilities of women and girls; FORB and the media; inspiring parliamentarians; and much more.
Those of us who have planned this conference could not have worked harder to ensure there is a diversity of participants from all faiths and none and from across the world. As the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief, I was involved in setting up a civil society advisory group representing many faith and belief backgrounds to help with the planning of the conference. We cannot afford for that conference to be merely a talking shop; it has to lead to increased global action and help drive forward international efforts to protect and promote FORB for everyone, everywhere.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on having secured this important debate. Two years ago, I had the great privilege of meeting the Bishop of Truro at his official residence down in Feock in Cornwall. Does my hon. Friend agree that this would be an appropriate time for those countries that attend the conference to establish their own Truro review to ensure that they maintain the objectives that are so clearly outlined in the bishop’s report?
Fiona Bruce
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. One aim of the conference is to share best practice on how countries can prevent FORB violations and how they can work together to do so. I am firmly convinced that the recommendations of the Truro review set a standard that it is worth other countries looking at and indeed following. However, no one country has all the answers; we need to work together to build the capacity of FORB defenders and persuade violators of the positive case for change.
Freedom of religion or belief needs to be mainstreamed by Governments globally. It is not a side issue for individuals, communities or countries; Governments need to recognise the importance of including FORB in foreign and other policymaking, or we will face increasing challenges to peace across the world. Legal systems need to be strengthened to ensure that when a country has signed up internationally to FORB principles, such as through article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights, that translates into practice on the ground, so that when a young woman who has been so-called forcibly married—that is, raped—goes into a police station, she can expect justice, not to be turned away.
We will be asking questions such as, what best practice can countries share to promote FORB and prevent its violation? How can we better protect the many women and girls from minority groups who suffer double jeopardy on account of their gender and their beliefs? How can we ensure that victims receive better treatment and effective trauma care? How can we address the lack of religious literacy about FORB among policymakers, which was one of the excellent recommendations in the Truro review? And how can FORB, and the reasons why it matters to everyone and to whole societies, not just those with religious beliefs, be introduced into education syllabi to inform young people and, hopefully, to inspire a whole new generation of FORB champions to spread the word about its importance, just as they have about climate change?
Achieving real change will require international collaboration on FORB, involving not only Governments but civil society organisations, which are so often at the forefront of reporting FORB abusers. That is why civil society engagement with our conference is so critical.
Addressing FORB will require political will and enduring commitment from the highest level of Governments if it is to be effective, and that will need to be backed up by real resources. We need to find ways to prevent violations of FORB from occurring, working with religious communities to do so and to discover flashpoints. We must seek to identify and disarm sources of tension. We need to build resilience and to encourage and foster dialogue.
The international community needs to develop mechanisms to help co-ordinate the increasing number of groups concerned about and working on FORB internationally. How can we better monitor FORB violations? Governments need to develop effective early-warning mechanisms to prevent mass atrocities. Countries need to work together to hold perpetrators of FORB violations to account through targeted sanctions, to ensure more follow the lead of the UK and other countries on human rights-based sanctions. Last month, I held a debate about FORB and digital persecution. We need to look at ways to prevent the misuse of technology and at how to use digital mapping to identify and track FORB violations in order to deliver more targeted interventions.
As we have planned the conference, we have deliberately invited a good number of young people. We need to help, support and inspire the next generation of FORB champions and to provide support for FORB defenders, particularly those persecuted for speaking up for this human right. The next generation need education curricula promoting an understanding of FORB, as do the wider public.
In the months running up to the conference, I and my deputy special envoy, David Burrowes, have toured the UK with a roadshow, speaking to community groups in about 25 towns and cities and raising awareness of FORB. This is a typical reaction:
“I had no idea that this amount of persecution is happening in the world today.”
More information about our tour is on the website endthepersecution.uk, including free toolkits for places of worship, schools and communities to help spread the word about FORB and its importance.
We are looking for more countries to sign up in support of FORB, to develop coalitions of the willing. This year, I chair the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance—or IRFBA. I have been pleased to see more countries become members—there are now 36. We work to ensure that FORB is championed across the world and that FORB violations are called out.
The work of IRFBA is strengthening. In the past year we have issued statements on Afghanistan, Myanmar, Ukraine and Nigeria, and in support of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Ahmadiyya and the Baha’i. Most pleasing has been the action that has followed these statements, such as in Afghanistan. IRFBA helped trigger one of our countries to provide visas for targeted religious minorities, and another country to provide a plane so that 190 people from Afghanistan, threatened on account of their beliefs, were flown out to safety. Many of them would almost certainly be dead now had IRFBA not intervened.
Our IRFBA education working group has informed the ministerial conference session, as has our deep dive into protecting religious heritage. The sight of the hugely significant UNESCO religious sites in Ukraine being destroyed by Russian forces has been appalling and is an affront to the people of Ukraine and the world. We at IRFBA now look forward to being a key vehicle to help deliver on the outcomes of the ministerial conference and to further galvanise multilateral efforts.
Working internationally on FORB, I have come to realise how our Parliament’s cross-party work on FORB is pre-eminent across the globe. The UK has a unique, good story to tell about our cross-party work, and the impact of our all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief. I have no doubt that the ministerial conference would not be happening next week but for the work of our APPG over the past 10 years. It is now the largest APPG in Parliament, with almost 160 parliamentarians as members. I pay tribute to our current chairs—in the Commons, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and in the Lords, Baroness Cox.
Next week, in addition to the UK Government hosting the ministerial conference, we will have a superb range of more than 100 FORB fringe events, co-ordinated by the APPG and the growing UK Freedom of Religion or Belief Forum of civil society groups. Some of those fringe events will be in the QEII centre, where the ministerial meeting is being hosted, but others will be in Parliament, elsewhere around Westminster and across the country, with most needing no pass to attend—see the website www.londonforbfringe.com for details. For anyone who cannot travel, the ministerial event will be livestreamed—see the FORB ministerial section on the gov.uk website. Together, let us ensure that the right to FORB is shared across the globe and reaches those parts where freedoms are dimmed or darkened today—places such as China, Myanmar, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nigeria and many others.
I will finish where I started, in Ukraine, and with the wording of the statement on Ukraine, which I issued as chair of IRFBA:
“As members of the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance, we commend the courage, dignity and determination of the people of Ukraine and their leadership. We stand in solidarity with them, including religious communities throughout the country. We condemn Russia’s premeditated, unprovoked and unjustified attack on Ukraine, our fellow IRFBA member.
Ukraine is a strong democracy whose diverse population includes Orthodox Christians, Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Jehovah’s Witnesses, non-believers, and members of other religious groups. With its multiplicity of faith perspectives, Ukraine has been a strong and active defender of the human right to freedom of religion or belief, and was one of the earliest countries to commit to membership of the IRFBA and its principles. Its legislation guarantees the equal rights of people of all religions or beliefs.
We denounce President Putin’s cynical attempt to misuse, for his own ends, the history and suffering of people during the Holocaust and World War II, including Ukrainian Jews. His baseless claim that Ukraine is a hotbed for neo-Nazism is just one of the many pretexts fabricated for his war of choice. This is not the first time the Kremlin has falsely accused its neighbours of neo-Nazism and fascism as a cover for its own provocations and human rights abuses.
We urge the Kremlin and Russia’s military to cease its illegal invasion and respect the safety of the civilian population of Ukraine, including all religious communities, and to respect the individually held human right to freedom of religion or belief at all times.
We call on all Russians, whatever their religion or belief, to stand up for peace.”
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) on bringing forward the debate. She is a dear friend and colleague, and I am pleased to see her in such a prominent role for our Government and those with Christian and other beliefs across the world. It is very pleasurable for me to be involved in a debate alongside the hon. Lady. The debate will be a milestone for the UK, as we look forward to the international conference, to which the hon. Lady referred.
As chair of the APPG for international freedom of religion or belief, I declare a keen interest in this issue, and it will probably be no surprise that the matter is very close to my heart. Indeed, every Thursday in the main Chamber—if God spares me—I ask the Leader of the House a question that relates to religious belief. He always responds in a positive fashion, and it is encouraging to have a response like that from the Leader of the House. We stand up for those with Christian beliefs, those with other beliefs and those with no belief.
The hon. Lady referred to some of the visits that the APPG has made in the past few years, including to Pakistan, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Egypt. Last week, we went to Nigeria. Also present is the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara), who is another dear friend of mine, because we share many of the same interests in human rights and protecting religious beliefs. He, I and other Members recently visited Nigeria, which I will speak about as I progress through my speech. It is a pleasure to speak up.
The hon. Lady referred to Ukrainians. The APPG visited Poland a wee while ago to encourage the Polish Government and people to continue to help Ukrainian refugees, but also to reiterate our support for them. In many cases, Ukrainian refugees have been put out of their homes, victimised and brutalised, and their relatives have been murdered. Those things are real for us, and we speak up for the Muslims, the Sikhs, the Hindus, the Shi’as, the Sunnis, the Baha’is, and the Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia—where they are persecuted—and on behalf of our stakeholders as well.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
Hosting the conference is a privilege. Does the hon. Member agree that if we are to continue being a role model in freedom of religion or belief, we should be doing more to recognise and help the persecuted elsewhere, such as the Uyghurs, who are facing genocide by the People’s Republic of China?
Jim Shannon
I certainly do. The hon. Lady always makes very pertinent points in her interventions, and I thank her. I will speak about the Uyghurs shortly.
I am a Christian and, in this country, I have the right to go to church as and when I like. That should not be a privilege; it should be a right, but for some it is not. We are all born with a capacity to have a relationship with God, and we should be free to exercise or choose not to exercise that ability accordingly. That is at the heart of who we are as humans, but that freedom and birth right is not the reality for millions of people around the world, which is why the hon. Member for Congleton secured today’s debate. Many of us are motivated to be here on behalf of those people and their right to hold a faith, practise it, and freely change it if they wish to do so.
In a world of increasing division and hostility, I am glad to say that those of us who work to promote freedom of religion or belief in this House work across political divides and from a host of different faith and belief backgrounds. We put differences aside to recognise the similarities that unite us—similarities that are unfortunately disregarded and derided by extremists in other countries, and sometimes by extremists in this country. Yesterday I talked to one of my fellow MPs, who told me that she had been at a family event in the United Kingdom just this week and had been surrounded by a number of activists who publicly derided her and her staff in a way that was completely unacceptable. I feel for her.
May I say how pleased I am to see the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) in his place? I look forward to his comments. I am also pleased to see the Minister in her place. We thank her for answering our questions.
As chair of the APPG, I was in Nigeria last month with the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute in order to witness at first hand the devastating impact of living in a country with ongoing FORB violations. We had wanted to visit Nigeria for some time, because it is in the top 10 on the world watch list for those who are persecuted because of their beliefs. It was an emotional trip because it gave us the chance to see the issues at first hand and to understand what needs to be done to help those with Christian and other beliefs in Nigeria. We had a chance to visit some of the camps for internally displaced people. Some people had been there for seven or eight years. We have ideas for how we can progress that, and for how Nigeria needs to progress it too. We wanted to visit the north-east of Nigeria, where most of the persecution from Boko Haram and ISIS is taking place, but we could not because of the security situation—we understood that—so we did probably the next best thing: we brought representatives of the Churches and so on to meet us in Abuja in Nigeria, where we had a chance to hear from them at first hand.
There are lots of things that need to be done. I will make some comments at the end of my speech, and I hope the Minister will respond to them. In Nigeria, an average of 13 Christians are killed each day due to religiously motivated attacks. The Sunday after we returned, 50 of our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters were murdered in an attack, which made our visit to Nigeria all the more poignant. We focused on those issues, but for such a vicious, brutal, violent attack to take place just afterwards was hard to comprehend.
The total death toll among people worldwide persecuted for their faith or belief must be harrowing. Such facts must lead to a renewed commitment to ensure freedom of religion or belief for all, and to implement policies to make the dream of peace a reality. I hope that the international ministerial conference on freedom of religion or belief will prompt a sharp shift in the degree of urgency—the hon. Member for Congleton referred to that—and fervour that this Government and others give to promoting to freedom of religion or belief. This is a time for leaders across the world, in all countries, to make real commitments to the wider international community and play their part in promoting freedom of religion or belief for all.
I am keen to hear what the Government will announce at the ministerial conference. Will they finally prioritise in the resettlement scheme those in Afghanistan who are at risk due to their faith or belief, rather than waiting until next year to give them priority and secure their safety? Will they do more to cut their ties with China, which the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) referred to, due to its abhorrent treatment of the Uyghurs? We all deplore that; we can never understand how anyone can hate somebody so much. Will the UK use its relationship with Commonwealth countries to put an end to harmful blasphemy laws that are still in place? I am ever mindful that those countries make the decision, but blasphemy laws are used in a malicious, vindictive and clearly secular way against some people. Or might the Government stipulate, for instance, that aid or trade with a country should be contingent on an improved state of freedom of religion or belief for all? There is so much good that could be done, and so many across the world are waiting from it.
The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford), who is no longer in his place, asked about the Truro review. We need the three-year progress review, but that does not mean that other work should stop; we need it to continue. We need the focus that the hon. Member for Congleton referred to. We need the manifesto commitment delivered, and we need the Truro report recommendations to be delivered in full. That is the hon. Lady’s ask; it is mine too, and I hope it is that of other hon. Members.
As Ministers and freedom of religion or belief leaders convene across the way at the Queen Elizabeth II Centre for the two-day ministerial conference, I will be praying, as I do every morning, that a positive change comes from those efforts. I also hope that a lot of noise will be made about FORB, and that politicians in this country take note. It cannot go unnoticed that the APPG has 160 members. It is not a numbers game; it is about the interest that MPs and lords individually have in these matters. We are very pleased that our stakeholders represent many religious groups—it is important that they do. We speak up for those with Christian beliefs, those with Muslim beliefs and the Bahaʼis. We do that across the world all the time.
Across the two days there will be a host of events in Parliament as part of the FORB fringe conference. I encourage all my fellow MPs to attend and participate. I come to most of these debates because of my interest in the subject, but I come to other debates to support other Members’ issues, because it is important to encourage each other where we can.
The events, which will be sponsored by a range of non-governmental organisations and charities—I will be meeting Lord Ahmad and the Pakistan religious minorities this week, or certainly next week—will promote freedom of religious belief internationally, and they will cover a range of FORB topics, from country-specific challenges and thematic issues pertaining to FORB to what is being done to ensure FORB for all. We need to look at what needs to be done as well. There will be over 30 events in Parliament altogether, which indicates the interest. If those who have an interest wish to attend, they will have plenty of choice. There is no excuse for Members not to find at least one event that piques their interest. We all have a part to play in promoting FORB for all, and the time to play that part is now.
Many of us in the Chamber will be aware of the biblical reference to the mustard seed. I know that the faith of a mustard seed is enough to move mountains, and I know that so many communities and individuals around the world persevere in their faith or belief in the face of unbelievable brutality. Their ongoing bravery and courage is more impressive than moving mountains.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Does my hon. Friend agree that we—and Governments—need to put what people sometimes call feet to our prayers? I can think of one example a few miles from my constituency office, where the Hebron Free Presbyterian Church opened its doors to fleeing evangelicals from Ukraine who were suffering persecution as well as the murderous onslaught of the Russians. We need those practical examples to be replicated across the country, and we should commend all those who take such endeavours to heart.
Jim Shannon
I certainly do. I know that group— Don and Jacqueline Fleming, and young Colin Tinsley. Don and Jacqueline live in my constituency, and I know that project and the work that they do, which is an outward expression of what we believe through our prayer time. It is expressed through our practical and physical giving and our ability to help those people from Ukraine. I find that project quite illuminating. We have been able to offer support in Newtownards as well. I am a great believer in the power of prayer. I believe that with prayer we can move mountains. A mustard seed might be small and look like it cannot do very much, but it does make changes, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right.
As the mountains move day by day, as more and more people suffer because of their faith or belief, let us ask what we will do to aid the growth of that small mustard seed. I look forward to other contributions, particularly from the Minister, to understand how the mustard seed can make a difference.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
These debates go back a long way—over 20 years—and I have taken part in most of them. I remember a debate when Keith Vaz was sitting in the Minister’s place. I instituted a debate on the persecution of the Karen people in Myanmar, and that persecution is still taking place. The lack of progress can be depressing, although I remember Keith Vaz telling me afterwards, “Who would think a small debate in Westminster Hall could actually make a difference?”, and it has in that case. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) for all the work that she does and for ensuring that once again we have a debate on freedom of religion.
There has been progress with the Foreign Office. When we started all those years ago, the Foreign Office took great care to be completely equidistant and say, “Oh, well, there’s persecution of Christians on the one hand, but on the other hand,” and so on. It is more proactive now, and we have had the Bishop of Truro report and my hon. Friend’s office has been set up, so more work is being done. Gradually, we are raising interest in this subject.
The fact is that more Christians are being persecuted in the world, either through outright persecution, such as in North Korea or parts of north Africa, or by having their human rights severely limited, as in countries such as Saudi Arabia. This is a huge issue. I am not just going to talk about Christians; I am also going to talk about the difficulties faced by Muslims and by religious people around the world.
I want to illustrate the problem with just one case. I have gone on and on about it, but the only way to make any difference in this place is to make yourself a crushing bore on a particular subject. Maira Shahbaz is a Christian girl in Pakistan, who was just 14 years old when she was bundled into a car at gunpoint by three men and then drugged, raped, and filmed and photographed for use as blackmail. She was forcibly converted to Islam and forced into marriage with one of her abductors. Four months later, she managed to escape. She has faced death threats for supposed apostasy and for abandoning her supposed husband. An imam has certified that the wedding was invalid but the case in the civil court still drags on.
On 13 July—almost a year ago—I took a delegation to see the Home Secretary, no less, about the case. I received absolute assurances from the Home Secretary that she was fully cognisant of the case and was going to take action. Lord Forsyth went to see her a year before that and got the same answer. An excellent charity, Aid to the Church in Need, is willing to fly Maira and her family to the UK, help them get on their feet and make sure that they are integrated within the British-Pakistani Christian community here.
If ever in the whole of history there was a case where asylum was justified, here it is, so why has there been no progress? I suspect that there has been no progress—this is an allegation, which may be untrue, but I think I have to make it—because our high commission in Pakistan is not looking at the case with sufficient seriousness. It may be that there are politics involved and that it does not want to irritate the Pakistani Government because of matters of global importance, such as dealing with the Taliban and all the rest of it. I do not know, but this poor girl and her entire family are in one room and nothing happens.
Meanwhile, 60,000 people a year are pouring across the channel. They are already in a safe country; they are not being persecuted in France. They are all very nice people and I have nothing against them individually, but they are obviously economic migrants. They are pouring across while there is one girl who apparently we cannot get into this country, although I would have thought she has a rock-solid asylum case. We go on and on as a Government saying how we have a wonderful record on asylum seekers. Let us give asylum here to people who are genuinely being persecuted, and let us deal with the economic migrant issue. The more economic migrants who are breaking the rules and pouring into the country, the fewer genuine refugees we can take.
Pakistan is a very important issue. Between 2015 and 2019, Pakistan was the largest recipient of direct UK aid, so we must have enormous influence. I really must ask the Minister if we are using it. Last year, we had the report by the International Development Committee on UK aid to Pakistan, which is an important issue. We had a submission from the Institute of Development Studies, which notes that Pakistan requires special attention regarding freedom of religion but reports that
“not many resources have been dedicated to this”
within the then Department for International Development’s work on Pakistan. It adds:
“There is some focus on it through education programmes,”
but that has been
“a very small part of its overall programmes.”
Can the Minister update us on whether that is still the case? When we are doling out so much taxpayers’ money, why are we so supine when it comes to using our influence? What is the point of funding Governments that either run roughshod over freedom of religion or refuse to lift a finger to support it?
I want to be completely fair and deal with persecution of Muslims as well.
Margaret Ferrier
Blasphemy laws such as Pakistan’s section 298 persecute people who share the overarching beliefs of the majority but are oppressed because they fall into a different branch of the religion, such as the Muslim Ahmadiyya community, which suffers enormous persecution in Pakistan. Does the right hon. Gentleman think there is anything the international community can do to encourage not just tolerance but respect of beliefs in countries such as Pakistan?
Sir Edward Leigh
I agree entirely—that is the purpose of these debates. As we are only a group of Back Benchers, we ask our Government to raise the issue up the agenda and talk about all these minorities, wherever they are in the world, and view it as an important part of the Government’s work.
We have seen casual violence against Muslims in India, a country with which we hope to have very close and friendly relations. I hope that our Ministers are raising that issue.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution. I want to draw his attention again to the key matter of the home demolition policy in India, which is destroying Indian Muslims’ foundation for stability and even life. Does he share my outrage at that policy and agree with the all-party parliamentary group on human rights when it says that India is a “diminishing democracy”?
Sir Edward Leigh
It is obviously a very worrying situation. I do not want to go into too much detail on it, partly because I am not sufficiently briefed. However, the fact is that this casual violence is there. We should be concerned about that, in what is the largest democracy in the world.
The situation in Nigeria is dire. Just this month, a Catholic church in Owo was stormed by militants, leaving 50 dead. Imagine that: 50 people killed in a church. Bureaucrats here and in other western countries try to blame the violence in Nigeria on climate change and the competition for resources. I have heard their excuses again and again—“There are different tribes; there are hunter-gatherers; there are arable farmers.”—but it simply does not wash. However much it departs from our comfortable, western, liberal mentality, the fact is that there is outright genocidal persecution of Christians by extremists in Nigeria. Members do not have to listen to me; the Catholic Bishop of Ondo, in whose diocese the attack took place, clarified that:
“To suggest or make a connection between victims of terror and consequences of climate change is not only misleading but also exactly rubbing salt to the injuries of all who have suffered terrorism in Nigeria.”
We need our Ministers and civil servants to be honest. This is communal hatred and violent persecution. It is not about water supply or irrigation. It does not just affect Christians, although they are the canary in the mine. To be entirely fair, I have also pestered Ministers about Mr Mubarak Bala, the head of the Humanist Association of Nigeria, who is facing 24 years in prison for leaving Islam. That is another case that we should perhaps try to pursue.
Jim Shannon
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for bringing that forward. When he and I were in Nigeria, we had the opportunity to make that very point, and I hope that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton), will mention that in his contribution. We were pleased at the response from the Government, so we are hoping that there may be some movement on that.
Sir Edward Leigh
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that very helpful intervention.
We have been very good at isolating Russia. We have heard about the complications in Ukraine, with the appalling violence by Russia against Ukraine and the churches that have been destroyed by bombing. Frankly, we have not been so good at taking on China over the persecution of the Muslim Uyghurs, which has reached dystopian genocidal levels. It is a disgrace. I am all in favour of good relations with China, maximising trade and promoting prosperity. I understand that our influence with the Chinese Government—the Government of a very large, proud country—is limited, but we cannot shirk our duty, despite the economic impact. Perhaps the Minister could comment on that.
The Government could help UK business and industry to pivot away from China, even if it takes years, if progress is not made on the persecution of the Uyghurs. If a business’s factory is in China, move it to Malaysia, Indonesia or Africa. If its research and development is in China, move it to Israel or Singapore, or perhaps even to Manchester, Dundee or Belfast. Our influence is limited, and my point is also directed at our own companies that are sourcing products from the area where the Uyghurs are being persecuted. What is going on there is a disgrace. Although our influence is limited, what influence we have we should use. We should not be afraid to speak out, whatever the impact on trade might be.
Freedom of religion or belief is one of the most essential human rights. It is under enormous threat all over the world. Our Government should be the leader in the world in speaking out in favour of religious minorities and their rights. The Government should expand the office of the special envoy for freedom of religion or belief and resource it properly. I welcome the appointment of David Burrowes as deputy to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton. I hope that, just as we have acted with so much vigour in Ukraine, we can act with equal vigour to protect religious minorities of whatever faith, wherever they are in the world.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I commend the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) for securing this debate. Let me take this opportunity to thank her for her ongoing work as the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief—I can think of no one better suited to fulfil that role. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his ongoing work in the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief. He is always a strong voice on this issue.
The freedoms we enjoy here in the United Kingdom came at a high price. For those who fought and died to secure our freedoms, we are forever in their debt. But having received that gift of freedom, we have a duty to do what we can to ensure that others, whoever they may be, who are living in fear under surveillance, threatened with imprisonment or death, are moving towards freedom, not further persecution. On a regular basis I raise that persecution with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. Sadly, all too often it follows an attack on or slaughter of believers.
In the short time available, I want to mention two places where I urge the Government to do more, and which I hope will be a focus in the forthcoming ministerial conference. The first is Nigeria. My hon. Friend the Member for Strangford eloquently outlined some of the points already. Open Doors, which we all know does an amazing job as a voice for the persecuted church, reports that in the first three months of 2022, 896 Nigerian civilians were killed in violent attacks, including hundreds of Christians who were murdered because of their faith by extremist Islamic militants.
Nigeria is No. 7 on the Open Doors world watch list. More Christians are killed for their faith in Nigeria than in the rest of the world combined. The situation in Nigeria for those who follow Jesus is becoming increasingly dangerous, as greater collaboration emerges among Islamic militants. I urge the Foreign Office to do more to highlight what is happening in Nigeria and to work with the international community to address this horrific situation.
Secondly, I want to mention Myanmar. It is a matter of regret, but all too often the reality, that the international community move on to the next crisis and forget the one that went before. Myanmar remains in turmoil. The junta are still in control. With that control they are targeting religious minorities, including many Christians, who are often targeted by the Buddhist national military to suppress opposition. Majority Christian villages are being bombed and churches have been targeted. It is not only Christians who have been persecuted in Myanmar, however. Notably, thousands of Rohingya Muslims have been driven out of the country as well.
While there is so much focus on Ukraine, which is right, let the international community not forget Myanmar. Indeed, let there be a redoubling of efforts to restore democracy in that land, for the protection of all. Let me take the opportunity to mention a church in my constituency, Newmills Presbyterian church, which is doing amazing work with the Myanmar people. The church has a great feeling for those who are caught up in the turmoil.
My speaking time has almost run out, but let me conclude by urging those attending the conference to focus on outcomes and on acting to protect Christians in those places of persecution. Let the conference also focus on ensuring that those who wish to go there to spread the good news of Christ, evangelistically or practically, are safe to do so.
Steve McCabe (in the Chair)
I shall now call the Front Benchers, starting with the Scottish National party spokesperson, Brendan O’Hara.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Thank you, Mr McCabe; it is good to see you in the Chair this morning. I, too, thank the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) for securing this important debate, and I thank everyone who has taken part. The debate has been extremely useful and thoughtful, and we have discussed not just what we can expect from next week’s conference, but the wider challenges of protecting people’s right to worship how, when and with whom they want, as well as defending the rights of those who have no faith or belief.
I am here primarily as the SNP’s international human rights spokesperson, but I am also taking part because I am an active member—indeed, I am secretary—of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief. The APPG is led ably, as we have heard, by the formidable and ever impressive hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I am an active member of the group because I believe that how a country, or a regime, treats an issue of freedom of religion or belief is usually an accurate indicator of how it views the importance of the human rights of its citizens more generally. For me, the APPG is a human rights groups and an important part of the wider community of human rights defenders.
As we have heard all too often this morning, the need for groups such as ours to shine a light on FORB abuses has never been greater, which is why we in the SNP are delighted that next week’s ministerial conference in London is taking place. We will support any moves to push for greater global action to support FORB, and we stand in solidarity with those beleaguered communities and those brave individuals whose fundamental human right to worship, or not, as they wish is under sustained attack. It is critical that, while we all get behind the call for greater global action, arrangements are put in place to ensure that the delegates to the conference get to hear directly from those religious groups, those humanist organisations and others that are, day in and day out, directly affected by the violence being perpetrated on them on the basis of their religion or belief.
I hope that the policymakers who gather in London next week are able to hear at first hand from the people in Pakistan, India, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Myanmar, Xinjiang, Iran and elsewhere in the world who do not enjoy the freedoms that we take for granted. I thank the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) for raising once again the case of Maira Shahbaz. I hope the Minister will remind the Home Secretary of the extreme importance of the case and the commitments that were made almost exactly a year ago.
Hundreds of millions of people are living in fear of persecution simply because of the convictions they hold or the faith they profess, and we have a great deal of work to do to protect them from those who would do them harm simply for practising their faith. As we have heard from several Members, there is no typical model of how that persecution manifests itself. It can come in the form of direct suppression or state suppression, or a heavy-handed crackdown, as we would recognise in China and its disgraceful treatment of the Uyghur Muslim population. They have been subjected to the most awful systematic and widespread abuses imaginable, at a scale and ferocity that is almost unparalleled in modern times.
The suppression of the 350,000-strong Baha’i community in Iran is another example of a state using its power to persecute and discriminate against a community because of religious belief and to deny people’s fundamental right to practise their faith. In 2019 the United Nations recognised the Baha’i community as one of the most persecuted religious minorities in the world.
Of course, religious persecution can come from well-organised, well-armed and well-funded terrorist organisations, such as Daesh. Its attacks on the Yazidi people have been recognised by many, including many in this Parliament, as genocide. The attack on Sinjar by Daesh killed thousands. We do not know how many thousands because, to this day, the graves of men and boys are being discovered. We are well aware of the barbaric treatment suffered by Yazidi women, who suffered rape, torture, sexual enslavement, forced sterilisation and all manner of inhumane and degrading treatment by their captors. I take the opportunity to remind the House that, despite the military defeat of Daesh, 2,700 Yazidi women and girls are still missing and unaccounted for after all these years.
As the hon. Member for Strangford mentioned, I was on the APPG’s visit to Nigeria with him and Baroness Cox. We went there to speak with Christian and Muslim religious leaders, civil society activists, people who had been displaced by ethnic and religious violence, and Nigerian politicians. We were also there to highlight the case of Mubarak Bala, the president of the Humanist Association of Nigeria, who in April was sentenced to 24 years in jail for blasphemy. I assure the right hon. Member for Gainsborough that we raised the issue directly with the Nigerian Government, and indeed one of our group had a lengthy meeting with a member of Mubarak’s family, so it is an issue that we are aware of and will not let go.
As the hon. Member for Strangford said, it was a challenging visit, particularly when we were told by almost everyone we met that everything in Nigeria is seen through the prism of religion. All too often people are excluded and abandoned and the cleric, however radical, has replaced the Government as the voice of authority. We saw that for ourselves where we were there. The head of the Methodist Church and two other clerics were kidnapped. Just a week after we came back, 50 Nigerians were murdered in an appalling terrorist attack at St Francis Catholic church in Owo in the hitherto relatively peaceful state of Ondo. That was another worrying indicator that the violence usually seen in the north and the middle belt is spreading to the south of the country.
As the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) said, Nigeria is seventh on the Open Doors watch list of places where it is most dangerous to be a Christian. If that watch list was done purely on levels of violence experienced, Nigeria would be at the top. These are incredibly dangerous times for Nigeria. Given the history that the United Kingdom has with Nigeria, we have a particular responsibility to help the people there and do all we can to bring peace, stability and security to that country.
However, there is hope. There is a civil society that is desperate to build a new country and there are religious leaders, both Muslim and Christian, who are doing great work in bringing communities together, but their efforts are being hampered by the endemic corruption that exists in Nigeria. I remember one meeting in which a woman told us that corruption has left people, particularly the young, without hope, and that feeling of exclusion is one of the main drivers of increasing conflict. She told us that politics is so divided in Nigeria that politicians have nothing left to sell other than division, and they stand on a platform of not being a Muslim or not being a Christian because they have no other vision to sell.
There are signs of hope, because people do not want to live in a country ridden with religious division and appalling acts of religion-based violence. Supporting civil society and bringing an end to endemic corruption is a prerequisite if Nigeria is to pull itself back from the brink, and we have to be part of making that happen. That includes supporting the rights of people such as Mubarak Bala and other humanists to hold the beliefs that they do.
One of the organisations we joined with in Nigeria was Bellwether International, a non-governmental organisation that works in pre-genocide and post-genocide communities and has a significant presence in the internally displaced persons camps. Bellwether’s founder and chief executive officer, Rachel Miner, came with us to Abuja and observed:
“The importance of Freedom of Religion or Belief cannot be underestimated. It has the power to bridge the gap between the very worst of society and the very best. Together we can bring the best of society to the world and preserve human rights and human dignity at the same time.”
That is what we should be looking for from next week’s ministerial conference.
We have a fantastic opportunity to use the powers we have to bring the international community together and to highlight and call out abuses of freedom of religion and belief when we see them, without fear or favour, even when it is our own friends who are doing it and it is not perceived to be in our economic interest to do so. I sincerely hope that the UK Government take this unique opportunity to lay out their long-term strategy for tackling religious persecution around the world.
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
As always, Mr McCabe, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), whom I would like to call my hon. Friend, on securing this debate. She and I served together for three years on the International Development Committee nine years ago, and I saw then, as I do now, her complete commitment to an issue that is so important to humanity, human rights and civilisation. I thank her for her consistent championing of freedom of religion or belief in this place.
The hon. Lady opened the debate by saying that we can never be complacent about peace and stability—and hasn’t that come true in today’s world? Freedom of religion or belief is under threat, especially from people’s own Governments, which is something we should be deeply concerned about. She mentioned the rising levels of intolerance and oppression by authoritarian Governments throughout the world, the increasing use of technology for repression of freedom of religion or belief and the discrimination that damages democracies so badly, and she was absolutely right to say that FORB benefits us all. It promotes global peace and wellbeing, and it is as critical now as ever.
Of course, the hon. Lady mentioned the ministerial conference on FORB that will take place in London next week. I have just spoken to the Dutch ambassador about that conference; he will be attending and was delighted that he will be there. Survivors of persecution will be there to give their own testimony, which is vital: there is no substitute for hearing from those people. As the hon. Lady said, achieving real change will require international collaboration on freedom of religion or belief. She praised the UK’s cross-party work in this Parliament, which she said is pre-eminent around the world. That is absolutely true and I agree with her.
We then heard from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—again, my hon. Friend—who is always present at these debates. He is well known for his championing of freedom of religion or belief, especially the freedom of Christians from persecution. As we are all aware, he is chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, and he has made it very clear that this issue is close to his heart. He talked about his recent visit to Poland and, as he says, he speaks out not just for Christians who are oppressed but for all faiths. Thank goodness he does: his voice is a powerful one in this House.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned something that is very important: the freedom to choose not to believe, which is so essential in today’s world and always has been. He mentioned, as did other hon. Members, visiting Nigeria to witness the shocking violations of freedom of religion or belief in person.
Margaret Ferrier
Christians face persecution in many parts of the world, and that persecution is on the rise. It is estimated that around 91% of the murders of Christians happen in Africa, despite the continent having the highest number of Christians in the world. What can we achieve with our international partners, through the conference, that can help to relieve the pressure on Governments in countries such as Nigeria to tackle this problem?
Fabian Hamilton
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. Perhaps that question is better directed at the Minister, but from my point of view we need conferences such as the one being held next week in London. We also need, as I think the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) said, more resources and more authority behind the individuals, such as the hon. Member for Congleton, who do their very best to ensure that freedom of religion and belief is a worldwide human right and that that right is enforced. Perhaps we need the United Nations to intervene as well; I do not know, but I would be happy to hear what the Minister has to say about that.
The hon. Member for Strangford said—I think I have got this right—that on average 13 Christians are killed every day in Nigeria just for being a Christian. That is a shocking statistic and it mounts up to an appalling loss of life. I am sorry to say that it will be the same for other faiths, too. The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Government would prioritise the persecuted minorities in Afghanistan as well, because we know what is happening there. He also said he is a great believer in the power of prayer; long may that continue.
We then heard from the right hon. Member for Gainsborough, who quite rightly said that there is a long history of these debates—I have spoken in many of them. Gradually, we are raising interest in this subject, although I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would agree that doing so is a long haul. More Christians are now persecuted than ever before, but let us not forget the Muslims. He rightly mentioned the Shahbaz case, in which a 14-year-old was forcibly converted to Islam, married off, and then persecuted for leaving a faith that she had never held in the first place. He is right to continue to press the case with the British Government and with anybody who will listen. The Opposition support him in that effort and are willing to do whatever we can to help in that individual case, as well as in many similar cases. The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned casual violence against Muslims in India and said that FORB is, of course, one of the most essential human rights.
We then heard from the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart), who talked about the Myanmar Christians being targeted by Buddhists. We all think of Buddhism as a peaceful religion, yet the Buddhist majority in that country is persecuting Christian minorities as well as, of course, the Rohingya Muslim people of that country. That is incomprehensible to most of us—indeed, to all of us in this Chamber. The hon. Lady also urged those of us who are attending the conference next week to focus on those being persecuted.
I have good reason to speak in this debate, not just because I am the appropriate shadow Minister but because my family has experience of religious persecution. My father escaped the increasing persecution of Jews in Europe to come to safety in this country in 1934, as a 12-year-old boy. We know what happened after 1934. His own parents were trapped in occupied Europe. Thankfully, his father was in Spain when France fell to the Nazis, but his mother was in occupied Paris, and it was only thanks to the generosity of the Portuguese authorities that she was able to get a Portuguese passport and therefore escape the persecution that her brothers had to suffer—one of them was murdered during the second world war. So this issue is very close to my heart.
Afzal Khan
I thank my hon. Friend the shadow Minister for talking about his family’s experience. I want to draw his attention to the issue of racism that exists even today—the antisemitism and Islamophobia that exists in the UK. Does he agree it is vital that all parliamentarians lead by example and reaffirm their commitment to religious tolerance and freedom of belief? Perhaps the Minister can also touch on this issue; maybe it is a good time to accept the definition of Islamophobia. The Government have had three years to adopt the definition that all the other political parties have adopted. Why have they not done that when nearly half of religious hate crimes every year are committed against Muslims?
Fabian Hamilton
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I have been in this place for 25 years and I have not come across any colleagues, from any part of this House, who believe in religious persecution and who do not try to lead by example. That is really important. I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and I am sure the Minister will reply to the points directed at her.
When we see persecution still rife across the world, it is more important than ever that we, as parliamentarians from all the sides of the House, reaffirm our commitment to the values and principles set out in the 2021 G7 summit communiqué, which specifically referenced freedom of religion or belief for the first time. As my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan) pointed out, we have our own problems at home, with several forms of racism throughout society—whether it is antisemitism, Islamophobia or any other prejudice—but freedom of religion or belief must also be at the heart of our foreign policy. Where we are able to empower and promote individual and collective freedoms, we must do so. That is vital to international peace and stability, as so many hon. Members have pointed out.
It is just as important that we challenge those who choose to persecute others on the basis of their belief. As we have heard this morning, almost every religion around the world has been persecuted or subject to repression as a result of an individual’s faith, but we must not forget the people who are being persecuted for being non-believers, as many Members have mentioned. The fact that at least 13 countries still have the death penalty for blasphemy or apostasy is extremely worrying, but in many more countries people have been murdered for simply choosing not to believe. At least 83 countries have blasphemy laws more generally, with 30 countries classified by the Freedom of Thought Report as guilty of grave violations against the non-religious. This must be challenged in the strongest possible terms by the international community.
Just last week, we had the deeply disturbing news that the US Supreme Court had overturned Roe v. Wade. As parliamentarians who believe in a free and equal society, we must make it clear that that ruling was a devastating setback for women’s rights in the United States. The right of women to make their own decisions about their own bodies is a fundamental human right too, and it should not be interfered with in the name of faith or religion. Those who have faith, but also believe that access to abortion is a right that should be protected, will now be in an extremely difficult position and may be forced to choose between their faith and their political belief.
Carla Lockhart
I respect the hon. Member’s opinion on this matter, but I remind him about the baby in the womb and the rights of the unborn child. So often we talk about the rights of women, which is right and correct—as a woman, I want to see rights for women—but in every pregnancy and every journey there are two lives. Both lives matter and I encourage the hon. Gentleman to think about the baby in the womb.
Steve McCabe (in the Chair)
Order. I do not want to interrupt a good debate, but I think we are drifting into quite a different subject. Can we get back to the motion?
Fabian Hamilton
I fully respect the hon. Lady’s commitment and belief, but I also respect the right of other women to choose what happens to them and their own bodies. However, as you said, Mr McCabe, we should get back to the issue we are debating today.
The Government say they are
“deeply concerned about the severity and scale of violations and abuses of FoRB in many parts of the world. Persecuting people, or discriminating against them, because of their religion or belief is often closely linked to other foreign and development policy challenges.”
With that in mind, will the Minister outline what measures the Government have taken recently as a result of the abuses of FORB? Will she give us examples of where the UK is tackling this problem?
Finally, I pay tribute to Rodney Ross and Alan Fell for their work in documenting and commemorating the contribution of British Jews during the first world war. Sadly, it is an often forgotten subject and I am delighted that their project will become a permanent record of the lives of the Jewish community in Leeds and throughout the country from 1914 to 1918. I commend their website to anyone interested in the subject.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Vicky Ford)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I start, as others have, by saying how grateful we are to our hon. Friend—we are collectively calling her our hon. Friend—the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), for securing this important debate and for focusing the attention of Members on the Government’s upcoming ministerial conference on freedom of religion or belief. I also thank our hon. Friend for all she does to advance freedom of religion or belief, as the Prime Minister’s special envoy and as chair of the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance.
I am grateful to Members for their comments and interventions and will try to cover many of the points raised. Let me be clear that the Government are unwavering in our commitment to promote freedom of religion or belief for everyone, everywhere. Next week, we will demonstrate that commitment by hosting the UK’s first ministerial conference on the issue. It will bring together more than 500 delegates from more than 60 countries around the world. Representatives will include Ministers, but also representatives from Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh, Baha’í and non-religious communities.
As the hon. Member for Congleton so rightly said, involving civil society is vital to championing freedom of religion or belief. The ministerial event will be complemented by a fringe conference organised by parliamentarians and civil society. All countries have an obligation to promote and protect freedom of religion or belief. We will share knowledge and build coalitions to take forward work on important areas, including gender equality, conflict and digital technology.
Many Members who took part in the debate mentioned women in particular. Around the world, millions of women and girls experience discrimination and violence on the grounds of their religion or belief, as well as their gender, and we will use the conference to advocate for them.
In war-torn and insecure places, people are often politically and economically marginalised because of their religion or belief. We will use the conference to stand up for marginalised groups and to advance open societies where tensions are managed peacefully and human rights are protected and promoted.
The internet has given people a new platform to express their beliefs, but it also provides a tool for harassment and persecution. We will use the conference to advance ideas to protect religious belief groups online. Discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief is a global issue that transcends borders. We will use the conference to encourage our international partners to join us in making new commitments around those key policy areas.
The conference is just the latest step in the UK’s leadership on freedom for religion or belief. It coincides with the third anniversary of the Bishop of Truro’s report on the FCDO’s support for persecuted Christians around the world. The bishop has been on the conference’s advisory committee and will speak at the conference.
I pay tribute to my noble Friend Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon for his work as the first UK envoy for freedom of religion or belief and for his leadership on this agenda as the Minister for human rights, which has involved working closely with ministerial teams across the FCDO, as well as with our hon. Friend the hon. Member for Congleton, who is so relentless in her commitment to promote freedom of religion or belief. Work is continuing to deliver on the Bishop’s review recommendations. I can confirm that an independent review of our progress will be published in the near future.
The Government’s work to promote freedom of religion or belief broadly splits into three strands: action at home, collaboration with international partners and taking action on cases of concern around the world. To have influence abroad, we must set an example at home, so Government-funded programmes in the UK protect the rights of members of all communities to live free from fear, hate and violence. Our Measuring Anti-Muslim Attacks programme enables people to report anti-Muslim hate crimes easily. Our support for the Community Security Trust helps to combat racism and antisemitism towards British Jews. Our commitment to turn our Online Safety Bill into law will also help to protect religious and belief groups online.
The second strand of our work is fortifying international efforts to promote freedom of religion or belief, including through the UN, the G7, the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance and the international contact group. Last year, my noble Friend Lord Ahmad chaired a meeting of the UN Security Council to address the persecution of religious minorities in conflict zones, including in Libya, Yemen, Syria and Iraq. The third strand of our work is raising cases of concern and bringing other countries with us on this journey.
The hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) spoke movingly about his family history of overcoming challenges to freedom of religion or belief. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) also spoke movingly. In this place, we say that where Members are from is the place they represent today. The hon. Gentleman was, of course, born in Omagh, County Tyrone, the place of my own birth. As a child born and raised in Omagh, County Tyrone, during the early days of the troubles and as they continued, a lesson I have carried all my life is the importance of listening to others who have a different religious perspective, learning about what they believe in, and doing that with compassion to bring the sides together and reduce conflict. That is what a lot of our work overseas endeavours to do.
The hon. Members for Strangford, for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) and for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara) and others mentioned the situation in Nigeria. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) was the first to raise the case of the humanist Mubarak Bala. I thank the hon. Members who raised his case during the recent APPG trip—that was very appreciated—and I also raised it in a call with Nigerian Foreign Minister Onyeama last month. I particularly raised the length of Mr Bala’s sentencing, about which many Members are very concerned. We are following the case closely. Individuals must be able to express their opinions freely.
A number of Members spoke about the situation in Nigeria. We condemn all incidents of intercommunal violence in Nigeria, which continue to have a devastating effect on communities, including Christian and Muslim communities. We recognise that religious identity is a factor in many incidents of violence and that it can form an important part of the identity of the groups affected. However, the underlying drivers are often complex and frequently relate to competition over resources, criminality and historical grievances, so the question is: what do we do about that? We are working on a number of initiatives to promote peace, human rights and freedom of religion or belief across Nigeria. We have funded projects in Kaduna, Plateau and Benue states aimed at promoting tolerance and understanding, and strengthening links and dialogue between civil society groups, religious leaders and religious and non-religious groups. We also advocate for responsible journalism. All that takes place alongside other projects to tackle the other causes driving conflict.
I am particularly pleased that no fewer than 14 delegates from Nigeria have registered for the conference here. That includes groups working on interfaith dialogue. That is a real example of people from challenged areas around the world coming to this global conference, bringing their problems to share with others, and learning from others about how they can better tackle the issue.
A few other parts of the world have been mentioned. Earlier this month, my noble Friend Lord Ahmad spoke to Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs about protecting religious and belief minorities there, as well as about the situation of women and girls in Afghanistan. In March, the Foreign Secretary spoke out about the situation in Xinjiang and Tibet in an address at the UN Human Rights Council. The Prime Minister raised his concern about the human rights situation in China in a phone call with President Xi on 25 March.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann mentioned Myanmar, where we are deeply concerned about the vulnerability of religious minorities and reports of the destruction of places of worship. We regularly condemn the violence on the ground and are funding the independent investigative mechanism for Myanmar to bolster the work of collecting evidence of serious human rights violations. We regularly raise this issue at the UN Security Council.
Afzal Khan
We have heard from many Members that religious persecution is still rife across the world. It is important that the UK challenges those who choose to persecute others on the basis of their belief, so will the Minister finally commit to sanctioning Chen Quanguo, the chief architect of the Uyghur genocide in Xinjiang?
Vicky Ford
I have to be really careful not to make comments that could put an individual or her family’s life at risk. I am afraid that that is all I can say on the matter right now.
I will comment on the very moving situation in Ukraine, as my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton did. It is heart-wrenching to see the destruction of churches, and it is absolutely right that we should condemn all violations of international law pertaining to the protection of places of worship and cultural heritage, especially in Ukraine. She is also absolutely right to commend the bravery of the people of Ukraine—a country that celebrates a huge diversity of religion and a multiplicity of belief. Putin is trying to use disinformation to distract the world from the horrors of his illegal war and the Kremlin’s false statements dishonouring those who fought to defeat Nazism in Europe. Nearly 2,000 years ago, St Paul wrote to the Ephesians and urged them to
“Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist.”
It is absolutely right that, 2,000 years later, we also stand firm for truth and call out Russian mistruths.
I close by repeating the Government’s firm belief that no one should suffer because of what they believe in. I really welcome the enthusiasm for the conference that we have heard today, and I hope that many Members will take part in it, because the Government are looking forward to continuing to work with all interested parties to advance freedom of religion or belief for all.
Fiona Bruce
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their powerful speeches and interventions, including the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), the hon. Members for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) and for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara), my hon. Friends the Members for Hendon (Dr Offord) and for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford), the hon. Members for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) and for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier), and others. I also thank the Minister for responding.
Let it never be said that any of us in this place with a particular faith do not speak out on FORB for all those who are persecuted, whatever their faiths or beliefs, and we have seen that today. I thank right hon. and hon. Members for speaking out as they have done, particularly on the Truro review. I can confirm that work will continue on it, because it is part of my mandate to ensure that it does, and it is also a manifesto commitment. That my appointment was made by the Prime Minister provides a signal internationally of the Government’s commitment—right at the very top—to FORB for all, as does the ministerial on FORB that will be held next week in London. I am proud that the UK is demonstrating this global leadership—
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Bottom Trawling: Marine Protected Areas
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Steve McCabe (in the Chair)
I probably do not need to do this for a former Leader of the House, but I should point out that I am going to call Chris Grayling and then the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity to wind up, as is the convention in a 30-minute debate.
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Bottom trawling in Marine Protected Areas.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. This may be unusual for a half-hour debate, but there are a number of colleagues here who may want to briefly join the discussion. The Minister knows that this is an issue of great concern to me. We have been here before, and I did a ten-minute rule Bill on this issue last year, but I want to keep it on the agenda. It commands concern across not just our House but the other place, where my noble Friend Lord Randall has taken my Bill from last year, improved it and tabled it again this year, and I wish him well with progress on it. I know that, without Government help, it will struggle to reach the statute book, but I hope that that is another indication to Ministers and officials of the strength of feeling about the issue.
Why does this issue command so much concern? The Government are rightly focused on improving our stewardship of the environment, and most people on both sides of the House share that view. Most of the public, who also share our concerns, would think that the presence of marine protected areas, covering around a third of our national waters, would play a big part in ensuring that we look after our own marine habitats. Whether we are talking about the smaller fish, the other creatures that live on reefs or the fish that live in broader areas around those marine protected areas—areas that we would hope would allow fish populations to recover and grow—the public would see those as central to our task of protecting the marine environment.
Sadly, as the Minister knows, the truth has been rather different. Our marine protected areas do not offer a lot of protection at all, particularly for our seabeds. The areas at the bottom of the sea are so important, because they are populated by the smallest creatures, which make up an important part of the natural food chains in our oceans. However, they remain open to large-scale trawlers dragging nets along the bottom, destroying much of what is in their path. The worst culprits are big international vessels that do enormous damage, as they use vast amounts of energy to scoop up everything as they go, and they have equipment that covers a vast area under water. That means, in reality, that those protected areas are subject to regular intensive fishing, which does huge damage to the ecology.
In total, less than 100th of 1% of our waters are covered by the highest level of protection, where all fishing is banned. Ninety-four per cent. of our MPAs permit bottom trawling; only 6% do not. That, in my view, means that they really are not properly marine protected areas at all. There is an urgency about the need for change. We cannot go on like this, because the more time passes, the more damage is done and the more ecology is lost. We have 372 marine protected areas, including coastal and offshore areas, which represent around 38% of UK waters. However, most are not in good condition and have suffered significant habitat degradation. Bottom trawling is a key part, if not the key part, of the problem, with that scalping of the sea floor destroying habitats all around our coastal waters.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it must be remembered that fishermen have the world’s greatest reason to be environmentalists? They know that if they get it wrong, they have done themselves and future generations out of a job. Consultation with long-standing fishermen must play a large part in any conversations regarding marine protected areas. Does he agree?
Chris Grayling
Yes, I do agree. Fishing communities need to be a part of the discussion, and local fishing communities in the United Kingdom are pretty good at looking after their coastal waters. The problem is the big guys who come in and hoover the ocean floor. It is necessary to get the right balance, but we have to do a much better job on protection.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I am grateful that my right hon. Friend is championing this matter, because it is so important, and I think there would be strong support on the Isle of Wight for a ban on bottom trawling in all MPAs. In a place such as the Island, a ban on bottom trawling in MPAs combined with, for example, a Reserve Seafood brand, as in Lyme Bay, would be very good news. In Lyme Bay, we see increased catches, increased job satisfaction and increased prices for the fish when fishing is done environmentally and sensitively. I am very supportive of that, and I look forward to helping my right hon. Friend in future.
Chris Grayling
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes some very good points. This is about proper, careful stewardship of the ocean and the ocean floor. As he rightly says, if these things are done well, it can benefit everyone.
Of course, there is another issue, because this is not just about scalping the seabed; it is also about our ability to tackle climate change and absorb carbon. It is not just the fish and other creatures that suffer because of bottom trawling. Kelp and seagrass are enormously important as well, and are a crucial part of improving our absorption of carbon emissions. We know that bottom trawling can destroy them as well, so there is a variety of reasons why we need to deal with this issue.
One irony is that, from time to time, I get messages from constituents who did not back Brexit asking me what benefits it has brought the country. I remember many people saying that Brexit would mean the destruction of all our environmental protections and that Britain would become a pariah nation, but the opposite is true. We can now do something that we could not do before. Bottom trawling was just a reality of the common fisheries policy, and the Minister would have struggled to take the steps that I have been pushing for. We would have had real difficulty overcoming either the vested interests in fishing fleets elsewhere or those countries that have no coast and that were not terribly interested in the issue in the first place. We are now free to act, and I thank the Minister for what she has done so far—the issue today is not a Minister who is saying no. I know she is sympathetic, for which I am grateful. I also know that she continues to face international pressures, and I encourage her to keep resisting those.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is absolutely right that we have to be mindful of the livelihoods of those who work on smaller fishing boats and in the ports around the UK. My Bill was not about getting rid of all of that. History shows that many ports are home to people who are good at managing their fisheries. It is the large boats that we need to deal with, and the Minister has made a good start with the initiation of a ban in four of the protected areas, including Dogger Bank. Well done to her for that step in the right direction.
I asked for this debate so that I could ask the Minister and her officials to move faster on their plans and so that I could share concerns about the approach taken so far. We really need to get on with this as rapidly as possible. There will be more and more pressure in this place to cover not just the first handful of MPAs but a whole raft of them. Although there has been a good start, I sense that progress so far is still much slower than most of us would wish. Of course, officials will want to take a careful and methodical approach, but there is not a lot of time to spare. The more time we take, the more damage is done, and the more damage is done, the longer the ecosystems will take to recover.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
Not only is damage done, but the damage is increasing. In 2019, Greenpeace found that the amount of time supertrawlers spent fishing in marine protected areas had more than doubled, to 2,913 hours, in that year alone. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we have a real opportunity now to ban supertrawlers in every single MPA as a quick early win and then to help fishers move to different gear types to be more sustainable in their methods?
Chris Grayling
It is, as the hon. Gentleman says, the big vessels that are the problem. I am sure the Minister will take a careful note of those comments, with which I am extremely sympathetic.
There is another point of concern that I would like to put to the Minister. Not all of the protected areas are uniform in their underwater terrain. There are areas where there are reefs of great sensitivity surrounded by areas of sand on the seabed. That is just the reality of MPAs. The Marine Management Organisation, which is implementing the bans, seems not to be taking a uniform approach to all the protected areas. In some, it is deciding to ban bottom trawling in part of the MPA but not all of it. Effectively, it is saying, “You’ve got sandy seabeds, and they are not affected at all.” I can understand, in theory, the logic behind that. The argument has been made to me by some in the fishing community, but I ask the Minister to think carefully about this.
First, it is going to be incredibly difficult to police. Who will be monitoring the movements of a trawler to establish whether it has approached or gone over the top of a protected reef?
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
MPAs are monitored by the automatic identification system. In a recent incident on the Irish sea, not only did a fishing vessel swear at me over the radio and fail to display the correct lights, but it had also turned off its AIS, which meant that we could not monitor what those fishermen were doing. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, even though we have the international convention for the safety of life at sea, we need legislation to ensure that the AIS systems remain working on commercial fishing vessels?
Chris Grayling
I absolutely agree. Frankly, I think that any fishing vessel that comes into UK waters and turns off the tracking systems should be banned from UK waters. It is as simple as that.
Whatever we do, we have to police very carefully. Problems arise if we only proscribe bottom trawling in part of a marine protected area. How on earth do we check whether a vessel has really passed over a protected reef or not? Who is policing that, watching the vessel every inch of the way and coming up with sufficient evidence to make it legally watertight to prosecute if it does it? Although it may be possible to segregate in a small number of areas where it is clear that that is the obvious thing to do, my message to the Minister is to please make that a rare exception rather than the norm. I do not believe that we have the ability to track and police those areas properly.
The other point about sandy seabeds is that they are not always areas of non-ecological importance. The opposite is often the case. These are areas with seagrass or kelp, and there are fish that live there as well. We cannot just say that it is fine to bottom trawl sandy seabeds but not if there is a reef there. Segmenting an area should be the exception, not the rule. The whole MPA should mean the whole MPA, and only very rarely should we take a different approach. The default position should be that the ban covers the whole area, and it is only in exceptional circumstances that we should we accept that bottom trawling can continue.
I stress that, whether we are talking about segregation of MPAs or a wholesale ban, this needs to be properly policed. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) made a very good point. We have to have mechanisms in place, and we have to be tough. If somebody comes into our waters, breaks the rules and damages the ecology, I do not see why they should be allowed in our waters again—or, if they are a UK boat, why they should be allowed out to sea again. We want tough enforcement. In looking at what the Government are doing, I urge the Minister to act in this area.
This issue commands concern across the House. Concerns are held widely among people around the country—in fishing communities and elsewhere. We have to be careful about protecting the livelihood of people in the small boats that go out into coastal waters. They are, and have been for years, an essential part of the livelihoods of people in our smaller fishing ports. We cannot say to the fishing community, “No more. Away you go. Do something else.” That is absolutely not what this is about. This is about stopping industrial trawling in marine protected areas and getting rid of the equipment that scalps the seabed. It is about having proper protections for areas of great ecological importance and looking after our oceans better than we have in the past.
I thank the Minister for making a good start in this area. I know that she has had to fight battles to get the first four areas. It is a good start, but this cannot go step by step. I know that civil servants like to take things methodically sometimes, and I completely understand why—we will come back to the issue of due diligence following the Environment Act 2021 before too long—but we need to move as fast as possible. Otherwise, we are leaving our seabeds to be damaged and damaged again by trawlers that are getting bigger and bigger, and it will take our seabeds, reefs and marine species far too long to recover.
The Minister for Farming, Fisheries and Food (Victoria Prentis)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. It is also a great pleasure to be here with my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) and other colleagues with interests in fish. We meet relatively regularly in this Chamber to discuss various fishy issues.
I am particularly interested in this issue and I think that this has been a really useful contribution to the debate on MPAs. Our network of MPAs is one of our most important tools for protecting the wide range of precious and sensitive habitats and species that our water contains. We have established a comprehensive network of MPAs in the UK; we have 178 in England, covering 40% of English waters. In fact—perhaps I have not explained this sufficiently widely before—bottom trawling is already banned in 102 of those 178 MPAs.
MPAs protect specific features within the designated site to allow those features to recover to a favourable condition, meaning that they are in a good and healthy state. One example is the Solent and Dorset coast special protection area, which protects internationally important terns. Birds and other species can also be a critical part of the MPA network. The SPA is very important to the terns, as much of the sea around their breeding colonies is the ideal habitat for their plunge feeding.
We know that designating the MPAs is only part of the story. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell said, it is essential that they are properly protected; otherwise, they can do no good at all. We also recognise that there are growing spatial tensions between industries such as fishing, dredging, oil and gas and the renewable energies sector, alongside the very real need to conserve and enhance our marine environment.
Bottom trawling is a broad term used to describe methods of pulling fishing gear along the seabed to catch both fish and shellfish. Bottom-towed gears fall broadly into three groups—trawls, dredges and seines—with multiple types of gears within those groups. Bottom trawls are used by all parts of the fishing fleet, from small day boats to large offshore vessels. It is fair to say that all types of vessels can cause real damage if the wrong type of gear is used in the wrong way. The main effects of bottom trawling are linked to the scraping of the seabed by the fishing gear.
We need to be aware that approximately 45% of the value of the fish landed in the UK comes from bottom trawling, which includes cod, plaice and scallops. It is therefore important that we work with the fishing sector as we begin progressively to reduce the adverse effects of these types of fishing methods.
Luke Pollard
The Minister is making a sound case of stating where we are up to. However, does she note that the supertrawlers, of which the UK has none and which so plunder many of our MPAs, land their fish in foreign ports? Many of our bottom trawlers already fish outside MPAs and land in UK ports. However, the trawlers over which there is real concern have no economic benefit to the UK because they land their fish abroad.
Victoria Prentis
The hon. Gentleman touches on a very important point, and I will be coming to supertrawlers later. As ever, we have to find the balance between actions that we know are not great for the environment and the economic benefit to and protection of coastal communities and the processing that is so valuable to so many of those communities. That is the point I am trying to make: this is an important and delicate balance. It is important that we recognise the scale of the challenge. Some 45% of the value of fish landed in the UK comes from this type of gear. We must continue to work with rather than against the fishing industry in getting that balance right.
A blanket ban on bottom trawling has all the appeal of simplicity, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell makes the case in his typically persuasive manner. However, it is fair to say that not all MPAs are designated to protect features that are affected by bottom trawling. The MMO and IFCAs have embarked on a programme of detailed site-by-site analysis of each MPA. As I have said, they have done 102 bans of bottom trawling, so more than half—57%, I think—have already been dealt with in this way. Each assessment is informed by scientific advice, then byelaws are designed for each area. I do hear, however, what my right hon. Friend has said about making those byelaws sufficiently simple for fishermen to follow without difficulty. I recognise that that detailed approach takes more time than a blanket ban, but I think it is worth it to avoid unnecessary impacts on our fishing industry.
We have made the most progress in our inshore waters. There are 98 MPAs with byelaws in place to protect sensitive habitats and species from bottom trawling. The management measures have been brought in by engaging with the fishing industry, and also by engagement through the IFCA network, which has been very valuable in some cases.
My right hon. Friend was also seeking Brexit benefits. It is definitely true to say that in the offshore MPAs there is a benefit that we would not have been able to achieve without the benefit of Brexit. Before the end of the transition period, we really were restrained in implementing management measures in offshore MPAs because of vetoes imposed by other EU states that fished there. Now we are pressing on with protecting those areas too, and I am pleased to say that on 13 June we put in place byelaws to protect four of our most sensitive offshore areas, including Dogger Bank.
We are definitely not going to stop there, and last month we published a call for evidence on the next 13 offshore sites. We have developed a programme to bring in management for the other 23 offshore sites in English waters by 2024. That is a workstream with which I am determined to press ahead, ensuring that we keep this moving.
The MMO has fully engaged with the fishing industry in developing those plans, and will continue to do so, to ensure that they provide robust protection and that they do not restrict fishing any more than they need to. We will also continue to work with our international partners, and we will—while not allowing them to veto our plans —aim to include them in our consultation process.
Supertrawlers have been mentioned by several Members. Those vessels are usually pelagic trawlers. They fish in the water column. As such, they are not likely to come into contact with the seabed habitats and species, which is what most of our MPAs are designed to protect. They do, of course, have a significant effect on the stock that they are coming to target. They are extremely efficient at fishing and can fish a stock extraordinarily quickly, but, as the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) has said, do not always land the catch in this country. There are many reasons for continuing to look at whether supertrawlers bring us real benefit. I am not sure that the most persuasive of those is the MPA network, but that does not stop us continuing to assess them.
Site-based protection does not mitigate the impacts from those vessels that target migratory stocks, which many of them do, but we are looking closely at what our policies for those vessels should be, and it is important that those decisions should be based on the evidence.
Following the work of my dear friend Lord Benyon, we are ready to launch the next set of work on highly protected marine areas—those areas of the sea that allow for the protection and complete recovery of green ecosystems. We have shortlisted five pilot sites for consultation, which will start shortly. For HPMAs to be successful, we will need to work very closely with the local fishing industry, other marine industries and other sea users in designating, managing and monitoring what goes on in those areas. There is a great deal to be gained from those areas, both environmentally and scientifically, if we are able to get this work right, but it has to be done sensitively and relatively slowly.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell for introducing an interesting debate. Progress has been made, but he is right to keep pressing us on what we can do further to protect our precious marine environment.
Question put and agreed to.
Rights of Children (Police Custody)
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that no reference should be made during the debate to any ongoing legal proceedings.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the rights of children while in police custody.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. In March, I led an Adjournment debate following the incredibly concerning case of a constituent who was held in a cell for nine hours before an appropriate adult was called. Unbeknown to his family, he had been missing; he had not arrived at school, and they were unaware of his whereabouts. From that case and many others of a similar nature, it is clear that the law is simply not working for children in police custody. There is room for further debates on the general policing of minors and children, but today’s debate is focused on the rights of children while in police custody.
I am sure the Minister knows that various legislative protections are in place to ensure that children are detained as a last resort, and for the shortest possible time. The failing is that this is clearly not happening, because the policies are being ignored. Some 50,000 children are held and locked up in police custody every year. Children are detained in cells in police stations that have primarily been built for adults. On average, children are detained for over 13 hours, with 21,369 detained overnight in 2019. The decision to detain children is approved 99% of the time, and it is time the whole process was reviewed.
According to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the role of the appropriate adult is to safeguard the interests, rights, entitlements and welfare of children and vulnerable people who are suspected of a criminal offence by ensuring that they are treated in a fair and just manner and can participate effectively. The Act derived from public concern over the Maxwell Confait murder case in my constituency in 1972, which led Parliament to pass the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, known as PACE. This year is the 50th anniversary of the Confait case, which involved a tragic murder and the wrongful arrest, charging and sentencing of minors, which was later overturned.
PACE tackled a number of areas of growing public concern, including the treatment of suspects in police stations and cells, the length of detention without being charged, the conduct of interviewers and access to lawyers. In cases where the suspect is a child or vulnerable person, PACE requires the presence of an appropriate adults, also known as AA.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend not only for securing the debate, but for the really important speech she is giving. On the role of the appropriate adult and how it has evolved over the 50-year period, does she agree that there need to be more checks and balances on how appropriate adult schemes are used in our police stations, and that there needs to be greater monitoring and robust scrutiny of those roles to ensure that any child in custody has an appropriate adult within a reasonable timeframe? We do not mean within three hours but within a couple of hours at most.
Janet Daby
My hon. Friend has captured the essence of my speech. She is entirely right that assurances need to be put in place to make sure that children have an appropriate adult to help, guide and support them throughout the whole process. I will cover this issue in some detail later in my speech.
The principal intention of the appropriate adult safeguard was to reduce the risk of a miscarriage of justice as a result of evidence being obtained from vulnerable suspects, which by virtue of their vulnerability led to unsafe and unjust convictions. Some 50 years later, children in custody are being failed because of the length of time they are spending in detention without being charged and because appropriate adults are not being contacted quickly enough. Child suspects are almost invisible to policymakers and politicians.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate on a subject that really needs to be discussed. On children in police custody, does she share my concerns about how the use of force is applied? Footage has circulated recently of force being used on a 16-year-old child in my constituency, and there is recent footage of force being used on a 14-year-old boy, in what turned out to be a case of mistaken identity. Both incidents are being investigated by the Metropolitan Police Service Directorate of Professional Standards, but does my hon. Friend agree that there needs to be an urgent review into how force is used, particularly when it is applied to children? If it is used in a case of mistaken identity, there are long-term mental effects, particularly when it happens to children. If it is not appropriate, something needs to be done to review it.
Janet Daby
I thank my hon. Friend for that really important intervention. It is very distressing to hear about the abuse of power by professionals in a trusted position. It is even more distressing to hear that certain incidents happen to young people and children. They could be our relatives—our children, our nephews, our nieces. It is upsetting, and we need to get to the bottom of it. My hon. Friend mentioned the investigations that are rightly taking place, but the Government need to do more to hold public servants to account and ensure they are operating in the manner in which they should.
In the recent Adjournment debate I led on harm to adults, the Minister said:
“It is right and proper that children are acknowledged as a protected group with specific needs.”—[Official Report, 14 March 2022; Vol. 710, c. 737.]
In response to a question I asked last week, the Minister for Crime and Policing confirmed the Government’s commitment to driving down the number of minors held in custody and the duration for which they are held. Although the Government recognise the significance of the role of the appropriate adult, they need to do far more, and I hope I will get a more satisfying response this afternoon.
There is consensus that work needs to be done with minors in custody, but tragically I fear there is a danger that the Home Office will continue to miss my point. The law is not functioning as it should. We are not living up to the UN convention that we ratified. The legislative status quo fails to adequately safeguard children, and something needs to change. Children are left waiting an average of six hours before the arrival of an appropriate adult, and are sometimes held overnight. I remind Members of my constituent, who spent nine hours waiting for an appropriate adult.
Janet Daby
It is indeed outrageous. Despite the rules requiring the police to secure the attendance of an appropriate adult as soon as possible, I am told that in some cases appropriate adults are asked to attend only when the police are ready to interview. That severely hinders the appropriate adult’s ability to enact their role of providing oversight and welfare throughout the whole process of detainment. A Children’s Commissioner report found that, in cases where the parent is unable to fulfil the appropriate adult role, there was an average of a seven to eight-hour delay before the police requested an appropriate adult from a local scheme. Again, children are being failed. If a child aged between 10 and 17 years old is left alone in a police cell for extended periods of time, one can only imagine what they are thinking and how they are feeling. If it were our own child or a child from our constituency, we would be deeply concerned. The Government should be deeply concerned about all children across our nation.
I have spoken to a constituent who told me that, as a child, they accepted a guilty plea even though they were innocent. They did that because they wanted to avoid having to stay any longer in a police cell. They will not be the first person to do that, and the Government need to re-address that injustice—that wrong—quickly.
A recent trial in the Metropolitan police has demonstrated that such delays are not inevitable. A trial took place, using the acronym CHILD, to focus on the importance of contacting the appropriate adult at the point of booking in, whether that was the parent or an individual in a local scheme. In that trial, average detention times for children reduced by 10 hours—sorry, not 10, although I would like it to be; they reduced by seven hours, which demonstrates that safeguarding the interests, rights and welfare of the child is achievable. I hope that the Minister will join me in praising the Met’s initiative and work, and that the Government will roll out that successful pilot to all Met stations and all regions of our nation. Is there a plan to do that?
Many elements are built into the youth justice system that differentiate it from the broader criminal justice system. In the youth court, the judge and the probation officers are youth specialists—in my previous life, I was trained as a youth probation officer, so I have some knowledge of that. All the language is adjusted to remain appropriate to the age of the child. Broadly speaking, the youth criminal justice system seeks to avoid punitive measures and tries to put the child first. As we have heard, that is not the case in police custody.
According to academics Dr Vicky Kemp and Dr Miranda Bevan, specialists in this area, child suspects who are not convicted and who are uncharged experience disproportionately harsh treatment. The rules say that children are to be detained for the “shortest appropriate period”, but children are often detained as long as adults. Children are not adults, so why are they treated like adults? Data shows that the average stay is increasing.
In 2019, following a freedom of information request, it was uncovered that a 10-year-old child spent a staggering 23 hours in a police cell. That beggars belief—it is actually hard to take in, but it is true. In one particular police force, the average detention period was 18 hours—not for one child, but on the 1,293 occasions on which a child was detained overnight in police custody.
Long detention times deeply traumatise children and scar them for life. They are deprived of liberty, trapped in incredibly intimidating conditions and often deliberately kept in the dark. After an overnight stay, one 12-year-old said:
“I didn’t know they could do that to you...it was awful and I wasn’t sure I was going to be okay”.
Marsha De Cordova
My hon. Friend is making an incredibly powerful point. Does she agree that those moments in which that poor child, or any child, is detained in custody will have a long-term and sustained impact on their mental health and wellbeing, their confidence levels and their ability—because they are children—to understand what has actually happened to them? It is a form of abuse.
Janet Daby
I agree with my hon. Friend that, in such instances, it is abuse. It is harmful for children to be in such situations. The very service that is there to protect them is also doing them incredible harm. The Government have to take that on board and to accept their responsibility and the role they need to play. The welfare of the child is “paramount”—it says that in the Children Act 1989. If the welfare of the child is paramount, their welfare needs to be paramount on all occasions and in all situations. The very services that are there to protect and support them need not only to carry out justice—absolutely—but to consider the welfare of the child.
I am sure we want more for our children—I am hearing that already—but we must not keep them in a state of despair. That is simply wrong. As I said, the Government can change that. Even with children who end up being convicted, we cannot bury our heads in the sand and carry on with a system that is devoid of compassion.
Cutting the detention clock for a child in custody would mean that the appropriate adult is likely to be called out quicker and is more able to stay for the duration of the detention. It would also lead to a decrease in the frequency of overnight stays. That would be better for the public purse economically, but also for the physical and mental wellbeing of the child.
For the police, it would improve relations with key communities in the area, reduce reoffending rates and ensure that all their collected evidence was reliable. It would prevent the collection of evidence from being hampered by the lack of sleep or the worry and stress stemming from 13 or so hours in solitary confinement. To be clear, calling for a reduction in the child detention clock would not hinder the police’s ability to fight crime. The police currently have the power to request an extension from the superintendent if the case is complex. That power would be retained even if a lower detention cap was implemented.
During the previous Adjournment debate, the Minister failed to respond to my call to cut the stay limit from 24 hours. Will she hear me now and respond to that call? There is evidence calling for a stay limited to 12 hours instead of 24.
I will mention two other things before I finish. First, there must be far higher reporting and monitoring of the use of strip searches in police custody. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) for her recent parliamentary question. The current rate of strip searches is woeful. They are degrading and humiliating and, as we have seen, they completely traumatise children. Will the Minister commit to increasing transparency and accountability on this issue and exploring technological alternatives that are less intrusive, less emotionally harmful and less damaging to the child?
Secondly, a decade of legal aid cuts has meant that firms cannot afford to send down more than minimally trained representatives to police stations, and then only for the shortest possible period. Lawyers therefore often arrive just before the interview, when the child is too exhausted to engage—if the child gets a lawyer at all. Currently, children have to opt in for legal advice, and too many children forgo their right to legal representation; they are burnt out, emotionally exhausted and probably do not fully understand, and they falsely believe it will make the process go faster. The fallout from this kind of misunderstanding can be avoided if we instead implement an opt-out system.
There is also a danger that post-pandemic remote legal advice will begin to spread. Research from Transform Justice shows that remote legal advice increases the stress and anxiety of children and impedes the communication between lawyer and child. To ensure high-quality advice that serves the needs of the child, it is vital that the Minister continues to champion in-person legal advice, moves towards an opt-out system and bolsters legal aid.
As I draw to a close, I ask the Government to maintain public safety and to protect children throughout the youth criminal justice system. I call on the Minister to review the detention clock for children, to roll out the Met’s new approach to appropriate adults across the Met and the police nationwide, which will allow us to begin finally to have a child-first approach to police custody suites, and to implement opt-out legal representation system for children. I ask again whether the Minister will commit to increasing transparency and accountability for strip searches and exploring technological alternatives that are less intrusive and harmful to minors. As a country, we should see the welfare of the child as paramount in all instances and across all services at all times.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
The debate can last until 4 o’clock. I am obliged to call the Front Benchers no later than 3.37 pm. The guideline limits are 10 minutes each for Her Majesty’s Opposition and the Minister. Janet Daby will have three minutes at the end to sum up the debate. I believe that three Back Benchers are seeking to catch my eye, so there should be plenty of time for everyone to get in.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) on raising the issue. I can well recall when she secured the debate in the main Chamber, which I attended to support her and ask questions. I had a discussion with her before and after the debate. The issue is very real for her, and although it may not be for us in Northern Ireland, I understand the issues and her concerns. I wanted to come along, as I do to many debates, to support those who bring forward matters that are important for their constituents and for us across the whole United Kingdom.
It is a pleasure to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch), in her place, and the Minister. I am convinced that the Minister will be keen to respond to the questions that the hon. Member for Lewisham East has asked and that others will ask. We in this House have a responsibility to ensure that while children are in custody, they are safeguarded and their welfare is promoted. I can well recall the case—I could not believe that it took place—in which a young person was arrested and detained with absolutely no action taken to protect, safeguard or look after them. That is the issue for me, as it is for the hon. Lady, and it is why I am here.
This is a huge issue. There are fluctuations in the number of children being arrested, as well as an increase in the number of children reoffending and being re-arrested. I understand that there has to be law and order—there has to be a system—but protection for young people needs to be paramount in the legal system. That is why many of us were flabbergasted when we read that that incident had taken place. While there is absolutely no excuse for crime, we must ensure that the process is done in the right way, to safeguard and yet discourage.
The hon. Lady has provided some useful and insightful material in relation to child arrests, for which I thank her, and she has made some incredibly important points. It was of particular interest and concern to me that from the age of 10 children who are arrested are expected to choose whether or not to have legal advice. I would have thought it would be normal to give them legal advice there and then. I cannot understand why they would be asked, “Do you want legal advice or don’t you?” They do, and the law of the land should protect them—it should reach out to them and ensure that they know their rights.
I am not aware of any 10-year-old who understands the meaning of the term legal advice. I am a grandfather, and my oldest grandchildren are aged 12 and eight. Neither of them would be aware of their rights, and I presume that they are an example of the rest of society when it comes to knowing what is right and what is wrong, so an appropriate adult must be present at that stage. Children should have appropriate advice at all stages, and they must have an appropriate adult present to give them the advice they need. If the family are not available—sometimes that happens, for whatever reason; someone may be working, or they may not be accessible or available—it is important that the state steps in to provide that assistance.
In addition, children are often detained in adult cells, with no immediate support to help them understand what they have done. The hon. Member for Lewisham East referred to that fact while setting the scene, which she did extremely well. To help those children to realise that wrongdoing has taken place, talking is one of the first things that should happen, and young people must know their rights. Sometimes, they may be shy; they may be introverted and not know how to react; or they may be extremely scared. I suspect that for many, it is the latter, so those are things that we need to sort out.
As the Minister knows, I always give a Northern Ireland perspective in these debates. It is just to add a flavour to the debate, not necessarily to ask her to take any responsibility, because she has no responsibility for Northern Ireland. A report by the Northern Ireland Audit Office has revealed that it costs £324,000 per year to keep a young person in custody in Northern Ireland. We have one youth detention centre, Woodlands Juvenile Justice Centre in Bangor, County Down, just north of my constituency. Each year, an average of 100 youths between the ages of 10 and 17 serve convictions there, and the figure for those placed in custody is much higher. Although we must ensure that children in police custody are dealt with through the correct process, they are initially arrested for a reason. That reason has to be proven, of course, and how it is done has to be monitored, but it is an extremely big deal when a youth crime is committed, and lessons have to be learned.
I spoke in a previous Westminster Hall debate on sentencing for repeat offenders, where Department of Justice figures revealed that the reoffending rate across the United Kingdom is 38.5%. It is quite a large figure—reoffending seems to happen to more than one third of those who are detained originally. Maybe the Minister could give us some help and indicate what has been done to reduce those reoffending rates, because the figures are quite alarming and concern us all. There must be a firm reminder that youth custody is not a respite but an essential part of the judicial process for lessons to be learned. Although I agree that children should have additional safeguarding, it is not a soft measure that should be taken for granted.
Young girls should have access to female support—it should be available each time—and not have to wait eight or even 10 hours, as I think the hon. Member for Lewisham East said, for someone to come. Oh my goodness, it is incredible that the wait time should be so long. Let us honestly address the fact that for ladies and girls, this is also about hygiene and personal issues, and they are incredibly important to a vulnerable young person who needs help. All young people should have access to a parent or guardian, and not be subject to intimidation or violent treatment.
However, it is so important that those young people still understand that their choices have led them to a place that they simply never want to be. That goes back to reoffending and the question that I have asked the Minister. What has been done to ensure that young people are treated in the right way, with compassion, understanding and persuasion, so that they are not unduly afraid of the system but they understand it better and, hopefully, never have to reoffend again?
While I respect the fact that Northern Ireland falls under our own Department of Justice, the concept of how we deal with youth offenders should be the same. I want safeguarding for children, as the hon. Member for Lewisham East does, but I also want the correct education, so that crimes are not committed to begin with. We must look deeper at the issues and why these things happen. We also cannot ignore society and where they live. Is it a poor community? Is there poverty in the family? Is there parental control? Are gangs taking advantage of young people? Those are all things in the bigger picture that must be addressed.
I look to the Justice Minister back home, in many cases, but I also ask the Minister here what commitments have been made to ensure that young people have rights and are safe in custody, whether here or back home. Has the Minister had any discussions with the Justice Minister at the Northern Ireland Assembly? It is always good to exchange ideas and see what is working. We should be looking at what is working around the United Kingdom, and at what is perhaps working better in Northern Ireland or, indeed, in Scotland or Wales.
I agree that children should be detained only for serious offences. I get quite concerned that people may see the police as the enemy because of the nature of where they live or the arrest system. However, as I have highlighted, that does not mean by any means that petty crime should be ignored. A lack of deterrent and/or punishment will lead to serious reoffending. This always seems to come back to the reoffending issue, as I have done on three occasions.
To conclude, Mr Hollobone, I commend the hon. Member for Lewisham East for bringing this issue forward, and I commend others who will speak. I agree with many of the points that have been made, but there must be a reminder that it is never okay to commit crime, and we must not allow custody for children to be a respite. They must be represented well, they must never be let down, they must always know their rights and they must be held to account under the correct procedures of the law with a compassionately firm hand, persuasion and understanding. We must show young people that there are alternatives to the route they are on that will take them away from a wrongful path.
To me, it is all about putting people on the right path, with the right focus and the right direction—I think that today’s debate does that in many ways—and protecting young people. That is ultimately what the hon. Member for Lewisham East said in her debate in the Chamber. I fully support her on that, and on the goals and achievements she is aiming for. I very much look forward to the Minister’s responses. I am quite hopeful we will get the responses that we look for, and I hope that the hon. Member for Lewisham East will be satisfied with them.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) on securing this important and timely debate. I thank the many organisations that have worked really hard to raise awareness of the issue, including the Howard League for Penal Reform, Just for Kids Law and many experts.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East highlighted that she had an Adjournment debate on the subject recently, and I went back to it for reference. I thank her for sharing her constituents’ experiences, and I thank her constituents for their bravery in sharing those horrific experiences. I recently had a similar case in my own constituency, where a young child in their school uniform was kept in police custody for just under 24 hours—it was 23 hours and some odd minutes. That child was found to have suffered some serious failings in relation to their safeguarding while in custody. Worse still, the child was not charged with anything; they went through that horrific experience and there was no charge.
I recognise that custody is a core element of our policing. It is crucial to ensuring justice and to keeping the public safe. However, it must be balanced with the safeguarding of children, as the safety and welfare of children is paramount. Public bodies have a responsibility to protect minors. The Children Act 2004 places a statutory duty on the police in relation to children. Article 37 of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child makes it clear that children should be detained only as a last resort, and for the shortest appropriate period possible, as we have heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham East and for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare).
It was therefore deeply worrying to read the Just for Kids Law report, which found through a freedom of information request that 21,369 children were detained overnight in police custody, either pre or post charge, in 2019. That statistic should worry us all. Those children have potentially been scarred for life. That statistic is still a significant underestimate, because it only includes the responses of 34 police forces, which tells us the number could be higher. Black children are disproportionately detained in police custody overnight, according to the responses from 31 of those 34 police forces. As an MP representing a London constituency, I am particularly concerned that more than 44% of children detained overnight in police custody in 2019 were black children.
It is not right that there is such a huge racial disparity, and it points to the institutional and structural racism in the policing of our black children. The Government can no longer deny or dismiss that, because the data and the evidence are quite clear. For a child, spending a night in police custody is an extremely traumatic and frightening experience. Spending a long time in such an environment has serious consequences for a child’s mental health and wellbeing. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East has already spoken about that, and that is why she is right when she says that reform is desperately needed.
It is quite clear that legislation written 50 years ago—be that PACE or other pieces of legislation—is outdated. We need to look at reforming the current system. That is why I agree with the recommendations in the Just for Kids Law report. We need a reduced time limit on how long children can be detained in police custody, because the current 24-hour limit is the same for adults and children. That cannot be right, because we know that children and adults are not the same, so it must be reduced to 12 hours or less.
The issue about appropriate adults is key, because we have already heard that children have to wait for hours in police custody without an appropriate adult. That system has to be overhauled. If it is about safeguarding the child, I am not sure what can be done if we cannot overhaul that aspect of the process.
I cannot stress enough the importance of data. Data and evidence are crucial to this process, because they really help to illustrate and paint a picture of the crisis in our policing of children. We also need a review of the collation of data so that we know what is being collated, and we need consistency across the country over what is collated.
Publication of this data will be important, because it helps with scrutiny and it helps to give robust oversight of what is actually going on. That is why publication should be mandatory. No police force in this country should decide on a voluntary basis to record data. I am not sure how that can be acceptable. Just for Kids Law was unable to access all the data in relation to its freedom of information request; it only got data from 34 police forces, when 43 could have responded.
I recently asked an oral question at Home Office questions—I think it was just over a week ago. I am calling for mandatory recording and publication of the data on children who are strip-searched. Everybody was horrified at the case of child Q, but we know now that that was not an isolated incident and that many children—including young girls, whether they are on their menstruation cycle or not—are being strip-searched. These are people’s children, and we all have a responsibility and a duty to protect them. Will the Minister commit to looking into the mandatory publication of data in relation to police interactions with young people? As I have highlighted, at the moment the police are required to record and publish such data only if an arrest has been made. However, as was the case with child Q, who was not arrested—
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Order. I said right at the start of the debate that no reference should be made to any cases where there are ongoing legal proceedings. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady made a glancing reference, which is fine, but she should not repeat the reference to child Q any further in the debate.
Marsha De Cordova
I apologise for that, Mr Hollobone, and I will not refer to that case in the rest of my speech.
Finally, I believe we need a review into the policing of black children. They are being over-policed and treated with less care and protection. That perception of maturity —a term that is used is the adultification of our young black children—is another form of racism.
I have seen many examples of that when I have seen young children being detained by multiple officers, and the police say afterwards, “Based on the evidence before us, nothing is wrong here.” If that is the case, something is wrong with the way our young children are being treated. I really hope that when the Minister responds to the debate, she will refer to that. The disparity in the treatment of black children across policing is bound to lead to a breakdown in community relations, and a lack of trust and confidence in the police force. All I try to do, as an elected representative, is to help the police to build trust and confidence in our communities.
I do not believe that the solution can simply be boosting diversity in recruitment; although diversity is important, there are other elements to consider. The solution is not just about providing cultural changes, either. We need an urgent root-and-branch review that investigates the policing of our black children and sets out clear recommendations about how the police can reduce disproportionality and build and restore trust.
I hope that when the Minister responds to the debate, she will agree with me that we need a review, and if she does not agree, that she will explain why, so that I can understand. No one can be against a proposal that will help to reduce the racial disparities facing our children. We all know that our children are our future. It is on us to create that fair, better future for them.
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Hollobone. I thank the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) for securing this important debate.
I am mindful not to speak about cases currently going through the courts. I intended to allude to child Q, unaware that the case is in court. I will modify my speech accordingly. None the less, it is damning in the 21st century to be talking about children being strip-searched by police officers while at school and in their own environment. It is also damning to have seen the public report, which I hope I can speak about. Perhaps I cannot, as I have just received an eye from the Chair. That report is public and gives a damning account of what—
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Order. Will the hon. Lady resume her seat? I am acting to try to protect the hon. Lady. She was honest to say that her speech was to be about a particular case, and now she is going to do her best to talk about the same issues without referring to the particular child, but we all know who she is talking about. She will have to be very careful and speak only in general terms. I am saying that to protect her and Parliament.
Claudia Webbe
Thank you for your guidance, Mr Hollobone.
We know there are cases where children are not given an appropriate adult when brought into custody, are not presented with their rights, or are asked whether they want representation. Such practices must end. We must come to a better understanding of how we treat children, not only when protecting them from crime, but when they are brought into custody and falsely accused, or otherwise.
I have dealt with cases in my constituency where children innocently engage in social media and are then caught in a spiral in system where they are brought in for questioning; they are frightened by the type of questioning and the way it is posed. They are immediately so fearful of that questioning and the adults in the room that they are ready to sign anything in order to get out of there as quickly as possible. Children should have an appropriate adult; they should be told their rights in a manner that gives them an informed choice about having proper representation. If necessary, a pause should be given, so that they can make that informed choice. It is important that they have an adult in the room and have proper legal representation because what they say and admit to in that room can rest with them forever and a day and affect every aspect of their life going forward. It is important that children get the right representation from the outset, because many of them are in the midst of important, serious exams that will affect the rest of their lives. They need to be in the right mindset to do those exams.
In one of the schools in my constituency, children had been accused of a form of bullying, which turned out to be a conflict between ethnicities and races. The children and parents were not given the proper support and advice, and the children were told to stay away from the school environment until the investigation was complete, without being given any support to study at home or do anything that enabled to them to have a better understanding of the education that they need to continue with.
I am continuing to be mindful not to talk about child Q, Mr Hollobone, but I will say that it is important that children are allowed to feel safe in their school environments, neighbourhoods and communities, and that they know that the first action by the police will not be to bring them into an invasive situation wherein they have less power, but that the police will treat children as children, with the right and proper support around them. I hope that all the recommendations that come out of many of the serious and important reports on the way that children are treated in custody are implemented, and that somebody is appointed at a senior level to ensure that this is the case. Too often, recommendations remain unadopted and sit at the bottom of the shelf, but they need to be implemented to protect the future. It is even more vital that racist and misogynistic attitudes are left out of the custody suite and interactions with children. Far too often, black and other globalised children are left reeling from racism and, if they are young women, misogyny.
Institutional racism and misogyny in the police force needs to be seriously addressed, especially when it involves children. At the end of the day, we are talking about police services that have already been deemed to have used sexist, derogatory and unacceptable language when it comes to dealing with people in their custody. We know of adults being wrongly strip-searched. We also know that two serving Metropolitan police officers were jailed for sharing photographs of the bodies of Bibaa Henry and Nicola Smallman, two young black sisters from north London who went missing in June 2020. The officers shared the photos with 41 members of a police WhatsApp group. The police were also accused of showing a lack of interest in the fact that the two sisters were missing, which delayed their search.
The Metropolitan Police Service was recently forced to deny that it is plagued by a culture of misogyny, after an official report revealed shocking details of officers sharing messages about hitting and raping women, as well as about the deaths of black babies and the holocaust. The Independent Office for Police Conduct said in its report on behaviour at Charing Cross police station that there was a culture of “toxic masculinity” and that the behaviour was not confined to rogue individuals, but was part of an offensive Metropolitan police culture. The report states:
“We believe these incidents are not isolated or simply the behaviour of a few ‘bad apples’.”
Of course, that inquiry came after the brutal police crackdown of a vigil in the memory of Sarah Everard. I do not believe that that case is—
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Order. The debate is about the rights of children while in police custody. I understand that the hon. Lady has made the remarks that she has for reasons of context, but the debate is specifically about the rights of children in police custody, so I would appreciate it if she came back to that subject.
Claudia Webbe
Thank you for that guidance, Mr Hollobone. Indeed, I was highlighting a policing culture that no adult, let alone a child, should be subjected to. We simply cannot expose children to that type of policing culture. It is therefore vital that measures to avoid holding children in police custody, or to reduce the time that they spend in it, are strengthened and enforced.
The Youth Justice Legal Centre found that children are not interviewed under caution outside a custody suite as often as they could be. Too often, children who are refused bail are not transferred to local authority accommodation, as is legally required; instead, they are kept in police cells. That must end. I also support the calls from the Just for Kids Law charity for an end to the overnight detention of children by police. Children are currently subject to the same time limit as adults. We cannot allow that to continue and it must change.
We must redouble our efforts to end the scourge of racism and misogyny that plagues our police forces and all aspects of society, and in doing so, we must ensure that our children are not exposed to unnecessary harm in police custody.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. I pay tribute, as others have done, to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby), who shared individual cases and statistics revealing that children and young people spend lengthy periods in custody. I thank her for securing the debate, for being a true champion and campaigner on this issue, and for the all the different ways she has used the parliamentary tools at her disposal to keep the spotlight on securing best practice.
Children and young people are a protected group with specific age-related vulnerabilities. Their treatment in detention is governed not only by domestic law, but by the UN convention on the rights of the child, which the UK has signed and ratified. Legislative requirements and best practice are outlined in various documents, including, most significantly, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—commonly referred to as PACE—and its codes of practice, guidance from the College of Policing, and the Home Office’s concordat on children in custody.
It is absolutely right that officers must take into account the age of a child or young person when deciding whether statutory grounds for arrest apply. Police should pay particular regard to the timing of any necessary arrests of children and young people, ensure that they are not detained any longer than necessary, and avoid holding them overnight in police cells unless it is absolutely necessary.
The College of Policing is right to stress in its guidance that
“Everyone who works with children has a responsibility for keeping them safe.”
That means that they have a role to play in identifying concerns about a child’s safety and wellbeing, sharing information and taking prompt action when it is needed to protect a child. A child who has been detained and is in police custody presents an opportunity to understand why, to disrupt their behaviour if it is criminal, and to safeguard them and the public from further harms.
West Yorkshire police’s violence reduction unit has undertaken several pieces of significant research to better understand the relationship between young people and violent crime. Nationally and in West Yorkshire, the number of proven offences committed by 10 to 17-year-olds has fallen dramatically, particularly over the past five years. The number of young first-time entrants into the criminal justice system has also plummeted. However, worryingly, in 2019-20, more than half of the offences committed by 10-17 year olds were violence against the person, compared with 39.7% in 2013-14.
We know that children and young people are capable of committing serious crimes and we cannot shy away from that, given the impact on victims, who are often children themselves. One comprehensive piece of research undertaken by Crest with the West Yorkshire and Harrogate Health and Care Partnership and the violence reduction unit found five key health inequalities that are influential in the lives of young people in West Yorkshire and their journey either towards or away from violence and exploitation: deprivation and socioeconomic disadvantage, trauma and unmet mental health need, education engagement, poor quality or lacking service provision and delivery, and contextual harm. More than 61,000 of 11 to 25-year-olds in West Yorkshire—13% of the population—were at risk of serious violence as a result of income deprivation and high levels of neighbourhood crime. One reality drawn out of the research that I find particularly depressing is how young people are being drawn into gangs and criminality by family members who are already involved. The report found that young people are often recruited by their own family. The reasons young people get involved in crime and find themselves in police custody serve as a reminder that some children’s lives could not be more different from our own and that harm and risk is all around them.
How can we ensure that encounters with the police and any time spent in custody have a positive impact on these children’s trajectory and do not compound the negative experiences surrounding them? The West Yorkshire violence reduction unit research recommended the development of trauma-informed practice across partnerships such as the complex childhood trauma steering group, which should be used to evaluate and standardise the trauma-informed offering across the region, and more and better mental health support for young people, all of which could and should be a feature of a child’s limited time in custody. The aspiration has to be that the more we understand the risks and recognise the value of targeted intervention upstream, the more time in custody can be avoided entirely for children and young people.
One of the key features of the opening speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East was about the provision of appropriate adults. Research conducted by Dr Miranda Bevan of Goldsmiths, University of London, and Dr Vicky Kemp from the University of Nottingham, and shared by my hon. Friend found that it is not unusual for appropriate adults to not arrive until six or more hours have passed. Having got a better understanding of some of the reasons for that from my local police just today, I am sympathetic that trying to make contact initially with parents, who may or may not be available and who, sadly, are sometimes not willing to attend, then approaching the emergency duty team within child social care, and then, if they can still not get someone to attend, approaching the National Appropriate Adult Network, starts to show where the practical barriers to making swift progress are—and that is when attempts are made straightaway, which, as we have already heard, is not always the case.
From speaking to colleagues in West Yorkshire’s liaison and diversion team earlier today, I know that problems are often exacerbated when looked-after children are in custody. Lines of parental responsibility prove harder to establish at a time when some of the most marginalised children are required to make serious decisions, without support, in conditions that are designed to be uncomfortable. Indeed, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who it is always a pleasure to see in Westminster Hall, made the right and powerful point, which has been supported by almost all the speakers made here today, about asking these children to decide for themselves if they want or require legal representation, when it should be the default.
In its research, the National Appropriate Adult Network points out that children in custody are disadvantaged by more than just cognitive development. They are much more likely than other children to have poor mental health, to have a learning disability, at up to 22% for that cohort compared with 4% in the wider population, to have a communication disorder, at up to 90% versus 7%, to be autistic, at 15% compared with 1%, and to have suffered a head injury with loss of consciousness for more than 20 minutes, at 18% versus 5%. If we are looking for confirmation of why appropriate adults are essential for children in those circumstances, the statistics could not make the case any clearer.
We know that there are routine delays in getting someone to attend on behalf of a child. Are we not able to establish a model of best practice that works for both the police and the child, and moves things forward by having someone skilled on hand to provide that service? I hope the Minister will share her thinking on that when she responds, and address the pilot scheme that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East outlined, which appears to be delivering significant results. Once we have that in place, it opens up conversations about how swiftly we can move a child through police custody, and we can look again at 24 hours.
I am very much taking into account your comments, Mr Hollobone, but the Minister will be aware that alarm has been raised about strip searches in recent weeks. In response to a written question tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), the Minister for Crime and Policing confirmed that the Ministry of Justice is supporting a project with the National Police Chiefs’ Council with the aim of addressing the difference in experience of ethnic minority children and adults in police custody. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) shared some particularly powerful experiences of her constituents.
The Minister for Crime and Policing said that a wide range of agencies and independent advisers have contributed to that work, which engages a number of police forces across the country and builds on existing initiatives in the workplace, including a dedicated independent strip search scrutiny panel in Norfolk and Suffolk police. He said:
“From December 2022 we will be including more detailed custody data in the annual Police Powers and Procedures statistical bulletin which will include data on whether an appropriate adult was called out for a detained child and the number of strip searches & Intimate searches carried out, broken down by age, gender, ethnicity, and offence type.”
My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea also spoke about the importance of data. That piece of work is welcome, so will the Minister confirm when it will be concluded and published? It struck me that the response to that written question said that the research will determine if an appropriate adult was called. I very much expect to see that that requirement was upheld entirely.
I have spent a great deal of time trying to improve the modern slavery provisions in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, and looking at when children come into custody. If there are concerns that they are victims of child criminal exploitation, county lines gangs or trafficking, the push to keep children out of custody for all the right reasons cannot mean that we cut corners and miss opportunities in our safeguarding obligations. Where the police arrest children and seize drugs or cash due to unlawful possession, they and other statutory agencies should fully understand the potential dangers for those children of being releasing without them, potentially back into the grasp of those who have been criminally exploiting them. We must work through that by involving all the relevant safeguarding agencies to truly disrupt the criminal activity that has a grip of the young person, and deliver that wraparound support as urgently as possible.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East once again for securing this debate, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to her powerful calls for best practice, scrutiny and oversight, and for making sure that children in custody are recognised and treated as children.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Rachel Maclean)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to respond to the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby). I am especially grateful to her for the way she continues to bring issues relating to the rights and protection of children in police custody to the attention of this House.
All Members have spoken about the vital element of trust and confidence in policing, which I am absolutely sure we all share. I want to put on the record my thanks to our police officers in every force across the country. Although we all understand and recognise some of the incidents of substandard and unsatisfactory practice—alleged, because these are often ongoing cases—that have been highlighted by Members, who are obviously doing a good job in raising the interests of their constituents, as we would expect, it is right to say that the vast majority of police officers in our country do an extremely good job under very difficult circumstances. Ultimately, the work they have to do in those types of situations is very sensitive. They have to navigate and make that judgment while balancing the rights of the child and the rights of the victims of the alleged crime. We all share in the collective endeavour to ensure that the criminal justice system supports that.
We have moved on from March, when I set out the criteria for police custody. Police custody is an important element of our criminal justice system. Being able to question suspects in the controlled environment of the custody suite is instrumental to progressing criminal investigations and to bringing offenders to justice, protecting victims and keeping everybody safe. Forgive me, Mr Hollobone, as I forgot to thank the Members who contributed and made excellent speeches, particularly the hon. Members for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) and for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe). I will pick up their points in the course of my speech.
Children should be detained in custody only when absolutely necessary and when there is no other practical alternative. They are rightly acknowledged—this Government agree and stand behind this—as a protected group with specific needs and vulnerabilities. For that reason, opportunities to divert them away from police custody should always be considered first as a priority.
I very much welcome the comments from the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch), who spoke about the excellent work done by the violence reduction units in her area. However, they are national schemes and I think House would be interested to know a little bit more about that work. I will not go into a huge amount of detail because time prevents me, but this is a truly groundbreaking, long-term project, and a Conservative Government initiative. My officials will correct me if I am wrong, but I think we have committed £500 million over a very long period to work out, as she said, which initiatives and practices actually work to divert young people away from crime and prevent them from getting involved in the first place. I think we can all agree that it is an incredibly compassionate approach.
We want to ensure that perpetrators are dealt with appropriately and that sentencing is tougher and meets the needs of the public, but we also want to look at the vulnerabilities of young people and understand why they are drawn into crime in the first place. That is why this detailed work is taking place across the country—and, as the hon. Lady highlighted, in her own area—working in a granular way with local agencies that know their communities and those children best. I strongly encourage any Member who is interested in youth justice, prevention of crime and a social justice approach to visit their violence reduction unit if they have one in their area, to learn more about that.
Turning back to the issue at hand, custody procedures and police decision making in custody are, quite rightly, subject to scrutiny and oversight. Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services regularly inspects police custody suites, monitors the treatment and welfare of detainees in custody, and makes recommendations for police forces and partners. We expect forces to take those recommendations seriously and to take action to address issues in response.
In 2017, as Members have referenced, the Government changed the law so that children aged 17 were entitled to the specific safeguards intended for children under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. These include a legal requirement for an appropriate adult to be present for interviews and strip searches to ensure their rights are protected. Officers must consider a child’s age and welfare when deciding whether to arrest them.
Members raised a number of specific comments, concerns and complaints. Many of them fall under the category of cases that are currently going through legal proceedings, but it is fair to say that this Government and the public rightly expect the highest standards from our police officers. The ability of police to perform their core functions of tackling crime and keeping the public safe is dependent on their capacity to maintain the confidence of the public. That is why we take the reports of these incidents extremely seriously. We have the safeguarding structures and the scrutiny in place.
Several recent incidents have been referred to the IOPC, which is investigating or determining whether an independent investigation is required. That work is ongoing and I cannot say more at this point. It is an independent body and must be allowed to carry out its work free of political influence. The Government’s role, however, is to consider any recommendations for legislation or policy change carefully. I think I can say, without prejudicing anything, that, in the case of child Q, the IOPC has served four officers of the Metropolitan police with notices of gross misconduct. That means that they are being investigated for alleged misconduct that is such a serious breach of professional standards that it could warrant dismissal if proven.
I welcome the comments of Mayor of London Sadiq Khan. He released a statement following the publication of the child Q safeguarding report outlining his concerns about cultural issues within the Met police to which some Members have referred. It is the Mayor’s responsibility in his function as police and crime commissioner for London, supported by the deputy Mayor for policing and crime, to hold the Met police to account for delivering the necessary improvements.
I note that the Met has put a robust plan in place, in the light of the incidents, which includes adultification training for all officers in the central east command unit, which covers Hackney and Tower Hamlets, reviewing the policy on further searches of children to ensure that it recognises that the child in such circumstances might be a vulnerable victim of exploitation—a point made well by the hon. Member for Halifax—and introducing new measures, so that an inspector must now give authority before a search takes place to ensure appropriate oversight. Furthermore, a Merlin report has to be submitted to ensure that safeguarding of the child is a priority.
Often in these debates, the problems and concerns are outlined and the challenge to the Government is to do more. We all understand the delicate balance in this country between the operational independence of the police and the important role played by police and crime commissioners, elected by their communities, with their various important powers. We do not shy away from acting where we need to, but we will also shine a light on all those other important individuals who have a responsibility to deliver on some of these serious failings.
Marsha De Cordova
The Minister rightly points out the independent role that the IOPC has to play, but the key point here is about children in custody, safeguarding and prevention. Frankly, we should all be striving for cases not needing to go there, because the incidents should not be happening in the first place. She talked about what the Met is doing, but this is a national issue. Does she agree that there needs to be a review of how the policing of black children is taking place?
Rachel Maclean
I will come on to the point that the hon. Lady made about black children, but I hope she heard my earlier comments about the importance that the Government place on prevention. That is the reason for the hundreds of millions of pounds we are spending over the long term on violence reduction units, to look at what actually works in this space to prevent young children from being drawn into knife crime, gang culture and a life of crime. [Interruption.] Sorry, did someone wish to intervene?
Claudia Webbe
Obviously, the Minister was referring to the policing of black children, not the criminalisation of black children.
Rachel Maclean
I will move on in my speech and address those points.
Turning to the issue of children being detained in police cells, whether they are black or any other ethnicity, looking at the system as a whole, I am pleased to say that Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services reports that its custody inspections show a decrease in the number of children held in custody in recent years. I think we can all agree that that is positive, although we must continue to keep that under review.
We take our responsibilities towards children in detention seriously. Those aged under 18 should not be treated in the same way as adults in the criminal justice system. They should not be placed in a cell or be allowed to associate with an adult detainee in any circumstances. We are clear that all new custody suites must be designed with the capability to allow separation of adult males, adult females and children.
Members have made reference to data in their speeches. I can tell the House that the Home Office will publish data on strip searches in custody for the first time this year as part of a wider custody collection, which will greatly increase transparency and accountability. We anticipate that this collection will ultimately become mandatory.
Rachel Maclean
I will just finish my point, as I may well be answering the question. We are exploring with forces the feasibility of collecting more detailed data on thorough searches following stop and search to complement this. A number of datasets are part of this work. One such set could well be the time taken for appropriate adults to be present, as the hon. Member for Battersea referred to in her speech.
Marsha De Cordova
On the point about data collection and strip searches, as it stands, a strip search will take place where there has been an arrest, and that data is recorded. A strip search could also take place where there has not been an arrest, and that data is currently not mandatorily recorded. Could the Minister confirm that that is now going to be the case?
Rachel Maclean
I will write to the hon. Member on that point. As I am sure she knows, the Minister who would normally be responding to this debate is the Minister for Crime and Policing, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse). He has the knowledge and policy expertise on all these matters, and I am sure he would be able to answer the hon. Lady were he not in the main Chamber. We will absolutely write to the hon. Lady to update her on those points.
The hon. Member for Battersea referred to levels of trust in police among ethnic minorities and young people in particular. She is right that recent incidents have raised some serious issues within the police, and it is right that the Government ask difficult questions to drive positive change. Our police are more diverse than ever before. Forces have worked hard to improve community engagement, and we have seen major improvements in the way the police deal with racist crime. However, we still know that there is much more to do. That is why attracting more officers from a wide range of ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds is a core ambition of our drive to recruit an extra 20,000 officers.
As we set out in the “Inclusive Britain” report, the Government and policing partners will create a new national framework for how the use of police powers such as stop and search is scrutinised at a local level. We will also explore sharing body-worn video footage with scrutiny panels and removing unnecessary barriers to its use to increase community oversight. I welcome the Ministry of Justice’s support for a project with the National Police Chiefs’ Council to develop scrutiny panels on the use of strip search with the aim of addressing the difference in experience of ethnic minority children and adults in police custody. I am sure the hon. Lady can agree with and welcome this significant programme of work to tackle some of the concerns she has raised.
I would like to respond to a few more specific points. Before I do, I want to thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his thoughtful contribution. He is right that we have no direct oversight of police forces in his constituency, but his suggestion that I meet with my counterpart in Northern Ireland is an extremely good one. He has form in filling up my diary, because the last time I responded to a debate he spoke in, I was a transport Minister and I had a really productive conversation with my counterpart in Northern Ireland, so I am happy to do that again.
Members have referred to the issue of the detention clock, the timing of it and the work done by Dr Miranda Bevan and Dr Vicky Kemp. The Home Office is fully aligned and engaged with this work. This is a complex issue, as I am sure Members will understand. We meet frequently with police, solicitors and wider stakeholders. Dr Kemp has addressed these meetings with updates on the findings, and we are committed to considering the final outcomes carefully. Of course, we will take Dr Kemp’s recommendations very seriously.
I was asked about legal advice and whether it should be an opt-in or opt-out pilot. We would all have the view that children should be prioritised for in-person legal advice. I know that colleagues in the MOJ are running a pilot scheme, which I understand is being trialled by the Metropolitan police. That is very important because of the significant representation of arrested ethnic minority children. That pilot is ongoing, and it will be important to look at how it progresses, take lessons from that and see what the implications are for national policing.
I think I have addressed all the key points raised by Members, Mr Hollobone, but obviously they are always free to write to me about any specific points of details. To finish, this is a really important and sensitive area. I thank Members for the way in which they have raised the concerns of their constituents and communities. We take the issue very seriously and we recognise that there is a lot of work to do in this space. I hope Members are reassured that we understand and prioritise the issue. We are funding the police to do their job. We look at policy areas where things are failing, but we also recognise that the police have an incredibly difficult to job to do. I again thank the hon. Member for Lewisham East for her consistent advocacy for vulnerable children.
Janet Daby
I thank everybody who participated in this afternoon’s debate. All hon. Members, including the Government and Opposition spokespeople, spoke comprehensively. Many issues were touched on, but the thread that ran through everybody’s contribution was the need to safeguard the wellbeing of young people, children and minors.
I was particularly struck by the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova). She spoke about a young person who had been held in a custody cell for 23 hours and then discharged without being charged with any offence. Young people who are arrested by the police are sometimes not charged at all because no evidence is found that they have committed a crime.
I have worked closely with the police in previous jobs and have had brilliant professional relationships with police officers. I do not believe that anybody comes to work to do a bad job; I think everybody goes to work to do a good job, including the police, but people do not always have the tools or training they need to do that or the policies in place to enable that. There is room for change, which I will mention briefly in the time I have left.
I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his contribution and comments, which were very meaningful. He mentioned the rights of children and that a 10-year-old child is still learning about what is right and what is wrong. Those children may not have the ability to say whether they need legal representation or not, but they absolutely need it.
The hon. Member for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe) spoke about young people needing to be protected and about preventing overnight detention, as well as being an advocate for safeguards to be in place for strip searches.
I welcome the Minister’s comments about what is happening in regard to strip searches. I would be interested to see the information she offered to my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea to clarify if it relates to all strip searches; it is an issue we need to be open and transparent about. I was interested to hear about the Government’s work to prevent the adultification of young people, as well as about the new design for custody suites.
The main point of the debate was about the detention of children and about appropriate adults. As I mentioned, successful child trials have been rolled out with the Met. I press the Minister and the Government to look at that trial to see whether it could be pushed forward across the Met and other police forces to ensure that children are not detained longer than necessary. I also press them to consider minimising that stay from 24 hours to 12, to look at the whole legal aid system, in order to ensure that all children can access legal aid, and to consider the opt-out system.
Thank you very much for your time, Mr Hollobone.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Thank you for yours.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the rights of children while in police custody.
Dead Crustaceans (North-East Coast)
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
We are going to move straight on to the next debate. Will Members who are leaving please do so quickly and quietly? We are going to discuss the important issue of dead crustaceans on the north-east coast.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered dead crustaceans on the North East coast.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship yet again, Mr Hollobone. I seem to get you in the Chair quite a lot when I have debates. It is good to see you there.
Our fishing industry in north-east England has been dealt a huge blow in recent months, with catches decimated and businesses on the edge of ruin. The mass die-offs and the reason behind them have been causing serious concern along the north-east coast since the first dead sea creatures were discovered in the early morning of 6 October last year.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has held several calls with local MPs and I recognise its efforts to engage with us. However, there is still a huge amount of concern among our constituents, many of whom feel that the Government have not gone far enough in their investigations and that it is high time Ministers stepped up and provided some financial support to the industries that have been so severely impacted.
DEFRA has not updated its conclusions since last November, when it settled on the hypothesis that a rare algal bloom had caused the deaths. Even then, it was reported that DEFRA had not found one single causative factor, but rather that:
“A harmful algal bloom present in the area coincident with the event was identified as of significance.”
I am aware that the investigation by the Environment Agency, the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science and the Marine Management Organisation did examine other possibilities, such as licensed dredging, chemical contamination, activities related to offshore wind farms and aquatic animal disease. The investigation was closed after live and healthy crabs and other crustaceans were found in more recent catches.
However, the die-offs are still ongoing. We had one last December, another this February and a big one in April, with the most recent one occurring just two weeks ago. There is a real sense among the communities affected that the Department has not addressed the later die-offs, especially as the algal bloom was not definitively identified as the cause even back in the autumn.
It was for that reason that I wrote last month to the Minister for Farming, Fisheries and Food, the hon. Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), who is here today, requesting that the inquiry be reopened. To my deep disappointment, my request was refused by her colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow). I have therefore brought the issue to this Chamber in the hope that the voices of the affected communities will now be listened to.
The local fishing industry are still reporting higher than average amounts of dead crustaceans in its catches. I am told that fishermen from Hartlepool, Redcar and Whitby are still returning negligible catches from our inshore waters. Just last week, a crew set off from Hartlepool with 50 pots to catch lobsters. When they retrieved the pots, there were only four lobsters; of those four, only one was alive. I heard of another crew whose total catch was one crab and seven lobsters. Again, three lobsters were dead and two of the living lobsters were on their backs, already dying.
Considering those numbers, it seems that the decision to close the investigation was premature, and that it is possible that there is more to this issue than the hypothesised algal bloom—something the North East Fishing Collective also believes to be the case.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
This is a very interesting debate that applies not only to the north-east but the whole UK coastline. I am not convinced that an algal bloom is responsible for the deaths of thousands of these creatures. Contamination by a chemical such as pyridine is a likely cause; it is not a chemical that is routinely examined or inspected for by the Environment Agency, but it could be the cause of the problem. Does the hon. Gentleman concur?
Alex Cunningham
I am grateful for the hon. Member’s intervention, and will mention that very chemical later in my speech.
Our local fishing industry, which was already in a perilous state as a result of Brexit and the pandemic, deserves more robust answers from the Government. Will the Minister explain to our fishing communities why DEFRA will not reopen the investigation? As she knows, many in the fishing community believe that the cause of the die-offs may be linked to the dredging of the Tees in connection with the establishment of the Tees freeport, which is potentially stirring up historical pollutants. With a further 2 million tonnes of sediment licensed to be dredged from the Tees this summer and dumped at sea, can the Minister explain why the decontamination and repurposing of that sediment is not being considered, when no definitive cause of the die-offs has been established and dredging has remained a constant over the past nine months?
Indeed, some have suggested a direct link between the location and timings of the dredging by the UKD Orca and the die-offs. To that end, can the Minister confirm whether the spoil site where 250,000 tonnes of dredged sediment was dumped by the UKD Orca between 26 September 2021 and 5 October 2021 has been sampled and tested? I am aware of the Department’s response, which says that dredged material
“must meet the highest international standards protecting marine life”
before it can be disposed of at sea, but there are concerns that those standards are not robust enough, and that they allow the companies that want to dispose of that material too much latitude in the collection of samples. My understanding is that such sampling happens every few years, and there is no specific sampling at the sites people believe may be connected with the die-offs. I recognise that the Department has far greater expertise in this area than I do, but the fact is that the local community is still grasping for answers.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is making some important points regarding this issue, which is of significant concern for the whole of the Tees valley community, not least myself and my constituents. Could he illustrate for us what efforts he has made to discuss this issue with the port authority, PD Ports?
Alex Cunningham
I am grateful to the hon. Member for that intervention. I have not personally discussed the issue with PD Ports—perhaps its representatives would like to contact me so that we can have that discussion—but the important thing is that the Government take the lead and sort out the issues in the Tees valley. Perhaps the hon. Member will join me in calling for compensation, or at least some assistance, for the fisherpeople who are losing their businesses as a result of what is happening in that area.
It may well be that the hypothesised algal bloom is the primary factor causing the marine deaths, but it strikes me that too much un-investigated evidence is being peddled about. Another theory is the potential leakage of weed killer from the MV Stora Korsnäs Link 1, which sank off the coast of Saltburn in 1991 just before the by-election that saw Ashok Kumar elected to this House.
While I am not suggesting that any one thing is the definitive causative factor, there is enough evidence to warrant further inquiries, and our local fishing community agrees. The Government must engage further with our communities’ concerns, and if they are sure that dredging is not the issue, provide evidence definitively proving that to be the case. Instead, fishermen have been left to crowdfund independent reports because they cannot get the Government to answer their questions. When that is put in the context of our fishing communities’ reduced income as a result of Brexit, covid and the die-offs, it is appalling that the Government have left them having to pay out of their own pockets for the answers their industry needs to survive.
I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on the work of Tim Deere-Jones, an independent marine pollution consultant with 30 years’ experience, who has suggested that the cause is linked to the chemical pyridine, quantities of which were more than 70 times higher in crab samples taken from Saltburn and Seaton than a control sample from Penzance. In the words of Mr Deere-Jones,
“How Defra has not seen that and felt it requires further investigation, I don’t know”.
It is vital that further action is taken soon. The reports of last year’s impact on the marine landscape of the Tees estuary and the coasts of the north-east of England are horrifying. We are blessed with a beautiful and diverse marine landscape off our coast, but it is being decimated. Just last month, piles of crabs, lobsters, razor clams and dried seaweed formed on the beaches at South Gare and along the coast to Saltburn, an area popular with my constituents, as well as others further afield. As local marine rescuer, Sally Bunce, put it,
“It’s a dead zone. Fishermen in Saltburn have also reported pulling pots that are full of black silt.”
Sally first got involved in this cause because she rescues seals. She told me that most seal pups have starved to death this year. In their first months, they feed off sea life on the seabed but, because of these mass die-offs, there was nothing there. She rescued seal pups that, at four months old, should have been 35 kilograms, but were 15 kilograms. Sadly, some of them were too far gone to be rescued and rehabilitated. This year, 14 porpoises have washed up dead in a period of 10 weeks, which is a huge increase on normal numbers.
I understand that the Department did not provide funding for toxicology tests to be carried out on the porpoises. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain, given the circumstances, why it was not thought such a report would be needed. I am also interested to hear from the Minister of any investigation her Department has carried out on the effects of this prolonged mass mortality on the full range of regional marine wildlife. If what has been done so far has been insufficient, will she commit to a full investigation of the range of issues affecting our marine environment?
Scuba divers who dive off the coast from Marske have reported that areas that used to be full of wildlife are now desolate, and even the seaweed bleached white at the ends. Although the destruction of marine life is already devastating from an environmental perspective, the impact it is having on the fishing industry in the north-east could be terminal.
I have already shared cases of diminishing shellfish catches, and those where the lobsters are already dead. In the first die-off in October, the local fishing industry reported a 95% decline in the lobster and crab catch. The picture is truly catastrophic. There have also been reports from fishermen that they have caught flounder that have been covered in blisters. It is not good enough for the Government to sit back and let this fishing industry die. It will be yet another Tees industry that the Tories have seen over the edge, just like they did with our steel industry. The Government cannot level up our country if they turn a blind eye, and simply allow the industries and communities such as ours to die away.
I have been calling for a support package for the fishermen since February. Back then, the Department said it was not considering compensation. I wonder whether now, as issues remain ongoing, the Minister will reconsider her Department’s position and provide vital support for the north-east’s decimated fishing industry. The hon. Member for Redcar (Jacob Young) raised the matter at Prime Minister’s questions earlier this month. I want to ensure that it is clearly on the record that the £100 million that the Prime Minister referred to in his reply is not new money to support the fishermen in response to this crisis, but the existing £100 million of the UK seafood fund that was announced in early 2021, before the die-offs had even begun.
That sum was to support the industry because of the financial losses it has suffered as a result of the Government’s bungled Brexit. We need additional funds to be identified to support the industry given this new challenge. I hope the Minister can commit today to consider such a support package. If the Department is unable to provide such a package, I wonder whether the Tees Valley Mayor has the powers, if he is willing to provide some form of support, to ensure that we do not lose the few remaining fishing boats from Teesside and Hartlepool.
Our industries desperately need support and they deserve more definitive answers. The Government need to pay more attention to this ongoing crisis. They cannot continue to stick their heads in the sand and hope that the situation will resolve itself. We want our seas back and we want our fishing industry back. I hope that the Minister gives our local communities’ concerns the attention and respect that they deserve.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) for securing this debate on an issue that has been at the forefront of all our minds since October last year.
I should start by drawing attention to the fact that, as the MP for Redcar, I sit on the boards of both Teesworks and the Teesside freeport. I do not get paid to perform those roles; I sit on the boards to advocate for my constituents. However, I will first tackle the myth that has been spread online that somehow Teesworks, the freeport and, by implication, the Tees Valley Mayor are linked to dredging in the River Tees.
The Tees Valley Mayor has no control, legislative remit or authority over any of the Tees mouth. PD Ports is the statutory harbour authority and organises dredging activities. No dredging has taken place as part of the Teesside freeport, Teesworks or the South Bank Quay project, and any and all dredging must be done in accordance with the requirements and related regulations of the Marine Management Organisation, as has always been the case with all the dredging on the River Tees that has happened since the year dot.
I think it is a misconception to get lost in a conversation about dredging, because we know that contaminates exist in the riverbed. That is why sampling is undertaken before any dredging takes place; it is also why dredging that does not meet the requirements of disposal at sea is dealt with separately and handled onshore. While, as the hon. Member for Stockton North said, the joint investigation into the mass death of crabs has not been able to come to an absolute conclusion—no such investigation would ever be able to do that—it has been able to rule out chemical pollution and dredging as the likely cause of the crustacean die-off.
I am not a scientist. I am not trained in marine biology; nor is the hon. Member for Stockton North, and nor, indeed, is the Minister. We are here as politicians, to ask the pressing questions that need to be asked, to challenge ideas that are presented to us, and to accept the evidence when it is provided in an independent way, as is being done by the Environment Agency, the Marine Management Organisation, the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, and every other organisation involved in this case. If someone thinks that all those organisations would somehow conspire to hide the real cause of these crustacean deaths, they must be having a laugh. That would not happen. Why would all these leading scientists come together to try to cover this up in some way? That does not make sense.
Instead of going down that route and accepting the evidence for it, my plea to the Minister is that she continues to ask challenging questions of those organisations but that the real message that she should take away—this is something that was mentioned by the hon. Member for Stockton North—is the huge impact that this mass-mortality event has had on towns and communities such as Redcar, Whitby and Hartlepool. If we are to have a fishing industry in towns such as mine, it is vital that the Government extend support when we are faced with these freak acts of nature.
As the hon. Member said, when I raised this issue at Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister highlighted the UK seafood fund, but we need to know how the Government will help the fishermen in Redcar today. Redcar originated as a fishing village in the 14th century; people have fished in Redcar for more than 700 years. Will the Minister please go away and consider what further help could be available for a community such as mine, to ensure that the thousands of crab deaths off our coast do not lead to the death of a 700-year-old industry?
The Minister for Farming, Fisheries and Food (Victoria Prentis)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone.
I, too, thank the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) for securing this important debate. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Jacob Young); together with my hon. Friends the Members for Hartlepool (Jill Mortimer) and for Darlington (Peter Gibson), he asks me almost daily whether I have an update on this issue, which is very important for their constituents. It is fair to say that the mass wash-up of dead crabs and lobsters in the Tees area last winter had a really significant effect, both on the local community as a whole and on the fishing industry.
The Environment Agency led the initial emergency response with the support of others, with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs then co-ordinating a multi-agency response involving the EA, the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, the Marine Management Organisation, the Food Standards Agency and the UK Health Security Agency.
It must be remembered that we really did not know what was causing the mass mortality. Extensive testing, research and analysis followed, which included testing for chemicals and other pollutants such as pyridine, dredging activity, disease, and seismic activity. In summary, no chemicals tested were identified at levels that would explain the cause of the mortality. A harmful algal bloom that was present in the area at the time was shown in the satellite imagery and confirmed by the consistent detection of algal toxins in the washed-up dead crabs and lobsters.
The Government experts’ joint report on those findings was published last month, and I hope that the hon. Member for Stockton North received it. It was published only on 31 May, not at the end of last year. Although we concluded that the most likely cause was the harmful algal bloom, we may never know for sure what caused the event. I will go on to detail the continuing testing, and I undertake to keep the hon. Gentleman informed as that process is gone through.
Our focus now is to understand the impact that the event has had on shellfish stocks in the region, and to try to monitor the recovery. We are also doing a very wide-ranging piece of work to better understand the impact of algal bloom on crustaceans. In a really important step forward, Government technical leads met industry-commissioned researchers last week to share knowledge gained from the work completed so far. There should be no suggestion that two different bodies of science are being created out of this industry, because it is really important that we pool resources, work together and are completely transparent in what we find. We also met to discuss planned university and DEFRA-commissioned research, and I am pleased that we are able to do that together. We will continue to share our findings and work collectively with all the experts wherever we can.
The EA is carrying out monthly sampling and testing of the water quality, and it continues to monitor water in the Tees as part of its normal programme. CEFAS is contributing to work on algal blooms and parasites in crustaceans, and it is also undertaking work to further understand the science, including that of pyridine. That is due to be completed in March 2023. It is a really large body of work, which will help us to interpret the scientific findings of the incident in 2021. I hope that it will also increase the suite of analytical tools that we have across DEFRA to respond should any such incident occur again.
Alex Cunningham
I appreciate the Minister’s response and I know of the terrible constraints, but this situation has now lasted nine months. Just two weeks ago, we had another incident. A few weeks before that, we had a major incident. I do not know whether the same cause is to blame every time, but what is happening to identify whether there is an ongoing cause? What is going to happen to the fishermen?
Victoria Prentis
I reassure the hon. Gentleman that I am being kept informed weekly by my hon. Friends the Members for Hartlepool and for Redcar, and by my own officials, who are monitoring the situation very closely. If I may, I will continue to set out the work that we are doing on testing, because it shows how seriously we are taking the issue.
We are waiting for a report associated with some of the parasite findings in the lobster samples that we took recently. CEFAS is actively investigating the intelligence that some of the lobsters have been found to be heavily parasitised, and it is examining them very carefully. The EA continues to monitor the water, including by conducting chlorophyll and phytoplankton sampling, as well as chemical sampling. The North Eastern Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Association continues to monitor the health of shellfish stocks by following trends in catch and effort reporting, actively working on survey pots, conducting observer trips onboard fishing vessels and on the quayside, and supporting any additional biological sampling and testing work that is undertaken by other lead organisations. For the sake of completeness, I will say that the MMO is satisfied that the disposal of dredge material has been carried out in accordance with sampling guidelines set out under OSPAR.
Victoria Prentis
I am just moving on to dredging on the Tees.
Dredging has been taking place for many years. It is essential to maintain navigational safety and access to ports and other facilities, and it plays a fundamental part in the operation of local businesses. It has been ruled out as a likely cause of the wash-up.
Before a marine licence is granted, samples of dredge materials must be tested. The MMO has looked at the test results before and after the dredging. The sampling of sediment licensed by the MMO for disposal to the designated sites of the Tees confirmed that no chemical determinants exceeded levels of concentrations that would be harmful to marine life. A further review found no evidence of a link between the disposal of dredged sediment and the mass crustacean deaths. The Environment Agency could not find anything of note in its testing, either. Sediment that is going to be dredged in the Tees is tested and sampled at least every three years prior to the dredging, and the MMO found nothing in the dredging sphere that would explain the deaths.
Alex Cunningham
The Minister referred to the three-yearly testing. I want to understand whether there has been any specific testing of that dredge material in the last nine months—since we have had this problem.
Victoria Prentis
I would be delighted to share with the hon. Gentleman the information that we have already shared with the scientists not related to the Government who are involved in the work. We have shared with them absolutely everything that we feel could be relevant, because it is very important, as my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar said, that no conspiracy theories abound.
Jacob Young
To help the Minister out slightly, the joint agency report from May states clearly:
“Testing of sediment at the Inner Tees disposal site has already taken place in April 2021 and there was no evidence of significantly elevated contaminants in sediment”.
Victoria Prentis
Yes. The point I was making is that we have shared all these findings; they are not in any way being kept secret. I completely accept why the local community is very distressed; it was an extremely distressing event. I understand that there are further crustacean deaths taking place from time to time. People locally are extremely worried by that, and that is understandable. However, it is important that we look at this with an open mind, and that scientists are able to share the evidence and work together to try to establish why on earth it has occurred.
I also understand that the local fishing industry has been put under enormous pressure during the last eight or nine months. It is not our normal practice to pay compensation when natural events occur, as they do annually all around the country. For example, very sadly, we have to close fisheries from time to time when stocks become unavailable. We are not currently considering compensation, but I am very willing to work with colleagues—I have extended this offer to my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar already—to see whether there are items or infrastructure bids in the UK seafood fund that would be suitable for the local communities. Members may wish to work together, as a group, to see whether there is something that we can do through that considerable fund to help the local community.
If I might slightly correct the hon. Member for Stockton North, the UK seafood fund was not in any way meant to compensate for the trade and co-operation agreement; instead, it was to get the industry ready for the fishing opportunities of the future and for the increased quota that has come our way following Brexit. It is very much a fund that looks to the future, and I would be very keen to meet any of the hon. Members present to discuss how best we can look into how that works for their area.
Last month, I visited Hartlepool and met my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool, the MMO, the inshore fisheries and conservation authority and a very helpful representative from the local fishing industry. Together, we looked at some dead crustaceans and spoke about the recent reports and the future of the investigation. My officials have been meeting the various agencies weekly to share intelligence and assess the situation, and the officials with me today would be delighted to speak to any hon. Member after the debate, to allay fears wherever possible.
Clearly, this situation has not yet been put to bed; we need to continue to monitor and assess. The report was a substantial and serious piece of work but I know that concerns remain locally—I hear and understand colleagues when they say that that is very much the case. I will therefore convene a meeting to update MPs when more of the evidence that I described earlier is available to us. I reassure all colleagues present that we keep this issue very much at the top of our agenda.
Question put and agreed to.
Derby County Football Club
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
We are going to move straight on to the next debate, so would all those Members who are not participating please be courteous enough to leave quickly and quietly because we come on to the important issue of the administration of Derby County football club.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the administration of Derby County Football Club.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Hollobone. At the outset, I would like to thank the Minister for his support and for his willingness to discuss this issue with local MPs. That has really been appreciated.
Last week marked nine months since Derby County entered administration on 22 September 2021—nine months of pain and uncertainty for Rams fans, who have shown so much devotion and dedication to the club during this, the toughest of all seasons. Since September we have seen a string of deadlines set, and missed, by Derby administrators Quantuma and the English Football League. We had an urgent question on the Floor of the House in January because the EFL had set a deadline of 1 February for the club to exit administration. That, like every other deadline throughout the process, was missed and the administrators were allowed to delay again.
In April we finally got the news we were waiting for: a preferred bidder, Chris Kirchner, was announced. We were told on 3 May that it was “almost done”, on 14 May that it was “almost complete”, and on 27 May that they would be closing by the end of the month. On 2 June, we were told that the delays were nothing to worry about and that UK and US bank holidays were preventing the bank transfer, which no one on either side of this multimillion pound deal had apparently foreseen or planned for. All along, the administrators had assured Team Derby—made up of Members of Parliament, councillors and local stakeholders—that nothing was wrong and that Kirchner’s deal would be completed.
Two weeks ago, it was announced via the media, rather than a direct communication from the administrators, that Kirchner had pulled out. Quantuma had made a terrible miscalculation in giving Chris Kirchner 65 days of exclusivity, which could have been spent seeking other, more credible buyers. Those 65 days have come at an absolutely crucial time for the club. We really are at one minute to midnight. Derby has only seven players contracted for next season, and the EFL has not yet lifted the transfer ban. Derby needs to be able to sell season tickets and agree sponsorship and commercial deals, and there are just weeks to go until next season.
In a spark of good news, local businessman David Clowes has been announced as the new preferred bidder and, crucially, has already acquired Pride Park, the stadium, so he is in a good place to finalise his deal. We very much hope he is able to conclude the sale of the club by tomorrow, Wednesday the 29th, but Derby fans have been here before and will not believe it is over until the ink has dried on the contract.
However, it was also announced this week that our inspirational manager, Wayne Rooney, who has given his all to the club over the past year, has left. He fought against all the odds to rescue us from relegation. Despite a transfer ban and a 21-point deduction, he very nearly achieved that feat. Without our points deduction, Derby would have finished comfortably out of the relegation zone, in 17th place. I thank Wayne for all he has done for Derby County. We understand the difficulties and challenges he faced. Rams fans will be giving all our support to interim manager, Liam Rosenior, who has supported Wayne throughout the past year and now has the chance to lead the team forward and hopefully eventually back to the championship and beyond.
With all that context in mind, I have three main points I would like the Minister to respond to. My first relates to the conduct of the administrators, Quantuma. For some time, I have been very concerned about its competence in handling a business of Derby’s size. It took more than a month to work out that Kirchner was not able to provide the funds he promised. There are reports that it failed to communicate effectively with other interested buyers, and it has therefore run the club dangerously close to the edge of liquidation over the past nine months.
Furthermore, Quantuma’s manner of communication with local stakeholders through Team Derby has been incredibly poor. It has constantly told us that it is on the edge of breakthroughs, which never materialised. Our weekly updates barely had any new information. Quantuma refused to discuss key matters, on the grounds of commercial sensitivity, only for those matters to appear in the newspapers the next day. It is reported that Quantuma racked up more than £2 million in costs in the first six months of the administration. Its latest response to supporters’ groups assures us that no fees have been drawn so far, but not that it will not be taking them out of the sale proceeds.
It appears to me that the conduct of the administrators has fallen far short of what Derby County has a right to expect. However, there are no fans’ voices in this process. Fans have had no say in who the new owners of Derby County will be, and the administrators have failed time and again to communicate clearly with the fans.
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and on her and other local MPs’ tremendous efforts and leadership in championing the needs and future of Derby Town. This fate could befall any football club or any large sports club. She reflected on the conduct of the administrator. Does she have some suggestions for the Minister about how the process could be improved? We all look at our local football clubs and do not want to see a similar situation occurring. If it does, we want to make sure that the situation can be remedied as quickly as possible.
Mrs Latham
I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. I must correct him: it is Derby County, not Derby Town. Yes, this is a problem that could happen to any club at any time and in later remarks I will address what could be done.
The fans and the club deserve so much better. Can the Sports Minister update us as to how best we can hold Quantuma to account? In particular, how would he expect administrators to consult and communicate effectively with fans during a sale process? Furthermore what, specifically, will the Sports Minister do to ensure that Quantuma is acting in the best interests of Derby’s fans? The club is not out of the woods yet and I have lost all confidence in Quantuma. Therefore, I call on the Sports Minister and the Secretary of State to take a close interest and ensure that the interests of Derby fans are represented in what are hopefully the very final stages of the sale to Clowes Developments Ltd.
My second point relates to the English Football League, which has an important role in saving Derby County. It is responsible for the particular set of insolvency rules that govern football clubs and for resolving disputes between clubs. Unfortunately, its apparent desire to take a back seat has been very damaging to Derby County. The well-publicised claims by other clubs made Derby a much less appealing prospect for potential buyers, particularly given the EFL’s refusal to confirm that those claims did not amount to football debts, which need to be paid in full. It was only after Chris Kirchner pulled out of the process two weeks ago that the EFL finally announced it would amend its position and become fully involved in the process of finding a buyer alongside Quantuma. That is far too late and should have taken place much earlier in the process.
In addition to assisting with the negotiations with interested parties, there are other key actions that the EFL can take that would help Derby County fans. First, it must lift the ban on Derby signing and re-signing players. With just weeks until the start of the season, Liam Rosenior has only seven players to choose from. The EFL must immediately allow Derby to sign players or at least to re-sign existing squad members to contract extensions. Secondly, fans have been squarely behind Derby County throughout the whole process. They have turned up to matches, and the grounds have been at capacity. However, fans have not yet been able to buy season tickets for next season, which not only hurts them but reduces the income for the club at a time when it is so desperately needed.
Derby County is a founder member of the English Football League, which has treated our club and our fans poorly, when it should be doing everything possible to ensure that the club is not liquidated and has enough players to compete in League One next season. What discussions has the Sports Minister had with the EFL to ensure that Derby fans are not punished, that they will be able to get season tickets for the upcoming season and that the club will be able to field a full side for its opening games? The EFL has been incredibly slow to step in and oversee Quantuma’s work. What assurances has the Minister received that it will be much more active in securing the future of one of its member clubs going forward?
My final point relates to the actions that we can take in this place. So much of the situation could have been avoided if the recommendations from the fan-led review into football governance, which my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) has championed, had been implemented already. The hon. Lady sends her apologies; she desperately wanted to be here and support Derby and its fans, but she has been held up.
Creating a new independent regulator for football governance requires primary legislation. An independent regulator is needed so that fans’ voices are heard throughout the process to ensure that the right people are in charge of football clubs. Football clubs are not just commercial assets or businesses; they are community assets of huge sporting, cultural, economic and historical value to the local area—no club more so than Derby County, an historic founder member of English football. It has fans not only across the region, but across the world, and its game days provide an economic boost to Derby and the east midlands.
All too often in recent years, we have seen the effect on the local area of a football club going into administration. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly) made the point eloquently during my urgent question in January about Bury football club. An independent regulator is desperately needed to ensure that the right people are in charge of football clubs and are meaningfully taking the views of fans into account. Please, for the sake of Derby fans, Bury fans and so many more, will the Minister confirm that that crucial legislation will be brought forward?
In conclusion, I have concerns—to which I would like the Minister to respond—about the administrators, the EFL and the fan-led review of football governance. I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their participation in the debate. I know that the Minister will be able to see the strength of support for Derby County here in the Chamber. I also want him to be aware that other colleagues would have liked to contribute to the debate, but cannot because they are Whips or Ministers. None the less, they are still local Members of Parliament who have also been involved. Many Members support our cause, because if these things can happen to a club such as Derby County—a founder member of the Football League—they can happen to anyone.
I look forward to the Minister’s response and hope for assurances that he and the Secretary of State will be taking a keen interest in the resolution of the administration over the next day or two—a resolution firmly in the interests of Rams fans.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
The full-time whistle on this debate goes at 5.30 pm; the half-time whistle, when we switch from Back Benchers to Front Benchers, is 5.07 pm. The guideline limits for the Front Benchers are 10 minutes for Her Majesty’s Opposition, 10 minutes for the Minister and three minutes at the end for Pauline Latham to sum up the debate. So, for Back-Bench time until 5.07 pm, there will be a time limit of six minutes, which means that you all get to contribute. We are led to the kick-off by Dame Margaret Beckett.
Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to take part in this discussion under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I am particularly mindful of your observations about time. Not least because of the admirably comprehensive case made by the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham), I shall be extremely brief.
My purpose in contributing to the debate is partly to express a degree of sympathy with the Minister, who has had his ear bent extensively over the weeks during which these unfortunate events have taken place. I say that not least because, in the circumstances in which we find ourselves, and given the existing legislative framework, he might feel that there is a limit to what he can contribute. However, primarily, I want wholeheartedly to endorse the remarks of the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire in calling for changes in the structures of football governance of the kind that have been recommended, which could make a considerable difference to how such events are handled.
I am one of the Members of this House who is not a lawyer, so it is always a bit of a surprise to discover to what extent, in handling legal matters, people are confined and restricted. It has certainly been a revelation to me to hear about the power that rested with the administrators and about the incapacity of any other player in this dispute to influence them in any way or even to gain reliable information.
I will not withhold from Members present that I for one—I am not alone in this—have grown impatient to a degree with the lack of information that has been made available. I recognise, of course, and I am very conscious of, the need for information to be properly held, maintained, respected and all of that. I do not need any lectures about that, but I would almost say that those who have sought on a cross-party basis to work with and support the club and its fans have on occasion been treated with contempt by a variety of people taking part in these discussions. That has been quite alarming, and I have every sympathy with those affected. The fans’ organisation has been very powerful and enthusiastic—and, on the whole, incredibly polite, given the level of frustration the fans and all of us have experienced. They have held the interests of Derby County close to their heart, and I am sure they have bitten their tongues on many an occasion when they would have wished to express themselves forcefully.
As the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire said, it is a source of great regret to us all that Wayne Rooney has not felt able to stay with the club. There is no criticism of any kind implied in that remark; I think we all recognise the debt owed to him and honour his willingness to stay for so long and to see the club through so many difficult times. I share the concerns that have been expressed about the role of the EFL, which has not always acted as one might hope.
In the early days, when we first became involved as a cross-party group in trying to support the club to move forward, it was often with, and in conversation with, the EFL that we got bogged down and not really able to make progress, because of considerations other than the specific circumstances of Derby County. I will not say any more about that, except to pick up on what was mentioned a few minutes ago about fans not being punished. I certainly felt during a large part of these proceedings that there were those who had various reasons for resentment against Derby County, including some who had been involved with it in the past. That is perhaps understandable, but it is a matter for them. I certainly felt that there was a very real likelihood—a danger, as we said—right at the outset of our involvement in all this of Derby County being the inadvertent victim of people’s wish to penalise others for what they felt were their offences. That may or may not have been understandable, but the club and the fans were put at risk in a way that was inappropriate.
I share the view that we should look at football governance, and I hope the Minister will be able to tell us that that is something he and his colleagues can do.
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, and to follow the right hon. Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett). I find myself wanting to agree with pretty much everything my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) said in her opening remarks. I thought she gave an eloquent and helpful walk-through of the timeline we have experienced in Derbyshire. I have to praise her in particular for never accepting no as an answer and for demanding constant meetings and updates. I think she has spearheaded the campaign on behalf of her constituents, Derby residents and all Rams fans. I cannot thank her enough on that front.
I sympathise with fans of Derby County, because it has been an incredibly stressful and difficult experience. I find myself wondering who puts fans first. We have talked about the administrators, and perhaps they have a particular job. We have talked about the fan-led review, which I will return to later. I also look at the EFL and ask: why is it there, who is it for and what does it do? I remember that in the urgent question the right hon. Member for Derby South hinted in that direction, and I agreed with her at the time. What would be the Minister’s best defence for the EFL’s existence? It feels like it puts fans at the bottom of the list. It has been a constant issue to get information and comms from it, and to try to work out what it is there for. I look optimistically to the fan-led review and a new regulator, as mentioned previously, in the hope that we may see something.
Football clubs up and down the country keep coming back to financial security issues and poor ownership. When I have a spare moment, I love football. I want football to thrive. Our communities all love football and love watching it. But we see the same situation over and over again, of teams that have been around for a long time—as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire outlined, founder clubs that have been around forever are pillars of their community—being completely undermined by unfit owners or unsuitable financial arrangements. We find ourselves in a very difficult cycle.
I look to the Minister and plead, as have others, for progress on legislation. We are in the right place, and the Minister in particular deserves considerable credit, and not only for what he has done with Derby County—not an insignificant amount—but because a lot of the information we have had is as a result of his efforts. I do not think it is a secret that he has joined meetings from the car, going from visit to visit, to try to keep us up to date. I praise him for his involvement, but we are in a slightly unsustainable position. For those of us who love the beautiful game, it is one that we do not want and that it is difficult to defend.
When this debate was originally called for, the situation on the ground was slightly different from where we are now. Other than Wayne Rooney’s departure as manager, we have a greater sense of optimism about the purchase of Pride Park and the preferred buyer. That should be reflected in the situation. We may have cause for hope—I really hope that is true.
I come back to the fans, the EFL and the financial situation because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire outlined, the number of players that Derby has for next season, the lack of season tickets and the lack of certainty is unfair. The Rams need whatever is left of the summer to build up, because they are not and should not be a league one club. They did not deserve to be relegated last season—it was unjust.
I find myself in total agreement with my colleagues, but perhaps with a harsher emphasis on the fact that I do not understand what the EFL does, why it does it and who it is for. I hope that the Minister will take that on board.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) for securing this debate of huge local interest.
At this stage, the most constructive way to deal with this matter is to look at how we got here and what we can do to ensure that no club and no fans end up suffering the anguish that Derby fans have had to suffer over many months. We have to look at the historical actions of the English Football League, as mentioned by colleagues. There have been significant issues with its regulations. In 2016 an absolutely nonsensical regulation change relaxed the rules in order to allow clubs to sell their stadiums and still comply with the financial fair play regulations. I ask the Minister, what consideration did the English Football League give to the idea that owners that were looking to gamble would use this loophole to abuse the system, allowing them to spend huge amounts of money and separate the club from its stadium?
The history of football is littered with examples of the consequences of a club being separated from its stadium, and the financial problems that inevitably follow. Indeed, Wimbledon lost its entire club from the borough as a result of that loophole. The loophole has now been closed, but had the Derby County owner not had the option of selling the stadium in order to circumvent the financial fair play rules, then I do not think we would be having this debate today. There is no doubt in my mind that this presents a huge failing in regulation by the English Football League.
I turn next to the football creditor rule, of which Derby County also fell foul. Many weeks of the administration were spent dealing with legal claims against Derby County by Middlesbrough football club and, to a lesser extent, Wycombe Wanderers football club. During that time I spoke to both Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Middlesbrough football club owner about what, to many people, was a fairly opportunist and spurious claim that was undoubtedly causing huge problems for the sale of the club, because the claims for so-called cheating were categorised as a football debt by the English Football League, with a potential liability of over £40 million. That understandably made interested parties rather nervous, as no one can ever predict the outcome of any litigation with 100% certainty, and this was during an administration.
With the delays caused by this action, the value of the club decreased day after day and cost the creditors money, including the taxpayer through the liability to HMRC. This example will surely put pressure on the football creditor rule, a point about which I warned various regulators, including the English Football League, while we went through this very painful process.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire has been particularly critical of the administrator, Quantuma. Some of her criticism is valid, and certainly the naivety and the failure of due diligence on the Kirchner bid was particularly erroneous. Quantuma has certainly been poor on communication, but I reserve some judgment. The administrator will be able to put its side of the story only when the Derby County sale is successfully completed and explain why certain actions had to be taken. We should be cautious about pre-judging that and give Quantuma the opportunity to defend itself.
However, it is certain that many Derby County supporters have suffered considerable distress over the past nine months or more, and many creditors have been left out of pocket. With a resolution looking likely, it is important that Members of this House take the necessary action to ensure that the Government do everything they can to learn from this painful process so that the same mistakes are not made again. I wish Derby County and its many supporters across the midlands the very best for the future, and I hope the new owners will cherish it.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
It is pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen), and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) on securing the debate.
If someone had told me 30 years ago, when I watched Notts County cruelly deprived of a championship play-off place by a late own goal at the old Baseball Ground, that I would have some role to play in trying to save the club, I might have expressed some doubt, but it is at this sort of time that the football family comes together. The only reason we have rivalries is because our rivals stay in existence; no one wants to see any club go out of business, least of all a club with the size and history of Derby County.
If I knew 20 years ago, when I watched my team, Notts County, spend three seasons in administration, that we would still have situations where owners could recklessly gamble the future of a club by overspending, in the hope of promotions that do not turn up, and that the club then ends up in a lengthy, expensive administration with preferred bidders who turn out not to have the money they said they had and those deals never quite complete, and we end up with millions of pounds still owed to HMRC, I would not have believed that we would not have found a way of fixing those problems. However, here we are again, with the same situation of a club effectively allowed to overspend, despite financial fair play rules being introduced in the meantime, and somehow racking up tens of millions of pounds of debt to HMRC when the Football League had procedures in place that meant if it did not pay one month’s pay-as-you-earn or one quarter’s VAT, it would receive a transfer ban so that debts could not be racked up to that size. That was to prevent that sort of situation.
I know that covid was one of the excuses, but somehow we have all of those situations still in play. That does not suggest that the financial regulation of football is anywhere near where we want it to be. We want that regulation so that we do not risk losing clubs in this situation because they have been allowed to recklessly overspend in an attempt to get a promotion to the promised lands and fortunes of the premier league, thinking, “Well, somebody else will pick up the bill at the end of the day.”
What thoughts does the Minister have on how we can further strengthen the rules that were meant to be in place to stop this, so that, finally, we can say that it cannot happen again. We could actually get the real-time monitoring in place. We could get advance approval of a budget. We could get advance approval of decisions. Perhaps we could say something like, “If you want to sign a player on ridiculously high wages, you must put the money in the club to pay the transfer fee and those wages in advance before the Football League will sign off the transfer”, so that the money is there to pay those wages all the way through to the end of the contract, and we do not find out, halfway through, that they cannot afford those players’ wages after all.
Perhaps such ideas should be in place to ensure that clubs have the money before they embark on ridiculously extravagant transfer operations or the situation we saw with Derby County. Otherwise, we will have all of these warm words and will slightly tweak a regulator, or get a new one, but fundamentally there will always be this temptation, and supporters will always want it—“Oh, if only we could just sign a striker in January, we could get in the play-offs this year and get promoted.” They then end up spending £25,000 a week on wages for a four-year contract that they cannot really afford because of the £100 million bonus. The temptation will always be there.
As a football fan, I want the dream that some very rich person will come and buy my football club and get me four promotions straight to the premier league, and that we can be in the champions league. That dream has worked for Man City, Newcastle, Chelsea, and for Blackburn a few years ago. We all want that dream, I suppose, so we do not want to stop any chance of somebody coming along and putting loads of money in. However, we must ensure that it is done in a sustainable way, and that it is that person’s money at risk, not the future of the football club. I would urge the Minister to focus on that, and on how we can get the regulations working, whoever the regulator is.
I am afraid that these situations will never be easy, because we have the cold, hard reality of insolvency law coming into play with the emotion of football, and those two things will never work in that situation. If we are being frank, the mess that Derby County was left in would have sent any ordinary business into bankruptcy. The only reason football clubs survive is the loyalty, history, tradition and community links that they have. Derby was unviable as a business, given the amount of debt it had racked up, which was almost more than its underlying value. That is why we must get this right.
Perhaps one other lesson we have learned from this process is that we do not want litigation getting into sporting competitions. We have had the Middlesbrough and Wycombe claims against Derby, and the rumours that Burnley or Leeds were going to take legal action against Everton because of its overspending. We want to know who has won the title or been relegated on the last day of the season, not four years later at the end of a court process.
I urge the Minister to look urgently at ensuring that, whoever the football regulators are, they have the real-time monitoring enforcement of the rules in place and can take quick decisions. When these issues come around, they should be resolved quickly, not several seasons later, issuing a points deduction that means not that Wycombe stays up, but some team three seasons later, which was not even in the league at that time or was in relegation trouble. It is completely unfair for those sanctions to come in years and years later. As we saw with Derby, the point deductions that got it relegated this season were for offences that were seasons and seasons before. It makes a mockery of the integrity of sporting competition if we cannot get the financial aspects of these rules right, and not only to protect clubs but to ensure that we have an actual competition with a fair result at the end of the season.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) on securing the debate and very clearly setting out the history and importance of this issue, as well as the pressure of the deadline; I think she used the phrase “one minute to midnight”, and that is how it feels with the deadline coming up tomorrow. Both the hon. Lady and my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett) set out the concerns and frustrations of people in Derby and fans of the club. They particularly mentioned the issues with the EFL’s behaviour, as well as that of the administrator; we hope that after tomorrow we will be able to look at those questions with more time to judge them. They also expressed praise for Wayne Rooney, and I echo that praise, although as a Manchester City fan I do so through gritted teeth—a Manchester City fan living the dream, as was said earlier.
We also send our best wishes to Liam Rosenior and the limited band of players he now has to work with. We wish them well for the new season, because the last 300 days have been a tough time to be a Derby County fan. A club such as Derby is the heart and soul of its community, a source of pride and identity for its supporters, and to see your club in administration and on the brink of going out of business—to see your team relegated, not because the players were not good enough, but because of points lost due to bad administration—is tough.
For hope to be raised, as it was when a deal seemed to have been struck with Chris Kirchner, and then dashed as that deal fell apart, is also tough. The uncertainty that has prevailed until recently, when the David Clowes bid was accepted, has been a very difficult time for supporters to endure. Let us hope that the fans’ ordeal is now coming to an end and that the deal goes through tomorrow. It is very positive that Mr Clowes is already involved in actively supporting the club. He is a genuine supporter of Derby County, and it is good news that he now owns the stadium, Pride Park. As we heard from the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen), it is never good when the ownership of a club and its stadium are separated.
We all hope that Mr Clowes will be the owner that Derby needs, and will be able to stabilise that club and return it to its former glories, because it is hard to overestimate the importance of a football club to its local community. The loss of a club would leave a hole in people’s lives, which is why it is so important that we protect our football clubs with a governance framework that safeguards those clubs for future generations. That is why I join other right hon. and hon. Members in urging the Government to move quickly and bring forward detail on the future of football governance, because this situation is just the latest crisis that demonstrates that we cannot afford to wait. It is yet more compelling evidence that the Government need to act quickly to implement the recommendations of the fan-led review and ensure that football has a governance regime that is fit for purpose, safeguards our great clubs and our national game, and—as the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire pointed out—gives fans a voice.
On the subject of fan and stakeholder voices, the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) —sadly, she is not present today—did a fantastic job of consulting all the stakeholders in football to set out a recipe for the future of football. Her set of proposals would put much-needed independent regulation in place, protect the heritage of our clubs and, vitally, create a structure of financial and governance oversight that would mean club owners would not be able to risk the future of their clubs in pursuit of success.
I remind Members that when the football review panel led by the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford met Mel Morris, the previous owner of Derby County, shortly after her interim recommendations were published, that panel asked him specifically whether he thought the club would be in a different situation if an independent regulator and real-time financial monitoring had been in place. He said, “Yes, without a doubt.” To me, that shines a light on the need for independent regulation and a governance structure that is fit for purpose. The hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) is absolutely right: we do not want football to be ruled by litigation in future
The case is clear, and the Government have accepted that case and the need for change—I have welcomed the Minister’s assurances on that point on a number of occasions—yet the Bill is delayed and a White Paper is due. I appreciate that the Government say that it is a complicated issue, which it is, and that we need to get the details right. However, the longer we leave it, the more likely it is that another club will be in crisis like Bury or Derby, so I seek some reassurances from the Minister. When are we likely to see more detail and the White Paper? Importantly, what is the timescale after that for implementation? It is looking increasingly unlikely that we will see a Bill before the next election, whenever that might be. I hope the Minister is able to correct me on that, but it just feels and looks unlikely at this stage, and fans and stakeholders in the game are all frustrated at the slow progress on this issue. We need to see action to safeguard our clubs and to make sure that the situation with Derby does not happen again.
I want to finish by wishing Derby good luck. We all have our fingers crossed that the deal will go through tomorrow and give their fans some comfort that the club is now safe, and that they can look forward to the new season with optimism. Let us make sure that this does not happen to any other clubs in the future.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) for securing this important debate on the administration of Derby County football club, and I thank all of those who have participated, including my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter), the right hon. Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett), my hon. Friends the Members for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher), for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) and for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), and the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith).
It is also important to stress, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire did, that several other colleagues have played very close attention to the club’s situation, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Erewash (Maggie Throup), for Derby North (Amanda Solloway) and for South Derbyshire (Mrs Wheeler), and the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins), who have had frequent conversations with me, my officials and others. As we get to the final stretch, it is important that our constituents are aware of how much time, attention and effort has been put in by all the right hon. and hon. Members I have mentioned, because they recognise how important the future of Derby County is to their constituents. I applaud everybody I have mentioned for their efforts, which show the House at its best. Along with all Members present, I am hopeful about the recent positive developments, and I hope that the matter will soon be resolved to the betterment of the club. I hope that any future parliamentary engagement we have about the Rams will not be in the face of such jeopardy.
Like many Members of this House, particularly those who have joined today’s debate, I know that football clubs are at the absolute heart of our communities, and it is incredibly worrying to see them at risk. That is why the issue is so high on the political agenda here in Parliament and in so many constituencies, especially when there are significant shocks to clubs’ financial security. Match days are days of pride and community and of bringing people together, and the ongoing success of clubs affects the local economy and the wider finances of the football ecosystem overall. The Government understand the importance of this, as does the whole House. That is why we have had the fan-led review of football governance, which has received strong support from all parties.
We are working at pace on the White Paper, which will set out further details on how we will implement wide-ranging reforms in this area. My opposite number, the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington, has asked me on many occasions to confirm when it will be published. He knows that it will be in the summer, although there is often parliamentary debate about when the summer starts. I can assure him that my officials are moving at pace, and I appreciate that he recognises that this issue is complex. It is one thing to say, “Let’s set up a regulator,” but the devil is in the detail. The scale, scope of responsibilities, location and financial support of the regulator all need quite a lot of work, but we are working on them.
Turning to Derby County football club, the situation has for too long remained worrying for fans, the local community and the football ecosystem alike. I know that this environment of uncertainty is frustrating for all stakeholders. That the club has kept its focus, and that the fans have been so loyal despite this uncertainty, is a huge credit to them. Along with colleagues, I praise Wayne Rooney, who confirmed this weekend that he will be leaving the club with immediate effect, one year earlier than planned. I pay tribute to his efforts and those of the wider team on and off the field.
No one wants to see a founding member of the Football League in administration and facing threats to its survival. I am sure that the team’s efforts this season have made an extremely positive contribution to securing this historic club for years to come, for the Derby County fans of the future. We remain clear that the governance surrounding the administration of Derby County is a matter primarily for the English Football League, the administrator and the club. I thank the right hon. Member for Derby South for understanding that there are things I can control and have influence over, and other things that I cannot. These are self-organising private sector entities that are making commercial decisions.
However, as all hon. Members have said, this is an issue that everybody is interested in. The Government take an interest in the very real concern of Derby County fans, particularly because the club has endured such a long period of risk and uncertainty—so long, in fact, that it has recently begun to threaten the club’s place in the EFL next season, and there are potentially greater ramifications for the club as a whole, as several hon. Members have pointed out. For that reason, I have been receiving regular updates for some time. Most recently, I convened the EFL, the administrators and many hon. Members here today to receive reports on progress. I hear hon. Members’ comments about the frustrations they have experienced with the EFL and the administrators. I will ensure that I communicate those frustrations to those stakeholders.
It would be inappropriate for me to comment on all the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire made, but I will always call on all stakeholders to be pragmatic, act at speed and put the interests of fans at the heart of everything they do. As several hon. Members said, I have regularly called on the administrators and EFL to keep MPs and other stakeholders updated. I specifically said, “If you don’t, I will be called to the House in Westminster Hall debates and others to answer on your behalf,” and here we are, so that point is particularly relevant. I am somewhat disappointed to hear the frustration of many hon. Members, who said that they do not believe they were appropriately updated. There are potentially lessons to be learned for the future if such a situation were to arise again.
Similarly, I have had regular engagement with the EFL, and I will pass on hon. Members’ comments. The EFL has many stakeholders, and of course its responsibility is not to support one club, but to work on behalf of all its members. That sometimes causes contradictions and conflicts that are difficult for the supporter of any individual club to understand, but if we were in a slightly different situation, mindsets might change. As I say, I will pass on all those comments.
My hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire raised the Middlesbrough issue, which was obviously resolved by the clubs Middlesbrough and Derby County themselves. I am afraid that I do not necessarily agree with his suspicions about ulterior motives. I was glad that the situation was resolved, and I believe that the EFL acted in good faith. There were also concerns about legal issues, and they were matters to be resolved directly between the clubs. As I say, I will pass on the concerns that hon. Friends and others raised.
The collapse of the purchase by the previous preferred bidder, Chris Kirchner, was a very difficult moment for the club, but I was reassured that other parties remained interested in it. The EFL also set out that there were a number of ways in which the club could continue in the 2022-23 season, with or without a long-term buyer in place. However, there have been numerous developments in the past week, which I hope are broadly welcomed by the fans. As we speak, Clowes Developments has issued a loan to the club to demonstrate the funding necessary to start the next season. Its chair, David Clowes, has purchased the stadium and had an offer for the club accepted by the administrators. As hon. Members have noted, there are hopes that the purchase of the club could be completed this week, and I certainly hope that that will be the case.
Of course, the sale raises questions about the wider financial sustainability of football, which was focused on by my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley. I can give him the reassurances he was looking for. If everything was right in football, and all the regulatory frameworks working as they should, we would have had no need to implement the fan-led review. We did so because there were failings across the board in football. Financial sustainability and financial regulation are at the heart of the role of the regulator, to do precisely the things that my hon. Friend called for. The finances of too many clubs are unsustainable. Consistently spending greater than 100% of revenue is not a viable long-term business model, but for some reason that seems prevalent in football. Ongoing financial monitoring will be a key role of the regulator. The Government accepted all 10 recommendations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch). As I have said, we are proceeding at pace with the White Paper, which we will provide more information about soon.
Our plans amount to very significant reform in our national game, and our vision sets a clear direction for that reform, which will reduce the likelihood of financial distress and make football more resilient and sustainable in the long term. I understand that the conversation with Mel Morris was very stark. He did say that, had we had the proposed system in place, Derby County might not have been in the situation it finds itself in now. I think that probably applies to several other clubs that have been in financial distress.
We will publish the White Paper, setting out more details on the breadth of changes that we will make via legislation. I am fairly confident that we will get the support of most, if not all, of the House for that legislation. At the core of those reforms will be an independent regulator for English football. As I have said, the regulator will focus on financial sustainability, overseeing a licensing regime, which covers the top five leagues in English football. We will also act on our view that the current owners’ and directors’ tests do not go far enough and must be strengthened. That will include enhanced checks on the source of funds and the strength of business and financial plans.
The Government are fully committed to reforming football governance, to enable a long-term, sustainable future for the game. Accepting all the strategic recommendations within the review is the next step to do exactly that, and will represent a wholesale change in the way in which football is governed in England. In the meantime, the Government will continue to engage closely with the EFL, the administrators and, of course, hon. Members, until it is confirmed that this fantastic club has been saved. I hope to hear very good news very soon.
Mrs Latham
I thank the Minister for his remarks, and I look forward to seeing the proposed legislation. I hope that it will go a long way to solve the problems at Derby County. I also thank right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. It is interesting that there are not many debates where Members on both sides of the House completely agree on what has gone wrong and where we need to move forward. That is because this is more important than party politics. It is about the heart of Derby and the heart of Derby County. Even Notts Forest fans would like Derby County to continue because, if it does not, who will they hate in future?
We are not having this debate just for the fans; it is for the whole community of Derby. The fans are very important and have been left out, but this is about the economy of the city of Derby and the jobs that big clubs such as Derby County bring. Those poor, uncertain people who work at the club still do not know, and have not known for months, whether they will have a job at the end of this. It is important that we do not forget those people, who in some instances have given many years of their lives to Derby County. That is so important, because they are relying on the future of Derby County and its new owner. I sincerely hope we will see the solution in the next day or so. If we do not, I really do not know what Derby will do.
I have to say that I never thought that my time in Parliament would end up with me knowing so much about football and even leading a debate on it. It is not my specialist subject, although it has become much more specialist than I ever thought it would.
David Clowes has come in at the last minute and acted quickly and honourably. I do not know him personally, although I did know his father. However, I know that, as a fan, he has a drive to get this issue sorted and to get it right. It is really important that he is allowed to do that so that he can bring Derby County forward and ensure we continue to be successful and go back up into the next league, which is what Derby County fans want. They want us to be up, not down. They would like to be further up still, as we were in the days of our former manager. It is really important for Derby that we are successful.
I worked for Midland Bank years and years ago. I remember that, if we lost on a Saturday, people were depressed on the Monday morning at work, but if we won, the whole atmosphere was different. It is no different now. This is such an important event for Derby to be successful—having David Clowes at the forefront, as a local person and a fan who does have the money. That is an important thing to recognise. I would like to wish him good luck. I also wish enormous good luck to the interim manager, Liam Rosenior, who has a huge job to follow after Wayne Rooney, who has been so loyal and so fantastic. I am really sad to see him go.
Thousands of my generation go to see Derby County, but it is not just them—it is my children’s generation and my grandchildren’s generation, too. They all turn up to fill that stadium week after week after week, even during this time of uncertainty. It is important that Derby County survives. I know that Steve Bloomer continues to watch over Derby County.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the administration of Derby County Football Club.
Written Statements
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Energy Supply Company Special Administration Regime
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change (Greg Hands)
Today I will lay before Parliament a departmental minute describing a number of contingent liabilities arising from the issuance of letters of credit for the energy administrators acting in the special administration regime for Bulb Energy Ltd (“Bulb”). These letters of credit replace previous ones provided, announced within past written ministerial statements, which soon expire.
It is normal practice when a Government Department proposes to undertake a contingent liability of £300,000 and above, for which there is no specific statutory authority, for the Department concerned to present Parliament with a minute giving particulars of the liability created and explaining the circumstances.
I have ensured that Parliament has been afforded the full 14-sitting day notification period to allow the proper scrutiny of these new contingent liabilities.
Bulb entered the energy supply company special administration regime on 24 November 2021. Energy administrators were appointed by court to achieve the statutory objective of continuing energy supplies at the lowest reasonable practicable cost until such time as it becomes unnecessary for the special administration to remain in force for that purpose.
My Department has agreed to provide a facility to the energy administrators, with letters of credit issued, with my approval, to guarantee such contract, code, licence, or other document obligations of the company consistent with the special administration’s statutory objective. I will update the House if any letters of credit are drawn against.
The legal basis for a letter of credit is section 165 of the Energy Act 2004, as applied and modified by section 96 of the Energy Act 2011.
HM Treasury has approved the arrangements in principle.
[HCWS145]
Census 2021
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mrs Heather Wheeler)
The 22nd decennial census of population for England and Wales was taken on 21 March 2021. Today, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) publishes the first results, which I have laid in a report before the House this morning. These results are just the start of an extensive range of Census 2021 statistics and analyses to be published during 2022 and 2023 and beyond.
Census 2021 was a great success. Delivered against the backdrop of the coronavirus pandemic, the first digital-first census achieved response rates of 97%, with 89% of households completing it online. This household response rate far exceeded the ONS’s target of 94% nationally and local response rates were above the target of 80% in each local authority area. I thank the public for their response.
The figures published today show that the usual resident population of England and Wales on Census Day—21 March 2021—was estimated to be 59,597,300—56,489,800 in England and 3,107,500 in Wales; this was the largest population ever recorded through a census in England and Wales. The population of England and Wales grew by more than 3.5 million (6.3%) since the last census in 2011, when it was 56,075,912. The report laid before the House provides estimates of the population down to local authority level, broken down by age and sex, as well as the number of households, data on population density, and changes in population and households over time. The statistical datasets underlying the report have also been published today on the ONS website, along with other analysis and information.
Census data are critical to planning and delivering local services as well as informing decision making at national and local levels. Early data from Census 2021 have already been used to inform management of the coronavirus pandemic. Information on where Ukrainian communities are located in England and Wales has been used to inform our humanitarian response to the crisis. The huge range of high-quality data and detail from the census, combined with other sources, will ensure the changing needs of society can be understood and met.
Over the coming months, the ONS will publish data and analysis covering the range of topics and questions included in Census 2021, including the new questions on sexual orientation, gender identity and previous service in the UK armed forces. These will be followed by data releases which will allow users to conduct in-depth analysis using data across multiple census variables, as well as a range of ONS analytical publications exploring the data in more detail across the range of census topics. In total, these releases will include some five billion census statistics. Further detail of the planned releases and publications can be found on the Census 2021 outputs pages of the ONS’s website.
The ONS is producing a suite of tools to enable users of all levels of experience with population data to explore the results of the census. To maintain the privacy of personal census responses, strict measures of statistical disclosure control ensure that no individual person or household can be identified from the information released.
The census in Northern Ireland was conducted on the same day as in England and Wales. However, the census in Scotland took place in March 2022. The statistical offices of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are working together to ensure the production of harmonised statistics across the UK and to address issues arising from the census in Scotland taking place a year later.
Alongside the delivery of the digital-first census in 2021, the ONS is transforming the population and migration statistics system. This work will enable more frequent and timely statistics about our population using administrative data supplemented by surveys. In addition to Census 2021 outputs and regular mid-year estimates, throughout this year the ONS will continue to publish research updates, building towards “experimental” monthly age/sex profiles of the population relating to 2022. This will start with a proof of concept for admin-based monthly population estimates as soon as possible after the first Census 2021 results are released. As its methods mature, the ONS will embed these into its official estimates and move on from the “experimental” status. The ONS is continuing to develop its methods for producing population and migration statistics. It also aims to publish a proof of concept that demonstrates the feasibility of producing statistics from admin data combining two or more characteristics, starting with income by ethnicity, which builds on research published last year on admin-based income and ethnicity statistics. This new approach will inform a recommendation by the National Statistician in 2023 on the future of the census and population statistics in England and Wales.
[HCWS147]
Countering State Threats: Call-out Order
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Armed Forces (James Heappey)
A new order has been made under section 56(1B) of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 to enable reservists to be called into permanent service to prepare for, participate in, or support operations by Her Majesty’s armed forces to counter state threats.
States engage in and orchestrate overt and covert action which falls short of general armed conflict but nevertheless seeks to undermine or threaten the safety and interests of the UK, including the integrity of its democracy, its public safety, its military advantage and its reputation or economic prosperity. The characteristics of state threats are changing, diversifying and evolving. States who engage in hostile activity against the UK and our overseas interests are becoming increasing emboldened, asserting themselves more aggressively, to advance their geopolitical objectives and undermine the UK’s democracy, security, prosperity, resilience, values and global strategic advantage.
The Ministry of Defence is regularly tasked to support broader HMG objectives. As part of this support, reserve forces will be on standby, routinely as part of a whole force approach with regular services, to deliver a range of Defence outputs, including support to partners across Government. Outputs will be enabled by reserve forces providing capabilities such as—but not limited to—formed sub-units, individual augmentees and specialist skills.
The order shall take effect from the day on which it is made and shall cease to have effect 12 months from the date on which it is made.
[HCWS148]
Children's Homes
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Will Quince)
Today I am providing an update on the Department’s response to whistleblowing allegations made to Ofsted and the BBC by former employees of Calcot Services for Children. The allegations describe shocking abuse and safeguarding failures in children’s homes run by Calcot, including allegations of grooming, rape, sexual assault, and of Calcot cutting corners on staffing ratios. This is something that I, and the Department, take with the utmost seriousness. We expect all children’s homes to provide the right support, care and protection for children who live there—no organisation should exploit those in need.
Calcot runs eight children’s homes and three independent schools in Reading and the surrounding areas for children with complex emotional, behavioural difficulties and or learning disabilities. Ofsted is responsible for regulating children’s homes and ensuring that action is taken where homes are not providing good quality and safe care for the children they look after. I met Her Majesty’s chief inspector at Ofsted on 14 June to discuss my concerns about Calcot. In the light of the most recent concerns, Ofsted have further accelerated their planned programme of inspection across Calcot’s children’s homes and schools. Following recent inspections, the first inspection report was published on 21 June and the children’s home was rated as inadequate. Ofsted has issued the home with compliance notices and it is restricted from taking more children until it can demonstrate it has improved the quality of care.
As some inspections are still in progress, I cannot say more on the outcomes at this time. However, three further homes have had restrictions imposed limiting the number of children they can care for. If Ofsted find widespread and systemic failings, they will not hesitate to issue a notice to suspend the registration of the home and consider serving a notice to cancel the registration of the home if necessary. This action would be taken if Ofsted considered that the children were not safe and if they did not have confidence that the provider could make appropriate and sufficient changes quickly enough.
The safeguarding of the children in our collective care remains paramount and as these inspections progress Ofsted will update the Department, and both will continue to work with placing local authorities to ensure that appropriate and proportionate action is taken to safeguard children.
With regards to the three independent schools run by Calcot, the Department is working with the inspectorates to ensure they are meeting the independent school standards and keeping their children safe.
Independent schools should meet all of the independent school standards at all times. Where any school has serious failings or failings for an extended period of time, the Department may consider whether enforcement action is appropriate under its published regulatory and enforcement policy action, which can be found at the following link:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/attachment_ data/file/809551/Ind_schools _enforcement_ policy_statement_post_consultation_13061
Separately, in January, the Education Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), agreed that the independent Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel should undertake a national review into safeguarding children with disabilities and complex health needs in residential settings. It will ask some important questions about how children with disabilities are safeguarded. Most importantly, it will seek to identify ways in which practice and policy might need to change to protect children better in the future.
We will consider all this information together with the findings from the Independent Review of Children’s Social Care and Competition and Market’s Authority market study, to inform our implementation strategy, due to be published later this year.
[HCWS144]
Nationality and Borders Act 2022: Implementation
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Tom Pursglove)
In April, the Nationality and Borders Act achieved Royal Assent. This landmark legislation will help to deliver a fair but firm asylum system; deterring illegal entry into the UK, breaking the business model of people-smuggling networks and speeding up the removal of those with no right to be here. In turn, this will free up the asylum system so we can better support those in genuine need of asylum through safe and legal routes.
Today, new measures from the Act will come into effect, including:
Amended criminal offences with increased maximum penalties for those attempting to arrive in the UK illegally—from six months to four years—and maximum life imprisonment for people smugglers, including pilots of small boats in the Channel and others who dangerously smuggle migrants into the UK. In addition, we have increased the maximum penalty for Foreign National offenders who return to the UK in breach of a deportation order from six months to five years;
A suite of asylum reforms, with the central principle that those seeking protection should claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. Our reforms also introduce a new differentiated approach, whereby those who did not come to the UK directly, did not claim without delay, or did not show good cause for their illegal entry or presence, may be given lesser entitlements than those who have complied with these requirements, for example refugees who have come to the UK via safe and legal routes. The different entitlements include a shorter grant of permission to stay—a minimum of 30 months instead of five years—no automatic right to settlement and access to family reunion only where a refusal would breach our international obligations.
An ability to impose visa penalties—this means slowing or stopping our services where countries pose a risk to international peace and security and those that refuse to take back their own citizens who have no right to be in the UK.
Nationality changes, creating fairer access to British nationality.
Changes to bail and returns, which includes strengthening the early removal scheme for Foreign National offenders to remove them sooner than was the case previously.
These reforms sit alongside other important changes, including a world-leading migration and economic partnership with Rwanda. Further reforms from the Act will be implemented over the coming months and into next year as we seek to build and deliver a fair but firm asylum and immigration system.
[HVWS150]
India Trade Negotiations
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
The fourth round of UK-India free trade agreement negotiations began on 13 June and concluded on 24 June. The negotiations, at official level, were conducted in a hybrid fashion, with some negotiators in our dedicated UK negotiations facility, and others attending virtually.
During this round, talks focused on draft treaty text. Technical discussions were held across 20 policy areas over 71 separate sessions, with draft treaty text advanced across the majority of chapters.
The fifth round of official-level negotiations is due to take place in July 2022.
We remain clear that any deal the Government strike must be in the best interests of the British people and the economy.
The Government will keep Parliament updated as these negotiations progress.
[HCWS149]
Machinery of Government: Arbitration Policy
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
I am making this statement to bring to the House’s attention the following machinery of government change.
Responsibility for private commercial arbitration policy and the Arbitration Act 1996 will move from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to the Ministry of Justice from 1 July 2022. This transfer will locate private commercial arbitration policy alongside other forms of dispute resolution policy. This will allow the Ministry of Justice to pursue a comprehensive and unified approach to the promotion and continued competitiveness of the UK as a world-leading destination for all forms of dispute resolution. The transfer of policy responsibility will also allow the MoJ to meet its responsibilities of working in the interests of all parts of the UK’s legal sector, of which arbitration is a vital component.
[HCWS151]
UK Covid-19 Inquiry
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
On 15 December 2021, I appointed the right hon. Baroness Heather Hallett as chair of the UK inquiry into covid-19. Earlier this year, I published terms of reference for the inquiry in draft and asked Baroness Hallett to conduct a public consultation in order to inform refinements to those terms of reference. I am grateful to Baroness Hallett for the very extensive consultation she conducted and for the subsequent amendments to the inquiry’s terms of reference which she put forward as a result.
Having considered Baroness Hallett’s proposals carefully and consulted the administrations in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, I am content to accept her changes in full, subject only to a small number of clarificatory amendments put forward by the devolved Administrations and agreed with Baroness Hallett. The inquiry’s final terms of reference are set out in full below.
In appointing Baroness Hallett as the inquiry’s chair I confirmed that I proposed to appoint additional panel members in order that the inquiry has access to the full range of expertise needed to complete its important work. I can now confirm that I propose to appoint two such panel members, and that I propose to do so in the coming months.
The UK inquiry into covid-19 is now formally established and able to begin its important work. Its terms of reference are as follows:
“The Inquiry will examine, consider and report on preparations and the response to the pandemic in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, up to and including the Inquiry’s formal setting up date, 28 June 2022.
In carrying out its work, the Inquiry will consider reserved and devolved matters across the United Kingdom, as necessary, but will seek to minimise duplication of investigation, evidence gathering and reporting with any other public inquiry established by the devolved governments. To achieve this, the Inquiry will set out publicly how it intends to minimise duplication, and will liaise with any such inquiry before it investigates any matter which is also within that inquiry’s scope.
In meeting its aims, the Inquiry will:
a) consider any disparities evident in the impact of the pandemic on different categories of people, including, but not limited to, those relating to protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 and equality categories under the Northern Ireland Act 1998;
b) listen to and consider carefully the experiences of bereaved families and others who have suffered hardship or loss as a result of the pandemic. Although the Inquiry will not consider in detail individual cases of harm or death, listening to these accounts will inform its understanding of the impact of the pandemic and the response, and of the lessons to be learned;
c) highlight where lessons identified from preparedness and the response to the pandemic may be applicable to other civil emergencies;
d) have reasonable regard to relevant international comparisons; and
e) produce its reports (including interim reports) and any recommendations in a timely manner.
The aims of the Inquiry are to:
1. Examine the COVID-19 response and the impact of the pandemic in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and produce a factual narrative account, including:
a) The public health response across the whole of the UK, including
i) preparedness and resilience;
ii) how decisions were made, communicated, recorded, and implemented;
iii) decision-making between the governments of the UK;
iv) the roles of, and collaboration between, central government, devolved administrations,. regional and local authorities, and the voluntary and community sector;
v) the availability and use of data, research and expert evidence;
vi) legislative and regulatory control and enforcement;
vii) shielding and the protection of the clinically vulnerable;
viii) the use of lockdowns and other ‘non-pharmaceutical’ interventions such as social distancing and the use of face coverings;
ix) testing and contact tracing, and isolation;
x) the impact on the mental health and wellbeing of the population, including but not limited to those who were harmed significantly by the pandemic;
xi) the impact on the mental health and wellbeing of the bereaved, including post-bereavement support;
xii) the impact on health and care sector workers and other key workers;
xiii) the impact on children and young people, including health, wellbeing and social care;
xiv) education and early years provision;
xv) the closure and reopening of the hospitality, retail, sport and leisure, and travel and tourism sectors, places of worship, and cultural institutions;
xvi) housing and homelessness;
xvii) safeguarding and support for victims of domestic abuse; xviii) prisons and other places of detention;
xix) the justice system;
xx) immigration and asylum;
xxi) travel and borders; and
xxii) the safeguarding of public funds and management of financial risk.
b) The response of the health and care sector across the UK, including:
i) preparedness, initial capacity and the ability to increase capacity, and resilience;
ii) initial contact with official healthcare advice services such as 111 and 999;
iii) the role of primary care settings such as General Practice;
iv) the management of the pandemic in hospitals, including infection prevention and control, triage, critical care capacity, the discharge of patients, the use of ‘Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation’ (DNACPR) decisions, the approach to palliative care, workforce testing, changes to inspections, and the impact on staff and staffing levels;
v) the management of the pandemic in care homes and other care settings, including infection prevention and control, the transfer of residents to or from homes, treatment and care of residents, restrictions on visiting, workforce testing and changes to inspections;
vi) care in the home, including by unpaid carers;
vii) antenatal and postnatal care;
viii) the procurement and distribution of key equipment and supplies, including PPE and ventilators;
ix) the development, delivery and impact of therapeutics and vaccines;
x) the consequences of the pandemic on provision for non-COVID related conditions and needs; and
xi) provision for those experiencing long-COVID.
c) The economic response to the pandemic and its impact, including governmental interventions by way of:
i) support for businesses, jobs and the self-employed, including the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme, the Self-Employment Income Support Scheme, loans schemes, business rates relief and grants;
ii) additional funding for relevant public services;
iii) additional funding for the voluntary and community sector; and
iv) benefits and sick pay, and support for vulnerable people.
2. Identify the lessons to be learned from the above, to inform preparations for future pandemics across the UK.”
[HCWS152]
Active Travel England
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Trudy Harrison)
I am pleased to announce further progress on standing up Active Travel England, the new Executive agency which will help deliver this Government’s £2 billion commitment to active travel and creating a new golden age of walking and cycling.
A number of senior leadership appointments have now been made for Active Travel England. Chris Boardman MBE has been confirmed as England’s National active travel commissioner on a permanent basis. After his appointment as the interim Commissioner at the start of the year, he will continue to lead Active Travel England and chair the interim board which has now been established.
The Department expects to be able to confirm shortly the appointment of Danny Williams as Active Travel England’s chief executive, who will be starting full time in August. He will bring a wealth of experience to the role from successfully setting up and growing both large and start-up businesses and from his dedicated campaigning for improving walking and cycling provision.
Louise Wilkinson has been appointed as Active Travel England’s chief operating officer. She has a successful career in financial management for the civil service and local government and has most recently been a finance deputy director in the Cabinet Office.
The Department expects to confirm shortly the appointment of Graham Grant as its director of planning. He was until recently the assistant director of transport at Newcastle City Council.
Brian Deegan has also started as the director of inspections. He has successfully developed and delivered street designs for improving active travel in Greater Manchester and London and will work with local authorities to design high quality schemes. A small number of Department for Transport employees will also transfer to the new body.
Despite only having a handful of officers in place, Active Travel England has already started to deliver significant benefits, in line with the Gear Change commitment to deliver a step change in the quality of walking and cycling infrastructure. It has assessed and awarded £161 million of funding for 134 active travel fund projects, announced on 14 May 2022, which will deliver high-quality schemes in 46 authorities in England, outside London. This early work will enable 16 million extra cycling and walking journeys to take place each year. It has also developed a suite of tools which will help local active travel projects deliver high-quality infrastructure, and it has delivered training and engagement events for local authorities. Its work will significantly improve value for money of cycling and walking schemes.
Improved active travel provision has many benefits. It will play an important role in improving the health of the nation by reducing physical inactivity and it is vital to the Government’s commitment to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050. Better walking and cycling provision will also help make local areas greener, healthier and better places to live.
[HCWS146]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Beith) (LD)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Local Government (Exclusion of Non-commercial Considerations) (England) Order 2022
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greenhalgh
That the Grand Committee do consider the Local Government (Exclusion of Non-commercial Considerations) (England) Order 2022.
Relevant document: 3rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Home Office and Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
My Lords, this order was laid before your Lordships’ House on Monday 25 May 2022, under Section 19(3) of the Local Government Act 1999, for approval by a resolution of each House of Parliament. The order was considered and approved in the other place on Monday 20 June.
The illegal invasion of Russian forces into Ukraine has shocked the world and has been met by unprecedented global condemnation. Soon after the invasion, many local authorities also gave their own public condemnation of the Russian state’s action. They were clear they did not want local taxpayers’ money to be used to fund this reprehensible attack, and many noted their own intentions to break contracts with Russian-controlled companies. Local authorities are, however, subject to Section 17 of the Local Government Act 1988, which prohibits “non-commercial considerations” playing a part in commercial decision-making. Such non-commercial considerations include, at Section 17(5)(e) of the 1988 Act,
“the country or territory of origin of supplies to, or the location in any country or territory of the business activities or interests of, contractors”.
With regard to Russia and Belarus, this element of the Act is untenable.
This limitation was laid out in the Cabinet Office’s policy procurement note 01/2022, which was issued in March. In this advisory note, organisations in scope—government departments, their NDPBs and executive agencies—were asked to review their contract portfolios to identify Russian and Belarusian prime contractors and consider the termination of these contracts. The PPN particularly noted that the Government were actively considering a solution for local government to enable councils to follow the Cabinet Office’s advice. Council leaders have rightly been calling for action, requesting a flexible approach for those councils that wish to divest themselves of any dependence on Russian state-owned companies. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State wrote to leaders on 11 March, preparing them to consider their exposure to Russian and Belarusian-owned companies.
Your Lordships will recall that we held a debate on 24 March regarding Gazprom UK. In that debate, noble Lords made clear their desire to amend public procurement rules to align local authorities with the rest of the public sector, so I am pleased that today we are considering this order, which will enable us to disapply the provisions I have referred to at Section 17(5)(e) of the Local Government Act 1988. The order will enable best-value authorities and parish councils in England, if they so wish, to terminate both proposed or subsisting public supply or works contracts, in accordance with the terms of the contract, where either: first,
“the country or territory of origin of supplies to the contractor”
is Russia or Belarus; or, secondly,
“the location of the business activities or interests of a contractor”
is Russia or Belarus.
As council leaders have requested, this order will allow relevant authorities the flexibility to terminate proposed and subsisting contracts should they so wish. It will allow them to take comparable action to central government, as set out in the PPN, and ensure they are not funding Putin’s war machine. It is important to note that the Government are not mandating the termination of contracts nor creating new burdens on local authorities. This is a permissive power and the decision to terminate contracts rests with the authorities in question. As the PPN sets out for central government, and as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has advised local authority leaders, decisions to terminate such contracts should be made on a case-by-case basis, in accordance with the terms of the contract, and only where an alternative supplier can be sourced in line with value for money and affordability, and with minimal disruption to public services.
It is important to note that this policy will not enable these bodies to instigate their own unofficial municipal foreign or defence policies, but will not prevent them from undertaking their own divestment measures where these align with official government sanctions, as in this case.
As I have said, this will not add a new burden to local authorities. Nevertheless, the Government remain committed to engaging with any local authority with concerns about its financial position or service delivery or that may be facing pressures that it cannot take steps to manage locally. I reaffirm that commitment today.
This Government send a clear and strong message: Russia and Belarus should not benefit from public contracts and from the British taxpayer. We condemn Russia’s unprovoked, premeditated and illegal war. Across the United Kingdom and at all levels of government we remain steadfast in our support to ensure that Ukraine wins its battle for self-determination and that Russian forces withdraw.
This Government have introduced financial and investment sanctions. We provide military support, humanitarian aid and lead international efforts to support Ukraine’s objectives. We will continue to use all levers at our disposal in central government and, in the case of this order, local government, to cut off funds to Vladimir Putin’s war machine and demonstrate that we will not tolerate this abhorrent attack on Ukraine. I hope your Lordships will join me in supporting the proposed order. I commend it to the House.
Lord Jones (Lab)
My Lords, I support the Minister in what he has said and thank him for his introduction. I also thank him and his department for the Explanatory Memorandum, which is lengthier than usual, and very helpful. There was an echo of these matters in the Chamber less than an hour ago in one of the Questions, which was about Russia. This order is the consequence of the gangster style of Russian leadership, with its cruel and dreadful impact on the nation of Ukraine.
Time is of the essence. I will pose several questions to the Minister and, if he cannot answer at the moment, I ask that he write. First, does he know how many contracts might be involved as a consequence of his order? Following that, what might be the employment consequences? It is a question of numbers, and some answers on these matters might be helpful. Lastly, can he give an example or two—or more—of the sorts of contracts that shall be terminated? In the departmental consideration of the making of the order, surely examples were brought forward. It might help the whole House if answers to these questions were proffered, either now or later.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I draw attention to my relevant interests as a councillor on Kirklees Council and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I support the terms of this statutory instrument, which, as the Minister said, is a reaction to the heinous acts of what has become a murderous Russian regime that is directing its unrelenting firepower on the citizens of Ukraine. As a result, it is incumbent on us to do whatever small act we can to reduce links that might enhance businesses based in Russia or Belarus.
Following on from the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Jones, does the Minister know, or can he find out for us, the total value of local government business currently placed with Russian or Belarusian businesses? If he does not have that information, will he write to us and perhaps put the information in the Library? People would widely welcome that information, I think.
When I saw this SI, I thought it demonstrated how overcentralised we have become that we must have secondary legislation to enable local government to make decisions about where it places its contracts. What the Minister said—that there was pressure from local council leaders on the Government to enable this action to take place so that local authorities did not open themselves to legal challenge—proves my point. It spoke to me. For goodness’ sake, precious government time has had to be spent on drawing this measure up so that councils can make the sane and sensible decision to stop making new contracts with Belarus and Russia. We need to change that. Perhaps we will get another SI from the Minister in future just to release councils from this burden of insensibility, but clearly I totally agree with what is contained in this order.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, first, I refer noble Lords to the register, which details that I am still a local councillor in the finest borough in the country, Burnley Borough Council. I thank the Minister for his speech outlining the sensible and pragmatic proposal before us, which responds to the sector and ensures that we show our solidarity at not only the national government but the local government level across the United Kingdom.
I am pleased to say that we on these Benches strongly support this statutory instrument. We support the Secretary of State and the Government giving local authorities the flexibility to make the decisions that are right for their localities. It is the right thing to do. We have continuously called on the UK Government to move faster and harder on economic and diplomatic sanctions against Putin’s barbarous regime. Too often we have lagged behind the EU and the US, while some promised measures have yet to be implemented. Ministers need urgently to introduce a new US-style law to act against those who act as proxies for sanctioned individuals and organisations. Supporting this statutory instrument further demonstrates that our support for Ukraine at all levels of government remains undiminished. The UK and our allies have shown remarkable strength and unity in response to President Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. We will not be party to funding his war machine. Noble Lords have spoken with great solidarity in relation to the situation in Ukraine and supporting the order.
Having listened to noble Lords—in particular my noble friend Lord Jones, who, like the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, asked some excellent questions—I want to ask the Minister a few questions of my own in the same spirit. How has the department engaged with local authorities to make them aware of these new powers? Will the Minister encourage local authorities to exercise these powers? If so, how? What assessment has the department made of the level of contracts in the public sector with Russia and Belarus?
I just want to pick up on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, about highlighting the challenge of overcentralisation. Like the Minister and the department for levelling up, we must look to ensure that, rather than responding after pressure from local authorities, we lead from the front so that local authorities are not put in difficult positions. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Committee for considering the order and for all the contributions to the debate. I am sure we can agree that it will further simplify our already strong message to Russia that we stand firmly with Ukraine and will use all levers possible to cut off funding to this illegal invasion. Allow me to try and respond to the points made by noble Lords.
I start with the points raised initially by the noble Lord, Lord Jones, and then backed up ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, around what we know about which local authorities have contracts with Russian and Belarusian-backed companies and the value of those contracts. The Government do not hold data on how many contracts and sub-contracts are held by local authorities with organisations under the control of Russia or Belarus. However, we know that there are contracts and that the Secretary of State has been asked by a number of council leaders to amend legislation to allow councils to terminate such contracts.
The noble Lord, Lord Jones, wanted some examples of contracts that fall into this. I will give one, which makes two points that have been raised by noble Lords. The first is that Portsmouth City Council has a contract with Gazprom and has decided not to terminate the contract. I make this point because it is not for Ministers or central government to use the bully pulpit. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, I say that we are giving a permissive power for local authorities to make the decision about whether they withdraw from these contracts or not. We want them to go through the process and have the ability to do so, which currently in theory they do not, which is why we are bringing in this statutory instrument. We have been asked by the noble Lord, Lord Jones, about the impacts of employment—
Lord Jones (Lab)
Did the Minister see the piece of paper his noble friend Lady Scott whipped fast to him under the papers she has just put down?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Beith) (LD)
Has the Minister sat down?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
The Minister’s getting up, but the Minister’s getting confused. I am sorry; I meant “the noble Lord, Lord Khan”. I have been confused by people writing the wrong name. I am just reading from the top of the page—my apologies.
Here is the piece of paper. Going on to the next point, I say that we do not know about the impact on employment, and the impact on business is dependent on whether the country or territory of origin of supplies or location of business activities is Russia or Belarus and whether the relevant authority has decided to terminate contracts. Therefore it is not easy to estimate the impact on employment. But, again, this is a permissive power, and local government will ultimately make the decision in the interest of local services and value for money.
I will answer the noble Lord, Lord Khan, about what local authorities should do when these regulations come into effect. The Government will make sure that we provide guidance to local authorities as and when this order comes into force. There has been considerable engagement, and a need has been identified to do this and to bring forward the secondary legislation. These councils have been writing to the Secretary of State since the invasion of Ukraine, setting out the need for the Local Government Act 1988 restrictions in this area to be lifted, to allow local authorities to act. This statutory instrument will allow them to do this, so there has been considerable engagement, as noble Lords can see, and I hope your Lordships will support me in supporting the order.
Local Authority and Combined Authority Elections (Nomination of Candidates) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2022
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greenhalgh
That the Grand Committee do consider the Local Authority and Combined Authority Elections (Nomination of Candidates) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2022.
The Minister of State, Home Office and Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
My Lords, this statutory instrument was laid before the House on Monday 6 June under Sections 9HE and 105(2) of the Local Government Act 2000, and Section 114(1) of and paragraph 12(4) of Schedule 5B to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, for approval by resolution of each House of Parliament. This instrument amends local election rules to account for the new disqualification for sexual offences introduced by the Local Government (Disqualification) Act 2022. These changes are necessary to ensure that future mayoral candidates continue to correctly declare that they are eligible to stand in elections. This will provide continued clarity for candidates and electoral administrators.
The Local Government (Disqualification) Act closes the loophole which meant that anyone who commits a sexual offence but is not given a custodial sentence could stand for local government election—or, indeed, if convicted once in office, could remain in office following that conviction. The Act passed with cross-party support earlier this year and comes into force today. Election processes now need to be updated through this instrument, which updates “consent to nomination” forms used in local authority mayoral elections. At nomination, a candidate must declare that they are not disqualified by signing such a consent to nomination form. The format and wording of these forms is prescribed in secondary legislation.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
This instrument amends four instances of such forms prescribed in election rules: two instances for county, district and London borough mayoral elections; and two for combined authority mayoral elections. Regardless of the type of office, the amendments to each consent to nomination form have the same effect. The changes update the forms to add a new reference to the updated criteria inserted by the disqualification Act. Further, this instrument updates the forms to require that copies of the relevant new sections from the disqualification Act are reproduced in full and appended to these forms for candidates’ information.
Noble Lords who have been following this matter closely will recall that the disqualification Act was informed by a 2017 government consultation. In our response, we committed to seek to legislate to disqualify sex offenders from local government. This instrument is the last stage to implement this commitment fully.
It should be noted that, alongside this instrument updating mayoral election rules, a similar instrument was made by negative procedure on 30 May. The Local Authority and Greater London Authority Elections (Nomination of Candidates) (Amendment) (England) Rules 2022 updated election rules in the same manner for all tiers of councils, the London Assembly and the Mayor of London.
These amendments to election rules follow statutory consultation with the Electoral Commission. We incorporated its suggestions and the changes have its full support. It has updated its guidance to inform candidates of the new disqualification criteria. Following this instrument coming into force, it will update the nomination packs containing the new consent to nomination forms.
I should clarify the remit of these changes. This statutory instrument applies to England only. Wales has legislated to disqualify sex offenders from local government office but the changes did not require amendments to secondary legislation. Implementation of this instrument should not be delayed as the provisions of the Act are in force from today.
This instrument fulfils the Government’s commitment to protect local communities and make sure that they can have continued trust and confidence in their mayoral candidates. I commend these regulations to the Committee.
Lord Jones (Lab)
My Lords, the regulations refer to today, so time is of the essence. I rise mainly on a point of principle. The Executive should always be questioned by the legislature; it is in that spirit that I always address your Lordships’ Committee. I fought eight general elections—I am glad to say that I won them—but I never saw forms such as are in the schedule. Their drawing up internally in the department must have been quite something; if they are now in their new form, congratulations should surely go to the department. One can only assess the hours that went into painstakingly putting them together. In a general election, one’s nomination form was always of supreme importance; you had to get it right because, if you did not, you did not get on the ballot paper. It is understandable that we need exactitude.
To make progress, can the Minister say how many mayors there are now? There are not many. Everyone knows of the great mayoralty of London but can the Minister itemise their numbers and say what they are so that the record might be up to date?
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I repeat the interests that I stated in the discussion of the previous statutory instrument as a councillor and a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I welcome the addition to the disqualification criteria of anyone who is on the sex offender register. I note what the Minister said, which is also in the document, that, although we are discussing the consent to nomination for mayoral candidates, this has been laid as a negative instrument to include councillors at all levels, including in London. I welcome this.
The Sexual Offences Act was passed in 2003 so why has it taken nigh on 20 years to get what would for everybody be an obvious disqualification criterion included on the consent of candidates form? What has it taken 20 years? I was lobbied by a sitting councillor in the north of England about a parish councillor who was put on the sex offender register. There was no way of disqualifying them. I remember sending Written Questions to the appropriate Minister at the time seeking some action on behalf of the Government to rectify this error because, whatever we think about the situation, people will not stand if they are on the sex offender register. If they have already been elected, they will not be disqualified if the criterion does not exist. That is what happened in this case. If you are elected to public office, you have authority and access to institutions that are not necessarily available to others. If you are on the sex offender register, that brings an additional risk to members of the public. Why has it taken 20 years when my little network of folk knows of an example where a disqualification should have occurred but could not occur because of this lack of action by the Government?
I have a second question, which I know the Minister will be happy to answer. We have this SI for council and mayoral elections, including for combined authority mayors, but what about Members of Parliament? Why is there not an SI that changes the consent to nomination candidates’ form for Members of Parliament? They have even greater status and access to institutions than a councillor or a mayor. Why is that not here? I gently reference the fact that, currently, a number of Members of Parliament are being investigated about complaints of sexual harassment or offences. That would seem to me to indicate that we—those of all parties and none—have got to be more aware of the folk that we ask to stand for public office. Here is a way, by including this criteria in a parliamentary candidates’ consent to nomination, to provide that bar and give protection to the public.
I clearly support what is here today but I have questions for the Minister. I think that he is now trying to find answers to them; I look forward to those.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I again refer your Lordships to my entry in the register, stipulating that I am a local councillor in Burnley Borough Council.
This instrument will update the candidate consent to nomination forms to reflect the very welcome changes introduced by the Local Government (Disqualification) Act 2022, to which the Minister referred. An overwhelming majority of local councillors, mayors and mayoral candidates serve their communities to the best of their ability in the spirit of public service and public duty. I have done so for 15 years as a local councillor. I know that the Minister served as a council leader, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock.
However, when individuals fall short of the standards we expect from elected representatives we must ensure that action can be taken to remove them from office and, importantly, prevent them standing in the first place. Labour supported the associated Private Member’s Bill, with my honourable friend the shadow Minister, Jess Phillips MP, stating that
“it is important that this change is made in relation to all representatives, but with a special focus on those who act as corporate parents.”—[Official Report, Commons, Local Government (Disqualification) Bill Committee, 1/12/21; col. 4.]
It is great to have some cross-party agreement on what is quite a sensible thing to do. It is vital that we uphold the best standards in public life at all levels of government. I echo my noble friend Lord Jones’s comments. He spoke about the extra effort and hard work that has gone on behind the scenes to get this here.
I shall finish by asking the Minister a few questions, in the spirit of previous speakers. Are any further instruments necessary to implement provisions of the Local Government (Disqualification) Act 2022? Finally, can he confirm whether these measures will be in force for any upcoming local authority by-elections? I look forward to his response.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Committee for considering this draft instrument. I also take the opportunity to pay tribute to the sponsors of the Local Government (Disqualification) Bill. I thank my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister and the Member for Mole Valley, Sir Paul Beresford—both very distinguished former leaders of Wandsworth Council—for their diligent work to progress the Bill here and in the other place respectively.
I will take a few moments to respond to noble Lords’ questions. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, this has taken a long time, but it was one of those things that came to light. It is a loophole that has been closed because of the Private Member’s Bill taken forward by my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister and Sir Paul Beresford. They are to be commended. It has taken too long, but we have got there. It is one of those things where we are responding to something that, frankly, was not front of mind until, as the noble Baroness said, there was someone in office who chose not to stand down when this became apparent.
The noble Lord, Lord Khan, wanted to know about implementation. My understanding is that the SI will come into effect the day after it is made after the Act commences. The issue is not about speed and delay but whether there is enough time to prepare. Certainly, there was no need for the usual. We are moving at pace. Therefore, by-elections will be covered because of the speed of implementation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, wanted parity, if you like, and asked why not MPs, given some of the recent incidents and cases in the other place. As I previously responded in support of the Bill at its Third Reading,
“standards and conduct for MPs and PCCs are governed under separate regimes, with their own mechanisms to disqualify or sanction unacceptable behaviour.”—[Official Report, 4/3/22; col. 1083.]
We are doing this for members of a local authority, counsellors, local mayors, members of the London Assembly or the London mayor. There are other regimes for MPs. As noble Lords know, MPs can, under certain circumstances, be recalled if at least 10% of the constituency electorate sign a petition.
The noble Lord, Lord Jones, really tested me on the number of mayors and having a schedule of mayors. This is not as easy as noble Lords would think. Obviously we have the London mayor and the London Assembly as one model. A number of combined authorities have a directly elected mayor: Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, Greater Manchester, Liverpool City Region, North of Tyne, South Yorkshire, Tees Valley, West Midlands, West of England and West Yorkshire. Obviously we are covering directly elected mayors, of which we have a number now. There are four in London, in Croydon, Hackney, Tower Hamlets and Lewisham, as well as all the ceremonial mayors. I am told that the total number of directly elected mayors is 26 in England. That is quite a bit of work in response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Jones.
In conclusion, it is essential that the provisions of the disqualification Act are accurately reflected in mayoral election rules. That is exactly what this instrument achieves, while ensuring that local government can continue to command people’s faith and trust, both now and in future. I therefore commend these regulations to the Committee.
Plant Health etc. (Miscellaneous Fees) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2022
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Benyon
That the Grand Committee do consider the Plant Health etc. (Miscellaneous Fees) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2022.
Relevant document: 5th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, this instrument makes amendments to plant health fees established in the Plant Health etc. (Fees) (England) Regulations 2018 to ensure that there is no underrecovery or overrecovery of costs.
First, it ensures that the fees charged for plant health checks on regulated commodities imported into England from all third countries reflect the frequencies of those checks established under the new risk-targeted inspection scheme set out in the Official Controls (Plant Health) (Frequency of Checks) Regulations 2022, which will be laid in Parliament on 30 June and apply from July 2022. This approach to fees does not apply to a new flat rate fee, which this instrument also introduces and which I will discuss shortly.
It is our responsibility to protect biosecurity across plant and animal health and the wider ecosystem. To that end, plant health checks, encompassing documentary, identity and physical checks, are carried out on certain regulated consignments imported into England from third countries that may carry pests or diseases that could pose a risk to our biosecurity.
Currently, the highest-risk commodities are subject to 100% plant health checks. The level of identity and physical checks on other commodities is based on risk. The new risk-targeted inspection scheme will provide a risk-based method to determine the frequency of plant health checks, focusing specifically on risks to GB biosecurity. This scheme will apply equally to certain regulated imports from non-EU countries and from EU member states, Switzerland and Liechtenstein.
It is UK government policy to charge for many publicly provided goods and services. The standard approach is to set fees to recover the full costs of service delivery. This relieves the general taxpayer of costs so that they are borne by users who benefit from a service. This allows for a more equitable distribution of public resources and enables lower public expenditure and borrowing.
Charging for plant health services is consistent with the principle that businesses using these services should bear the costs of any measures to prevent harm that businesses might otherwise cause by their actions or non-actions, since most serious plant pests and diseases that arrive and spread in this country do so via commercial trade in plants and plant produce.
In line with the standard approach that the full cost of service delivery be recovered from businesses using these services, fees for physical and identity checks will reflect the frequencies established under the Official Controls (Plant Health) (Frequency of Checks) Regulations 2022. For commodities subject to reduced levels of physical and identity checks, a proportionally reduced fee is applied.
This statutory instrument applies to England only. The Scottish and Welsh Governments are following the same approach in terms of applying fees to recover the full costs of their respective inspections. The Scottish and Welsh Governments laid corresponding legislation on 20 May and 21 June respectively.
Secondly, this instrument provides for a flat rate fee on certain plants for plants imported to England from all third countries. The new risk-targeted inspection regime will see plants intended for final users subjected to lower frequencies of checks, compared with 100% frequencies for plants not intended for final users. This flat rate fee aims to prevent plants that have completed their production stage in a third country and are ready to be sold to consumers after import benefiting from a cost advantage over plants imported to complete their production in Great Britain, while maintaining full cost recovery. The policy for a flat rate fee was proposed following stakeholder concerns. The Welsh Government have laid a similar piece of legislation to implement the flat rate fee.
We have worked closely with industry bodies, including the Horticultural Trades Association and the National Farmers’ Union, on developing our approach to the flat rate fee. Following a consultation, it was decided that a new flat rate fee should be applied to plants for planting and cuttings. After feedback that a switch to a flat rate fee would significantly increase fees for importing bulbs and seeds for the final user, we have restricted the flat rate fee to commodities where there is a clear benefit to trade. This excludes bulbs and seeds from the proposed flat rate fee.
Thirdly, this instrument extends an exemption from the payment of fees for pre-export and export certification services where goods are moving from England to a business or private individual in Northern Ireland. This will continue to enable trade between England and Northern Ireland in line with the Government’s movement assistance scheme. The Welsh and Scottish Governments are extending these exemptions in a similar fashion.
Finally, an error is corrected to reinstate in the fees regulations a provision for fees for samples taken on imports, which was omitted by the Plant Health etc. (Fees) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021.
This instrument is necessary because it ensures that there is no over-recovery of fees charged for plant health checks on commodities imported from third countries and maintains the full cost recovery of plant health services. If this instrument is not made, it would lead to over-recovery of fees from businesses, which would mean that proposals agreed with stakeholders on a flat rate fee for certain categories of plants would not be implemented. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for introducing the regulations before us. I broadly welcome them, but I have a number of questions.
Paragraph 12.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum states:
“The impact on business … is that these changes are estimated to save businesses c. £1.2m per annum due to lower levels of checks and subsequent impact on fees.”
Obviously, a lower level of fees will be pleasing for the industry, but I had not grasped that we are introducing a lower level of checks through this instrument.
One of the difficulties of this instrument, which my noble friend just introduced, was also set out in the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s fifth report. As my noble friend stated at the outset, there will be a second statutory instrument at the end of June that will set out the regime. Why has the way in which the fees have been structured been separated from the regime? Why have we not had an opportunity to consider them both together? I would have thought that the regime was probably of most interest. When might we expect to see that statutory instrument, as today is already 28 June?
Am I right to assume that paragraph 28 talks about the inspection fees being corrected, as they are being reinstated, when samples of imported consignments are taken for lab testing to confirm the presence of certain plant pests? Can my noble friend elaborate on whether that is done on an ad hoc basis or responding to intelligence? Does it include such laboratories as FERA, which I had the honour to represent in North Yorkshire for the last five years I was in the other place?
Also, is this one of the instruments that appears on the famous dashboard that we heard about last week? Is it one of the 570 statutory instruments that is retained EU law or is it a stand-alone instrument? Will we come back to look at this in a different context? I welcome the opportunity to debate and approve the regulations this afternoon.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction and for the helpful briefing that he organised beforehand.
The Explanatory Memorandum makes it clear that the purpose of the regulations is to help reduce biosecurity risk and to protect the environment from the spread of harmful pests and diseases. Obviously, these are objectives that we can all aspire to, but I would like to explore in more detail whether the proposed changes will achieve that result.
The new fees structure set out in this SI is based on a new risk-targeted inspections scheme which is set out in a separate SI, the Official Controls (Plant Health) (Frequency of Checks) Regulations, which this SI says will apply from July 2022, and to which the Minister referred as well. However, that SI has not been published yet. When I queried this with the department, I was told that it would be published on 30 June, which happens to be a couple of days after this debate. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, also raised this point. Where is the parliamentary scrutiny in this process? We are being asked to agree the fees without seeing the risk-based scheme in the first place.
The basis of the proposed changes was set out in a government consultation. In the Government’s response to the consultation, dated 31 March 2022, they concluded that imposing full checks on all categories of plants needed to be balanced with the impact on regulators and trade. In effect, it appears that this is a watering down of our biosecurity risk regime at a time when the threat of importing new plants and diseases with new and emerging pathogens is increasing.
I think it is fair to say that this is not a very reassuring SI in terms of the impact on biosecurity, and that the proposed changes were not greeted with unanimous support during the consultation. For example, the Government’s response to the consultation flags up that concerns were raised about the ability of the plant health risk group to respond quickly to new outbreaks. Obviously, there are different sorts of outbreak; some can be predictable, as can some disease threats, but some occur unusually and out of the blue. Is the plant health risk group really in a position to be able to judge and assess that risk, and to measure the right plants that are coming across our borders? There was a feeling that the inspection methods and technology applications were out of date and that we needed to modernise them. Concerns were also raised about the need for more transparency on the interception of pests and diseases and that, if a new pest or disease had been identified on UK shores, it needed to be shared more immediately.
These are all real challenges that Parliament has not yet had the chance to discuss, so I hope that the Minister can clarify why we have had such limited opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny on a very important issue that we have debated on a number of occasions in the past. Quite rightly, everyone has said that there is an acute need to take biosecurity more seriously.
Returning to this SI, first, it acknowledges that some commodities will be subject to reduced levels of physical and identity checks, leading to a lower fee being applied. However, nowhere does it really say that those at higher risk levels will have to pay a higher fee. I am interested to know how that will work in terms of our biosecurity protection.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I am grateful to both noble Baronesses for their points. To continue to protect plant biosecurity while facilitating the trade and movement of plants and plant material, it is essential that consignments that could pose a risk be subject to risk-based inspections before entering Great Britain. As I described, this instrument will maintain the alignment of plant health inspection fees with UK government policy to recover the full costs of official checks to manage risks arising from commercial activity.
I will respond in a rather random way to both questioners—I hope the Committee will forgive me. First, my noble friend Lady McIntosh and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, asked why the two SIs are being dealt with separately and why Parliament has not been given a chance to debate measures in the other SI before deciding on this one. The Official Controls (Plant Health) (Frequency of Checks) Regulations 2022 set out the methods used to calculate the frequencies on which the fees in this instrument are based. Those methods and the resulting frequencies of checks have been published via consultation.
Both SIs are scheduled to come into force on 22 July and require scheduling to ensure that they do so in an aligned fashion. The difference in scheduling of these SIs is due to the different type of parliamentary procedure that they should follow, determined by their parent Acts. The Official Controls (Plant Health) (Frequency of Checks) Regulations 2022 will be open to full parliamentary scrutiny, as per the negative procedure, following being laid on 30 June.
I reassure both noble Baronesses that we have raised the standards of biosecurity in this country since leaving the EU. We have put resources behind it, employing 150 more inspectors, and we are approaching it in a unified way, with Border Force improving our training at ports of entry. As the Committee knows, we are rolling out our BCPs in the coming months to make sure that we stop more high-risk plants at the border, rather than at point of delivery.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, asked about some fees and checks being reduced significantly and whether that means that we are somehow weakening biosecurity as we will not be inspecting so intensively. The new inspection arrangements are based on international standards for categorising commodities according to risk. This will allow the Animal and Plant Health Agency to focus on those commodities representing the highest potential risk, including trees and other woody plants to be grown outdoors, while reducing input on those products representing a low risk due to their intended use, such as houseplants and many fruits and vegetables for consumption. In this way, we will be targeting resources in the most effective way to protect GB biosecurity while avoiding unnecessary burdens and costs on businesses.
The noble Baroness asked who makes this decision. Experts make the decision, not me. Our Chief Plant Health Officer, who I speak to regularly and have spoken to today, and I have a monthly biosecurity meeting where we look at risks, but the risk is managed by people who understand its evidence base. Those are the basic criteria around which we make this decision. The plant health risk group meets monthly and continuously monitors new threats, taking account of the results of import inspections and other relevant information, such as scientific reports and developments in other countries. Inspection frequencies are one tool by which risks can be mitigated, and they will be kept under frequent review. However, it is already the case that the highest-risk plants and products, including trees and woody plants, will be inspected more intensively, and that we will keep our import requirements under continuous review to determine where they need to be strengthened in response to new or altered risks, as was the case in the recent pine processionary moth incident.
Going back to my noble friend Lady McIntosh, certain goods are subject to routine sampling and testing, such as seeds. In other cases, goods are sampled when an inspector sees something concerning during an official import inspection. A sample is taken to confirm the presence or absence of a controlled pest.
A question was asked about the large difference between some fees. It is a good point to make. The risk associated with specific commodities is the basis on which the fees are set. The highest-risk commodities are subject to 100% documentary, identity and physical checks and 100% of associated fees. Lower-risk goods are subject to lower frequencies of checks and therefore proportionately lower fees. Defra and its agencies are not alone in doing this. There is a protocol across Whitehall about charging for these activities. That protocol is set by the Treasury. We work closely with it to make sure that our rules for cost recovery are in accordance with those laid by the Government.
I should say at this point that the Government announced on 28 April that the remaining import controls on goods from the EU, Liechtenstein and Switzerland, including plants and plant products, will no longer be introduced this year. Instead, traders will continue to move their goods from the EU to GB as they do now. The rest of the controls which were planned for introduction on 1 July are no longer going ahead. This means that import checks of high-priority plants and plant products will not be moving to border control posts yet. Deregulated and notifiable produce and cut flowers will not be subject to import checks from July. Low-risk Article 73 goods will no longer require prenotification but will be assessed on a risk basis.
I have received inspiration in reply to a question about who makes the decision. This is agreed on the basis of consultation with stakeholders, as we have done with this SI, which has the support of the industry. That is really important to us.
There was also a question about the flat-rate fee. The fee will be in place until a fees review has taken place. That will involve a full review of all plant health fees, including the methodologies used to determine them. It is a multi-year process involving close work with stakeholders.
The other point I would make is on the disparity in funding for foliage versus physical checks, which the noble Baroness rightly raised. There is a serious risk to seed potatoes, which is why they are charged at a higher cost. Foliage—an apple, for example—is a simple product to assess. We want to make sure that we are doing it on the basis of risk but also in accordance with cross-government rules on charging.
As I have outlined, these regulations ensure that full cost recovery of plant health services is maintained and that the costs of inspecting imported plant health-controlled material are met by those businesses using Defra’s import inspection services. With that—
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his reply, which was, as ever, very comprehensive. I just want to go back to the original point about the missing SI that is not here. The Minister said that it and this SI originally came from two pieces of legislation, which is why they ended up here in a different order, but there must be somebody in Defra who can apply a bit of common sense to that ordering. I do not wish to make too much heavy weather of it but I hope that a lesson is learned from this. The department needs to ensure that, whatever the originating piece of legislation, instruments come before Parliament in a sensible order so that we can deal with concurrent bits of legislation at the same time. I leave that thought with the Minister.
Lord Benyon (Con)
That thought is well made and will be reflected on. We want to make sure that we are doing this properly. As the noble Baroness says, the instruments come from two separate pieces of legislation. Which measures are affirmative or negative, in what is brought before us in this place, is an enigma wrapped in a mystery to me. However, there are wiser minds than mine that understand these things. I accept the point: we try to apply common sense in everything we do and make it easy for noble Lords to hold the Government to account, but we are bound here by two distinct pieces of legislation. I am hopeful that they will go on to the statute book and improve the regime, and be in place by the middle of next month.
Common Agricultural Policy (Cross-Compliance Exemptions and Transitional Regulation) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2022
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Benyon
That the Grand Committee do consider the Common Agricultural Policy (Cross-Compliance Exemptions and Transitional Regulation) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2022.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, I declare my farming interests as set out in the register.
These regulations apply to retained EU law relating to the common agricultural policy, specifically: rural development; the common organisation of the markets, known as the CMO; and the underlying cross-compliance rules that farmers and land managers must follow on their holding if they are claiming certain rural payments. The instrument, made using the powers of the withdrawal Act, is extremely limited in scope. It makes no policy changes to retained EU law and no provision for future funding.
This instrument corrects a number of requirements to make notifications to the European Commission, references to “member states”, references to EU funding and EU policies, reports to be prepared by the European Commission and references to prospective EU legislation not yet made. These references came into force in the EU through Regulation 2020/2220, which the European Commission published and brought into force only in December 2020. This was too late for Defra to address prior to the end of the transition period, therefore the references were brought into retained EU law in the UK at the end of that period.
These references are redundant or deficient in a domestic context. They would, if possible, have been amended or removed from the statute book by Defra’s 2020 EU exit SIs had the EU regulation that introduced them been made earlier. The provisions being amended add little to domestic law, place unnecessary requirements on the UK to comply with EU policies that the UK does not share, or actively contradict amendments that Defra and the devolved Administrations have already made to provide for the future of agriculture in the UK.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I greatly enjoyed my noble friend’s presentation of the instrument before us. I think that paragraphs 7.7 and 7.8 set out exactly what my noble friend said. I would just like to ask for a point of clarification. We were informed last week about this dashboard. I have had great amusement trying to find the dashboard and identify the 570—I am told—Defra regulations, of which I assume this is one.
Is my noble friend of the view that this instrument will come back before us within the next year? That would greatly help me. A close reading of today’s House of Lords Business will show that I have tabled a Question to help me to understand. If 570 Defra items are listed on the retained EU law dashboard, published on 22 June, which relate to phytosanitary, plant or animal health, welfare and hygiene measures? Presumably we will have the opportunity to consider each in turn when they come before us, but as a general rule many of them will fall because, like this one, they fall within a transitional period. As the CAP comes to a close and Brexit kicks in to a greater extent there will presumably be retained EU legislation such as this that will fall. Will we come back to this particular instrument in the next year or two for those purposes?
There must be other pieces of retained EU legislation that we spent hours going through in this very Room or remotely to see how they would apply, many of which I imagine we would wish to retain. Do we have to wait for the Brexit freedoms Bill—I am not quite sure what it is called—to come before us, or will we approach this on an ad hoc basis? It would certainly help me to understand, since I committed so many hours to my greater knowledge and understanding of what the EU retained legislation was at the time, what the situation will be with this and other instruments.
It strikes me that it will take up an inordinate amount of Defra officials’ time to go through this exercise. If such instruments will fall anyway, will we have to meet physically to confirm that they are redundant and that they have fallen out of use or will that happen naturally? Will we be required to go through every single regulation that we adopted as part of our retained EU law that we wish to keep on the statute book?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to this SI and for the helpful briefing beforehand. I accept that the majority of these changes are technical in nature.
First, although it is not ideal, I understand why the changes to EU regulation 2020/2220 could not be made at this time, given that it was passed so close to the end of the transition period. It therefore makes sense to take this opportunity to remove the provisions to minimise ambiguity and potential confusion. I also accept that it is helpful to remove redundant references to the EU and member states where they no longer apply in UK law.
Secondly, with regard to the changes to cross-compliance regulations, I can see why it might be necessary to widen the scope of the existing cross-compliance exemptions as set out in Schedule 3. However, I have some specific questions about this. These new exemptions to the schedule are very specific and refer only to the specific changes we made to Section 98 of the Environment Act 1995 and Section 1 of the Agriculture Act 2020. Can we be sure that these two provisions are the only two occasions where exemptions to the cross-compliance rules should be necessary?
I am struggling with some of the detail here, but I do not think many farmers will be operating exclusively under those agreements. That raises the question of what happens if, for example, their environmental work is, say, 20% but also has a direct impact on other activities, such as food production, at 80%. Would they be penalised, or is there an element of discretion? If so, what would that look like? In other words, what is the interface between the old cross-compliance and the new arrangements? How much discretion is there in all that or is it absolutely fixed in stone?
I still do not feel, having read the SI several times, that the application of the cross-compliance rules is clear, notwithstanding double negatives and so on. I would not relish being a farmer and having to try to understand and apply them. To be absolutely clear about this, are they to be applied only to claims under the old basic payment scheme? Therefore, will the cross- compliance rules be phased out as any claims under the old CAP scheme are phased out?
Given that there is wide acknowledgement that the CAP was too rigid and the financial penalties for non-compliances were too onerous, why are the Government not taking this opportunity to introduce the lighter-touch regime we were promised when we debated the then Agriculture Bill? Can we be assured that the roll-out of ELMS and any future UK agricultural and rural payment schemes will be assessed without cross-compliance penalties? How is that all going to work in future?
I look forward to the Minister’s response. I also look forward to the Minister’s response to the very interesting questions from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, which I would like to know the answers to as well.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness and my noble friend for their contributions; I will try to answer their questions.
On the dashboard, these regulations and all retained EU law will be carefully reviewed as we go through the next few months. The Bill text is yet to be finalised. We are working closely with the Cabinet Office on what will be required in Defra-retained legislation. My noble friend Lady McIntosh is right to point out that we are coming to the end of the transition period, which is why we are doing all this stuff now. The tidying-up operation we are bringing in is because the sunset element of the EU withdrawal Act will be later this year and we want to get these matters resolved.
My noble friend asked how this instrument relates to the Brexit freedoms Bill. This instrument was an EU exit instrument made using the powers of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. As such, it makes no policy changes and does no more than is appropriate to make this common agricultural policy legislation fully operable now that the transition period with the EU has concluded. The Brexit freedoms Bill makes it easier to amend or remove outdated retained EU law from the statute book, ensuring that the UK continues to seize the benefits of Brexit and utilise our regulatory freedoms. Future regulation will be in line with our new regulatory principles. This answers some of the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, made. Our rules will be proportionate and create a collaboration with business to help spur on economic growth.
I would just say, to her final point on ELMS, that we are trying to generate a culture change within agriculture. The cross-compliance rules of the common agricultural policy were tedious—I speak with the scars on my back from having to fill in the IACS forms and all their successors—and you could feel the dead hand of government on your shoulder regulating every aspect of what you do. We are transferring to a system that trusts farmers to draw down from a list of possible actions they might like to take and treats them rather like we do taxpayers. We taxpayers fill in our tax returns and the Government trust us unless they have reason not to. Occasionally, they will do an inspection. Occasionally, they will do a risk-based, intelligence-based assessment of whether somebody is at risk of breaking those rules. If they do break those rules, there are sanctions, but we want to be working with farmers much more, encouraging them into the new schemes and seeing the benefits that will come from that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, made a very important point about cross-compliance regulation and enforcement. We are reforming our regulatory system, as I have said, to meet the country’s need and we will deliver a clear, fair and effective system. Cross-compliance will end at the point that the CAP direct payments are dealing from land. However, protections provided by cross-compliance will mostly continue. Domestic legislation already contains most of the same rules as cross-compliance and enforcement action to deal with any non-compliance.
The end of cross-compliance provides an opportunity, as I say, to move away from an approach that is seen to be disproportionate. We are reforming our farming regulatory system using the Dame Glenys Stacey 2018 review recommendations and by working closely with farmers and others. We want a farming regulatory approach that is focused on outcomes and based on the core principles of partnership, adaptability, proportionality, transparency and efficiency.
Some questions related to the whole area of complexity. Defra is working hard to make the system as easy as possible for everyone. We have simplified the online application system to make it faster and easier for farmers to apply and revised the scheme standards to make them clearer and more self-explanatory. Farmers can be in the SFI and the Countryside Stewardship scheme or the Environmental Stewardship scheme at the same time, so long as they are not being paid for the same actions twice and the actions are compatible.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I am sorry, I do not normally interrupt the Minister, but can this be right? I think the Minister said, which I did not expect him to, that when the basic payment scheme is phased out, as it will be, cross-compliance will carry on after that. Is that the correct understanding of what he said?
Lord Benyon (Con)
There is some conditionality on the scheme. If you say that you are going to plant a headland, you have to plant a headland with wild flowers, and it is the same if you are doing something that comes under the heading of “public goods” that we are pushing through our new schemes under the SFI. However, as I said, we want to do this with a light touch. We want farmers to be trusted to do it. The cross-compliance elements will remain as the schemes are phased out, but then we want to move to a system that is more trusting of farmers to do the right thing.
House of Lords
Royal Assent
Tuesday 28th June 2022
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Social Security (Additional Payments) Act 2022 View all Social Security (Additional Payments) Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 22 June 2022 - (22 Jun 2022)
Death of a Member: Baroness Greengross
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, on Thursday 23 June. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to the noble Baroness’s family and friends.
Insurance Industry: Travel Premiums
Lord Blunkett
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with representatives of the insurance industry regarding the use of age as a trigger for substantial increases in premiums for travel and other related cover.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My condolences too for a very great woman. I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Baroness Penn (Con)
The Government continue to work closely with insurers and the independent regulator to ensure that everyone has access to suitable and affordable insurance. The Financial Conduct Authority requires firms offering retail travel insurance to signpost consumers to a directory of specialist providers if they are declined cover, offered cover with an exclusion or charged a significantly higher premium for the medical coverage element.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, in March 2020 there was an outburst of gross discrimination against people on age grounds that nearly locked people in their own dwellings because they had reached the age of 70. Perhaps the Minister can go back to the Association of British Insurers, which produced a review in 2018, and point out that many of its members are raising exponentially the fees required for cover for people over 70, 75 and 80. Given that only 7% of over-65s claim in any given year, surely it is possible for us to ensure that people who are living longer, fitter and able to travel can do so and have the cover necessary to make that possible.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, travel insurance is fundamentally designed to cover medical expenses, where age can be a risk factor. The Government do not intend to intervene in commercial decisions made by insurers, as this could damage competition in the market. The new rules that I referred to in my Answer came into place in April 2021—after the example the noble Lord gave. They mean that firms need to signpost consumers to a directory of specialist providers if the medical premium they are being charged is significantly higher than normal. The Government continue to want to promote financial inclusion, and have the Financial Inclusion Policy Forum in place to ensure that they consider all questions around financial inclusion.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, people with serious pre-existing medical conditions often find it difficult to get travel insurance. As the Minister has said, in April last year the FCA introduced new signposting rules to make it easier. Can the Minister reassure the House that insurance companies and brokers are currently complying with the signposting rules and that this signposting is as prominent as it should be?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, it is for the Financial Conduct Authority to regulate the market and ensure its rules are being followed. It has the resources to do so, and I will follow up with the FCA to see its judgments on that.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
Did I understand the Minister to say in response to my noble friend Lord Blunkett that basically, it is nothing to do with the Government—“We can’t do anything; it’s up to someone else to sort it out”? That seems to be an increasing characteristic of the Government in certain key areas of policy. If people are demonstrably being ripped off, which is the clear implication of the Question, is it that the Government cannot intervene or that as a matter of principle they will not intervene?
Baroness Penn (Con)
There are several elements to that. It is for the market to determine the provision but, if that market is not functioning, it is for the regulator to take action; if it is not functioning properly, that is what we expect the regulator to do. I pointed to one example where the regulator acted in needing to signpost consumers to alternative providers if the insurer it had approached could not provide reasonable cover. The role of the Government is to look at policy; that is where the Financial Inclusion Policy Forum comes in—we work with the market and the regulator to ensure that we get the right outcomes.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My noble friend should surely be concerned about this level of age discrimination, which applies not only in this field but particularly in that of car hire. I understand that some good drivers over the age of 70 are being denied the opportunity to hire a car, the reason given being a failure to obtain insurance. Is this not unacceptable, bearing in mind the statistics on the safe driving of older drivers?
Baroness Penn (Con)
Age can be a risk factor in the provision of insurance. It is right for the market to take that into account but, where there are examples of discrimination that go beyond assessment of the risk factor, that is for the FCA to consider as the regulator of the market.
Lord Watts (Lab)
The Government rely on the regulator, but is not the problem that many regulators do not do the job, be it water, insurance or many other areas? What are the Government doing to monitor the performance of regulators and, when they fail, to remove and replace them?
Baroness Penn (Con)
I think I have explained one action that the regulator has already taken in respect of this question, on the signposting agreement that came into place in April last year. The FCA has also acted on general insurance pricing practices, where it was found that existing customers renewing their insurance were being charged unfair rates so that insurers could offer new deals to people who were prepared to move. As I said, the FCA has taken action on that front. Since 1 January 2022, new rules have been in place. As I also said, the Government have the Financial Inclusion Policy Forum, bringing together market operators and the regulator to look at questions of financial inclusion and see what we can do. The Government publish an annual report on the action taken within that forum.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I am conscious that my noble friend finds herself in a difficult position—it is usually for the regular and the industry itself to behave appropriately. Have the Government asked the regulator to make inquiries about the pricing of insurance? It is notoriously opaque in justifying risk margins, profit margins and the ways pricing structures are determined. It sometimes feels like a free-for-all in the market.
Baroness Penn (Con)
As I just pointed to, a quite significant reform was put in place in January this year regarding general insurance pricing practices. These measures are intended to improve the way that insurance markets function and reduce harm for consumers affected by price walking. We want to see how those reforms operate and bed in over time, but I gave a commitment to the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, to communicate with the FCA about its assessment of the market in relation to age. I will get back to noble Lords.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, in life and in politics there is always a trade-off between intensity of gaze and breadth of vision. I sense an intensity of gaze from those of the average age in this Chamber, who would like to see some rule by which people of the Minister’s age could subsidise us old fogies. I understand that the law does not say that, unfortunately, but there are two areas on which I would like an answer. First, in order to be effective, the new rules must have very positive promulgation, but I do not sense that they have it. Every citizen seeking this should know about them. Secondly, when the algorithm has just turned you down, it is a pretty frightening situation—especially when your wife has just spent £7,000 on a holiday trip—and at that point you feel very vulnerable. Could the Minister go further on what mechanisms exist, and which ones should exist, to ensure that this marketplace is fairly pricing this important minority of customers?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I believe that the way the signposting agreement is designed ensures that, when a consumer is turned down for insurance or is charged a significantly higher premium for the medical element of it, the obligation is to directly signpost them to alternative provision or a register of specialist providers, so that every consumer who finds themselves in that position is given an alternative pathway to find insurance. There is a wider question about general knowledge of alternative provision beyond that sign- posting, and I will happily take that up with the FCA as well as in government.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl)
My Lords, do not certain insurance companies, such as Saga, specialise in insurance for elderly people? Perhaps the Minister can shed some light on that.
Baroness Penn (Con)
Certainly, there are providers in the marketplace that will then specialise. People should be signposted to such providers, so that they know there is a solution out there for them.
Small Modular Nuclear Reactors
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Hanworth
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when, and under what circumstances, they will place orders for small modular nuclear reactors.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, the energy and security strategy sets out our intention to take one nuclear project to final investment decision in this Parliament and two projects to final investment decision in the next, including SMRs. As with any government decision, this will be subject to value for money, relevant approvals and technological readiness and maturity.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
I am not reassured by the Answer the Minister has given. To await the completion of a generic design assessment of a proven technology is to impose an unnecessary delay. There is an international market awaiting small modular reactors. Unless the Government provide full and immediate support for the SMR of Rolls-Royce, foreign producers will capture the market and we may have to depend on them for the reactors we will need to install in the UK. Does the Minister regard that prospect, and the prospect of losing overseas markets, with equanimity?
Lord Callanan (Con)
We are providing immediate support to Rolls-Royce to develop the SMR; we provided it with £210 million to do exactly that. However, it is important that we go through all the relevant design approvals to make sure that SMRs are safe and easy to deploy. That is an important step to go through and which is legislated for in this country, and we should make sure that we follow it.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, building a large nuclear reactor takes well over a decade but, once built, it can power 7% of this country’s electricity. However, I am reliably informed that these small modular nuclear reactors can be put up within four to five years. Why are the Government waiting? These reactors can power a city the size of Sheffield. Why not do it now in order to have cleaner energy and to be more energy self-reliant?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord might want to ask the people of Sheffield whether they want an SMR beforehand. As a serious point, this is very important; indeed, it is a matter of legislation that reactors are proved to be safe. I agree that it is a shrunken design of existing reactors; these are on a much smaller scale and designed in a modular way. It is important that we go through all the relevant approval processes. The design is not yet complete, and they have not even been submitted yet for GDA.
Lord Cunningham of Felling (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister remind the House of when Britain built a civil nuclear reactor on time and within budget? I ask this not to cast any doubt on the Minister’s commitment, but to say that we know that there are numerous opponents of civil nuclear power and every time we build a reactor we give them more and more excuses over delays and cost overruns to attack the idea of civil nuclear power. It is a terrible error for which both Governments have been responsible; I am not just blaming the present Government. We give them open goals to shoot at. Should the Government not look at the whole process and come up with a new scheme or ideas to ensure that this error is eliminated?
Lord Callanan (Con)
We are always open to new ideas for how we can speed the process up. We want to see both existing nuclear technology and the SMR process brought forward as quickly as possible, but it is important that we go through all the relevant design approval phases to make sure the technology is safe. Many communities are willing to accept SMRs, particularly those that already have nuclear reactors in their area, so it is not the case that everybody is opposed to them. Nevertheless, it is important that we go through the proper processes.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest both past and present in this area. I welcome the support the Government have so far given to SMR development in this country. Of course, it is going on in many other countries as well. How does this play out in relation to the plan at Sizewell C, where the idea is to build another large-scale reactor as a replica—I repeat, replica—of Hinkley Point C? Hinkley Point C has had its own problems; it is over time, over budget and has component difficulties. Do we really want to think in terms of a large-scale replica there or in other sites, when the SMR option is coming on fast? We are at the edge of new technology in nuclear power; should the Government not think very carefully before deciding between SMRs and another large-scale reactor with all its problems, as already indicated?
Lord Callanan (Con)
My noble friend makes an important point, and we will take into account all these factors, including value for money, when we make decisions in the next Parliament on whether to proceed in these cases.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, may I break the habit of a lifetime and welcome the statement made by the Prime Minister in his speech in Newtown last month, when he announced an SMR for Trawsfynydd? Can the Minister confirm that the five-year timescale announced by Cwmni Egino, which will be taking this forward, is within the framework of what he has just described and that this project will go ahead for 2027?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I cannot confirm any individual projects, but I have said that we are proceeding with making final investment decisions in the next Parliament on two further nuclear reactors.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I work in the nuclear industry and one of the biggest issues I am currently seeing is a lack of available skills to undertake the work. We are doing our best to recruit, but we simply cannot find the skilled engineers to meet the demand we are seeing. Does the Minister agree that a sector-wide skills strategy is needed to demonstrate how we will deliver the more than 100,000 new jobs in the industry that will be needed by 2030?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord makes an important point. There are a lot of very skilled engineering jobs. We have made some errors in the past on our nuclear strategy, which resulted in a lot of very skilled employees leaving the country and the industry effectively closing down. We are resurrecting the industry now and it will be a longer-term process to build up the skills base, but the noble Lord is right.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, although we on these Benches welcome an increased rollout of small modular nuclear reactors, given that they offer savings in cost and construction time and more flexibility related to energy demand, it will likely take until 2024 for the first project to reach a final investment decision. Furthermore, Rolls-Royce does not expect to turn on its first SMR until 2029. This is a positive long-term strategy but it does not address the short-term and immediate need for action. Can the Minister inform us of what solutions the energy security Bill offers to reduce our dependency on oil, coal and gas in the short term?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Baroness makes an important point; these are long-term decisions. Most energy policy decisions are longer term, as it takes many years to bring on stream new energy infrastructure projects in whatever field we are looking at. In the short term, however, the answer to the noble Baroness’s question relies principally on renewables: we are advancing the hydrogen strategy and accelerating the rollout of offshore wind, which has proved immensely successful. In this country, we have the second-largest offshore wind capacity in the world and it is a world-beating industry.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
Could the Minister confirm whether the Government consider regulated asset base—RAB—funding appropriate for something as experimental as these small reactors?
Lord Callanan (Con)
We have not made a decision on the relevant business case model—it could be either the RAB or the CfD model—but we will consult on this shortly.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend knows as well as anyone that we have suffered an energy crisis and continue to have one. Against that background and the vacillation over the North Sea, which is not my noble friend’s fault, does he not think that, given Rolls-Royce’s history and what it did during the war—twice as quickly as anyone forecast—it is a major company that can really get a grip on this, if Her Majesty’s Government push the button for it to do so?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I agree with my noble friend’s point: Rolls-Royce is indeed an excellent company, which is why we are funding it to do this work.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I am so glad that the Minister mentioned safety because a recent study from Stanford University says that, overall, small modular designs are “inferior” to conventional reactors—
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
It is not my work; it is from a university. The study says that they are inferior with respect to radioactive waste generation, management requirements and disposable options. The researchers make the point that they should not be doing this research; the vendors should. Will the Government make sure that such research is done by vendors?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Of course they are doing that research. A vital part of the work and the financing model will be to make sure that all decommissioning costs are taken into account, which is one of the advantages of the SMR process: SMRs will, we hope, be easier and cheaper to decommission. But this is all part of the design process that we are going through, and it will be subject to the proper regulatory approvals. I obviously do not agree with the noble Baroness’s anti-nuclear stance, but it is nevertheless important fully to take into account the safety approvals process.
Commonwealth
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the progress made during their term as chair-in-office of the Commonwealth towards building a Commonwealth that is fairer, prosperous, more sustainable and more secure.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, over the last four years, the United Kingdom, as chair-in-office, has worked closely with our Commonwealth partners to pursue the shared priorities that leaders set out at CHOGM 2018 in London, with an investment of over £500 million in projects and programmes on girls’ education, trade, human rights and women’s economic empowerment. The UK’s assessment of its delivery of our chair-in-office priorities is outlined in two chair-in-office reports, the second of which was laid in both Houses in May this year.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, nearly a million girls in 11 Commonwealth countries do not have equal access to education. The UK’s most recent report as chair-in-office—the final report to which my noble friend referred—states that Rwanda is one of the 11 Commonwealth countries that marginalise girls. It is now the chair-in-office for the Commonwealth, so what commitment has it given to the UK that, as chair-in-office, the country will eliminate the marginalisation of girls in education?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, as my noble friend will be aware, the issue of girls’ education remains—and rightly so—a priority for Her Majesty’s Government and our Prime Minister. I can assure my noble friend that we have had a strong exchange of concerns and views with all members of our Commonwealth family over the importance of education, not least for girls across the now 56 countries of the Commonwealth. We will continue to pursue this objective, not just in our conversations with countries within the Commonwealth but beyond. Rwanda remains very much committed to the values of the Commonwealth family.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, one of the priorities set by the London CHOGM was LGBT rights. I congratulate the Minister on his work to ensure that this continued throughout the chair-in-office period. What can he tell us about how this work will continue over the next two years? We must bear in mind —as he acknowledged to me yesterday—that LGBT rights are now under threat globally, and we need to ensure that we continue to act.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, one of the areas we pursued during our time in chair-in-office was to strengthen the voice of civil society within the context of the Commonwealth. Although I was not able to share this with him yesterday, I can now report to the noble Lord that, in the civil society engagement we had, we had well over 10 Foreign Ministers engaging quite directly. There was a quite specific question on the issue of LGBT rights. While it does remain a challenge in a number of Commonwealth countries where backwards steps have been taken, it is also notable that certain countries—including, for example, the likes of Botswana—have taken forward steps on this important issue. We continue, as we have done during our time as chair-in-office, to fund human rights priorities, including those of LGBT rights. They were featured very prominently in the civil society discussions, and I am sure of the important role civil society organisations will play in ensuring that all countries of the Commonwealth will adhere to the values of this important principle, and not just during Rwanda’s chair-in-office.
Lord Haselhurst (Con)
My Lords, if we are to expect the Commonwealth to remain a strong and influential organisation far into the future—bearing in mind the high proportion of Commonwealth citizens who are aged under 25—would it not be sensible to encourage, perhaps through officers of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the setting-up of a Commonwealth-wide youth organisation, just as has happened with both women, on the one hand, and small jurisdictions, on the other?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, again I agree with my noble friend. As he will be aware, within the Commonwealth context, there is the Commonwealth Youth Forum. Together with a number of other Ministers, including the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of Rwanda, I attended a meeting where the youth forum delegates were directly reporting back on the importance of their priorities. Of course, 60% of the Commonwealth is under 30— although I think that this House acts as a strong voice for the 40% who are not. Equally, we need to remain focused: the youth forum plays a central role in the thinking on this, and will be feeding not just to the chair- in-office but to the member states as well. In addition, the role of the CPA is well recognised.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford
My Lords, as the Minister knows extremely well, this week marks a brief lull between the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Rwanda last week and the International Ministerial Conference on Freedom of Religion or Belief in London next week. Given the overlap between those two conferences, what progress has been made on this basic human right, not least given that three of the Commonwealth nations—India, Pakistan and Nigeria—are among the worst when it comes to protecting the rights, and even the lives, of Christians and those of other faiths and beliefs?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
The right reverend Prelate raises an important issue. It seems to be a continuum. As someone who is overseeing the FoRB conference as well, I was wondering whether the “Minister for Conferences” is being added to my portfolio. Nevertheless, it is an important area which is of focus to Her Majesty’s Government. I am working very closely with Fiona Bruce on the delivery of next week’s conference, at which over 30 countries will be in attendance. On the countries the right reverend Prelate referred to, I would also note that there are many where there are distinct constitutional protections for all communities and faiths. It is important that all countries of the Commonwealth stand up for the rights of the faiths and beliefs of all.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, at last week’s CHOGM, the communiqué read that the
“Heads emphasised the commitment in the Commonwealth Charter, to international peace and security, and to an effective multilateral system based on international law.”
What have Her Majesty’s Government, as chair-in-office, and the Prime Minister, in particular, done to talk to other heads of Commonwealth Governments to try to persuade them of the importance of supporting Ukraine and the British position on Ukraine, rather than seeing Prime Minister Modi alongside President Putin and President Xi?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the importance of Ukraine—indeed the next Question I will be answering is on that very subject—was a discussion that did not meet with total agreement. I sat through and indeed represented the United Kingdom at the Foreign Ministers’ meeting. Nevertheless, I think we worked very constructively with all partners to ensure that the language on Ukraine was not just sustained but also recognised by all members of the Commonwealth. Our advocacy and that of other partners is important. The Ukraine conflict is far from over as we saw through the attacks only yesterday.
Lord McDonald of Salford (CB)
My Lords, the narrowness of the re-election of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, as Secretary-General of the Commonwealth is almost as well known as the strength of Her Majesty’s Government’s opposition to that re-election. Will the Minister please say whether the Government think that the noble and learned Baroness has a mandate for her remaining time in office, and what will his relationship be with her for the remaining two years she has in office?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I am sure the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth will share my view that we enjoy a very strong, constructive relationship. That is important to take the Commonwealth forward.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I must say that I welcome this, despite one or two difficulties that we have just touched on. I think an orderly transfer of the Secretary-Generalship in two years’ time is a very sensible thing. I also welcome quite a lot of achievement at Kigali. Two new members joined and there were many other successes, thanks not least to my noble friend the Minister sitting here and, on the commercial side, to my noble friend Lord Marland. Looking into the future, did my noble friend see any talk of the increasing Chinese involvement in island state after island state, coastal state after coastal state in Africa in a systematic advance not in just commercial matters but in military and officer training matters as well? Will he tell his expert planners in the Foreign Office that this is a real challenge to Britain’s security, as well as world security, and it needs a good deal more attention than it has had so far?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
Again, I agree with my noble friend in his expert analysis and the wise counsel he offers to the FCDO. It is important that we remain vigilant. Indeed, it is not just across Africa, when we see the recent engagement of China across the Pacific and particularly on specific islands. That is why we are, through the announcement of British International Investment, working with key partners in ensuring that there is a long-term structured offer to all members of the Commonwealth in ensuring their sustainability and economic progress.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, while welcoming the fact that the Commonwealth is still attractive to new members, we are bound to ask whether there are now any relevant criteria for membership such as links with Britain or human rights credentials.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
On the noble Lord’s second point, there is a very strong and objective criterion assessment. No new member state joins unless the existing members of the Commonwealth agree. On the issue of past history, I think the Commonwealth is moving forward. Rwanda was never part of our imperial past, but it is very much part of our common future within the Commonwealth family.
Aiden Aslin and Shaun Pinner
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what representations they have made to the government of Russia and the unrecognised Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) on behalf of British nationals Aiden Aslin and Shaun Pinner, following their death sentence by a court in the DPR.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon)
My Lords, Her Majesty’s Government condemn the sentencing of two British nationals, Aiden Aslin and Shaun Pinner, held by Russian proxies in eastern Ukraine. Both are soldiers in the Ukrainian armed forces and therefore prisoners of war entitled to protection under international humanitarian law. The so-called trial in the non-government controlled area of Ukraine has no legitimacy, and the United Kingdom is fully supportive of the Government of Ukraine in their efforts to get them released.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, what discussions are taking place with our European and American partners to say to Russia that, if these executions go ahead, there will be serious repercussions? What guidance has been given to the estimated 3,000 UK nationals who are now fighting, many of whom have not joined the official army and therefore do not come under the Geneva convention, who are putting themselves at huge risk should they be caught?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, on the right reverend Prelate’s second point, the advice from the British Government has been very clear: do not travel to Ukraine. As for our work with allies and partners, first and foremost we are working very constructively with Ukraine. The detainees are part and parcel of the engagement the Ukrainians are having with the Russians directly and we are very supportive of those efforts—a point well made by my right honourable friend in her call with the Ukrainian Prime Minister this morning.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I understand that the Government will not recognise these courts, because we do not recognise these territories, but I also understand that the defence team of the British nationals has deferred lodging a defence because they believe that UK ministerial intervention will be successful. Their deadline for this is 8 July. I understand that the Government are in a sensitive position; they have already made representations to Moscow, but has consideration been given to a humanitarian envoy who can give direct support to these individuals to ensure that they have the equivalent of personal consular support, even though that is not possible because of our lack of recognition of these regions?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says. Of course, he is right to articulate that we have been making representations, including directly with the Russian authorities. We do not recognise the de facto authorities in occupied parts of Ukraine, and I think that is the right approach. I assure him of our good offices in every element of ensuring the rights of all the detainees who are currently being detained by Russia and strengthening the hand of Ukraine in their representation.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, in the case of Aiden Aslin, on 18 April, Graham Phillips, a former British civil servant and pro-Russian propagandist, published a video interview with him—a prisoner of war, in handcuffs, physically injured and manifestly under duress—and extracted from him an admission, in those conditions, that he was not a Ukrainian soldier but had a different relationship with the war. Experts who have studied this video and its circumstances say there is sufficient evidence there to support the view that this was a breach of the Geneva conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war, and that Phillips, a British citizen, is at risk of prosecution for war crimes. As he is a British citizen, ought we not to be further investigating this to see whether he has indeed violated international law, and issuing a warrant for his arrest?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Lord will be aware, prisoners of war cannot be prosecuted for taking part in direct hostilities. The whole process is about their early release, and they must be released and repatriated without delay at the end of hostilities, if not before. Certainly, that is the case we have been making. I can share with the noble Lord that, of course, these situations are extremely sensitive, but we need to remind Russia that it has an obligation to ensure it upholds the principles of IHL.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister say what contact, if any, the Government have had with the Red Cross, whose role is very clearly defined in terms of the Geneva conventions and prisoners of war? It was very active in rescuing a lot of people from Mariupol and therefore has no problem about contact with these illegal authorities.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, we are engaging directly with all agencies on the ground. The noble Lord mentions the Red Cross; of course, it has played an important role in reaching many communities within Ukraine, including those in the occupied areas, and we will continue to engage with it. But even an organisation such as the Red Cross is facing real challenges in this respect.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister did not answer my noble friend’s question about Graham Phillips and whether the Government are undertaking any investigation to establish whether or not he has violated international law. He was asked a direct question. I would be grateful if he would answer it, please.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I am sure the noble Baroness will appreciate that I am not going to comment on the specifics, particularly in the sensitive situation which currently applies to the detainees. I can assure her that we are looking at all elements of their detention. It is important that those representations for their early release are made through Ukraine. That is the position of our Government, but I cannot go further than that.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl)
My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that the values displayed by the Russian Government in connection with this Question, and also with yesterday’s bombing at the shopping centre, display an indication that this is a conflict that we cannot allow Ukraine to lose?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I agree with the noble Lord. That is why we have been absolutely at one—and I appreciate the position of Her Majesty’s Opposition in this regard—in staying strong in our position on helping Ukraine with humanitarian support, diplomatic efforts and economic reconstruction, as well as military support for the fight. This is a war Russia started. Russia should stop the war and stop it now.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, the Foreign Secretary has promised to do whatever it takes to secure the release of these individuals. In addition to the Red Cross and other humanitarian organisations that have intervened in similar circumstances, there is of course the office of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who has been quite effective in direct communications with Russia, particularly on humanitarian corridors. Can the Minister tell us whether the Foreign Secretary or the Prime Minister has been in contact with the Secretary-General to raise these cases?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Lord will be aware, the Secretary-General himself has had to face many challenges in his direct engagement with Russia. Indeed, although he made a visit to Moscow, that was possible only after various representations were made. Russia was blocking his visit, and I am sure that many within the international multilateral framework are frustrated by the lack of engagement Russia has shown on a wide range of issues. What I can share with the noble Lord is that we are engaging with all partners, including the United Nations, at the very highest level across a range of issues, including those of detainees.
Business of the House
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I recognise it is unusual for a Member to bring forward a point of procedure but this is an unusual situation. The Procurement Bill started in your Lordships’ House and had its Second Reading on 25 May. The first of five Grand Committee sessions is planned for next Monday. It is a complex Bill with significant ramifications for the whole country. Today the Government tabled 342 amendments to their own Bill. These amendments change a wide range of clauses running right through the Bill. Contrary to the Cabinet Office’s Guide to Making Legislation, not a single amendment has a Member’s explanatory statement, and I cannot see an updated Explanatory Memorandum, nor an impact assessment.
The timing and scale of these amendments are cynical and against the spirit of good legislation. We are used to undercooked legislation, but this Bill is only party formed. To deal with the situation properly, I ask that the Government do what they could, and should, already have done: withdraw this Bill, revise it, produce all the necessary new supporting documentation, and then have a new Second Reading for what is, in effect, a new Bill. Given that Report probably will not surface until October, there is time to do this properly.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord has made a very reasonable request in the circumstances. This is yet another example—and I have raised many in the past—of the Government treating Parliament with contempt. It is something up with which we should not put. It is just not acceptable for the Government to behave like this, as if we, the Parliament of the United Kingdom, are a creature of the Executive; we are not.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, is absolutely right. It is happening everywhere: the so-called Bill of Rights, which is not a Bill granting rights but a Bill taking rights away, is being introduced in the other place without any pre-legislative scrutiny, in spite of the fact that three committees have requested pre-legislative scrutiny. It ought to be done. This is the cavalier way in which the Executive are treating the legislature, and if we do not stand up against the Executive, this democracy is not something that we can be proud of.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, I am going to be brief, because we have a lot of important business to do. On normal occasions, the way to address these issues is for the usual channels to discuss them, and I certainly have not been approached by the usual channels on this. However, I have some sympathy with the noble Lord, as well as some experience, having taken through well over 200 government amendments on a Bill previously. I found that the way to get that through well and with agreement in that case was to have plenty of engagement outside the Chamber. I gather that the noble Lord has already met the Minister this morning, and since then more information has been provided, particularly in the shape of a Keeling schedule.
I am told that a lot of these amendments—the majority—are technical, and I do not mean technical in a way that is trying to avoid the issue. The others are explanatory. But if we have proper engagement before Committee—and, of course, five days of Committee are planned, two of which have extended hours—there will be plenty of opportunity to scrutinise these amendments. I know that the Minister is more than ready to engage further with the noble Lord, so I am certainly of the opinion that he will be ready and able to give the Bill the scrutiny it deserves.
Pharmacy (Responsible Pharmacists, Superintendent Pharmacists etc.) Order 2022
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:06 - Division on Lord Hunt of Kings Heath’s amendment. - Ayes: 193 / Noes: 119 - Amendment to the Motion agreed.
Lord Kamall
That the draft Order laid before the House on 28 April be approved.
Relevant document: 1st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
My Lords, since the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic, the country has faced its greatest health and economic challenge for decades. Community pharmacies have proven once again that they sit at the centre of our communities and are a vital first port of call for healthcare advice. It is therefore important that we have a strong and flexible governance framework in place to meet the challenges of modern pharmacy and to deliver safe and effective services to patients, for patients.
The purpose of the draft Pharmacy (Responsible Pharmacists, Superintendent Pharmacists etc.) Order 2022 is to define and clarify the core purpose of the responsible pharmacist, who is the person in charge of a particular retail pharmacy premise, and the superintendent pharmacist, who is the person responsible for all retail pharmacies across a retail pharmacy business. The draft order also gives powers to the General Pharmaceutical Council and the Pharmaceutical Society of Northern Ireland to define in professional regulation how the purpose of these roles is fulfilled.
These regulators already have powers to set rules around professional standards. It therefore makes sense that these powers sit with the regulator rather than with the Minister. In doing so, we are putting in place a more flexible regulatory framework and the necessary system governance framework to support maximising the potential of community pharmacy and to make better use of the skill mix of pharmacy teams to deliver more clinical services in the community and support wider NHS capacity. The draft order will apply across the United Kingdom, and I draw your Lordships’ attention to two provisions specific to Northern Ireland, which aim to align the law in Northern Ireland with that in the rest of the UK.
At the request of the Department of Health in Northern Ireland and the Pharmaceutical Society of Northern Ireland, it is proposed to give the Department of Health in Northern Ireland the power to appoint a deputy registrar in respect of duties set out in the Pharmacy (Northern Ireland) Order 1976. This will essentially mean that there is no disruption to maintaining the register of pharmacists and pharmacies in the absence of the registrar, and secondly, it will extend the requirement that a superintendent pharmacist must inform the relevant pharmacy regulator when they stop holding the role in a pharmacy business to include Northern Ireland and the Pharmaceutical Society of Northern Ireland.
I hope that noble Lords will agree that these technical amendments are helpful in aligning pharmacy law in Northern Ireland with that of Great Britain and enhance public safety by ensuring that important functions can be performed in the absence of the registrar.
I also take the opportunity to thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its welcome scrutiny of this work. I encourage noble Lords to read the committee’s first report, which draws these regulations to the attention of the House. Officials have provided supplementary information to the committee, which I can make available to the House.
In summary, the draft order will clarify and strengthen the organisational governance arrangements of registered pharmacies and make sure that the key roles of the responsible pharmacist and superintendent pharmacist are clear for all pharmacy professionals and owners. It will also ensure that pharmacy practice matters rightly sit with the professional regulators rather than with Ministers, as is the case for other healthcare professionals.
The proposals include safeguards to ensure that any changes the regulators might make are subject to full consultation, in much the same way as is expected from the Government. This will ensure that patients, the public, pharmacy professionals and the pharmacy sector will be able to have their say on what the standards should say, and Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise any instrument laid before Parliament by the regulators. I and my colleagues in government look forward to those discussions.
On the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I completely understand the concerns about the pressures on pharmacy teams who are still recovering from the impact of the pandemic. I am sure that noble Lords would like to join me in once again putting on record our thanks for the outstanding work and professionalism of the pharmacy workforce. We recognise that, along with all other staff in the NHS, community pharmacy teams have played an enormous role in the response to the pandemic and that this and other compounding factors are having an impact on the pharmacy workforce.
Employers are concerned about high costs of locums and difficulties in recruitment and retention of staff. For example, some employers are more reliant on locums and therefore more sensitive to increases in locum daily rates. I hope noble Lords will remember that in community pharmacy the employers are often commercial organisations that have a clear role and responsibility in staff recruitment and retention. These issues and the cost of locums cannot really be addressed by the legislation before your Lordships today.
However, that does not mean that the Government and the NHS are being passive on this account. We are monitoring the situation carefully. Analysis undertaken by NHS England shows that any workforce challenges that community pharmacies are facing are limited to geographical areas, and, as with the wider NHS, there are a number of complex and multifactorial issues. NHS England is working closely with employers to provide support and adopt a shared approach, to ensure that the essential NHS services provided by community pharmacy contractors continue to be available to patients.
There remains good access to NHS pharmaceutical services in England overall at the macro level, with 80% of the population within 20 minutes’ walking distance of their nearest pharmacy, and there are two to three times more pharmacies in the most deprived areas. I recognise that in many cases this does not drill down to some of the local difficulties in specific areas which are facing a number of factors. Given that, I beg to move.
Amendment to the Motion
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
At end insert “but that this House regrets that the Order does not make provision about the wider workforce challenges facing the community pharmacy sector”.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I certainly have no objection to this statutory instrument, which, as the Minister said, requires a strengthening of the governance that relates to superintendent and responsible pharmacists. My complaint is that this could have been so much more. My principal purpose in tabling my amendment and allowing us to debate this is to talk about the potential of community pharmacy and my frustration that the Government are doing so little to support the sector. I find that quite extraordinary.
As the Minister said, the NHS is going through an incredibly tough time. We have a huge backlog of patients waiting for treatment, workforce pressures, scary ambulance waiting times, and there is a real sense of demoralisation in primary care. You would think that the Government would have welcomed with open arms the contribution that community pharmacy can make. Instead, however, it seems that the sector continues to be undervalued and starved of investment.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on bringing forward the order before us today. I am interested to understand the background to why we are moving from ministerial discretion to regulated control. I think my noble friend will assure the House this afternoon that the concerns raised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee have been addressed and that any changes will be brought forward by statutory instrument, in which case the committee and the House will have the opportunity to look at them.
I join the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and my noble friend, in paying tribute to community pharmacies for the work that they have done throughout the years, and particularly during the Covid pandemic.
What will the position of dispensing doctors be, who fulfil a role where community pharmacies do not reach? Quite a large network of rural areas is served by dispensing doctors. As the daughter and the sister of dispensing doctors, and as someone doing outside work with dispensing doctors, I think it is appropriate that we look at how they are potentially being asked, for example, to deliver a booster jab this autumn at the same time as the flu jab. That will pose enormous logistical challenges for community pharmacies, dispensing doctors and others. How do my noble friend and his department expect to address those challenges so that the rollout will go as smoothly in the autumn—particularly if it is combined with a flu jab—as it did in the previous three or four rounds?
Lord Grade of Yarmouth (Con)
My Lords, the health or otherwise of independent community pharmacies can be judged by the rate of closures, which has been increasing over the last few years for a number of reasons, not least the overall deal with the NHS. That deal requires, for example, an individually owned community pharmacy to be deemed to have received the same discount on the purchase of drugs that Boots and the other big chains get on volume discounts. There is a serious crisis in this sector. Can my noble friend the Minister give us some idea of the rate of closure? If he does not have the statistics today, perhaps he could place them in the Library. Closure is an upward trend.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, will be taking part remotely and I call her now.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to this Order and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for explaining his amendment. First, as others have said, it is important to recognise the contribution pharmacists in our health service have made for many years—long before the NHS was created. Too often we talk about clinical and health care professionals and do not raise the vital contribution made by pharmacists. Covid-19 has really demonstrated in a number of ways that they are not only a cornerstone of the NHS and our healthcare system. In the pandemic, and lockdown especially, they also stepped up, took on extra responsibilities and became a new frontline service for people concerned about minor symptoms that they would normally have taken to their GPs, while their GPs were overrun with many more serious cases, including Covid cases.
I too thank the PSNC for the pharmacy advice audit it sent through earlier this week. We now know that nearly a quarter of a million consultations a week—that is 65 million informal healthcare consultations a year—are still being carried out in community pharmacy because patients are unable to access another part of the healthcare system. We should not forget, either, that the pharmacy database was used as the basis for the NHS app because it already had direct links with GP records, prescriptions and vaccinations that were delivered by pharmacists in their pharmacies.
Turning to the SI, which clarifies the governance of, and sets out the roles of, responsible pharmacists and superintendent pharmacists, the brief summary by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee raises some key issues. The Minister is right: although there are only three paragraphs, its report is certainly worth reading. It says in paragraph 14:
“several proposals were not popular with respondents to the consultation exercise on the grounds that they may reduce patient safety, particularly provisions allowing Superintendent Pharmacists to cover more than one firm and Responsible Pharmacists to cover more than one pharmacy or to operate remotely. We also note significant levels of distrust from the profession that the regulator, the General Pharmaceutical Council … would be able to set standards and rules appropriately.”
Worryingly, the committee goes on to say:
“We found the response of the Department of Health and Social Care … to these concerns, as set out in the Explanatory Memorandum, unconvincing.”
In the next paragraph, it says:
“In supplementary material, DHSC told us that to counter the concerns the GPhC will be required to consult on any proposed rules, which will provide the profession with an opportunity for scrutiny and comment. In addition, any changes to professional rules made … would need to be made by a statutory instrument following the negative resolution procedure in Parliament.”
Although this extra information to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee is reassuring, I still want to ask the Minister what the timescale is likely to be before such an instrument is laid before Parliament for scrutiny, explaining those concerns outlined by the committee and how they will be alleviated.
I thank the General Pharmaceutical Council for its briefing, which sets out the safeguards in the draft order to consult on the rules and report back. I know we look forward to seeing the detailed responses to the consultation and how they might affect the resulting resolution. With any change in responsibility, trust is absolutely critical, and this is on top of the increase in community consultations and referrals to other parts of the healthcare system that pharmacists throughout the UK are now carrying out. This is the real change already happening in our primary care system that Ministers say we should be looking for, and the public have taken to it.
The All-Party Pharmacy Group notes that the new demands on pharmacists have been coupled with a real-terms decrease in funding over the last eight years. Despite their desire to help, many pharmacies have had to limit or reduce their offerings and, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has said, some pharmacies are closing. It is in this context that the noble Lord has brought forward his amendment, asking your Lordships’ House to consider that
“the Order does not make provision about the wider workforce challenges facing the community pharmacy sector”.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, this debate has been a welcome opportunity to clarify the role of responsible and superintendent pharmacists, as set out in the SI, and to take a closer look at the wider industry, its workforce and, in particular, the support and funding community pharmacies need to enable them to operate effectively and undertake the extended role they need as an integral part of the local primary care team.
I congratulate my noble friend Lord Hunt on his excellent speech and presentation of the strong case for his amendment. All speakers have rightly paid tribute to the role played by community pharmacies during the pandemic, which remained open and continued to offer their full range of services. We all acknowledge the huge contribution they made then and make now to front-line care: the delivery of mass vaccination programmes for both Covid and flu, providing essential preventive programmes, such as blood pressure checks, providing medicine support for patients discharged from hospital, and supporting patients, particularly those with long-term conditions, with their self-care and self-management. All this takes pressure off GPs and ensures better access for patients to healthcare information and advice, and more efficient use of NHS resources. The estimate that the NHS could save £640 million through nationwide treatment of minor ailments by community pharmacists is an example of how their role should be extended.
The new community pharmacy consultation service mentioned by my noble friend Lord Hunt—involving GP surgeries, NHS 111 and pharmacies—for minor illness or medication consultations, and the pilot schemes for NHS Direct cancer referrals to pharmacies for patient scans and checks, are both key developments which we very much welcome.
I also pay tribute to my colleague Peter Dowd MP for his excellent Westminster Hall debate last week, which I commend to your Lordships. It set out a compelling case on the contribution community pharmacists could make with the right support and funding and increased collaboration with GPs, a case which had strong cross-party backing from supporting speakers. However, no part of the extended role we all want to see can be delivered unless the major workforce issues across community pharmacies are acknowledged, and the ongoing discussions with the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee on the current agreement and future funding acknowledge the scale of the resources needed.
On the SI, we support and welcome the aim of clarifying and strengthening the governance requirements of responsible and superintendent pharmacists. I thank the General Pharmaceutical Council for the reassurances in the note it prepared for this debate on extensive public consultation and engagement with patients, the public and the pharmacy and health sector on the rules and standards to operate under the extended remit the SI gives them.
Like my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, I await the Minister’s response to the concerns of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee on the profession’s general distrust of the council on the setting of appropriate standards and concerns about patient safety if the pharmacist is absent from the pharmacy. As the committee rightly stressed, the Government need to improve on the reassurances they offered the committee. How are the profession’s concerns and reservations to be addressed? How will the Minister address the Pharmacists’ Defence Association’s deep worry that the new focus of the GPC in exercising its rule-making powers, minimising the burden on businesses, could lead to less focus on patient safety, which surely must be the council’s number one concern?
On workforce, all the excellent stakeholder briefings we received for this debate point to a crisis across the pharmacy industry. While the numbers of pharmacists on the register and of pharmacy technicians have increased, there has been a serious reduction in the numbers of students in training and of dispensary and counter staff. As we have heard, the primary care networks, with pharmacists working in GPs’ surgeries and away from pharmacies, have had a significant impact on staffing levels in high-street pharmacies, which to cover vacancies have to make increasing use of locums, the cost of which is spiralling. The Company Chemists’ Association’s estimate of a shortfall of 3,000 community pharmacies in England is not the setting or context in which any newly extended role for community pharmacies can develop strongly and flourish.
There is also the PDA’s serious concern about the pressures on staff in some pharmacies, such as unsafe staffing levels, poor pay and working conditions, long hours and suffering physical abuse from customers, which cause them to want to change jobs or leave the profession. What are the Government doing to ensure that risk assessment and preventive safety measures are in place, as well as a zero-tolerance approach when incidents occur? How can the welcome development of primary care networks and pharmacy services in GP surgeries develop hand in hand with ensuring enough staff and resources for community pharmacies to provide the quality of professional care that they want to deliver and we all want to see? How will the Government help pharmacies invest in staff training and development?
On funding, the Minister will have heard the concerns from across the House. The CCA’s estimate of funding last being increased for the sector eight years ago, in 2014, and the cuts of £200 million that it had to find two years later, paint a sobering picture of how the industry has fared. The current community pharmacy contractual framework agreed in 2019 has not been adjusted despite the pandemic and rising inflation and costs. The £370 million from the Government to meet pandemic costs was a loan, as we know from valiant attempts in this House to ensure that the industry did not have to repay it. I understand that it was repaid and then a separate admin process was established for the industry to claim back the extra costs incurred during Covid. Does the Minister have any further information on the sums reclaimed under this procedure? Can he reassure the House that the current negotiations with the PSNC on year 4 of the five-year funding agreement will include funding recognition for the extended and full role that community pharmacies need to play?
The need for an overall strategy for the primary care workforce across GPs, pharmacies and community services becomes ever more urgent, as this debate and the questions from noble Lords have clearly demonstrated. I look forward to the Minister’s response. We will fully support my noble friend’s amendment, should he put it to the vote, highlighting the vital importance of having the clear, long-term strategy and vision for community pharmacies that we have all been calling for.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions and once again apologise for the delay in bringing this matter before the House. I welcome the essential role that your Lordships play in scrutinising measures. I experienced that during the passage of the Health and Care Bill, and I think we have a better Act as a result of the scrutiny from across the House. I will try to address as many as possible of the points raised before I conclude. I will try to cover most of the points but I pledge to write to noble Lords if I have missed any specific points.
If we look at the overall picture of the NHS, I am sure noble Lords recognise that we seem to have more doctors, nurses and pharmacists than ever before. As someone said to me the other day, that is all very well but the supply is not keeping up with the demand. If we consider our whole understanding of health, some of the things we ignored many years ago are now things we deem as needing treatment. For example, the whole area of mental health was ignored for many years. PTSM, which people talk about now, was officially recognised only in the 1980s. I know that we will probably talk about that in the next debate.
Before a debate the other day about neurological conditions, I asked my officials to give me a list of all the conditions. They said, “Minister, there are 600 of them.” Let us think about this. We were not even aware of that previously. It shows the great complexity as we become more aware of conditions and issues, putting even more pressure on our health service and health professionals, even though we have more health professionals than ever before.
The Secretary of State recently pledged to start with pharmacies when it came to overall primary care. The community pharmacy contractual framework, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, referred—the 2019 to 2024 five-year deal—set out a joint vision for the sector, and an ambition for community pharmacies to be better integrated in the NHS and provide more clinical services. We saw this during the pandemic when pharmacies provided vaccines and we have seen recently that they will be providing more initial advice on issues such as cancer—and they welcome this.
At the same time, we are seeing an overhaul of the overall model. It is time to move away from the old model, in which you see your GP for five minutes and then hope for a referral somewhere else. Services previously considered part of secondary care are now being taken over by primary care centres. Areas previously considered the work of GPs are now being taken over by nurses and physiotherapists, as well as by pharmacists in the community.
Despite the challenges of the last few years, we have jointly delivered the introduction of a new range of clinical services at the community level. These are important in their own right and we are negotiating with the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee on the expansion of additional services to be introduced in the fourth year of the five-year deal. I very much hope that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will be able to make an announcement soon. Longer term, we want to build on what has already been achieved and make better use of existing skill sets and those that are developing; for example, the prescribing and assessment skills that all pharmacists graduating from 2026 will have acquired during their training.
I turn to some specific points. We now have more pharmacists than ever before. Data from Health Education England shows that we now have an additional 4,122 pharmacists employed in the community compared with 2017, and the number of registered pharmacists has increased year on year. The number of primary care pharmacy education pathway trainees coming from community pharmacy increased by nearly 2,500. Reforms to initial education and training of pharmacists means that pharmacists qualified from 2026 will be qualified to prescribe at the point of registration. On top of the £2.5 billion that we are spending on the sector, Health Education England is investing £15.9 million over the next four years to support the expansion of front-line pharmacy staff in primary and community care.
We are also supporting a significant expansion in primary care capacity through the additional roles reimbursement scheme, enabling primary care networks to recruit clinical pharmacists and pharmacy technicians, two of 15 roles that PCNs can choose to recruit to. We saw the strength and potential of community pharmacies —many noble Lords referred to it—during the Covid vaccination campaign and the role that community pharmacies played in it. It is not yet known whether recurrent boosters will be required annually. We are looking into that and whether pharmacies will be once again called on.
Noble Lords will recognise—we had this debate many times during the stages of the Health and Care Bill—that to support long-term workforce planning, we are looking first at the long-term strategic drivers of workforce demand and supply. Building on this work, we have commissioned NHS England and NHS Improvement to develop a long-term plan for the workforce for the next 15 years, including long-term supply projections. Once this work is ready, we will share the conclusions and start to home in on what it means for recruitment, skills needed and skill gaps.
A number of noble Lords raised fears or concerns about what the regulators will do with their new powers. This is understandable: community pharmacies are private businesses and increased regulatory burden will be a concern for many of them. However, once again, we have to get the right balance between regulation and making sure of safety. The proposals include safeguards to ensure that any changes the regulators make are subject to full consultation, in much the same way as is expected from the Government. This will ensure that patients, the public, pharmacy professionals and the pharmacy sector have their say on what the standards should say.
There were some concerns about remote supervision. It is important to emphasise that a lot of the issues raised today do not affect this legislation, but I completely understand the point about taking advantage of the situation to debate the wider issues.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in the debate and to the Minister. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, was right to raise the concerns of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. I was reassured by the briefing we had from the General Pharmaceutical Council. Clearly, it is something we need to keep a watch on.
As far as timelines are concerned—and I declare an interest as a member of the GMC—the Minister will be aware that there is a huge backlog of regulatory instruments that need to come forward to make changes to the regulatory system. I hope he will be able to give a great deal more priority to this issue over the next few months.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, mentioned dispensing doctors. Noble Lords will perhaps not be unaware that there is sometimes a tension between community pharmacists and dispensing doctors, but that does not mean that dispensing doctors do not have a valuable role to play in future.
The noble Lord, Lord Grade, made important points about closures and funding. I do not know whether anyone really understands how community pharmacy is funded. It is certainly a very complex situation, which in four years as the Minister responsible I am not sure I ever quite discovered. The noble Lord raised a substantive point there.
I was glad to have support from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. She spoke well about the fact that community pharmacies had to step up because access in other parts of primary care has become so difficult. My noble friend Lady Wheeler made an important point about minor ailment services and savings that could accrue to the NHS if community pharmacy were used more.
I was grateful for the Minister’s response. He painted the picture that in actual terms you could say the health service has more staff, but he will know that respected think tanks and analysts have been saying for many years now that, because of the nature of healthcare and demographic changes, we have to run very much faster to meet the new demands. That is where the problem arises in community pharmacy. The Minister will not be surprised that, because of the long-term challenges, many noble Lords in this House regret that the Government did not accept this House’s recommendation that we have a proper long-term workforce strategy which is funded to try to forecast and deal with those issues.
On the substantive issue of community pharmacy, it faces many challenges. Many community pharmacy businesses are facing a viability situation. I do not think that the current contract the Minister talked about is really doing what it needs to. I am hopeful about the talks that he mentioned and potential agreement in the future, but at the moment I doubt that the Government are really going to come up with the goods. It is a tragedy because here is a profession and a sector which could do so much more at a time of huge pressure. It needs to be given the wherewithal to do it. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Draft Mental Health Bill
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I start by thanking Professor Simon Wessely for his independent review of the Mental Health Act 1983, an outdated piece of legislation that far too often has facilitated the inexcusable treatment of those with mental health problems.
Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Health said that the report made “uncomfortable but essential reading”, and indeed it did. When it is at its best, legislation supports the saving and improvement of people’s lives, and I am sure that all sides of your Lordships’ House intend that this Bill will get us to this point.
In supporting this overhaul of the legislation, pre-legislative scrutiny will be crucial, not least because it gives an opportunity to build consensus. Can the Minister provide details of timescales and arrangements for this scrutiny? While the Government have adopted most of the recommendations of the review, can the Minister comment on the ones that have not been accepted and the reasons for doing so?
It is welcome that this Bill contains a number of improvements. It gives people more say over how they are treated. It prevents the use of Section 3 of the Act on those who are autistic or have a learning disability but do not have a mental health condition. There is the new duty on clinicians to consider a person’s wishes and feelings and involve them in decision-making before deciding whether to treat them. There is access to advocacy and statutory care and treatment plans, which will give more transparency and accountability to clinical decision-making and put people’s choices first. All of these and others are welcome.
However, there is a need for the Government to go further. In the debate in the other place, the Secretary of State replied to many of the concerns raised by saying that the new, cross-government Building the Right Support plan would answer a lot of them. Can the Minister confirm when we can expect the plan and what it is likely to cover? When will we see the proposed new 10-year mental health plan and 10-year suicide prevention plan?
Black people are over four times more likely to be detained under the Mental Health Act. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government have any intention to review community treatment orders, which are evidenced as coercive, as not reducing readmissions, and being disproportionately applied to black people? Will the guiding principles suggested by the independent mental health review be included, as these would strengthen people’s rights and help focus decision-makers on eliminating racism? How will the mental health equality framework be advanced so that there are culturally appropriate services and the freedom for local areas to respond to the needs of their specific populations?
On young people, will the Minister look to see the Bill strengthened in making reforms for those young people? Will he address the failure to give under-18s the right to make advance decisions to refuse treatment? Without this, they will be unable to access enhanced treatment safeguards in the same way as adults. Will he also look at the lack of a statutory decision-making test for those who are under 16 which could also render many of these reforms ineffective for the youngest and often most vulnerable people in the system? It is of note that Anne Longfield, the former Children’s Commissioner for England, said that the profit-driven care system was failing vulnerable children. Following reports in today’s media and the MacAlister social care review, what action will the Minister take to put this right?
On the new criteria for detention, will the Minister review this too? Ensuring that fewer people are inappropriately detained is a crucial intention of the reforms, and changes are very much needed to significantly reduce this practice.
Staffing levels are crucial to ensuring quality mental health services. These Benches have been calling for the recruitment of 8,500 mental health staff to treat 1 million additional patients a year, so can the Minister confirm when we will get the Government’s vision for their workforce strategy?
I look forward to the Minister’s response, and if he is unable to answer all my questions today, I would be grateful if he would write to me. Modernising the Mental Health Act will undoubtedly help make mental health services more equitable, compassionate and effective. I am sure that these are aspirations we all agree we must work towards.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, from these Benches we would also like to thank Sir Simon Wessely for his report. We welcome reform to the outdated Mental Health Act and we are pleased to see that the Wessely review is finally being implemented by the Government, even if they are not accepting all the recommendations. The Liberal Democrats pledged in 2019 to implement all the recommendations of Sir Simon’s review, including bringing forward the necessary investment to modernise and improve patient settings and ambulances. We will apply the principle of “care, not containment” to mental health, while ensuring an emergency bed is always available if needed. Sadly, that has not been the case in recent years.
The Statement talks of the Mental Health Act 1983 and how it was designed to protect those who presented a risk to themselves or to others, but it has long been unfit for purpose, with some practices adding more distress to those already struggling with mental health conditions. I am sure most of us have seen that with our families and friends, because everybody knows somebody who has had mental health problems. For too long, people from ethnic minority groups, as well as autistic people and those with learning disabilities, have been unfairly detained under this Act and it has caused huge distress and damage, not only to the individuals themselves but to their families too.
Shockingly, black people are more than four times more likely to be detained under the Act and more than 10 times more likely to be subject to a community treatment order. The noble Baroness, Lady Merron, said it is important to eliminate racism in mental health and criminal justice system interventions for those with mental health problems. This is long overdue. It is or has been, frankly, institutional racism, and it is time that it is dealt with very quickly.
That people with learning disabilities and those who are autistic are being detained under the Act even when they do not suffer from any mental health conditions is appalling. The Statement says that the Bill will change this, but can the Minister assure us that the Government are serious about tackling these issues and will have no cause to delay this Bill again? While pre-legislative scrutiny is important, it should not lead to further delays in getting the Bill on the statute book next year.
It is good that the Statement announces £150 million over the next three years to bolster mental health services, especially to support people in crisis and avoid their having to attend A&E, which is not good for them and not good for A&E either, but I ask the Minister, since it is not clear from the Statement: is this entirely new money, or is it coming out of the mental health budget that was announced?
It is good that patient safety will be enhanced, but what is being proposed to bring much of the elderly and decrepit mental health building stock up to date and suitable for the 21st century? Some of the buildings are not just unsafe; they are actually not very pleasant places to be either.
The cost of living crisis continues to have a significant impact on families and the demand for mental health services for parents with young families is increasing, but the support to deliver these services is simply not keeping pace with demand, with nurses reporting cuts to funding and staff shortages. What plans does the Minister have in place to improve access to mental health services for new parents?
The Statement mentions the important proposals to give patients more control over their care and treatment. This is vital. We in the disabled community say that there should be nothing about us without us, and that is true too for those with mental health issues. The proposal for the nominated person to be chosen by the patient is a great step forward too, but that may well be hard for family members not selected as the nominated person, who may be excluded from any information about their family member’s mental health or progress, or as my honourable friend Daisy Cooper MP said yesterday, may not even know which part of the country their family member is staying in. This is part of the navigation of a future which is important to get right for the patient, while making sure that close family members who are worried about their loved ones are not cut out of the information loop entirely. Perhaps the Minister can give us some indication of how this trickly situation could be navigated.
The Government have said that they are accepting most of the recommendations of the Wessely review, but I add my concern to that expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Merron: why have some not been accepted? Having said that, we accept the Wessely review and look forward to the pre-legislative scrutiny and the opportunity to discuss this Bill in detail when it comes into Parliament.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
I thank the noble Baronesses for their very detailed questions. I will write if I do not cover all the questions.
We want pre-legislative scrutiny to commence at the earliest opportunity, and I understand that this is being discussed by the usual channels. The hope is to appoint the committee if possible before the summer; we want to do this as soon as possible. Our ambition is that once pre-legislative scrutiny has been completed and understood, we can introduce the Bill in the new year, to allow noble Lords the scrutiny that the Bill deserves. That is the indicative timeframe at the moment. As long as things go smoothly, pre-legislative scrutiny will start as soon as possible and we will then, I hope, be in a position to have a better-informed Bill, the new draft of the Bill having been through pre-legislative scrutiny.
We hope to see a lot of potential amendments to the Bill following pre-legislative scrutiny. Having had a baptism of fire in this House, in coming straight into this position and taking up the Heath and Care Bill, I know that there will be many valid points that will no doubt be taken on board as we debate the mental health Bill. As we saw with the debate on the Health and Care Bill, noble Lords across the House were able to improve it. Even though as government Minister I sadly had to disappoint on some of the amendments, I think we made a better job of it.
I am pleased that the important issue that black people are four times more likely to be detained under the Act, and 10 times more likely to be subject to a community treatment order, was raised. Central to addressing this is the patient and carer race equality framework, which is being rolled out by NHS England and NHS Improvement. We hope that this will support NHS mental healthcare providers to work with their local communities to improve the ways in which patients access and experience treatment.
We have already commenced culturally appropriate advocacy pilots, providing improved culturally appropriate services so that people from different backgrounds and their needs can be understood. One thing I would caution is that it is very easy to group people with the same skin colour as having the same needs. There is incredible diversity—I know this myself, coming from one of the immigrant communities—within these communities and in the pressures that arise from one community to another. Overall, it is important that we address those. We are working with Health Education England to undertake programmes on the diversity of the workforce, and to make sure that patients’ voices are represented.
Both noble Baronesses talked about the principles. We felt that the principles informed every decision we have made in developing the draft mental health Bill. Although it has not been possible to create clear overarching principles in primary legislation as recommended by the independent review, the reforms break down the review’s principles into specific duties that appear in the draft Bill—for example, ensuring that people are detained only when absolutely necessary; ensuring that if people are detained this must be for the purpose of, and have a reasonable prospect of, providing them with therapeutic benefit; introducing new patient safeguards to make it harder to override someone’s refusal of a particular treatment; and the creation of a new clinical checklist which will put greater emphasis on tailoring treatment to the individual patient. We believe that, together, these more specific duties deliver much of the intended impact of the review’s principles, but in a better way.
The overall picture of the sector is a mixture of private and state providers, but for us, it matters that the Care Quality Commission has the role of making sure that all providers are regulated properly and that they meet requirements. All providers in receipt of NHS contracts must meet requirements, including those in the NHS provider licence and the NHS standard contract. Contracts to private providers can be and are terminated when these are not met.
We have consulted on the independent review’s recommendations, and less than half the consultees supported the approach of giving patients the ability to appeal treatment at the MHT, the power sitting with a single judge acting alone. I am sure that this will come up in pre-legislative scrutiny and as we debate the Bill itself.
On the workforce, once again, there has been growth, but we all understand that demand is outstripping supply. We are looking at that as part of the long-term plan and the Health Education England review. I do not have an exact date; every time I ask for one, I am always told that it will be soon. I do not think that means it is being kicked down the road—I just think that there is not a proper date yet, given that all the consultations and responses have to be addressed. Work is ongoing to confirm plans to 2024 for integrated care systems.
We are providing more than £90 million of additional funding in 2022-23—£70 million as part of the NHS long-term plan and £21 million through the community discharge grant—to make sure that we reduce in-patient numbers and ensure that people with learning disabilities and autistic people can live in the community.
I am very aware of the issue of children and young people’s mental health. There are a number of different factors, and it is not easy to narrow them down to one. There could be environmental factors; it could be pressure; it could be that some of them are child carers, who feel large amounts of pressure at too young an age. In 2021-22, we provided an additional £79 million in response to the pandemic to expand children’s mental health services in that financial year, but we are very aware of how much more demand there is for mental health services, particularly for children. For us, two years is a relatively small proportion of our life, but for children it is a massive proportion, and they want to get that time back. That has created huge mental health issues for children, so we are tackling that.
As I said, I will write to the noble Baronesses on all the questions I have not answered.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, talked about patients being detained for too long, particularly those who have been sectioned. My right honourable friend Jeremy Hunt MP, down the other end, talked yesterday about how it would be good to put something in the Bill to say that those who had been sectioned had to be re-evaluated fortnightly, or at least monthly. This is a very good idea, because we know that there are problems with people, particularly those in the autistic community, who are detained for far longer than need be. Could my noble friend the Minister make sure that this is brought up in Bill meetings? I hope that it could go in the Bill.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank my noble friend for the question and for raising this issue. I am aware that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State intends to meet Jeremy Hunt to discuss this in more detail. In my first week, or first fortnight, as Minister, one of the debates I took part in was led by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, about detention. That brought home to me at a very early stage in my ministerial career how shocking some of these events are and the way that young people, particularly those who are autistic or have other conditions, are being treated. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State will meet Jeremy Hunt to discuss this, and I hope that it will also be approached in the pre-legislative stage. If not, I am sure that it will be debated in this Chamber.
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, I admire the enthusiasm for speed that the Minister expressed earlier from the Dispatch Box. Can he say whether that rules out having detailed pre-legislative scrutiny? This Bill should have no political elements to it at all, except possibly the cost, but all the other issues should be capable of sensible evaluation between intelligent people trying to achieve the same objective, which is improvement in our mental health services. Can the Minister’s enthusiasm for speed please not lead us to the problem identified in this House on the Procurement Bill this afternoon, where, after Report, there are 322 government amendments? That is not the way to legislate.
Lord Kamall (Con)
The noble and learned Lord makes an important point. I am very much aware of today’s earlier discussion, when I was smiling, perhaps over-smugly, thinking, “At least we’ve got pre-legislative scrutiny.” However, I accept the noble and learned Lord’s point that it has to be proper pre-legislative scrutiny. I hope he will forgive my lack of experience on this. I am not yet aware of the difference between good and thorough pre-legislative scrutiny and brief pre-legislative scrutiny, so I will have to take this back to the department and will write to him and others.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
We thank the Minister for the draft Bill. Although it is on the law of mental health, it has clear financial implications and so a specific commitment to provide the resources to implement the changes in the law would be valued. In addition, however, given the agreement that there is about what will be in the Bill, what steps are the Government taking to get it implemented straightaway? There are so many proposals in Sir Simon Wessely’s report that could be implemented immediately, so I hope the department is pursuing that proactively.
It is important to understand a bit of the context here. We are heading into financially difficult times. We know that there is a close connection between people’s personal financial problems and mental health and that there will be an increasing level of indebtedness, which automatically means greater need for services. Maybe the Minister can reassure us that the resources will be there to carry out what is in the proposals.
Lord Kamall (Con)
The noble Lord makes an incredibly important point. We have seen the impact that the pandemic has had on mental health across all age groups. During the Health and Care Bill, the noble Lord and many others raised the issue of parity between mental health and physical health, and I thank him for that. That brought home that the current legislation is out of date, which is why we really need to update it. I also thank noble Lords who have spoken so far for agreeing that this is not a party-political issue at all. We all want to address this issue, and maybe the issue of funding will come up. The Government remain committed to achieving parity between mental and physical health services to reduce inequalities. We are making good progress; investment in NHS mental health services continues to increase each year, from almost £11 billion in 2015-16 to £14.3 billion in 2020-21. We expect all current CCGs—and ICBs once operational —to continue to meet the mental health standard, and we have made a number of amendments. We are investing more than £400 million over the next four years to eradicate mental health dormitories. Clearly, as we go through the Bill, there will be financial implications, which will be considered as we debate it. I cannot give a clear pledge on which measures will be implemented until we have seen the Bill. Clearly, however, we understand that a lot of this is long overdue, so the quicker we can get this done and come to an agreement satisfactory to all sides of the House, the sooner we can get on with implementing it.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I welcome many of the proposals contained in the draft Bill, particularly those that give people affected by the Bill more say over their treatment and care. However, as others have said, the Bill is currently worryingly silent on workforce issues, and I think we all agree that they will be critical to the successful implementation of any reforms. My specific question to the Minister is: what assurances can he give that children and young people aged 18 and under will benefit from the reforms at least as much as adults and, specifically, will they be able to access the same treatment safeguards as adults?
Lord Kamall (Con)
When I was having initial discussions on the various parts of the Bill, children and young people’s mental health clearly came up. The statistics are staggering. Some 420,000 children and young people were treated through NHS-commissioned mental health services in 2021. That is an increase of 95,000 in just a few years. That is still without us being aware of everyone who needs access to the system, or young people and their parents and families being aware of what support is available.
We are continuing to increase investment into mental health services by at least £2.3 billion a year by 2023-24, as set out in the NHS Long Term Plan. There is also the extra money in response to the pandemic, which saw extra demand. We have 287 mental health support teams in place in around 4,700 schools and colleges across the country but, once again, more needs to be done. It is one of those issues where demand outstrips supply.
We now have mental health support teams covering 26% of the country a year earlier than planned, but we hope to increase this progressively over the years so that as many schools as possible are covered. We have delivered 7 million well-being for education recovery programmes. We understand the tensions and workforce issues that will inevitably arise. The Health Education England review and the Government’s strategic review are considering all the changes in healthcare overall; all the technologies and ways of delivering services; and the change from secondary to primary and down to the community. We are working out in the response what workforce we need for each of those changes.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, the average stay for people with learning disabilities and autistic people detained under the Act is five and a half years and, shockingly, many people are criminalised during their admission, making their discharge even more difficult. Although removing learning disability and autism from the Act is clearly the right thing to do, does the Minister agree that, unless there is some improvement in the care and support provided in the community to avoid those admissions in the first place, this could put people at risk? That is a concern in the wider community at the moment. We should take them out, but how do we look after people better?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I start by paying tribute to all the work the noble Baroness has done in this area, and for educating me more on this issue when I was a relatively new Minister. All I can say at this stage is that patients who have a co-occurring mental illness as well as a learning disability or autism may well be detained under the Act, but we want to make sure that there is support in the community. This is one of the big debates we have seen on a number of issues—for example, on social care. How much of social care will be in homes and how much will be in the community? Does technology improve that? Does constant online communications technology, sensors and the ability to speak to somebody online almost immediately change that equation? A lot of that will be discussed as we debate the Bill and by the experts who, we hope, will be on the pre-legislative scrutiny committee.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, I chair the Public Services Committee and we are currently concluding a report on workforce in the public sector. I hope the Minister will be able to read it and think about it over the recess to make sure that he takes account of it. In my work with women with complex needs, particularly those who have been groomed, it is absolutely clear that their sexual exploitation has led to significant trauma. The NHS will never be able to be the first body they interact with, or able to train enough people in the next 10 years to look after the wide range of people who we know now need mental health care. That means the Bill must link to the work of the voluntary sector and how we address trauma in people first approaching a public service, or any service. I am concerned that the Government think they can do it just by training more people, which will take a long time. They need to be working in a pathway that starts at a very different level.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I could not agree more with the noble Baroness. One thing we must be well aware of is that, although there are pressures and we are asked for more funding, the Government alone cannot do all this. Sometimes officials, be they from local or national government or from another state organisation, are mistrusted by vulnerable people. Local civil society groups, voluntary organisations and, often, those who have suffered the same problems themselves and then been inspired to set up their own organisation to support others—who can empathise with the situation many of these poor women are in—are sometimes the best first point of contact. As the Government spend more on this, we must make sure that we are not squeezing out the voluntary sector or local civil society, but working in partnership with them.
Lord Mawson (CB)
My Lords, my colleagues and I have been involved in this space for many years. I was in conversation with my colleagues just last week. I agree with the noble Baroness, but one of the challenges we face is the financing when organisations try to create this more integrated environment. The money and the streams coming out of the Treasury are endlessly pulling apart the very services that need to be connected. I encourage the Minister and his colleagues to look at some of that. In Bromley-by-Bow we are still dealing with 62 different funding sources from government, with all the attendant bureaucracy that is trying to deal with this problem.
Lord Kamall (Con)
The noble Lord makes a very important point from his own experience. I thank him for all his engagement and for educating me on what happens in the community. We must be careful because often, these issues are not simple or binary but are multi-faceted, and we then have different initiatives from the Government, which overlap. There is probably an incredibly complex Venn diagram of who is responsible, where the funding pots are and at what level you get the funding—is it local government, national government or philanthropy networks, for example? I would love to make it easy—but will I be able to?
Also, whenever you have change there are often winners and losers. Often, those who lose out because of change are very concentrated and make their voices heard, while the winners are dispersed and we do not hear them saying, “This is a great change.” Therefore, we must be very careful with any change in funding. However, the noble Lord makes an incredibly important point. We must ensure that we are not squeezing out civil society and pulling people in many directions, and that it is much easier to access finance. The noble Lord, Lord Glasman, made the point that as a Labour Peer, he is incredibly proud of 1945 and the welfare state, but that he worries that in doing such things, sometimes the state squeezes out local community groups and breaks the bonds in local communities. We must ensure that we get the right balance.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the draft mental health Bill. Prime Minister Theresa May was right to ask Sir Simon Wessely to develop these proposals, which command wide support across the sector. It was pleasing to hear the Minister commit to the Bill’s passage through Parliament before, and hopefully well before, the next election. However, as a number of noble Lords have pointed out, to will the end is to will the means. The Minister will know that the Royal College of Psychiatrists and others, in the impact assessment for this draft legislation, have shown that to make this work in practice will require more people working in mental health.
To that end, if the Minister does not mind me banging a familiar drum, it is surely paradoxical that UCAS is reporting that only 16% of applicants for undergraduate medicine and dentistry got an offer this year. We are turning bright and brilliant young people away at precisely the time when the NHS, and indeed our mental health services in the future, will need their services. Deans of medical schools report that this year is the hardest in living memory to enter undergraduate medicine. Can the Minister give us a date by which the Government will declare their hand on the needed expansion of undergraduate medicine?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I am sure the noble Lord is aware that one of the things we found when looking at the shortage of doctors—even though we have more doctors than ever before—was that some people are likely to stay close to where they were trained. That is why, for example, we have opened the new medical schools, and we are bringing more doctors into the system. Clearly, that will not happen overnight, since training to be a doctor takes a very long time.
We are also looking at what else needs to be done at that level. There are other pathways, such as nurses becoming doctors after a certain amount of time. Clearly, international recruitment plays an important role there. Our aim is to have an additional 27,000 mental health professionals in the NHS workforce by 2023-24. We are investing money to achieve that, but again, it is a question of how long it takes for the money to get through. At the same time, we must ensure that by having this additional workforce in the NHS, we are not squeezing out the voluntary sector but ensuring that we are working in partnership with it.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure the Minister will agree that if we get to point of having to apply the Mental Health Act to a particular individual, the system has failed because that person is, by definition, in crisis. I entirely accept that this Bill is necessary because the current legislation is no longer fit for purpose—Simon Wessely’s review is a very salutary read in that respect—but it is none the less the case that what we really need is to better equip our preventive services to deal with incipient mental health problems as they emerge, trying to prevent them becoming critical. That has been alluded to, in various ways, during this discussion.
Can the Minister tell the House where the £900 million —I think that is what he said—that is being committed immediately to the improvement of mental health services is to be spent? The real crisis is in the availability of human resource to deliver the service. There simply is not enough of it, as many people in this House, and certainly beyond, know from personal experience.
Lord Kamall (Con)
As noble Lords discussed during the Health and Care Bill, prevention is crucial. One thing I became aware of when I became a Minister was, when talking to the NHS and others, how they want to move away from purely curing to prevention. In response to the noble Baroness’s specific question, I commit to write to her on the exact allocation of that, but there is one area that plays an incredibly important role. We know, for example, looking back on the crisis, that when we did not know how long it would last, that created a lot of uncertainty. Uncertainty is very unbalancing for people, and it is a huge factor in them having mental health issues. Clearly, one of the issues that came up during the Bill was the use of civil society organisations, social prescribing, music and art therapy, but also conversations—people being able to talk to someone about the issue they are facing and feeling they are not alone. Clearly, that is something we have looked at, in terms of prevention, but in response to the specific question I commit to write to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure that prevention will be part of the new 10-year mental health strategy—or I hope that it will be—and also part of the 10-year suicide strategy. My noble friend asked when we might expect to receive a copy of that strategy, because of the exponential need, which the Minister has recognised, especially in relation to young people. I remind noble Lords of my interests in the register. I urge the Government to produce that strategy as soon as possible.
Lord Kamall (Con)
Clearly, there are a number of different facets to mental health and what we are looking at, but suicide is one of those areas. In fact, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State met a very well-known anti-suicide charity, or support group, the other day, to talk about this specific issue. It is a tragedy; we must do all we can and treat it with the same urgency that we would any other major killer. We know about the high percentage of male suicides and what proportion that is of young men’s deaths. We are looking at the drivers linked to suicide, including those that were not necessarily reflected in our previous strategy, such as gambling, domestic abuse and online safety.
We are engaging widely to shape our plan. We have announced a number of commitments for that plan, including a best practice guide, safety plans, et cetera, by early next year. I do not have the exact date yet, but I keep being told it is soon. That is not very helpful, I know, but I will try to get more information for the noble Baroness.
Women’s Rights to Reproductive Healthcare: United States
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat an Answer to an Urgent Question in the other place given by my right honourable friend the Minister for Asia and the Middle East. The response is as follows:
“Access to abortion services in the United States is a matter for the US Supreme Court and for authorities in individual states. The US Supreme Court opinion of 24 June in the case of Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization does not make abortion illegal across America. Rather, it removes federal protection for abortions, hence allowing individual states to determine their own laws. Thirteen states have so-called ‘trigger laws’ that will automatically outlaw abortion; seven of these are already active. In total, we understand that 26 states are likely to ban or restrict abortion or have bans that predate Roe still technically on the books.
As the Prime Minister has said, this is not our court—it is another jurisdiction—but this is a big step backwards. I share his view. The United Kingdom’s position is that women and girls in the UK should have the right to access essential health services, including those relating to sexual and reproductive health, which includes safe abortion care. More broadly, the United Kingdom’s approach is to support sexual and reproductive health and rights, including safe abortion for women and girls around the world.”
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I thank the Minister for repeating that response. In the other place, Amanda Milling highlighted the priority given to women and girls in the international development strategy, including the right to sexual and reproductive health. The judgment, as the Minister rightly says, is a matter for the US jurisdiction, but it will no doubt give oxygen to the evangelical right across all continents. So positive words will not be enough to protect a woman’s right to choose. Can the Minister highlight what we will do to support women, particularly civil society groups and other women’s groups, to ensure that their human right to choose abortion if they need it is protected? What will we do to support them?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord acknowledges that, over many years, the United Kingdom has taken a strong and principled position on this. Indeed, the noble Lord and I have had exchanges on this matter, and I am sure he recalls when challenges were posed in the United Nations Security Council, when a resolution was passed on conflict-related sexual violence with an omission on sexual and reproductive health. At that time—I was there—we used the explanation of vote as an opportunity to, once again, restate the very rights articulated by the noble Lord.
I do not think there is a difference of perspective here between the Government and Her Majesty’s Opposition, and it is important that we stand up for the right for women to have access in this way. As I have said before, what is happening in the United States is a matter for the United States, but the United Kingdom will retain its strong and principled stand in this respect.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, the United States and the United Kingdom are recognised as global leaders in maternal healthcare and fully inclusive reproductive rights. Last year, the Government cut their pledge to the UN Population Fund by 85%. Given that an incoming US Government might reinstate a global gag at any time, could this Government pledge to reinstate some of that funding?
Secondly, could we strike a completely different note—one that sympathises with, rather than criminalises, women in desperate need of fully inclusive reproductive healthcare—and decriminalise abortion in this country?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness’s final point is of course very much a matter of discussion. Various initiatives and discussions are currently under way to ensure, as I have stated before, the ability of every woman who so chooses to have rights and access to such facilities. The noble Baroness rightly raised the issue of access to the UN initiative in this regard. I can confirm that we have already allocated £60 million. When my right honourable friend the current Foreign Secretary took over office, the reduced funding on women and girls was restored.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister not agree that it would be both illogical and embarrassing for the United Kingdom to make representations to the US on this issue? The US Supreme Court has simply returned the issue of the provision of abortion services to each state, leaving the decision in the hands of the democratically elected representatives of the people of each state. Is the Minister aware that there is no human right to abortion under either the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or the European Convention on Human Rights, despite the regular but erroneous assertions that such a right exists? Is he also aware that the unborn child’s right to life is protected under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which we are a signatory?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I assure the noble Baroness that I am aware of all the respective conventions. We have articulated the clear position that this is a matter for the United States, but equally I respect—as we are seeing today—that people will have different perspectives, insights and principled views on abortion. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has articulated where we are currently. I think that many across your Lordships’ House and the other place share his view but, equally, respect that others may have a different perspective.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Answer. I am sure that, having visited a whole range of countries across the world, he knows how important the work on reproductive rights with young women and girls is. I have been involved in working with young people from this country volunteering abroad with young people from their host country, doing some significant work. There is a real challenge now: because of the reduction in aid from this country, much of that work in some countries is now stopping. It is educational work around the health of women. Most of the young women I met never got to the abortion stage; they were working at a much earlier stage on their reproductive rights and sexual education. Will the Government have another look to make sure that our work and our reputation on this are not further undermined and can be restored at least to the levels at which they used to be?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I believe I have already stated that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has prioritised spending on women and girls, including on sexual and reproductive rights. Indeed, it is an area we have focused on for a number for years. The majority of our SRHR programming focuses on increasing and improving voluntary planning information supplies and services. In 2019-20, the UK supported 25.4 million women and girls to use modern methods of contraception, including the sharing of information. With all these efforts, it is important that we continue to work and remain focused on what we seek to do. I fully recognise the important efforts and the work of the noble Baroness in this respect.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, just as the United Kingdom allows every part of the United Kingdom to make its decisions on abortion, surely the Minister must agree that the United States, a democracy, must be allowed to have its individual states, whatever we think of the issue. Does he agree with me that, just as many of us got quite annoyed at the United States interfering in our decisions over something such as the protocol, we should keep well out of this and Her Majesty’s Government should not get involved in the internal affairs of the United States?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
The point made by the noble Baroness is exactly what I have articulated: we have made it clear that this is very much an issue for the United States. Of course, each state has its own elected representatives. It is for the people of those states to choose their democratically elected representatives.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I am glad my noble friend has reiterated that point; it is an important one. There are many Christians in this country who are very troubled about the whole subject of abortion, and that should be borne in mind as well.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I recognise what my noble friend has said. Any democratic country—any open society—gives everyone the right to express their view. What demonstrates the strength of our own country is that, while you might not respect a particular view, you respect and defend the right of someone to hold an opinion contrary to your own. We are a diverse, rich country in all sorts of aspects, including our faith diversity. We also recognise that America is a shining light and the closest ally of the United Kingdom. There is much that we share on strengthening democracy and human rights around the world; that will remain a strong sense in our focus globally as well.
Lord Judge (CB)
Is not the lesson for this country from that decision that there should be absolutely no political involvement in the appointment of senior judges?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
The noble and learned Lord has expressed that view very clearly.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB)
As the Minister has just come back from the Commonwealth conference, can he say a word about Africa and whether he thinks some of those states will be backtracking on this?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, one important thing about networks such as the Commonwealth is that they allow us to look at a broad range of human rights issues in a progressive and productive way. As the United Kingdom’s Human Rights Minister, the guiding principles that I apply in discussions are, first, to be constructive and, secondly, to recognise that many countries across the world, including those within the Commonwealth, are on a journey, specifically in relation to human rights; that may be on media freedom, religious freedom, LGBT rights or, indeed, women and girls.
I look back on our own history and see that we as a country travelled on this very path, sometimes with great difficulty and challenges, but we overcame them—through the strength of our democracy, the rights of representation, and an open but independent judiciary. These are experiences from our journey that we share across the world, and the principles that we involve and engage with in our discussions with our Commonwealth partners.
Rape: Criminal Prosecutions
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat in the form of Statement the Answer given by my honourable friend the Minister of State for Justice to an Urgent Question in the other place. The Statement is as follows:
“Last year, in the end-to-end rape review, this Government committed to more than doubling the number of adult rape cases reaching court by the end of this Parliament. We are under no illusions about the scale of the challenge, but we are starting to see early signs of progress. There are more victims reporting these cases to the police. The police are referring more cases to the CPS and the CPS is charging more cases. Rape convictions are increasing—indeed, there has been a 67% increase since 2020—and timeliness is improving, with the time it takes for cases to be completed, from charge, continuing to fall, down by five weeks since the peak in June last year.
This is encouraging, but it is just a start. That is why we have identified eight levers that are driving this change. First, we are increasing victim support. We have now quadrupled the funding for victim support provided by Labour to £192 million by 2024-25, as well as increasing the number of independent sexual and domestic violence advisers to more than 1,000 by 2024-25.
Secondly, we are rolling out pre-recorded cross-examination for rape victims to all Crown Courts nationally, helping to prevent more victims being retraumatised by the experience of giving evidence in a live trial. Thirdly, suspect-focused investigations, known as Operation Soteria, are being rolled out nationally. That will be completed by the first half of next year, and will mean that the police focus on the suspect’s behaviour rather than on the victim’s credibility. Fourthly, we have reformed and clarified disclosure rules, working with the police to make sure that victims’ mobile phones are examined only where strictly necessary.
Fifthly, we are reducing the stress of intrusive requests for third-party information—for example, medical or social services records—and working with the police and the CPS so that they are gathered only when relevant. Sixthly, we are boosting capacity and capability by increasing the ranks of our police and the number of specialist rape and sexual offences roles in the CPS. Seventhly, our efforts to expand Crown Court capacity continue, with a £477 million investment over the next three years to reduce victims’ waiting time for trials. Eighthly, our CJS delivery data dashboard is increasing transparency and giving the Government and local leaders the information they need to do better for victims.
We are going even further than the commitments that we made in the rape review because we have listened to victims and those who work with them. We have recently announced a pilot of enhanced specialist sexual violence support in three Crown Court centres. This Government are on the side of victims. We want no rape victim to feel as though they are the one on trial. We want every rape victim to feel that they can come forward and seek support. We want to lock up the rapists who commit these abhorrent crimes. We want to protect the public. We will make our streets safe.”
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the response to the Question in the other place. This is a deeply serious subject. The situation in our Crown Courts is dire. Home Office figures show that just 1.3% of the 67,125 rape offences recorded by the police in 2021 led to a prosecution. The Statement pointed to a small improvement in the figures, and I acknowledge that improvement. However, those improvements are starting from a tragically low base. In the vast majority of cases the police do not refer the case to the CPS because they see witnesses as unreliable through drink, drugs or mental capacity.
I and the Government believe that the proper training of police officers can improve this situation. I have two specific questions for the Minister. First, does he believe that there should be specialist rape units in all police forces? Secondly, does he believe that the number of specialist trained police officers should be publicised and publicly available?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I am sure that the question of improved training for the police has an important role to play in dealing with the situation that we are faced with. We are undertaking, in effect, a multitrack approach, which I think has three main aspects: restoring victims’ trust in the system; improving investigations—that is where police training comes in very directly; and improving the procedures in the police, the CPS and the courts. With those three aspects, including increased training for the police, I venture to hope that we shall recover from the present situation.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, 71.2% of the 1,500 cases prosecuted last year resulted in a conviction. However, of the 55,000 complaints, 23,259 victims did not support further action. What causes have the Ministry of Justice identified for nearly half of complainants refusing to support a prosecution?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
There appears to have been some loss of trust in the system on the part of victims, which we are doing our best to remedy. The very beginning of the programme, as I sought to explain, is about restoring victims’ trust in the system. The importance of independent sexual violence advisers is crucial here. There is evidence that the intervention of such an adviser improves the likelihood of a victim complaining and persevering with the case. There are, as I said, trials of specialist units in three Crown Courts to support victims. We are working with Rape Crisis England and Wales to mobilise the best-quality support service for victims. This month we shall start operating a 24-hour victim support service. This combination of measures on this multitrack approach will, I hope, alleviate the situation to which the noble Lord refers.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
My Lords, while I welcome the Statement and lots of money being thrown into this area, I do not feel that this supports victims. This all seems to be going into agencies that should know how to treat victims first and foremost. I am supporting victims—rape victims—where police officers are not supporting them or giving the right advice. As Victims’ Commissioner, I worked on a lot of what is in the Statement. IDVAs and ISVAs are very important but just over 1,000 is not enough to support what they have to do—and that is by 2024-25. This seems to say that we are going to have talks with all the agencies, but who is talking to the victims? How is the information being received by victims? I am not disappointed by the money, but this is about agencies letting victims of all crimes down—never mind rape victims—and it is not very victim-focused. This will all join together only when we have legal rights for victims.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her intervention and take note of what she says. We are working as hard as we can to introduce a co-ordinated and effective support service for victims. There is in prospect a further victims’ Bill, due later this year, which I hope will reinforce support for victims. It is a matter of co-ordinating, improving and building on what I suggest to your Lordships is the encouraging start we have already made.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)
My Lords, having spent most of my professional life at the criminal Bar, I am deeply concerned about the entry of young people to—and now their exodus from—the criminal Bar, loaded with debt from degrees, conversion courses, Bar finals and pupillages. I have two specific questions. First, why will the proposed increase in fees not come into effect until September and will it affect trials? Secondly, if the Attorney-General, as the head of the Bar, has not met the Criminal Bar Association, will she do so to discuss what other practical steps can be taken to deal with the appalling delays in rape cases? Delays in consensual cases rapidly diminish the chances of conviction in my experience.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, part of the noble and learned Lord’s question puts me in a difficult position because last year I was responsible for a quite separate, independent review of criminal legal aid. The matter of criminal legal aid and fees will therefore be dealt with by my noble and learned friend Lord Stewart on another occasion. Having carried out that independent review, I am not in a position to enter into that matter—much as I would wish to, I am not able to.
On the question of delays in criminal trials, as I indicated, the delays are falling—slowly, but they are falling—and we are taking very large, important steps to reduce the waiting time before these cases take place.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford
My Lords, gender-based violence has been a major theme in our discussions across the Anglican Communion, from a wide range of cultures. Many international communities look to the United Kingdom to lead in this area, given the deeply traumatising effect that such violence can have—obviously on the victims but also on whole communities over generations. David Cameron originally signed up to the Istanbul convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence, in company with almost all our European partners; why has that decision not been ratified by subsequent Governments, putting us in the small company of Bulgaria, Hungary and a few smaller eastern European nations? Although that may not indicate a lack of commitment in this area, might it not at least be seen in that light?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
To the best of my recollection, we are on the point of ratifying the Istanbul convention. I am not in a position to confirm that this afternoon, but I will write to the right reverend Prelate or place information in the Library. He will forgive me for not being able to give a fuller answer to his question.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, it is vital that rape victims have confidence in the police. It is nine months since the conviction of a serving Metropolitan Police officer for rape and murder, four months since it was revealed that officers were joking about raping women in a work WhatsApp group and a few days since another lone female was murdered on the streets of London—and, today, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services placed the Metropolitan Police in special measures. Why has the Home Secretary not appointed a new commissioner to help to restore women’s trust and confidence in the police?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I entirely understand the noble Lord’s point. This is a matter for the Home Secretary.
Lord Cormack (Con)
Although I have total sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said, would my noble and learned friend agree that it is vital that we never lose sight of the basic principle of English justice—namely, that a man or woman is innocent until proven guilty?
Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill
Tuesday 28th June 2022
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 View all Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 13 June 2022 - large print - (13 Jun 2022)
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords,
“If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
George Orwell’s words from 1945 remain just as apposite today. I hope and believe that we are all in agreement that freedom of speech—the right to voice one’s opinion without fear of repercussion—is vital to the proper functioning of a democratic society. This principle is surely no less important in a university setting. Free speech is the lifeblood of a university, allowing students and teachers to explore a spectrum of views, engage in robust debate and pursue their quest for knowledge.
The phrase “world class” is sometimes overused, but our higher education is world class, and it would not be wrong to equate much of its success to the value we place on free speech in this country. You need only look to some of our most influential historical figures to understand how free speech can influence the course of history. Let us not forget that the views of trailblazers such as Emmeline Pankhurst and Mary Wollstonecraft were first dismissed and ridiculed, but their willingness to stand up and argue for what they believed in ultimately secured women the right to vote.
Both students and academics arrive at our universities expecting to be challenged. Yet, we know that fear of censure is increasing and this is having a chilling effect on discourse and debate. There is a growing body of evidence to bear this out: the proportion of students who believe that universities are becoming less tolerant of a wide range of viewpoints has risen to 38%; this figure stood at 24% in 2016. Here, I thank my noble friend Lord Johnson who, as Universities Minister, was one of the first to raise concerns on this important matter, including in his landmark speech at the Limmud conference in December 2017.
I firmly believe that we must address these issues and that the Bill before us is the best way to do so. By way of an example—which happens to be the freshest in my mind—the experience of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education at the University of Warwick highlights that, even if we do not agree with views expressed by others, it does not mean that we have the right to silence them. A student firmly interrogated the Secretary of State’s statement on trans rights. Their views differed greatly but, as the Secretary of State said, the student’s
“right to free speech is vital too”.
Areas of disagreement do not always have to be met with hostility; there is scope to agreeably disagree. I am looking forward to hearing the views of noble Lords during today’s debate, and I thank those who have come to contribute to it.
The Bill will protect lawful freedom of speech and academic freedom on campus. The measures will strengthen existing legislation and address gaps in existing law. As I shall explain, these are very much active measures, not just a means to address a problem once a breach of the duties has taken place. New duties will be placed on higher education providers and constituent colleges to take “reasonably practicable” steps to secure freedom of speech within the law for staff, members, students and visiting speakers. They will be duty bound to pay particular attention to the importance of free speech when taking these steps. Importantly, these duties also, for the first time, clearly extend to “academic freedom”.
In a new measure, the Bill will require providers and constituent colleges to promote the importance of freedom of speech and academic freedom. The Office for Students will be bound by a similar duty. Furthermore, higher education providers and their constituent colleges must develop and publish a code of practice, which must include an overarching statement of the values and procedures they will uphold, and which they must bring to the attention of their students at least once a year.
Student unions are at the heart of many students’ university experience; they offer a distinct space for students to come together and engage in areas particularly close to their heart. This legislation, therefore, contains duties that apply specifically to student unions at approved fee cap providers, which is the majority of registered higher education providers. Like higher education providers and constituent colleges, under this legislation they must take steps to secure lawful freedom of speech. Similarly, they must publish their own code of practice.
At present, there are no effective means of enforcing the current law if higher education providers are in breach of it. This may explain some individuals’ hesitancy to express their views. To address this, the Bill creates a new statutory tort for breach of specified freedom of speech duties by providers, constituent colleges and student unions. This will enable individuals to seek legal redress for the loss they have suffered as a result of a breach.
The higher education sector will play a leading role in delivering the ambitions of this legislation, but the regulator also has an important part to play. The Bill gives new powers to the Office for Students, which will identify best practice and provide guidance on how to secure and promote free speech. The Office for Students will be required to impose mandatory registration conditions on providers relating to freedom of speech and academic freedom, as well as monitoring the compliance of student unions with their freedom of speech duties. As with the lack of an enforcement mechanism, there is currently no specific route for all those who might be affected to lodge complaints relating to freedom of speech. The Bill creates a requirement for the Office for Students to provide a complaints scheme that will provide a right of redress for students, members, staff and visiting speakers. This scheme will be overseen by the Director for Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom, a new position on the Office for Students board. These measures will enhance the strengthened freedom of speech duties and encourage compliance.
On Report in the other place, my colleagues introduced several minor and clarificatory amendments. Two substantial amendments were also tabled. The first creates a duty for providers, constituent colleges and student unions not to pass on security costs associated with free speech events to the organisers, unless there are exceptional circumstances. The second was an amendment on “overseas funding”: this creates a duty for the Office for Students to monitor overseas funding received by higher education providers, their constituent institutions and student unions. This will enable them to assess the extent to which the funding presents a risk to freedom of speech and academic freedom.
I finish by emphasising that the Bill is not about allowing unlawful speech. The right to freedom of speech is not an absolute right and it does not include the right to harass others or incite them to violence or terrorism. This is definitely not a licence to break the law. The Bill is about encouraging varied and thoughtful debate, so that future generations develop the ability to think critically, challenge extreme narratives and put forward new—and sometimes controversial—ideas. I firmly believe that these are essential skills in a modern, forward-facing society. I look forward to the debate ahead of us today and beg to move.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who will speak in today’s debate and all the organisations and the Library for their excellent briefing on the Bill.
I also thank the Minister for presenting the Bill with his usual clarity and elegance, expressing many aspirations that many of us would agree with about free speech. Having worked with the noble Earl for many years, both as a Minister and in opposition, revising and improving many pieces of legislation, I have come to admire his intellectual acumen and political nous. I fear that he will have to bring both to bear in great measure to justify and succeed in getting what is regarded by many as a shoddy piece of legislation—at best, unnecessary and, at worst, divisive—through your Lordships’ House in its present form.
Labour, unlike the Conservatives, over many years, has always championed free speech. It was a Labour Government who introduced a law guaranteeing freedom of expression. It seems to us on these Benches that, as higher education and our students move out of the difficult and sometimes traumatic time that Covid brought, the Government should be addressing the immediate issues of rent, getting a job and the rise of mental health conditions among our young people. Three out of every four students are currently worried about managing financially, one in four has less than £50 a month to live on after rent and bills, and 5% of students are using food banks to get by. Surely these matters are the priority, rather than focusing on a row largely manufactured in Whitehall based, at best, on flimsy evidence. A review of 10,000 events revealed that only six were cancelled and four of those because of faulty paperwork.
The Commons Minister, Michelle Donelan was asked what evidence lies behind her statements on ConservativeHome that there is
“a cluster of institutions that are in the grip of a close-minded, intolerant ideology—and at the centre of this cluster lie our universities.”
She said that she believed it to be true. This seems a flimsy base for legislation from a Secretary of State who says that he believes in an evidence-based approach. Can the noble Earl please tell the House to which “institutions” his honourable friend was referring? As my honourable friend Kate Green MP said at Second Reading over a year ago,
“it is an evidence-free zone when it comes to underpinning the concerns that he says it is addressing.”—[Official Report, Commons, 12/7/21; col. 53.]
The lack of an evidence base is one challenge the noble Earl will have to face as the Bill progresses through your Lordships’ House, but there are others. There is an understandable concern that the Bill may undermine existing protections against discrimination. That it introduces a new mechanism that some believe may allow hate-filled individuals to sue a university if they feel that their opinion has not been adequately heard may allow extremists, racists and Holocaust deniers to have a voice and a much-craved platform on our campuses. We will need to test these things during the passage of the Bill.
Additionally, we need to ask how the resources to fight those challenges will be found. We will test the effectiveness of the new clauses added by the Government. From these Benches, we will seek to amend the Bill to require an independent appointments process for, and prevent party-political donations from, the new, to-be-appointed director of free speech. We will seek to broaden the definition of academic freedom to include, for example, criticism of institutions, conducting research and joining a union. We will seek to add a sunset clause, so the legislation expires after three years unless an extension is approved through an affirmative SI. We will seek to require the Office for Students to consider competing freedoms when investigating free speech complaints and seek to prohibit the use of non- disclosure agreements by universities in relation to sexual harassment.
I want to raise with the noble Earl the appointment of the director of free speech. This job was advertised on 13 June or thereabouts, which is, of course, the date that the Bill completed its passage through the Commons but had yet to reach your Lordships’ House. The closing date for applications is 13 July—so be quick if you want to apply for this almost £100,000-a-year job. Can the noble Earl address the question of pre-emption? When will the appointment be made if the closing date is 13 July? Will it before the position has been agreed by Parliament? What parliamentary scrutiny will the appointment receive?
Looking at the job description—which I recommend noble Lords to read—the position seems to require no legal background. I hold no brief to create work for lawyers, but surely if we are to have a director of free speech, a person tasked with the job of settling contentious cases, it must be in all our interests for that person to have a broad understanding of the sector, the legal framework around free speech to which I have referred and the sector’s regulatory framework, but these elements are not essential in the job description.
In conclusion, the issue here is evidence, and that is why these Benches have deep reservations about the unintended consequences of this Bill. Its top-down, one-size-fits-all approach demonstrates the weakness at the heart of the Government and their misplaced lack of trust in our academic community. I have great hope that the many noble and learned Lords and the phalanx of chancellors, vice-chancellors and heads of colleges who inhabit your Lordships’ House will cast their eyes on the Bill and between us we might knock it into some sensible shape. At the least we can do no harm, and if we are very successful, we may enhance free speech in higher education. I look forward to the debates to come and the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, this Bill is unnecessary and un-Conservative. It addresses a problem that is far less severe than right-wing think tanks have claimed, and for which the Government’s White Paper admitted that there is very little supporting evidence. Ministers who preach deregulation and shrinking of the role of government are introducing a Bill to impose burdensome and costly new regulations on British universities—the sort of thing that authoritarian Governments in Hungary and Russia impose to limit critical debate and cripple civil society. This is not what a Government who claim to be leading the democratic world against authoritarian regimes should be doing.
It is also an orphan Bill. Those who pushed for it in government—Munira Mirza, the champion of culture wars in No. 10, and Gavin Williamson and his special advisers in the DfE—have now left. Perhaps for that reason, the Bill loitered in the Commons through the last Session, giving hope to some of us that reasonable voices in government had thought it wise to let it die. But here it is, staggering on because wiser counsels within the Conservative Party have not prevailed, pushed onwards by the American and Australian-trained campaigners in No. 10 who think that fighting culture wars appeals to the Conservative base.
Our Prime Minister has been fond of the boast that the UK is “a soft power superpower”. The Minister will recall that the integrated review of foreign and security policy devoted an entire chapter to the importance of soft power. It listed as its most valued institutional components the BBC, the British Council, the quality and financial scale of our overseas development programme, the reputation of our universities, and the strength of our cultural sector. Since then, the Government have cut the aid budget, sidelined the British Council and repeatedly attacked and financially weakened the BBC. Now this Bill threatens to weaken the global standing and reputation of our universities by extending government oversight of academic debate, appointments and promotions.
There is a problem of toleration of dissent by the current student generation in our universities. The Higher Education Policy Institute has just published a survey which indicates that students have become more protective of what they see as vulnerable minorities, less willing to accept that freedom of speech necessarily includes the right to offend and less willing to tolerate university teachers whose views clash sharply with their own. We have seen a small but painful number of instances in which universities have failed to defend their staff in such circumstances, most sharply the University of Sussex in the case of Professor Stock.
University leadership needs to underline the importance of tolerance of different views among staff and students, but in a free society that role should be played by university leaders and not be imposed by government. In any case, how severe and widespread a problem is this for the over 100 universities? Is the challenge we face worse than in in previous cycles of student activism, which universities have come through without requiring heavy-handed government intervention?
Gavin Williamson in his preface to last year’s White Paper specifically deplored attempts to block Ministers from speaking at and ambassadors from visiting universities. The very first lecture I gave as a newly appointed lecturer at Manchester University in January 1968 was disrupted by a protest at the suspension of a student for assaulting an Education Minister the night before. I went to a ceremony at King’s College London some weeks ago to unveil a portrait of one of the students who had disrupted my lecture, who has since become an adviser to Governments and a globally recognised academic.
Some noble Lords may be old enough to remember the Stop the Seventy Tour and the wider student campaign against apartheid South Africa. My wife can still remember the song she and others sang as they blocked the South African ambassador from speaking at Oxford University. I have just read a memoir of the Stop the Seventy Tour which confirms that at least two of its most activist members have since become Members of this House.
Last year, I spoke to a number of vice-chancellors about this Bill and the issues it raises. One retired VC reminded me that he had struggled to maintain order on his campus in the face of deliberately provocative speakers invited by the then chairman of his student Conservative Association, one John Bercow. A current vice-chancellor told me that the biggest problem of this sort he faces is keeping the peace between his Chinese and Hong Kong students.
There is nothing new about student protest or arguments about the limits of freedom of speech in universities—and I have been an academic for 40 or more years. The question is whether the imposition of a heavy external burden of intrusive regulation, with the introduction of a new tort that will transfer large sums of money from university funds to lawyers through litigation, is a proportionate response to the limited number of unacceptable instances we have seen, above all related to trans rights. I suggest that the proposals are disproportionate. This extension of state interference over autonomous institutions is authoritarian and not Conservative.
The Bill covers not only students and student unions but also staff, visiting speakers and the loosely defined “members” of higher education providers. I understand that, as a retired professor, I may count as a “member” of the LSE, with standing to sue or be sued under the Bill—I shall have to check with the director. The provision that permits discontented staff to sue if they consider
“the likelihood of their securing promotion or different jobs at the provider being reduced”
opens a huge can of worms. I declare an interest: I was once passed over for promotion at the department of government at Manchester on the grounds that I was “too interested in politics”.
The anti-intellectual right in the United States, with its claims that universities are hotbeds of liberalism actively discriminating against honest conservative thinkers, has close links with right-wing bodies in the UK. Policy Exchange in London has claimed on its website to have provided the foundations for the Bill, with almost all of its recommendations in two reports being accepted. I regret that the noble Lord, Lord Godson, is not here today to take credit for that achievement. He might also wish to tell us how much of the significant American funding for Policy Exchange has come from those right-wing foundations that have fuelled Trumpian Republicanism. Think tanks, like universities, should be transparent about their foreign funding.
I was struck when I read the Policy Exchange papers that they had almost as many references to American examples as British, including some from hard-right foundations. They included the claim that the staff of British universities are overwhelmingly left-wing: 80% apparently failed to vote Conservative or UKIP in the last two general elections. Given that over 20% of staff in most universities are not British citizens, and that a large proportion of that staff are scientists and medics and not particularly interested in politics, I find this statistic completely unbelievable.
I am concerned, however, about the undertow of anti-intellectual, anti-rational argument from right-wing critics about Britain’s alleged liberal elite and its allegedly malign hold on our cultural and educational institutions. The Times gave Douglas Murray two pages last Saturday to develop this theme, in which he stated that it’s now virtually impossible for a climate change sceptic to gain appointment as a university chancellor or museum director. If challenging the allegedly oppressive liberal cultural elite means insisting on climate change sceptics being appointed to senior academic positions regardless of their attitudes to evidence and reasoned debate, then our universities and their reputation are, indeed, at risk.
The shadow of Brexit hangs over this, of course, as over so many other aspects of British politics and public debate. The claims that appointments and promotions are biased against conservatives comes from leading members of Historians for Britain and a handful of political scientists. There is no evidence that I am aware of of structural bias against conservative academics; indeed, the founder of UKIP was a friend of mine and a colleague at the LSE. Opening appointment and promotion procedures to challenges over alleged political bias would be a serious incursion into the autonomy of our universities and a feast for lawyers in civil cases.
This is not the first time that structural bias in universities has been alleged. When Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister, she was determined to abolish the Social Science Research Council. She believed, as a hard scientist, that there was no such thing as social science; that what was taught in universities was intrinsically socialist. She asked Lord Rothschild to report. He, thankfully, responded that careful social and economic research was essential to good government, and that public money should continue to underwrite it. She nevertheless insisted on removing the word “science” from what has since then been labelled the Economic and Social Research Council.
Allegations about left-wing bias in universities focus on social science and humanities, and above all on historians, but history faculties have always argued among themselves, often bitterly. The political balance among academic historians in Britain has been adversely affected by the choice too many of our self-declared patriotic historians have taken to emigrate and take better-paid posts in the United States. Different disciplines have different tendencies. One vice-chancellor told me that his university has a structurally left-wing sociology department and a structurally right-wing economics department: it goes, he said, with the disciplines. Those who want to use this Bill as a lever to promote more solidly conservative views in our higher education institutions should reflect that Britain’s most clearly conservative institution, after the University of Buckingham, is Christ Church College, Oxford: not the greatest example of toleration of dissent and diversity.
Others will touch on the tangle of vexatious lawsuits that this Bill will impose on universities. I briefly mention the comment of another vice-chancellor that it will be completely impossible, in the current heated political atmosphere, to find a candidate for the post of free speech champion who will be acceptable to all sides. Nor can we have confidence in Ofcom assuming this role, when the noble Lord, Lord Wharton, as chair, associated himself with Viktor Orbán and the authoritarian right at a recent Budapest conference. I speak with particular feeling on this as a former visiting professor at the Central European University and a member of its senate in Budapest in its early years, when Viktor Orbán still called himself a liberal.
At a time when trust in this Government is at an all-time low, when suspicion of No.10’s political appointments is high, when the contamination of the Conservative Party by American Republicanism should concern all decent Conservatives, we will have to do our best, as the revising Chamber, to mitigate the damage this Bill could do to the global reputation and standing of our universities.
Baroness D’Souza (CB)
My Lords, this is, I think, a well-meaning Bill, but I question its necessity. I imagine no one here doubts that free speech should be protected, given it is one of the mainstays of our democratic settlement. The issue is by what means, and this is crucial because laws once on the statute book can be reinterpreted and misinterpreted. Furthermore, laws alone do not guarantee a more gentle and humane society—for that, we need a change in culture and behaviour.
Although this is clearly not the best time to uphold American constitutional rights, I have often envied American first amendment rights. The UK has never had such a codified protection of freedom of speech and assembly, but this protection in the UK is implicit in many of the laws we do have, and has existed for centuries as an almost definitive feature of British intellectual discourse.
The US Supreme Court has, in many courageous landmark decisions over the last few decades, made a clear distinction between two kinds of speech: advocacy and incitement. It has set out two conditions that must be satisfied to justify a suspension of first amendment rights. First, the words must be directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action. Secondly, the words must also be likely to incite or produce such action. In other words, there had to be, according to the Supreme Court, a clear temporal relationship between inciteful words and subsequent criminal action. At the same time, the court provided a three-part test for determining the legitimacy of any restrictions on free speech: any restriction must be provided by law; it must serve one of the legitimate purposes expressly set out in the text; and it must be necessary. Thus, the Supreme Court ruled that a black anti-war activist who threatened to shoot President Lyndon Johnson if he were to be forced to kill his black brothers was not intending to kill the President but to state his political opposition. Similarly, an opponent of the Vietnam war was justified in expressing sympathy and support for those unwilling to obey the military draft; the judge saying
“statements criticizing public policy and the implementation of it must be … protected”
to give freedom of expression the breathing space it needs.
It is an old and tested argument that the answer to hate or offensive words is more speech, to ensure that dissent remains within the political sphere and does not stray into criminal actions. This Bill recalls many issues that have given your Lordships’ House concern in the past: banning potentially noisy protests; tolerating dissent; hate speech; and now the freedom to express contentious views in the academic context.
There is an array of Bills that afford protection to free speech, as the very useful Library briefing has set out. These include the Education Act 1986 and the relatively recent establishment of the Office for Students, which requires all publicly funded education bodies to comply with public interest governance principles. However, the Government argue that these protections are spread among a number of statutes and, despite the well-publicised events in very recent years of no-platforming and campaigns against individual academics, the Office for Students has been reluctant to exercise its regulatory authority.
The current framework allows judicial review of a decision made by any educational body, which, in turn, permits only discretionary remedies and no scope for damages. The Government’s rationale is to bring all these laws together under a single banner and to strengthen monitoring and action.
Despite the many safeguards in our political system, the worry is that this spread of free speech rules and regulations may well itself have a chilling effect on free speech, while at the same time failing to eradicate vicious attacks. The law will permit a platform for those opposed to, say, gender terminology, and it may even prosecute those who attempt no-platforming. But the culture of intolerance will continue in other outlets, perhaps with even greater vigour.
It is useful to ask how far laws change the prevailing culture. The anti-smoking laws have certainly very successfully banished smoking in public areas; compulsory seatbelts have drastically cut fatal accidents. Will this Bill enable the academic sector to remain safe from attacks by those who hold contrary views? Will it eliminate “cancel culture”? Not in a hurry, I do not think. The self-righteous anti-lobby, or “woke culture”, is well entrenched in our social media and in actions against those who do not share its views. It requires rather a lot of courage for an individual, even though backed up by legislation, to face these kinds of onslaughts. The context of protest has led to self-censorship, possibly one of the most insidious kinds of censorship. Many academics would admit to modifying views and words in order to avoid attacks, and this is not conducive to intellectual exchange or opportunities to bring new ideas into the public arena. Darwin had a really tough time in the 19th century and JK Rowling is having a tough time today.
Then there is the question of necessity. I am informed by one of my grandsons that the Oxford Union has only ever cancelled three debates, none due to protest. Are the instances of interference in academic freedom numerous enough to justify the increase in monitoring and potential criminal charges in the Bill? Are the bodies mandated to bring formal complaints and action sufficiently distanced from the Government of the day? Will potential criminal sanctions contribute to the free intellectual discourse we all wish to see flourish? There are other loopholes in the legislation that could see the regulations abused and have the opposite effect with unintended consequences. Will this legislation have the desired effect in the absence of other legislation to limit online harms, and will it eliminate cancel culture?
Can a law adequately define contentious speech and views separately from the context in which they take place? Freedom of expression and its regulation depend on context; students at educational institutions are especially in need of protection because they are usually a captive audience addressed by teachers regarded as authoritative. The conundrum is that precisely because of these factors, students may also need to be protected from language that borders on incitement; for example, pro-Nazi or extreme religious views. The task of distinguishing between offensive talk and a call to action might be a very delicate one. So my inclination is towards non-interference by the state, and this Bill will need careful scrutiny to avoid undue regulation of what is a fundamental right.
The Lord Bishop of Coventry
My Lords, intense competition for students, jostling for promotion among lecturers, vigorous, often intense and sometimes rancorous debate, with dashes of sharp practice and occasional mob violence—not a preview of some future Office for Students report but a snapshot of the early academic career of Augustine of Hippo. One of his first publications was advice to lecturers and, significantly for this debate, he later asserted that “By force we can make no one believe.” I will make some general points about the Bill and then raise three more specific issues.
Timothy Garton Ash speaks of three “vetoes” that silence the ability of people to express themselves: shouting them down, the “heckler’s veto”; declaring what they say to be offensive, the “offensive veto”; and, in extreme cases, threatening to kill people, the “assassin’s veto”.
Sadly, it seems that we have seen each of these techniques in action within higher education, as some of the evidence submitted to the Bill Committee demonstrated. It may quite reasonably be argued that such incidents are very rare, and that existing legislation already provides sufficient means of tackling such threats to freedom of speech, and to academic freedom, or that such things have always occurred, but I am not so sure that all is well. It is also true, as the survey for the Higher Education Policy Institute found, as we have already heard, that students are increasingly prioritising safety, especially for minorities or vulnerable groups, over free speech. There seems to be a generational difference in what is regarded as legitimate free speech—free speech within the law.
Yet there is also evidence that a significant proportion of students report self-censoring their own views and convictions and are reluctant to voice them in public. Similarly, among some academic staff there was a reluctance to imperil one’s career, possible promotion, publication or application for research funding by expressing views that were perceived to lie outside the overall culture of the institution or department. Those willing to take a different line appear to be senior staff, who either did not seek promotion or a new role or who had already established their reputation.
Freedom of speech and, by extension, the right to challenge, provoke, disturb, upset and sometimes to offend, are matters which are worth protecting in law. But these imperatives derive their true value from how they sustain the fundamental purposes of higher education: seeking truth and developing wisdom. They are not ends in themselves, but the means by which we pursue the truth, which is to our common benefit. Christian faith is rooted in the person who testified to truth in the tribunals of power and who promised the means to discern truth—the spirit of truth so movingly invoked at Lord Judd’s thanksgiving service earlier today. This is a vision of open truth-seeking which the Church has, at its worst, sought to stifle in society, but at its best, has helped to embed in university life.
Truth will set you free. By definition, we are all invited to share in this liberative function, to seek the truth as a basis for our common life. Therefore, although we cannot legislate for civility, my hope is that the letter of this proposed law, which is to protect freedom of speech, might make room for the spirit of the law, which is to seek truth without diminishing or dehumanising others.
Indeed, this Bill alone will not accomplish its objectives or guard against potential harms through purely statutory or regulatory means. Alison Scott-Baumann’s work on free speech provides some deep wisdom on nurturing communities of inquiry through an “etiquette of argument”, as she calls it—a way of communicating over divisive issues without causing harm. We are having a go at developing similar principles of conversation in the Church of England at the moment, with some success. At the core of these principles is a fundamental understanding that the truth that we seek is written into our human dignity; therefore, one cannot be compromised without the other.
I turn to some points of detail. The House of Lords Library highlights continued concerns about the potential confusion between the responsibilities of individual institutions, the Office for Students and its new director of freedom of speech and academic freedom, and the Office of the Independent Adjudicator. While new Schedule 6A provides some helpful clarification, I would be grateful for further assurances from the Minister about the interaction between these various, potentially overlapping bodies.
I share concerns already expressed about the new statutory tort. While the Office for Students will be able to dismiss unmeritorious, vexatious and frivolous claims, there remains a real concern that this provision will lead to increased litigation, including through the small claims court, which universities will inevitably need to defend, incurring expense and time, even if the case is dismissed, as I understand it.
Finally, new Sections 3 and 4 in new Part A1 may be read as posing problems for the provision of premises and facilities that meet the religious and spiritual needs of a range of staff and students—a concern also raised in the written submission of the Free Church Federal Council of England and Wales. I am grateful for the assurances given in yesterday’s briefing that there is no intention to compromise dedicated faith premises. Nevertheless, I would welcome a discussion with the Minister, as requested by the Second Church Estates Commissioner in his letter to Minister for Higher and Further Education, to resolve the matter fully.
Augustine was of course right: “By force we can make no one believe”. But sometimes we need legitimately to use the force of law to restrain actions that adversely affect the rights and dignities of others and to protect the rights we have for free speech and freedom of expression. So, although the Bill needs clarification on a number of matters, it is a measure whose intentions I support. I hope to see how the Bill can be better shaped to serve those intentions.
Lord Willetts (Con)
My Lords, I begin by declaring my interest as a visiting professor at King’s College London—about which we have already heard—and the chancellor of the University of Leicester.
The Minister began his excellent speech at the starting point that I am sure all of us on all sides of this House share: the importance of university as a particular place where freedom of speech is not just practised but learned and passed on to the next generation, who may learn how to disagree better than they managed earlier in their educational careers. So, universities do matter. They are places which should offer protection from social media storms, cancel culture and—dare we say it?—political pressure. But they have not always been able to do this.
I found the most illuminating investigation of what can go wrong in our universities in the independent review of what happened at the University of Essex produced by Akua Reindorf. The review identified that, in a specific instance, the university had essentially attached far more weight to the equality duty than to the promotion of freedom of speech, which was exacerbated by a misunderstanding of the protected characteristics under the equality duty in the very sensitive area of gender reassignment. Things can go wrong; we recognise that. However, I hope that the Minister will be able to answer some real concerns of substance about this proposed legislation.
First, how is it going to work? I remember a previous round of concern on this issue which led to the 1986 Act, and we already have the Office of the Independent Adjudicator and some role for the OfS. Now, this legislation proposes two very significant extensions of powers—first, for the Office for Students, with a very significant new regulatory responsibility. In addition, we have this statutory tort provision, which could well mean that there will be vexatious, difficult and complex legal proceedings. Can the Minister explain why, faced with what is often a policy choice between going down the regulatory route or the legal protection route, both are to be applied in this legislation, and why he thinks both are necessary?
Secondly, will the Minister explain whether the aim is that all lawful free speech should be permitted in universities? That would be a very simple and clear starting point, which seems to be what Ministers are saying. However, on the very first day after the legislation was proposed, we already had an example of how tricky this is when the Minister said that it would enable Holocaust deniers to speak and was promptly slapped down by No. 10 saying that they should not. The Ministers in the Department for Education are currently pressing universities, for very understandable reasons, to endorse the wide-ranging IHRA definition of anti-Semitism. Everything covered in that definition is clearly objectionable, offensive and wrong. I am no lawyer, but it is not clear to me that everything which would be in breach of the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism is illegal. If it is not illegal, would it therefore be protected under this free speech legislation—in which case, why are Ministers currently pressing universities to take and act on a definition of anti-Semitism that seems potentially in conflict with the legislation they are now trying to pass?
Let me give a second example: the Prevent duty. As a Minister, I was very much aware of the pressure from the Home Office, which was interpreting the Prevent duty and definitely wanted universities not to invite speakers it thought would foment Islamic extremism, but it did not regard what they were going to do as necessarily illegal. The Home Office thought that universities had a responsibility that went beyond simply the protection of an absolute freedom of speech within the law. The Minister needs to explain exactly what he means when he says “lawful free speech”. If, as I suspect, in reality there will be statements that the Minister would expect not to be protected by the new director of free speech, he will understand as soon he has conceded that point why the appointment matters so much. We are passing legislation that will enable a regulator not to protect under free speech free speech which, nevertheless, in its most absolute form, would be allowed. No wonder there is considerable anxiety in this House about that power.
My third point to the Minister arises from my respect for the wide range of roles he carries out in this House. Yesterday, in this very Chamber, I think he was speaking about military personnel and defence issues. May I invite him, as he is clearly seen as an extremely senior member of the Lords ministerial team, to consider also taking responsibility for the online harms Bill when it comes to this House? I look forward to hearing him explain the importance of protecting not just children but adults from “harmful content” and “harmful communication”. When Ministers are pressed on why these provisions are necessary, we are told that it is because they will cause “serious distress”. This is snowflake culture. “Serious distress” is to be used in a separate piece of legislation going through Parliament in this Session. There will also be two sets of secondary legislation: one to implement this Bill, which will be about freedom of speech, and a separate body of secondary legislation to provide for the regulation of online harms. It is perfectly possible for a university to be fined for breaching this legislation because it would not permit something to be said which an online tech giant would be fined for transmitting. This is a ludicrous position to have got into. As both measures are going through Parliament at the moment, I very much hope that this Minister, above all, will ensure some consistency between them.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord. I look forward to the answer from the Minister about those complexities —my goodness. I begin by reminding the House of my interest in the register as principal of Somerville College, Oxford.
I start with a quotation often attributed to Voltaire: “I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. That, in essence, is the right to free speech. I consider that the free expression and exchange of views are fundamental to the academic, social and extracurricular experiences of being at university. Oxford University’s statement on freedom of speech says exactly that on the website and it is endorsed by the collegiate university as a whole.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to the protection of free and lawful speech and debate in higher education, but I do not believe that the Bill is either necessary or desirable. In seeking to fix something that is not truly broken, it could be seen as yet another spark to inflame the culture wars. As my noble friend said earlier, a recent review of 10,000 speaker events across universities found that only six had been cancelled, with four of those due to incorrect paperwork. I fear that the Bill will impose bureaucratic burdens on our precious universities, which are part of the questioning and accountability mechanisms our society needs and deserves.
Freedom of speech in universities already gets fulsome legal protection. The Human Rights Act requires universities to protect freedom of expression under Article 10 of the ECHR. Section 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 requires universities to
“take such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure that freedom of speech within the law is secured for members, students and employees of the establishment and for visiting speakers”.
That is a great statement that seems to suffice.
I am concerned about politicisation of this issue. I suggest that such an important role as chair of the OfS requires the best person for the job, and I suggest that perhaps the person in office at the moment is popular with the Prime Minister. The responsibilities of the chair are immense, especially as the Bill provides for the Orwellian director of freedom of speech, who will have sweeping powers, act as judge, jury and executioner in free speech complaints and potentially monitor overseas funding of universities. The fact that the chair spoke via video link at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Budapest calls into question his judgment in relation to free speech. He said that he did not know that he was appearing on the same platform as a notorious far-right, anti-Semitic, racist journalist—a poor excuse. In his speech, he endorsed the recent victory of the Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, whose Government have curbed freedom of expression and countless other human rights. The OfS said that the noble Lord, Lord Wharton, was not speaking in his capacity as chair of the OfS. Frankly, that is not good enough.
Today, I learned that Minister Donelan has written to all vice-chancellors suggesting that the Race Equality Charter is
“potentially … in tension with creating an environment that promotes and protects free speech”.
I am speechless. Can the Minister really defend such a suggestion? I am often asked whether wokeism is rife in our universities and specifically at Oxford. I suggest that it is not.
The Bill appears to require in statute that providers place greater relative importance on always securing free speech. It does not make any mention of the other legal duties that universities, student unions and constituent institutions need to abide by, despite the fact that these duties may potentially conflict with securing free speech in some cases, as the noble Lord suggested. Can the Minister say which duties have primacy?
The new statutory tort is far too open-ended. Safeguards against misuse are needed to ensure that this would be a genuine protection for staff, students and speakers. The Government make much of not involving judges in political questions, but I fear that this Bill could encourage frivolous litigation by provocateurs and draw the courts into very difficult political terrain.
The Bill’s current wording around the scope of the OfS’s free speech complaint scheme appears to allow for complainants to escalate their “free speech complaint” through multiple routes simultaneously. This is likely to lead to immense confusion. A situation of competing judgments could undermine faith in local disciplinary processes and in the procedures of the Office of the Independent Adjudicator and the OfS. At present, the OIA considers student complaints only once the local process has been completed. Does the Minister agree that a similar principle should apply in relation to the proposed framework for free speech-related complaints?
The Bill allows simultaneously for the imposition of sanctions by the OfS for breach of a registration condition and for the issuance of recommendations that higher education institutions, student unions and constituent institutions pay fines. Is it the intention that they could be hit by a number of simultaneous penalties? If so, that could be particularly damaging to student unions.
In relation to overseas reporting, the Bill imposes a general monitoring duty on the OfS that the regulator “must” request information pre-emptively from providers, regardless of whether it has reasonable grounds to suspect a risk to freedom of speech, and seemingly without limitation by the country and potentially exposed persons exemptions, despite the risk-based exemptions set out in subsections. Does the Minister agree that it would be sensible for the OfS to request information only where it has reasonable grounds to suspect a risk to freedom of speech and/or a provider being in breach of a freedom of speech duty owing to overseas funding, and that information in scope for any OfS reporting requests should be restricted to funding from certain countries or individuals?
This Bill will represent the first and only direct way in which the OfS regulates student unions. It spells out how the OfS will take enforcement action against student unions it considers to be, or to have been, in breach of the new free speech duties that will be incumbent upon them. Like colleagues from many other universities, I am concerned that the Bill provides only for a disproportionate punitive approach and fails to offer a gradated scheme of interventions short of a monetary penalty.
Benjamin Franklin said:
“Without Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as publick Liberty, without Freedom of Speech.”
It is my belief that our universities are already proud bastions of freedom of thought and freedom of speech.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I declare interests, first as the first holder of the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education, dealing with student complaints, and secondly as former principal of St Anne’s College, Oxford, where the only time I ever banned speech was a session that was planned on how to practise safe male sadomasochism. I have no regrets about having banned that.
What an indictment of our universities it is that we should need to return to this topic again. I have spoken about it many times in this House.
Academics have the right to say and debate controversial and provocative things subject only to the laws that prohibit and criminalise certain topics, of which there are surprisingly many, ranging from the prevention of terrorism to defamation and racial discrimination. Universities are not and never have been at liberty to limit freedom of speech beyond the law, which is why it is so shameful to see professors hounded out for, for example, their views on gender. My views in a nutshell are that it is a problem, but that this Bill is not the right way to tackle it.
Policy Exchange, on whose research the Bill is largely based, found that there was extensive political discrimination in universities, with remainers against leavers, hostile attitudes between left and right, gender-critical researchers and transgender activists, reflected in difficulties in publication and probably other promotions in the university. There is today huge cultural pressure to conform to the acceptable doctrines of the time. Dissenters feel they must keep quiet. The Higher Education Policy Institute survey this month found a distressingly large amount of agreement among students about banning things that cause offence to them and a need to feel comfortable, which is not what you go to university for.
Sadly, current controversies over free speech have tended to divide along strong lines of black and white. Each side believes that the other is wrong and therefore stupid and to be silenced. It is happening over transgender, and it happened over Brexit. The French revolutionaries, the Cultural Revolution, Nazism and fascism all blocked free speech on the ground that they and they alone possessed the moral truth. Outside of the universities too, there is very limited liberty to say things that do not conform with the prevailing trend, and the consequences can be cancellation, loss of job or even violence. Even here in the House of Lords there have been attempts to silence our individual opinions and words.
But this new Bill is not only superfluous and riddled with contradictions and ambiguities but is likely to make the situation worse if activists use the complaints system to be instituted in the OfS and even take to the courts. A student life is only three years, and taking to the courts in any subject, as we know, is likely to last long beyond their graduation and do them no good. The complaints system will be in addition to the long-established and—I would say—successful one run by the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education, which I set up. I cannot see how the director of freedom of speech at the OfS cannot be but conflicted. Moreover, I cannot see the point of duplicating what is already available at the adjudication office. It is possible under the Bill that the OfS might deal with one side of a complaint, from a staff member, and the OIA will receive a complaint from a student about the same incident. There needs to be clear demarcation. The OfS will be able to offer a remedy only for the free speech aspect, while the OIA can offer broader remedial action.
Sadly, I have had significant experience of trying to help Jewish students as a patron of UK Lawyers for Israel. Those students have faced threats to their safety and even refusals of references when trying to assert their rights to free expression. The London colleges, notably LSE, SOAS, KCL and UCL, are often regarded as hostile environments for Jewish students and, right now, Goldsmiths has embarked on a study of anti-Semitism in its college. This new legislation must not undermine the existing protections, flimsy though they are, to stop anti-Jewish racism and Holocaust denial.
The Bill refers to freedom of speech within the law without giving a definition. One can easily imagine a Holocaust denier or a Hamas leader taking legal recourse for being denied a platform. Holocaust denial is not actually illegal, but it has been argued that the Equality Act and Prevent duties will ensure that it is not permitted on campus. Not only has this not been tested, we know that every year extremist Islamist speakers are allowed on campus preaching hate.
Do the universities not also have duties to prevent harassment and foster good relations under their public sector equality duty? Are they doing it? Will freedom of speech trump the other values, not expressed in straightforward law, that universities promote? There is no requirement in the Bill to consider competing freedoms. How does an authority decide between, on the one hand, Holocaust denial as an exercise of freedom of speech, and, on the other, the right of Jewish students not to be harassed and defamed? Will there still be a duty to prevent serious psychological injury? What about the freedom to speak against transgender issues? Will academic freedom triumph over demonstrably false assertions? What about a lecturer who wants to say that the US election was stolen from Trump or that climate change is a lie? The emphasis in the Bill might in future provide a cover for knowingly malicious and mendacious conduct.
Conspiracy theories put forward together with intimidation and vilification may be permissible and tolerable as political speech, but not as academic freedom, which they are not, or free speech, which has to be based on truth, not pseudoscience or neglect of the truth. We have seen the dangers of that in the political sphere also.
How relevant will the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism, already mentioned and now adopted by 103 UK and Irish universities, be? The definition is not legally binding, but it addresses modern anti-Semitism, which is dressed up as opposition to the very existence of the only country in the world that offers a safe haven to Jews in a world of rising anti-Semitism. The definition should help universities to understand this. Far from it dampening criticism of Israel and exploration of the Palestine/Israel issues, there is no issue more explored on campus. Just Google and see endless debates and actions relating to boycotts, targeting of Jewish students, violent protests and day in, day out debate about those very issues. Will the Bill prohibit the boycott by institutions and organisations of Israeli academics and universities and, sometimes, the refusal of professors to support Jewish students who want to study Israeli matters or require references? There really is a problem but the Bill may very well make it more complex, more expensive and even worse.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I find it rather depressing that Her Majesty’s Government have had to bring forward a Bill to ensure freedom of speech in higher education. I grew up in an era when you aspired to go to university not just to get wonderful academic teaching leading to a degree, but also to have the opportunity to explore new ideas, face challenges you had not met before, widen your horizons and challenge some of the traditional views. The idea that someone might not like what you said and try to stop or cancel you—a word we had never heard of in those days—rather than debating or arguing was unimaginable.
I understand why many in your Lordships’ House do not seem to think that the Bill is right but, sadly, I believe that the need for it is now clear and the reasons for the changes are many. I refer to the Policy Exchange report from 2020, which found a significant lack of “viewpoint diversity” at universities. Some of the statistics were shocking. As someone who campaigned all over the country for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union, the one that stood out for me was that just over 50% of academics would feel comfortable sitting next someone at lunch who was known just to have voted to leave—not even to have campaigned, so I will not be getting many invitations to academic lunches. That is just for having used your vote democratically in a parliamentary approved official referendum.
We have seen individual academic career prospects and access to research funding adversely affected by discrimination based on the individual academic’s views. Of course, the hounding of Professor Kathleen Stock, forced out of Sussex University by constant and repeated abuse and intimidation because of her views, has been slightly a focus of this Bill. But if this could happen to someone such as Professor Stock, how many other people coming into university to teach for the first time suddenly find that they have to be very, very careful about what they say?
A higher education council study is also alarming. It tracked attitudes of a representative sample of university students over the past six years. What it found should alarm all of us. The new generation of university students is increasingly supportive of removing from their campuses words, ideas, books, speakers and events they find uncomfortable or offensive. They seem willing to impose restrictions on others and to curtail views they disagree with. “Safe spaces” seems to be this new buzz word. We have to shield students from words and ideas that make them uncomfortable, and if you question or challenge this orthodoxy, you should be punished or ostracised. Matthew Goodwin pointed out in an excellent article on Unherd that a lot of this is happening right here in our own universities: refusing to allow tabloid newspapers to be sold on campus; banning speakers—maybe only a few, but nevertheless—who offend students; supporting getting rid of academics if they teach material that offends; and removing memorials of historical figures.
I do not want to stop anyone—to stop students—protesting about something they feel strongly about, and I do not believe the Bill does. In my day, we were always protesting about apartheid in South Africa, for example. I do not even mind students criticising lecturers on the grounds of the quality of their teaching; again, I do not think the Bill does that.
Academic freedom must be the primary duty of universities, and it should be defined more broadly than it is in the Bill. Too many of those in charge of our universities have been too weak or complacent to fight back against some of this behaviour. Too often, they have given into any demand from the student body, which must be agreed with at any cost, or they agree with anything that looks like it is the latest fad or, if I may use the term, a woke issue.
There will be amendments to this Bill which will make the protections of academic freedom stand fast. For example, in saying that HEPs must take reasonably practical steps to secure freedom of speech within the law, the duty is not clear enough. The responsibility to secure lawful free speech on topics of an academic or political nature should be an absolute and positive duty. I am sure that other amendments will come through your Lordships’ House, many of which have been suggested by what I consider to be the excellent Free Speech Union.
This freedom of speech Bill is about education, and education is devolved, but surely freedom of speech in universities across the United Kingdom should be in the Bill. In Northern Ireland we have one Russell group university, Queen’s University, and the University of Ulster. Why should this not apply there? If we wait for an Assembly to do something like this, none of us, not even the youngest Member of your Lordships’ House, will be around to see it happen. An amendment should be brought in to include those universities. Freedom of speech should not be a devolved issue. I remind your Lordships that, in the Ashers cake case, the Supreme Court recognised that ECHR Article 10 must include the right not to have to say what you do not believe. Prohibition of forced speech must be a key element of freedom of speech.
The Bill can be amended for the better to meet some of the challenges that noble Lords have already mentioned, but I support it. If it is changed quite a lot, it might be a wake-up call to those in authority in universities who have perhaps taken their eye off what academic freedom really is.
Lord Johnson of Marylebone (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my interests in the register, as chairman of Access Creative College, chairman of ApplyBoard and as another visiting professor at King’s College London.
I welcome what the Government are trying to do in this area, and it is obviously of great importance to the vitality of our higher education and research system. The Bill represents a very significant extension of the existing legislation on the statute book in relation to freedom of speech in higher education and, as my noble friend Lord Willetts said in his excellent speech, it will require significant reconciliation with the Prevent duty, the IHRA and other legislation coming through this House in this Session. Some of that tension obviously already exists with the existing legislation, but it will get a lot sharper as a result of the new tort, the statutory complaints system and the creation of the role of the director of free speech within the Office for Students.
Because these issues have already been pretty well debated in the other place, and here this afternoon, I want to focus in my brief time on the Government’s recent amendment on Report in the other place in relation to overseas funding. This came in relatively late and has not received as much attention as it might have done. It is a very important addition to the Bill and, although I very much support what it is trying to do, it requires significant improvement as it goes through this House. This section of the Bill now manages at once to be excessively bureaucratic and to miss a significant part of the problem that arises in relation to overseas funding of our higher education system.
The four categories of relevant funding that are addressed in the Government’s amendment are good as far as they go: namely, endowments, gifts and donations; research contracts; research grants; and educational and commercial partnerships involving foreign Governments, foreign organisations and politically exposed people in countries that are not on the approved ATAS list. If your funding comes in one of these sources from a country that is not a NATO or EU country, or Japan, Singapore or South Korea, you will be captured by the reporting requirement. My concern is that the reporting requirement is ridiculously bureaucratic. That arises because the threshold that has been set is far too low, at a proposed £75,000.
Take UCL, for example. This is an organisation with income of £1.6 billion in the last financial year, £500 million in research grants and almost £50 million in philanthropic donations. Obviously, not all higher education institutions in this country are as big as UCL, but to ask UCL to devote resources to counting every dollop of £75,000 that might come from an overseas source in this way is ridiculous. A more suitable threshold might be £1 million.
The control-freakery of the proposed threshold contrasts starkly with the super-chillaxed way in which the Government’s chosen definition of overseas funding manages to exclude altogether the largest source of such overseas funding: the income that universities receive from the uncapped tuition fees from international students. To be clear, I strongly support the contribution that international students make to the success of and the learning and research environment in our universities. However, it is extremely important, for obvious reasons, to have a diverse international student body, and I worry about the concentration of students from particular countries within some of our most significant institutions. This concentration of students from particular countries has the potential to create financial dependencies on student flows from particular countries that may limit freedom of speech and result in academic self-censorship.
Six of our Russell group institutions had more than 5,000 Chinese students in the most recent academic year. One of our leading Russell group institutions has more than 11,000 Chinese students out of a student body of 44,000. That is a very significant number; by my back-of-the-envelope calculation, they must be bringing into that institution more than £200 million of tuition fee income, representing at least a third, possibly more, of its tuition fee income from domestic and foreign students combined. This is potentially creating a lack of financial resilience in some of our most important research organisations and, with it, the associated threats to freedom of speech and research integrity that arise precisely from this dependence on the income from students from one big and autocratic country. This is a dependence that is now too big to ignore.
Others in this debate have raised the question of self-censorship. This is very difficult to measure precisely but we must not be complacent about it and pretend that it is not a problem in academia. As Professor Kerry Brown, the leading China expert at King’s College London, recently wrote in a paper for HEPI on China and self-censorship:
“While one can sometimes find tangible evidence in the form of conversations, emails, letters or other means, that pressure has been placed, with much self-censorship the act itself is invisible—it occurs in people’s heads, before and as they write and is very private … What is clear is that in the last few years, the fear and anxiety of facing individual and institutional consequences for straying over the ever-shifting red line that manages to offend China has risen dramatically … China is increasingly willing to call out those who criticise it. For universities, this can run the risk of impacting on the recruitment of Chinese students, or undertaking research collaborations with China.”
These are issues to be discussed in greater detail in Committee, but this is why I would welcome a broader definition of overseas funding than we have at present in this Bill. It would be sensible to add a duty on the Office for Students to consider whether a registered higher education provider is overly reliant on overseas tuition fee income from students from a single country of origin. If we are to legislate again on freedom of speech and higher education, this surely must be part of the discussion.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, who was a very open-minded higher education Minister. This has been a fascinating debate, but quite disconcerting. We have just been dealing with the Schools Bill, a Bill so bad that three Conservative Education Ministers have called for it to be terminated, and now we face another Bill which appears unnecessary, irrelevant and possibly harmful too. When Gavin Williamson, the then Education Secretary, introduced it in the Commons, he was constantly interrupted with questions, complaints and observations from all sides about why the Government were wasting time on such a Bill. We do not interrupt in our House, we listen courteously, and I thank the noble Earl the Minister for carrying out the hapless task of trying to convince us that this Bill is worth our time and trouble.
Higher education institutions are more than aware of the importance of freedom of speech. It is important that young people should be exposed to views contrary to their own, in a caring and learning environment where views should be respected but most certainly challenged where they are prejudiced, ignorant or harmful. No one has a right not to be outraged or offended, although increasingly some young people feel that they should not be exposed to views contrary to their own. I remember a number of revolting students at Oxford in the 1960s and some very robust debate, but I do not think that any of us suffered from it.
The recent HEPI survey, which my noble friend Lord Wallace referenced, is disturbing in the number of young people who do not seem to want to operate outside their comfort zone. But why is this Bill needed? An assessment by the Office for Students found that just 53 out of 59,574 events with external speakers were refused permission in 2017-18. Perhaps that was an unusually slow year for cancel culture and there is a real problem. However, the Bill comes before we have had a proper national public debate about where we think the acceptable boundary sits between speech that is offensive or hurtful but that ought to be permitted under the Bill, and speech that is harmful, divisive and, although perhaps not unlawful, has no place on campus. We have not had that debate, so the Government are rushing into legislation before we have much tangible evidence of the boundaries of acceptability.
Freedom of speech and the free exchange of ideas in pursuit of truth and knowledge are central to our universities’ whole purpose, but where is the evidence that there is a problem? This Bill is unnecessary and unclear. There is a real risk that our universities will be subject to vexatious and frivolous claims, which will cause distress and waste time and may make universities more risk-averse and more cautious about whom they invite to speak. So students will not be exposed to contrary views or be able to frame arguments and responses in defence of their own views.
Of course, we have a right to free speech. We need to be able to challenge people whose views are different from ours. Informed public debate is a vital element of a democratic society. It is vital to academic freedom, however difficult and contentious it might be, but, as has already been mentioned, we already have laws to protect free speech in the Education (No. 2) Act 1986. We really do not need any new laws, particularly ones as contentious as this. We have an Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education—and our thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for that. Why can it not deal with any problems in this area? The new director seems to have alarming powers, apparently without the need for any legal background.
I turn to no-platforming. As we have already heard, in 2019-20, of almost 10,000 events involving an external speaker, just six were cancelled—that is 0.06%. It is not a major problem and the heavy-handed proposals in this legislation are certainly not justified or needed. It has been said that this is an authoritarian sledgehammer to crack a nut. It might well give universities a reason to stop holding events that would broaden students’ minds.
We oppose the Bill. It is not based on evidence and is not proportionate. Worst of all, it actively undermines the very principle of free speech that it claims to support. Free speech is about the right of every individual to speak truth to power, but the Bill does the opposite. It gives those in power or with power the ability to determine who is free to say what. Far from protecting our freedoms, it is yet another example of the Government’s concerted efforts to take our freedoms away. Given that universities are already required to protect freedom of speech and that research suggests that no-platforming is incredibly rare, the Government should drop this Bill entirely.
As others have said, the likely consequence of all this is that universities and student unions will err on the side of caution and steer away from anything risky—in other words, not more free speech but less—and for those with really outlandish views, there will be a legal stick with which to beat institutions. We have already heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, the great quotation of the principle:
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
We have wasted enough time on the Schools Bill. Please do not make us waste yet more time on this one.
Baroness Stroud (Con)
My Lords, I support this higher education Bill. I am sure it will benefit from the input of noble Lords in this Chamber, but its intention is good. This Bill is one of the first of its kind worldwide. It resets the balance in favour of freedom of thought and expression. It comes at a time when our public discourse and intellectual conversation are becoming increasingly intolerant.
Academic freedom is central to the character and nature of who we are as a nation. It is essential for the discovery of and search for truth, the foundation on which we build our society, to which my friend, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry, drew our attention earlier. It is essential for the development of a resilient generation of critical thinkers who are not afraid of ideas. It is essential for progress: without the freedom to think and express the free exchange of ideas, the entrepreneurial spirit and the drive for innovation are extinguished. They are essential to the growth and prosperity of our nation and to a truly democratic society.
Only when people are able to think freely, speak freely and exchange ideas freely are good ideas able to flourish and bad ideas defeated. It is therefore vital that this freedom is protected among those whose very profession it is to exchange and debate ideas and pass them on to the next generation. There are some who, as we have been doing this afternoon, genuinely ask the question: “Is academic freedom under threat?” But for those who have sons and daughters in our universities, or who are connected with the academy, the answer will come back: “Yes, it is.” Perhaps it is not in the minds of those in illustrious posts that some hold in this Chamber, but parents up and down the land and professors and lecturers in our universities would say that that is their experience.
We need only consider the recent experience of Professor Kathleen Stock—hers one of nearly 100 recently recorded cases—to appreciate the toll that academic intolerance can take on the lives of those who dare to speak out in an increasingly hostile public square. This is damaging not only to the individual academic concerned but to the intellectual growth of our next generation of students. These students will soon join businesses up and down the land as active participants in the public square and in our workforce. They need to be able to engage in new, innovative and exciting ideas without fear and with creativity.
I appreciate that for some of your Lordships, like me, it has been a few years since we last sat in a tutorial or a lecture. I acknowledge that students have always questioned and critiqued dominant societal narratives. However, in recent years the power of students and student unions to lobby, disinvite and cancel speakers and professors from their universities has gained traction. This matters and universities do not appear to be equipped to resist this. For example, time and again university administrators have pursued the path of least resistance, opting to cave in to vocal minorities who seek to cancel or censor those who are disagreed with. Much of the focus of this afternoon has been on the free exchange of ideas between students, but this about professors and lecturers within universities as well. This cancelling of a speaker then creates a chilling effect in the academy, disincentivising those who profess new or unorthodox views from participating. This, in turn, damages viewpoint diversity, essential for a world of creative ideas to flourish.
Recent research at King’s College London suggests that one-quarter of students are self-censoring their views. Survey data collected by the University and College Union, a trade union representing more than 120,000 academics and support staff, suggested that one in three academics now self-censors due to the fear of suffering negative consequences if they voice their views or deviate from the dominant orthodoxy. This matters.
This environment in the academy has very real consequences, not only for scholarship but for professors and students themselves and, ultimately, for our nation. UK academics are significantly more likely than their counterparts across the European Union to report abuse and bullying, and to feel the need to conceal their beliefs. In a competitive marketplace of ideas, when we need to be driving growth and innovation, academic freedom stemming from the freedom to think and speak is critical.
I support this Bill because of the appropriate and moderate ways in which it seeks to actively promote academic freedom on campus and address the chilling effect of our cancel culture. I particularly draw attention to the creation of the free speech champion, which was discussed earlier. When a student or academic has been cancelled despite acting within the law, the free speech champion would be empowered to investigate and potentially fine or sanction the censoring bodies. The creation of this champion coincides with strengthening the duties around free speech, particularly around student unions, requiring them to respect freedom of speech as they carry out their functions. This Bill will give the regulator the teeth it needs to ensure that academic freedom is not just protected but promoted on campus.
Academic freedom is the ability to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions. It is vital to remember that many of the intellectual and cultural positions we now seek to preserve came into existence by questioning the majority view. Academic freedom, alongside freedom of thought and freedom of speech, are our cardinal democratic freedoms: it is from these freedoms that all other liberties flow. If we get this Bill right, Britain can continue to declare itself a beacon of freedom and a model from which academic systems around the world can take inspiration, and we will empower the next generation to be intellectually resilient, able to engage with challenging ideas and equipped for all that lies ahead.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I declare interests as a former chancellor of the Universities of Oxford Brookes and Essex, as, variously, a visiting and honorary fellow and professor of a number of universities and constituent colleges, as a visiting professor at the LSE and as, over this last academic year, someone who has benefited enormously from working with a PhD student at King’s College London.
I have always campaigned for freedom of speech and for all other fundamental rights and freedoms, from which it cannot be plucked or separated. I have done this, or tried to do this, on behalf of those who were for the moment vulnerable, demonised and endangered, including those with whom I profoundly disagreed and who have even denigrated the very rights that should protect them.
Today feels like “a bright cold day in April, with the clocks striking thirteen”. This Bill is wrong-headed in principle and clumsy in execution. Freedom of speech is not advanced by particularism, complex or onerous regulation or government tsars but when we each practise what we preach, lead by example and understand that it is the ultimate two-way street in a human rights framework built upon equal treatment, the very antithesis of which is partisan protection and hypocrisy. In short, my speech cannot be free while yours is always treated as a little more expensive or otherwise put practically beyond reach.
This Bill comes amid a wave of anti-rights legislation and rhetoric. In particular, on-street dissent has been criminalised today by the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act and will be eroded still further if the measures copied and pasted from anti-terror law in the Public Order Bill are allowed to pass. Cabinet Ministers and other government sources are on the record for their “war on woke” which, by definition, prioritises opinions that they find agreeable over those that they find uncomfortable in a kingdom that they do not seek to unite.
In a manner reminiscent of Mr Trump across the water, pro-Brexit protesters in 2019 and statue defenders in 2020 were actively encouraged by some of the same Ministers who now seek to impugn climate and race-equality activists and lawfully striking and picketing trade unionists. So higher education providers and student unions have good prior reason to give a critical, sceptical reading to this Bill.
To add insult to injury, we are speaking less than a week after the Government’s introduction of what Amnesty International called the “Rights Removal Bill” and at least one noble Lord opposite called the “Bill of Wrongs”. This proposes to repeal the Human Rights Act without a single enhancement of rights protection but drastic diminution instead. This is forensically important, as the Department for Education relies heavily upon the Human Rights Act in its various explanations and justifications for this opaque Bill.
In particular, while the rights removal Bill has been sold as enhancing free speech, it reduces the positive obligations on public authorities to guarantee rights within their realms and attempts to limit Article 10, on free speech protection, to areas outside the criminal law. That licenses ever-broader anti-speech offences and police powers in the future. So far from being universalist, the Government’s approach to rights and freedoms is not even constitutional or one-nation. Instead, it is contradictory and partisan.
As to the detailed convolutions of this Bill, your Lordships’ House will want to allow significant time for their scrutiny in Committee. In the meantime, will the Government prepare new memoranda explaining how the provisions will interact not just with the Human Rights Act, which they plan to scrap, but with its so-called replacement, alongside the Equality Act and Prevent programme, which has been such a complication of, if not threat to, free speech on campus, and all the other pre-existing regulatory duties on higher education bodies?
How can it be a protection of academic freedom to give more and more power over independent institutions of scholarship to the Government’s Office for Students and the new director for freedom of speech? Who is going to fund litigation for claims and defences of a breach of the new statutory duty, at a time when civil legal aid is virtually non-existent? How will institutions be protected from vexatious litigation by wealthier interest groups in particular? As to the new provisions relating to foreign funding, who should decide which funding is or is not acceptable in our world-class academy? How will our institutions of higher learning be protected from the weaponising of provisions in this Bill as proxies for human rights and other disputes internationally? What are the Government doing about what many academics feel to be the real threats to their freedom—precarious employment, lack of representation on governance structures, directions as to which research to undertake and political interference, including the attack on the arts?
You cannot cancel cancel culture, any more than you can realistically no-platform ideas you detest in the age of the internet. However, you can demonise the courts, the arts, the academy and even the young in a culture war of divide and rule. Some speech is free, it would seem, and some is rather more expensive: that is the real message behind this Orwellian Bill.
Baroness Shafik (CB)
It is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, who brings a great deal of expertise and insight to this important debate, as indeed have all Members who have contributed. I thank the Minister, first, for the comprehensive introduction to the debate and, secondly, for the constructive and kind way in which he has engaged with me in advance. I have also discussed assurances with the Secretary of State. I draw noble Lords’ attention to my registered interests, specifically my role as director of the London School of Economics and Political Science, which of course will be directly affected by this legislation.
It is absolutely right that the Government want to protect and promote freedom of speech. Indeed, freedom of speech and academic inquiry is central to everything that universities do. That necessitates the full freedom to pursue lines of academic inquiry, even when they may end up in uncomfortable places. At the LSE, our very international community welcomes speakers from across the political, national and ideological spectrum to its campus, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, noted. They set out their stalls, respond to challenge and, in the best traditions of university life, educate our students on different points of view and, more importantly, on how to engage with those different points of view with intelligence and respect.
As the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton, Lady Royall and Lady Garden, noted, the House Library references a report and a survey of 10,000 cases of external speakers, only six of which were cancelled. That is 0.06% of all events surveyed. I am proud to say that, as far as I know, at LSE we have never no-platformed a speaker. That is because we actively manage and promote freedom of speech collectively. It is an interesting question whether you need 23 pages of legislation for a 0.06% problem, particularly given that the higher education sector faces so many other challenges, but here we are.
I turn to the content of the Bill, which proposes a new legal “Duty to promote” under Clauses 1 and 3. This would change the legal balance between the protection of freedom of expression and other statutory duties placed on universities over the years, such as the public sector equality duty and the Prevent duty. Those duties are in potential conflict with this legislation, as noted by the noble Baronesses, Lady Deech and Lady Chakrabarti. I would very much welcome insight from the Minister into how all these duties will coexist successfully and what guidance will be available to universities to avoid being caught in the middle of conflicting legal obligations.
Clause 4 would create an avenue for civil proceedings for anyone who believes that their freedom of speech has been curtailed. Drawn too broadly, this new tort would pave the way for vexatious, time-wasting and expensive litigation, as many Peers have noted. The Bill is very unclear as to the exact circumstances that would allow this tort to be pursued. For example, will there be a threshold of harm? I believe that there should be, similar to the threshold in the Defamation Act the Government passed in 2013. Will the Government confirm that this new tort could be pursued only if the existing university complaints procedures had been exhausted? Again, I believe that this should be written into the legislation, analogous to the protections in the new OfS complaints scheme set out in Clause 8. Better yet, choose just one route for complaints, as the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, suggested. I suggest that the regulatory route would be much simpler than the litigious one.
Clause 10 legislates for the new director for freedom of speech and academic freedom in the Office for Students, which has been much discussed. Of course, I understand that if we pass this legislation the Government will want expertise in the Office for Students to keep an eye on it, but we must be clear: the director must be an expert. I know that the recruitment process for this director has started. It would be reassuring to know that the selection panel is well staffed by those with expertise in the legal issues around free speech and the challenges facing universities, and will choose someone with expertise in both areas.
I turn finally to Clause 9, which sets out the requirement for the reporting of foreign donations to and contracts with UK universities. It is understandable that Ministers want to keep an eye on relationships with foreign powers and organisations, especially where there are issues of national security, but this must be proportional and risk-based. I therefore strongly welcome the Government’s commitment to ensure that there are sensible exemptions to the new reporting regimes, especially where national security risks are low. Although these exemptions will be set out in subsequent guidance, it would be helpful to have on the record the Government’s thinking thus far before the Bill passes. The Government have suggested a reporting threshold of £75,000 for foreign funding, though the equivalent in the United States is $250,000. A sensible equivalent would reduce undue bureaucracy and expensive costs for what are small-scale arrangements, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Johnson. I am also keen to understand what additional resource the Office for Students will have to monitor what will be a significant increase in its workload.
In conclusion, I thank the Government for the constructive way in which they have approached this legislation so far. As the Bill progresses, I hope we can achieve some sensible amendments that will enable the Government’s ambitions to protect free speech while supporting a universities sector that continues to be the envy of the world.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Shafik, raises some interesting, detailed points that I hope we can look at in Committee. More broadly, I welcome the Bill—although I do so with something of a heavy heart and qualms.
I regret the need for legislation to enforce what should be intrinsic to universities, academic freedom, but I have watched with horror as the HE sector has tried to balance free speech against an ever-expanding array of institutionalised values and mandated outcomes over recent years: student satisfaction targets; promotion of equality, diversity and inclusion initiatives; and external benchmarking schemes in racial diversity, gender identity and environmental literacy. All can and do undermine curriculum freedom. Then there are the demands of the REF and the managerial prioritising of employability skills—on and on it goes. In the midst of this, academic freedom can and is squeezed out and deprioritised.
I hope to amend the Bill to strengthen the idea that academic freedom is the primary duty of universities. It is what distinguishes universities from think tanks, policy and research NGOs, private companies or tutorial and teaching services. The pursuit of knowledge for its own sake and true freedom to explore and challenge ideas without fear or favour are the point of academic freedom—no ifs or buts—and what makes a university a university.
Of course, we need to be wary of government overreach in the autonomy of universities and careful of the Bill’s unintended consequences, such as the chilling effect on students’ right to protest. I get the irony of the scorn poured on the Bill as a device for cancelling cancel culture. More than anything, I do not want the Bill’s proponents to treat this legislation as a technocratic silver bullet, as though all will be well if it is passed. Beware of legalistic complacency. Many of the most egregious censorious trends are cultural, informal and deep rooted, and need to be debated and defeated through the battle of ideas.
The main challenge the Bill faces are the opponents who dismiss the need for it, as we have heard here today, and see it as a hyped-up moral panic—some kind of tedious Tory culture war against woke students. I concede that the Government’s inconsistencies do not help to reassure. A few months ago, Education Secretary Nadhim Zahawi declared that he would crack down hard on academics who espouse dangerous narratives on the Russia-Ukraine war. Does this mean that the Government’s commitment to academic freedom is dependent on academics holding the correct views on foreign policy, or should we defend the free speech of useful idiots as well as those we agree with? The elephant in the room is surely the Online Safety Bill—a huge threat to free speech in the UK, as the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, indicated. He also noted a number of other contradictory trends.
That said, I think the gaslighting of those of us who raise the growing problem of censorship on campus is a form of denialism that is unhelpful. When I wrote the book, ‘I Find That Offensive!’, on the rise of Generation Snowflake’s campus censorship, I was accused of manufacturing a sensationalist crisis. Actually, I underestimated the trend. My motives were challenged as raising the alarm; I was treated as rather dodgy. That is the same as the cheap, conspiratorial accusations we have heard in this House today that this Bill is driven by some alt-right agenda as a disguise for hate and bigotry to gain a voice.
The idea that the Bill is a sledgehammer being used to crack a nut is expressed by those who seem stuck in the past with a dismissive, “Oh, it was ever thus—nothing to see here”. We keep hearing the same evidence from Wonkhe of 10,000 events involving external speakers, and only six were cancelled, and so on. But these no-platform stats miss the important point. Comments from opposition Benches here ignore the corrosive rise of self-censorship that the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, raised. You do not have to be de-platformed to feel its chill wind. The NUS has a guidebook called Managing the Risks Associated with External Speakers. If you are an external speaker, as I have been many times, you are asked to sign a form promising not to say anything that would make the audience feel uncomfortable.
The message is, “Watch what you say.” Often, speakers are cancelled, dismissed, or simply warned about the content of speeches on the basis of harm and safety—“Be careful”. JS Mill’s harm principle has now been expanded exponentially to include psychological harm, pathologising debates through the prism of therapeutic terms, with trigger warnings and post-traumatic stress disorder if you hear the wrong thing and so on. Safe spaces are not about protection of physical safety, but safety in terms of protection from dangerous ideas.
The threat of external speakers being banned as a safety risk today is very different from the no-platforming of the far right in the 1980s. It institutionalises the link between words and harm. No wonder people bite their lip. As has already been indicated, the main problem is less about external speakers than about a toxic atmosphere on campus for students and staff; self-censorship is damaging to intellectual inquiry. There is a mood of snitching and “watch your back”, a system of public shaming—of reporting one’s peers for “wrong-think” for comments made in seminars or in the bar.
Only recently, we saw the University of Cambridge setting up an anonymous reporting system, encouraging students and staff to name anyone considered guilty of a wide range of listed micro-aggressions. It is no surprise that in 2017 the trade union, the University and College Union, in its own report on academic freedom, reported that 35% of its members self-censor for fear of loss of privileges or demotion. A 2020 Survation poll for ADF found that 29% of students in British universities keep their views hidden when they are at odds with their peers or lecturers, that 40% withhold their views on religious or ethical subjects, and God help any Hungarian students studying in the UK who dare to admit that they voted for Orbán if they are at universities led by people in this House. Apparently, that is enough to get you cancelled. They would stay schtum.
If the price of expressing the wrong views is that you are dubbed the purveyor of hate, bigotry or wrong-think, obviously students and staff will shut up or are so careful that it leads to an anodyne, enervated and sanitised learning environment antithetical to an intellectually lively atmosphere of free inquiry. We should also note that it is not being cancelled but the process of being accused and investigated that has become the punishment, leaving a stigma and a question mark on one’s reputation. You have only to look at the case files of Academics for Academic Freedom or the Free Speech Union to get the gist.
In October 2020, a group of LGBT activists tried to get a porter from Clare College sacked because, in his role as a Labour councillor, he voted the wrong way on the issue of “trans women are women”. I do not blame those students; I blame our generation for not setting an example to them, and I blame those people who run universities for not looking them in the eye and saying, “Academic freedom matters more than anything else.” That is why I hope this Bill will help.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness; she makes stimulating speeches. She does tend to overegg the pudding a bit; nevertheless, I listen to her with great interest, and I am delighted to follow her.
Free speech is more important than anything else—and we in this place ought to know that better almost than anyone. “The price of liberty,” said Burke—and of course, liberty without free speech is impossible—“is eternal vigilance.” I am glad that we are having this debate because there is currently a tendency among some to be a bit complacent. One thinks of some pretty horrific examples: Kathleen Stock, who has been mentioned by noble Lords on two or three occasions, and JK Rowling.
One of the cancers of our age, which makes the proliferation of coarse speech and crude attack so much easier, is social media. Many in our universities, and others, use this, and many suffer from it, so it is right for us to ask: what can we do about it? But I do not think a Bill like this is necessarily the best way forward.
Those who have questioned the wisdom of the Bill have more than a point. I say to my noble friend—who introduced the Bill with his characteristic gentle elegance and in whom I have as much trust as I have in anyone in political life—that it needs to be significantly improved if it is to go on the statute books and fulfil its purpose. I do not think we need such a Bill but, clearly, we are going to have one, so it is the duty of your Lordships’ House to make it as effective as possible, and as least disruptive as possible.
Speaking as one who has the honour to have been a visiting fellow at St Antony’s College, Oxford, who helped to found the parliamentary fellowship scheme 30 years ago, and who is still admitted to the senior common room—I have also visited many other universities, and I am on the court of Lincoln University—I believe that we have institutions of which we can be truly proud. But it is very important indeed that students are exposed to views and attitudes that they consider to be offensive, because that itself is stimulating. Unless you can produce a counter-argument, you have not understood the argument. It is crucial that our young people are stimulated and exposed to a variety of views, just as they should be exposed to a variety of academic and scientific disciplines. I very much hope that one thing that will be a casualty of this Bill is the so-called “trigger” movement. It has been dismissed, I am glad to say, but it was even suggested that the online version of Hansard should be adorned with trigger warnings that there may be some offensive language to follow.
Lord Cormack (Con)
Indeed, shame. I believe we have had that dealt with.
We know about the counterculture and the cancelling because earlier this year four of us were complained about to the Commissioner for Standards because of remarks we had made in a good, vigorous and brief debate on an amendment to a Bill that sought to end the presence of physically intact males in women’s prisons. The committee, now chaired rather splendidly by the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, rewrote some of the rules and guidance, and the fundamental right that Members of both Houses have enjoyed since the Bill of Rights in 1689 was underlined thrice. That is as it should have been, but if we can be threatened even in this place then we have to be vigilant about the defence of free speech. If free speech is eroded in any way in our universities, the institutions from which future Members of both Houses will come, then that does not augur well.
As we know at the moment, democracy has to be fought for. As we know, there is a great power, the second greatest power in the world right now, which is already flexing its muscles in a variety of ways—roads and belts, belts and roads. We have to be a bastion of democracy, but we cannot be a bastion of democracy without having universities and colleges that produce vigorous democrats.
Lord Macdonald of River Glaven (CB)
My Lords, since the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is not present, it is my great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. In doing so, I refer to my entry in the register of interests as a former warden of Wadham College, Oxford and an honorary fellow there and at St Edmund Hall, Oxford.
I disagree with noble Lords who perceive no problem to be addressed, but I agree with noble Lords who have argued that the Bill addresses those problems in the wrong way. A few years ago, around 2014, when I was working in Oxford, I attended a public lecture given by the dean of the law school of a leading American Ivy League university. My role was to respond to his remarks before the topic was opened up to audience participation. He was addressing the question of free speech and to my consternation—and of course I paraphrase him somewhat—he posed the argument that free expression could most accurately be seen as a weapon of power in the hands of elites who were licensed by law to employ it to repress the disadvantaged and marginalised. In this sense, as he saw it, limits on the right to free expression could be seen as protective and in some circumstances even liberating. Language was power, and to police it could therefore be radical and affirming. In my responding remarks, I strongly disagreed with him and suggested that it was all right for him to be playing with such ideas, with all his copper-plated US first-amendment protections, but in Europe, where legal protections for free speech have always been more contingent and conditional and have had a more painful, bloody history, he was playing with fire.
It is important for us to acknowledge that, eight or so years later, those ideas that I first heard expressed in an Oxford lecture theatre have become a little more mainstream. It is more common than it should be, including in the UK, to hear free speech categorised as a threat to safety, when it is not being decried in some intellectual circles as an Enlightenment sham. It is perhaps less common than it should be to hear it described as the greatest historical progenitor of human progress.
The reasons for that shift, particularly on the left side of politics, are complex. There are some genuinely progressive elements in play: the growing understanding of the importance to society of protecting minority rights; distaste for racism, sexism and homophobia; and hostility to unfounded discrimination. It is surely an unalloyed good that terms of racist, sexist or homophobic abuse are no longer acceptable and that these forms of speech have, by broad consensus and even by law, been curtailed. However, the inroads into untrammelled speech are now going somewhat further than that, and there is a danger that we are beginning to descend into a world where feeling trumps fundamental rights, including the right to free speech. In universities, that is a hopeless direction of travel.
We should of course not overstate the position. In my old university, the University of Oxford, there is a powerful attachment to the fundamentals of free speech, driven from the top. Oxford’s official free speech statement, which I drafted along with Professor Timothy Garton Ash, is explicit that robust intellectual exchange and views that shock, even which offend, are bound to be part of the currency of discourse in higher education, that this is part of the lifeblood of the university and that it should be welcomed in the interests of truth and learning. Of course, that lifeblood is stilled if feeling —a sense of being offended—becomes the determinant of what may acceptably said. That is the risk that I assume the Bill is intended to address, and I think we should be frank and acknowledge that that risk exists.
HEPI’s survey was analysed by the think tank in this way:
“The results show clearly that students have become significantly less supportive of free expression.”
I will not run through all the statistics, but some of them are alarming: 79% of students believe that students who feel threatened should always have their demands for safety recognised; 61% say that when in doubt their university should ensure that all students are protected from discrimination rather than allowing unlimited free speech; the proportion of students who agree that if you debate an issue like sexism or racism then you make it acceptable has doubled to 35%; 86% of students support the no-platform policy of the National Union of Students while only 5% say the NUS should not limit free speech or discussion; 39% of students believe that student unions should ban all speakers who cause offence to some students; and the proportion of students who think that academics should be fired if they teach material that heavily offends some students is now 36%, up from 15% in 2016. So the direction of travel is towards a greater censoriousness and the prioritising of feelings and something called “safety” over more traditional free-speech values.
It is noticeable that no-platforming incidents, which newspapers routinely attribute to universities themselves, almost invariably result instead from decisions taken by very small numbers of students at poorly attended student union meetings. However, we have to acknowledge, as some noble Lords have, that this is the country—our country—in which a distinguished philosopher was forced from her university job for expressing, in an entirely lawful and respectful manner, gender-critical views: in other words, for exercising her free speech and her right to academic freedom. The fact that we all now probably suspect that Professor Kathleen Stock would struggle to gain future employment at another UK university without facing protests and boycotts even if she wanted to, which I understand she does not, is deeply worrying. I myself have had the experience more than once of young non-tenured academics lowering their voices when expressing to me views that they fear might not find favour with the bulk of their colleagues. That is troubling.
However, the Bill does not address these problems in the correct way, and I will swiftly indicate why. The first reason is bureaucracy. My experience of additional levels of bureaucracy is that they are not usually liberalising; quite the opposite—they tend to weigh down those to whom they are intended to administer. Will these new processes free up discourse, or will they do the opposite and encourage sclerosis?
The second is legal action. I can imagine many ways in which the process envisaged by the Government could become a tool of abuse, consuming time and resource to an uncomfortable degree.
Thirdly, the precise role and powers of the director of free speech—having listened to the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, with such pleasure, I was rather hoping he might apply for the position himself but, frankly, I do not think he would get past the vetting process—it is important that the independence of universities is protected and they do not become the plaything of quangos. Universities to the greatest extent should be self-governing institutions, and I am not attracted by the idea of a director of free speech running around issuing edicts that may or may not be workable on the ground. And how is all this to coexist with university anti-harassment policies? Harassment by speech occasionally exists and universities have to deal with it. It is not clear that Ministers have given sufficient thought to that.
My last reason is Prevent. Many of us argued when the Prevent duty was applied to universities that it created tension with existing legislation requiring universities to uphold free speech. At Oxford, we resolved this difficulty by deciding that the Prevent duty to address so-called non-violent extremism speech—in other words, the apparent requirement contained in the Prevent legislation for universities in some circumstances to block speech that was perfectly lawful, as the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, noted—was to be viewed and applied within the context of pre-existing rights, including the right to free speech. That seemed to work well. Does the Minister agree that, if the Bill is passed, the Prevent duty as it applies to universities will be subject to the free-speech strictures contained in the Bill?
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord and I rise as a rare speaker from the Conservative Benches who neither is nor ever has been a visiting professor or honorary fellow at a distinguished academic institution. I started this debate with quite an open mind but, listening carefully to the speeches opposite, I have been persuaded to give whole- hearted support to the Bill.
First of all, the Bill is not about student protest. When I was president of the Oxford Union many years ago, I had the privilege of welcoming the former President Richard Nixon to give an afternoon lecture. The demonstration was huge, carefully supervised by the local police and monitored by the US Secret Service. I welcomed that; the size of the demonstration was a measure of the success of the event. Even more than the numbers of students packed inside, the demonstration outside showed that you had really hit the button. I am not trying to stop student protest, nor is the Bill.
Instead, to understand the thrust of this Bill, it is helpful to start with one of the most perceptive, and one of my favourite, quotations from the late Lord Keynes. Since this is a debate of learned quotations, I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I read it to them:
“Practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back.”
Indeed, I say as an aside to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry, the whole debate around the Reformation was, in effect, framed by the academic scribbler he referred to, St Augustine of Hippo, some 1,100 years earlier, and the rather overexcited interpretations of those writings was still being worked out by a junior academic at a recently founded university lost in the forests of eastern Germany at the time.
The point I want to make is that academic thought has a real influence on social change, even if the time lag—as Lord Keynes said, it might be a few years or decades—is very significant. That is a really important point to take hold of. To take it a step further, taking their guidance from a contemporary of Keynes, Antonio Gramsci, activists are tempted in recognising this to seek to capture that academic podium precisely because of its long-term influence and, in doing so, to seek to deny it to others. That is exactly what many of us feel has been happening in our universities over the last decades.
Because of the shortage of time, I will not list examples. The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and others, have given many examples both of incidents and changes in attitude which illustrate what I think is going on and what is such a deep cause of concern to many of us. Noble Lords on the opposite Benches have said repeatedly that these incidents, which they admit are objectionable, are very rare. However, it is not the frequency of the events we should be looking at but their egregiousness. Their rarity could be taken as an example, proof or evidence of the success of the policy I have mentioned being pursued. As the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, has said, the punishment is the process. As the noble Lord, Lord Johnson of Marylebone, said in relation to Chinese influence, self-censorship is the response. So, of course, if the policy is being successful, you would expect incidents to be rare. That in itself proves nothing.
This Bill is an attempt to rectify the balance in all of that. While it is probably inevitably ham-fisted, it none the less deserves our support in principle. It may be capable of certain improvements. I suggest two. I was very struck by the remark of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, that we should address the plurality of objectives that we impose on universities. A number of them were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven. We should address them by trying to create some priority among them: some are more important than others. I agree with the noble Baroness that academic freedom should perhaps be put at the top of that tree as an overriding priority, not simply competing with lots of others, which both confuses the leadership of universities and, equally, makes it easy for those who wish to exploit the situation to escape by running around different competing priorities. An amendment to that end would be very welcome and would provoke a very interesting debate.
The second area the Bill is wholly silent on, and where an amendment would certainly provoke some interesting debate, is funding. The Bill, as far as I can see, says nothing about the influence of funding on shaping academic debate and discussion and how capable it is of potential abuse. I mean both funding within the university and funding, usually on a much larger scale, from central funding councils making grants to support various areas of research. We might well want to see amendments to make that funding more transparent and show that it was balanced—I am not talking about funding flat earthers or people like that, but, within the limits of a sensible academic debate, making sure that people are being funded in a balanced and sensible way.
I welcome the Bill’s general principle and take the view that it could be strengthened. It would be a great mistake to try to oppose it by digging into the weeds. We need to see the trees and the forest, and to understand what we need to do.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. I declare my interests. I am an emeritus professor at the University of Essex and the University of Sheffield. I have spent some 43 years in the higher education sector. I have spoken at academic venues all over the world and I have welcomed scholars and other speakers from all over the world.
I just cannot see the need for this Bill. I have not encountered the problems this Bill is trying to deal with. There is more diversity of views on university campuses than at party-political conferences, but I do not see the Minister trying to introduce the notion of free speech for party conferences. Maybe because the Government’s problem is that they are really attacking civil liberties and clamping down on dissent. After all, young people have to learn to express their views and they just do not like it.
The Government claim that the Bill protects free speech, but there is no indication in the Bill or the Explanatory Notes, as far as I can see, of when free speech crosses into hate speech. What are the boundaries? When does one become the other? Free speech is a social construct; it is always in the process of being made but is never finally made. It is shaped by contemporary discourses. On that basis, I am willing to argue against racism, but I will never provide a platform to anybody who is willing to argue for racism. Does that make me unbalanced? I doubt it. I am trying to prioritise social justice over some vulgar version of free speech, and the two inevitably clash. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us how we mediate this clash—how does the Bill deal with this?
In his introductory remarks, the Minister said that the Bill strengthens freedom of speech and academic freedom, but I can find no evidence of this in its proposals. Academic freedoms include freedom of inquiry, investigation, publication and dissemination, and these are all under threat from the funders and the Government. I will give some examples. Too many funding contracts include clauses that give funders the final say on whether research can be published. They can and have blocked, in subtle and not-so-subtle ways, the publication of unwelcome findings—they just do not like it.
A classic example is a pharmaceutical company that funded a researcher to compare its branded thyroid drug with generic competitors. The researcher found that the generic products were just as good as the expensive branded products. The publication of that research would have jeopardised the funder’s sales and profits, so the drug company went to incredible lengths to suppress the research, including taking legal action against the researcher and the university to prevent them publishing the findings. I do not see the Government outlawing any of this or dealing with that problem in the Bill.
Over the years, several studies have focused on links between cancer and passive smoking, and tobacco companies have secretly funded research specifically designed to refute these links. They design the research questions and collect and provide the data, and, in the final analysis, their employees write parts of the paper, which has an academic’s name on it, so that they can gain political advantage from the research.
Industry funding drives researchers to study questions that do not upset the funders, which often means that they focus on maximising benefits and minimising harms related to the particular funder’s products or services. That is unacceptable. Uncomfortable questions are simply not asked. I am an accountant, and you would be hard-pushed to find an industry-funded piece of academic work that examines audit failures in any depth—there are not many studies on it, because people know that they will not get the funding if they want to do that kind of research.
The Government themselves have eroded academic freedoms. In November 2020, the British Medical Journal published an article titled:
“Covid-19: politicisation, ‘corruption,’ and suppression of science”.
It documented four instances of government suppression of research during the Covid pandemic. In one case, the Government procured an antibody test that fell short of the performance claims made by the manufacturer. Researchers from Public Health England and collaborating institutions pushed to publish their study’s findings before the Government committed to buying a million of these tests, but they were blocked by the Department of Health and the Prime Minister’s office. Subsequently, Public Health England unsuccessfully attempted to block the BMJ’s press release about the research paper. The key issue here is the conflicting commercial interests and consultancies of Ministers and their advisers—they just did not want to see this piece of research.
I will give a personal example. Some years ago, I secured a small grant from the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales to examine the resignation letters submitted by company auditors. By law, they have to say whether there are circumstances in connection with their resignation that shareholders and creditors need to be aware of. This was a big study. Only 2.5% of the auditor resignation letters at plcs were accompanied by any statement listing the reasons. Almost all filed a nil return, even though there were headlines and front-page news stories about scandals within days of the auditor resigning. There is massive legal non-compliance. We submitted the findings to the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, but it was not happy about them. There was no correspondence, and it was all done on the phone: “We will tell you”, “We will come back to you, and then you can come back to us”. Years and months passed by, and it never published the information. I have been in the game long enough, so, in the end, I knew what to do: I found alternative means to publish papers from this—but not everyone can. I never went back to any accountancy bodies for research grants again.
My point is that the Bill does nothing to check the funders’ influence on academic research, and it completely fails to advance academic freedoms. I hope that the Minister will give serious thought to this is. If not, I will consider tabling some amendments to further explore these points.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as an honorary fellow of Balliol, my former interest as head of the largest employer of graduates in this country, and perhaps even my future interest as the parent of an 18 year-old, hopefully heading off to university next year.
Parliament is right to want to protect academic freedom and free speech on campus. We have heard specific cases of concern today, and there is a problem that needs to be nipped in the bud. But we do not need battle slogans from the culture wars. Any legislative proposals need to be carefully calibrated because there are complex and competing considerations.
We have heard today that conflicts over academic freedoms stretch back through history. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, started the clock at 1968, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, mentioned the Reformation, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry mentioned St Augustine. I am reminded that our oldest university, Oxford, predates Parliament itself and Magna Carta. In 1377, John Wycliffe, translator of the Bible, found himself no-platformed by Pope Gregory and dismissed from the university. As a student, I remember looking out at the Martyrs’ Memorial, where Cranmer, Latimer and Ridley were “cancelled” by Mary Tudor as they were burned at the stake. In 1683, the books of John Milton, our greatest advocate for freedom of speech, were not subject to a trigger warning but burned in the Bodleian. So history tells us that these debates go back a long way.
History also teaches us that the greatest threats to academic freedom have generally come not from within universities but from overbearing theocracy and an overreaching state. This remains true around the world today, and it is not a left-versus-right issue. The Republican Governor of Florida is currently trying to rig academic appointments and gag professors. Authoritarian regimes of all ideological hues cannot stand independent universities, which is why China, Hungary and Iran all score badly on the global Academic Freedom Index. Subject to the important points made by the noble Lord, Lord Johnson of Marylebone, and the noble Baroness, Lady Shafik, this is why Clause 9 is, in my view, right in principle to require transparency about our universities’ international funding from countries that do not respect academic freedom.
However, that concern about government intrusion is also why we should be judicious, nuanced and restrained before we impose more state regulation and political control on our universities. As was pointed out, in your Lordships’ recent debate on the Schools Bill, a number of former Conservative Education Ministers objected to a centralising power grab by the Department for Education. This Bill suggests that that was not a one-off aberration.
Since this is Second Reading, it is worth considering the underlying principles at stake. First, we need to consider whether the Bill yet satisfactorily combines free speech protections on the one hand with safeguards for academic rigour on the other. Universities promote academic free inquiry because it contributes to their distinctive mission, which is to advance knowledge and education through structured debate, based on reason and evidence. Unlike Speakers’ Corner in Hyde Park, Twitter or the op-ed pages of a newspaper, universities have a distinctive responsibility to instil respect for established facts and evidence-based knowledge. It is a fundamental epistemological misconception to argue that the mission of universities places them under some sort of obligation to give airtime or credence to those who argue, for example, that there were no gulags in the Soviet Union, that vaccines cause autism, that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are genuine or that intelligent design explains the origin of the universe. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox: that is not viewpoint diversity, that is crank conspiracy and licensed idiocy. The Minister for Higher Education asserted in the Commons that this is not what this Bill will produce. Here, in your Lordships’ House, we should consider perhaps clarifying amendments to ensure that it does not.
The second question is the one my noble friend Lord Macdonald raised a moment ago: are universities striking the right balance between challenging discussion and inclusive participation? If not, will the Bill help or hinder? Universities have to weigh conflicting goals and legal obligations. Universities are right to try to ensure equal participation for all their students, because in an academic setting, it is the quality of reasoning and evidence that counts, not whether you are Jewish, black, female or gay. White supremacists and religious fundamentalists who regard some students as inherently inferior are, therefore, themselves intrinsically incompatible with the proper functioning of a university.
On the other hand, many academics worry that claims for identity-based protection are increasingly being weaponised, with the risk that universities become so-called sanctuaries for comfort. This afternoon, we have heard statistics from the Higher Education Policy Institute survey quoted extensively. I will repeat a particularly salient data point raised by my noble friend Lord Macdonald: 36% of students believe academics should be fired if they teach material that heavily offends some students—a proportion which has doubled in the past six years. There is also accumulating scientific evidence, including from randomised controlled trials, that trigger warnings and the like may actually harm, rather than protect, survivors of past trauma. So we need a course correction if we are to avoid spiralling towards the poisonous antagonisms now paralysing so many US college campuses. In doing so, however, we need to tread with care. As the Bill stands, a new politically appointed commissar in the OfS would be handed sweeping powers to oversee free speech and academic freedom in this country. The Bill has completely inadequate safeguards on how that post is appointed and how the new role will operate.
Furthermore, as the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, rightly argued, if the OfS is to have new regulatory oversight powers, there is no need to create competing, costly and complex alternative mechanisms via the courts. The Department for Education’s revised impact assessment, at page 24, laughably and ludicrously pretends that creating a new statutory tort will cost nobody anything ever. In the real world, Clause 4, as currently drafted, will ensnare our universities in vexatious, partisan and pointless litigation for years to come. At a time when universities’ real-terms tuition funding is being so heavily squeezed, every extra pound they have to spend on lawyers is a pound less for students. As we heard earlier, at a time when the courts in this country are already overwhelmed—with thousands of rape cases, violent crimes and civil claims waiting years to be heard—it makes no sense to divert scarce judicial resources to second-guessing both the Office for Students and universities themselves.
In summary, my view is that the Bill is going to need thoughtful and sensitive amendment to avoid doing more harm than good.
Lord Desai (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I must apologise for going in and out of the Chamber while other noble Lords were speaking; I had not timetabled for all the business that happened between Oral Questions and the start of this debate.
I will first say that I happen to be a martyr in this struggle for academic freedom and freedom of speech. I was a lecturer at LSE in the academic year 1968-69, when at least two of my colleagues got sacked. Do not for a moment believe that we always had academic freedom in this country; nor should we believe that there is academic freedom in the United States, despite the first amendment and all that. The teacher who supervised me—whom I shall not name—had to leave the university overnight because of McCarthyism. He had to come to Oxford for shelter for a few years before he could go back to America. He was told, “Just leave the country and don’t ask any questions before you get called by the state legislature for your views.” He was an econometrician and a mathematical person; he was not even like me, someone with mixed thoughts. We must always ask for some protection.
Obviously, when you are old, you do not like what the young are doing; you think they are completely out of kilter and should be stopped from doing whatever they are doing. Notwithstanding that, I feel that there is a problem with academic freedom. From what I read in the newspapers, there is a problem with cancel culture. This clearly includes the idea that, if you discuss issues of gender or sex, there are bars to discussing those any further. It happened to me: I shall not name the person who stopped me, but when I was discussing International Women’s Day in a debate in your Lordships’ House and tried to make a distinction between people who are born women and those who have chosen to be women, someone immediately got up and said, “Stop this now; don’t go any further. You’re not allowed to go any further.” I thought that was all right and sat down. It did not really matter; I was not saying anything profoundly original.
I think there is a climate where there are certain topics which cannot be discussed. It used to be the case, again in the 1960s, with a man called Professor Eysenck who used to teach somewhere in south London that whenever he appeared at the LSE the most left-wing of the students used to want to prevent him from speaking. I was one of the few people saying: “Let him speak. Speaking does no harm to anybody. He is just expressing an opinion.”
The whole point is that people think speaking causes harm and speaking itself is an offence. This has happened with JK Rowling and the woman at Sussex who was a professor and had to leave.
I think there is a problem. Now, the question really is: does this Bill solve it or does it create other problems? I think that is a matter of detail; it is not a matter of principle. Even if it was true that academic freedom was beautifully protected and everything was fine, it would still not do any harm to have a law passed.
The question to examine is not whether the Bill is necessary but whether we can improve it so that it does more good than harm. It is our duty as the elderly House which has lots of talent in various ways: the people here who run universities, who have been to universities, who are free-thinking people. Let us get together and construct a solution to this problem which does as little harm as possible and as much good as possible.
I am somewhat worried about this thing about universities and foreign money. It almost looks to me like xenophobia, as if all foreign money is suspect and foreigners are not like us; therefore, they are not good enough. If they are giving money, why are they giving it?
I remember I had tutees from China in the great days of Mao. They came and I was able to subvert them. I thought that it was very good that they were there because I was able to tell them how they could think in a way independent of the way they were taught to think. I do not know what happened to them later on.
The fact that people from foreign countries with dubious prospects come to our universities is no problem. Our task is to make them think better, to think freely. Let us make quite sure that the universities satisfy the requirement of economic freedom and protect freedom of speech but, beyond that, let us not interfere too much and ask, “Why did you admit this man from Russia?” We normally give them peerages, but that is not always the right thing to do.
Our task is to make quite sure that our universities are safe to do what they want to do and people do not have to leave or resign or be blackballed just because they have a view which a noisy minority may not like. It is a Bill which we ought to improve and let us go ahead and improve it.
Viscount Eccles (Con)
My Lords, in following the noble Lord, Lord Desai, I agree with him that the Bill is attempting to deal with very clear problems, but I am not sure it is dealing with them as a matter of detail. I think it also treads on the ground of principles. In following the noble Lord, Lord Desai, I am very conscious of the speech from the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, which I thought was an extremely good exposition of the position.
My question at this late stage in the debate in thinking about whether the Bill will improve the situation for freedom of speech is to wonder about the present regime. It depends predominantly on, I think, Section 43 of the 1986 Act and, of course, on the provisions of the 2017 Act, which set out the OfS.
It is interesting to look at the general duties in Section 2 of the 2017 Act. The first one is
“the need to protect the institutional autonomy of English higher education providers”.
I suppose that we agree with that.
I am not absolutely certain that every provider of higher education quite appreciates the importance of the word “autonomy”. I have a feeling that some providers, in their evidence that led to the Bill, are looking for some shelter or some cover, and my concern is not to give them that shelter or cover, and not to give up on the general duty to protect institutional autonomy, because it seems to me that, for a functioning democracy to work well, it is extremely important that we have autonomous institutions between Parliament and the people. I am not at all clear to what extent it is part of Parliament’s duty or, indeed, in Parliament’s interests, to get directly involved in trying to solve some of the problems that have been articulated this evening.
Indeed, Section 2(8)(a) of the 2017 Act, under “General duties”, which goes somewhat beyond the original list of eight duties, says that the OfS must have regard to
“the freedom of … providers … to conduct their day to day management in an effective and competent way.”
The freedom and indeed the duty to manage day-to-day affairs goes back a long way in our post-war history. It goes back, in fact, to Herbert Morrison and his control, on behalf of Attlee, of the nationalisation programme, where the distinctiveness of day-to-day management was set up and was extremely important to all of us who dealt with those institutions subsequently: on the whole, it worked extremely well. This leads me to say that Parliament should be very careful about eroding that freedom to conduct day-to-day management.
So, in thinking about these problems and thinking about the Bill, which is after all a big insertion into existing legislation—if and when it becomes an Act, it is not actually going to be a separate Act; it is going to be an insertion into the existing Act—we should be very conscious of the fact that it may be that this is not really a matter for Parliament when it comes to how we are going to deal with the problems of today and preserve the freedom of speech. I think we should have one more big effort to say to the higher education providers, “This matter is really up to you. There is sufficient legislation to enable you to carry out these duties, and we see it as being a preferable way of conducting business only to do those things that, after suitable consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny, we agree mutually should be done, rather than that anything is imposed upon you because we have identified a problem and, in our search for votes, we want to put something to Parliament without sufficient care and consideration.”
Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-Afl)
My Lords, like many noble Lords, and indeed like the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, who has just spoken—my instincts are as he expressed—I have a certain prejudice against this Bill. That is how I originally approached this matter. I felt that free speech is so deep-rooted in the life of our universities that it needs no legal protection. I feared that statutory intervention in this area could prove cack-handed and, indeed, counterproductive. The noble Lord, Lord Willetts, reinforced that with his point about the online harms Bill: the contrast between that and the freedom of speech Bill seemed to be a very fine example of that doctrine of cakeism for which our Prime Minister is known—having your cake and eating it; doing two opposite things at once.
I have thought about this quite a lot, and I have come to think differently and to feel more strongly in favour of the Bill, for two reasons. The first is a matter of historical fact. We need to recognise that even our most ancient universities have not invariably upheld free speech. There are innumerable examples of this, but one that strikes me is that 150 years ago, roughly speaking, John Henry Newman, the future Cardinal Newman, famously converted to Rome. That is a very important event in the history of Christianity, but what is not remembered is that one of things he had to do when he did that was to resign his fellowship of Oriel College, Oxford. At that time, one could not say anything that denied Anglican beliefs if one worked at the University of Oxford. That is not an incredibly long time ago, so the freedom of speech that we hold so dear is actually something that really came about only in the late 19th century in our universities. By the same token, if it came about quite late, it could also go away quite easily: I do not think freedom of speech is necessarily as deeply ingrained as we might imagine.
But my second and more urgent reason for coming round to this Bill derives from my recent study of what has been happening in Cambridge. I do think that it is important to go through in some detail what actually is happening in universities in order to understand this. I should explain that Cambridge—I do not know if this counts as declaring an interest—is my own university, and many members of my family have been there. Indeed, my great, great, great aunt, Barbara Leigh Smith Bodichon, was the co-founder of the first women’s college, Girton. I love the place dearly, but I must say I have become alarmed about it.
More than two years ago, through a bit of journalistic research, I found out that Jesus College’s China Centre, far from providing academic study of that great nation, was pumping out what amounted to Xi Jinping propaganda. Its website used his own slogan “national rejuvenation” to praise his work. It gradually emerged as I started to ask more questions that the China Centre was financed by Chinese regime money and never invited critics of the Chinese Communist Party on to its platform. By this time, Covid was spreading from China throughout the world, but the China Centre had nothing to say. Had its silence, I wondered, been bought? I think perhaps it had—an astonishing thing that it could have happened in a great university. I must say I am glad that new Section 69D, I think it is, in this Bill—though I understand the worries of the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, about the detail of it—will make sure that there is provision so that we can understand if money is coming from foreign regimes. That is very important, particularly in the case of China.
I further discovered that this engagement with a communist regime was not the frolic of one college but was strongly backed by Cambridge’s vice-chancellor, Professor Stephen Toope, who had himself spoken in Beijing about his admiration for President Xi’s polices. I found that all my inquiries about these matters were fiercely resisted by the university and college authorities, I have never to this day been allowed to interview or speak to the director of the China Centre, Professor Nolan.
So it was in this context that I became interested in the universities’ current attitude to free speech. In 2019, the controversial conservative thinker Dr Jordan Peterson had had the offer of a visiting fellowship withdrawn because it was said his views might upset students. But on the other hand, Dr Priyamvada Gopal, a fellow of Churchill College, was very differently treated. After she was criticised online for tweeting the words “White Lives Don’t Matter”, she was immediately made a professor. Not long after that, in December 2020, Professor Toope promulgated a new definition of free speech which he wanted the university to adopt. It insisted that freedom of speech must be qualified by the need to be “respectful” of the opinions and “the diverse identity” of others. Freedom of speech was no good, he said, if people were
“made to feel personally attacked”.
Critics of Professor Toope’s approach did not, of course, support personal attacks, but they did point out that if being personally attacked was to be defined by the feelings of the alleged victim, then the effect would be to give any objector a veto on free speech. Despite backing for the Toope definition from the university establishment, the dons, led by Professor Arif Ahmed of Caius College, defeated it in a proportion of four to one, and the word “respect” in the Toope definition was replaced by “tolerate”, which is exactly right.
Now if that had been the end of it, I might have conceivably been voting “Not content” tonight, because self-correction would have prevailed without the need of law, but I was struck by what happened next. Professor Toope apparently accepted the revised definition, but six months later the university suddenly announced what it called a new reporting tool. This provided for the anonymous denunciation of those accused of “racism, discrimination, and microaggressions”. Its definition of racism included—
“a system of advantage that sets whiteness as the norm … and promoting (implicitly or explicitly) being white.”
If racism and whiteness were to be equated, some dons realised, no white person could ever be guaranteed freedom of speech: any exercise of that right could, by definition, be ruled racist. There was a fearful row about it and the Cambridge authorities muttered about how a template from other universities had somehow entered “certain ancillary material” into the system, and the reporting tool was withdrawn. However, in November, a Cambridge college—Downing—tried yet again, criticising “whiteness” and seeking to police not only conduct but beliefs. This document was slightly modified under protest but not withdrawn.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, mentioned, this month, Cambridge University’s HR department put out what it calls a “mutual respect policy”. Although it insists that it contains nothing contrary to freedom of speech, it provides for mandatory training courses in which the concept of “respect” can be suborned to enforce or suppress certain opinions. I am afraid that, in many workplaces, HR is now becoming a politicised means of impeding free speech rather than caring for the needs of employees. I have taken your Lordships through this sequence because it shows a pattern to be found not only in Cambridge but across higher education, using co-ordinated materials and similar ideology.
Before the end of the last century, the concept of institutional racism was officially recognised. Today, I fear that a culture of institutional repression has grown up, most severe in the place where it should be least expected: our universities. It rarely attacks free speech directly but that is its intended effect. It exploits our proper concern to achieve the fair treatment of individuals —especially ethnic minority individuals—as cover for its purposes. I have witnessed how the leadership even of a university as great as Cambridge has allowed this to happen. I feel that Parliament is well justified in stepping in to arrest this repressive trend before it is too late, and I therefore support the Bill.
Lord Strathcarron (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a publisher, often of higher education academic titles, which increasingly are digital-only and therefore easier to take down or cancel than physical books. I will come on to the relevance of that in a moment. Luckily for us all, as I am the last seven-minute speaker, a lot of the points I wanted to make have been expressed very eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, so this is a very shortened version of my speech.
Although any encouragement of free speech is welcome, there is an element here of the Government giving free speech with one hand and taking it away with the other. For example, an academic may now be able to lecture on a controversial subject—say, genetic or, heaven help us, gender politics or identity, all of which would come under legal free speech. But if that professor, one of his or her students or the institution posted that online and somebody out there who read it suffered hurt feelings, as they are bound to, and quickly organised a Twitter mob, which is not difficult to do, the Online Safety Bill would classify the content as “legal but harmful”—what a minefield those three words are—and outsource censorship of it to Silicon Valley AI bots, in exactly the same way as the CCP outsources its censorship of WeChat and Weibo, the Chinese equivalents.
In Committee, I hope we will be able to future-proof the good parts of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill from the bad parts of the Online Safety Bill.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, this debate started with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, talking to us about the importance of free speech at our universities; he used the word “discourse”. He told us briefly what the Bill was about—first, putting further duties on higher education, which would be done by a code of practice. The Government are very good at developing codes of practice; they are just not very good at following them. I hope that if this code of practice appears, the Government will make sure that it is followed.
The Minister also told us that there would be a director of free speech. I wonder whether the former editor of the Daily Mail will be pushed into this job, or whether the position will be filled in a proper way.
Every single person I have listened to in this Chamber has rightly said how important free speech is and has stressed the importance of free speech in our universities and colleges. Quite a number of noble Lords have referenced Professor Kathleen Stock. I have to say that the way the University of Sussex handled that matter meant that it was not the University of Sussex’s finest hour. However, very few Members have mentioned all the other people who have been shouted down, abused, insulted and, in some cases, lost their jobs—through the institution called social media.
In a liberal democracy, citizens have, thank goodness, the right to speak their minds on the great and small issues of the day. Whether that is on a soapbox at Hyde Park Corner or in a lecture theatre in a university, the hallmark of our society is freedom of speech. Fundamentally, it is the right that makes our universities among the best in the world. We must remember, however, that with this great freedom comes great responsibility to uphold the law of the land. You can speak your mind on the most controversial issues, but allowing your argument to devolve into, for example, racism or xenophobia, is patently unacceptable and so it is also unlawful for individuals or organisations to hide behind freedom of speech while inciting hatred and violence. Speech has its boundaries. Protecting the human rights of some individuals should not entail infringing the rights of others.
There will be occasions when universities judge that in the interests of the safety and well-being of their collegiate body it is not advisable for a particular speaker to lecture on campus as their presence may either dangerously inflame passions or otherwise threaten students. It is a difficult decision to make, but it is a power that Governments retain when they decide to refuse entry permits for certain overseas visitors who are invited to speak at events; likewise, it is a decision that must remain the prerogative of individual universities, which have a duty of care and well-being for all their students. I fear that if passed, the Bill will strip those institutions of this ability to make those important decisions on behalf of their students’ safety and will subject universities to unending and needless lawsuits.
In truth, the Bill is just not needed, as my noble friend Lady Garden said. We have heard a lot of noise from the Government about how free speech is being curtailed on university campuses, speakers are being no-platformed and students are apparently unable to speak their minds. However, the Office for Students has found no evidence of free speech being systematically suppressed on campuses. Further, of all the speaker requests made to universities from 2019 to 2020, only 0.21%—I stress that—were rejected. Could the Minister tell me where is this “epidemic of suppression” the Government have been droning on about? Why are we spending hours on this legislation, subjecting university authorities to a potential landslide of civil suits and rendering universities less able to safeguard their students, all to rectify a problem that, if it exists, is very minor—0.21%. Is it really an issue?
The Bill sounds like a dog whistle for right-wingers who feel that universities are hothouses for left-wing thought and action. They are the very same right-wingers who shout “foul” when critics take aim at their ideas, be it the British Council, as my noble friend Lord Wallace said, or the BBC et cetera. The Government should not be entertaining this group of people at all, not least with a Bill such as this which opens up a Pandora’s box for our already stressed universities.
Those same stressed, and now threatened, universities are on the cutting edge of research, often doing world-leading work in conjunction with our international partners. It is vital this work continues, so I welcome the Bill’s inclusion of new, easier reporting requirements that will allow more seamless research agreements between our universities and our most trusted friends around the world. But the Bill could go further. We should also raise the reporting threshold for such agreements, so that small partnerships with other friendly nations are not needlessly held up by red tape.
Like the noble Lords, Lord Johnson of Marylebone and Lord Stevens, I welcome the addition to the Bill of countries exempt from the before-mentioned reporting standards. This will ensure that research partnerships with our most trusted allies will be unencumbered by the regulatory friction that can so often stall the best of agreements. Is the Minister worried that enforcing reporting requirements on non-exempt countries might have a chilling effect on foreign investment in our universities? I should be very appreciative if he could meet me and other concerned Peers at a later date to discuss this issue.
In closing, the Bill does more harm than good for our nation’s most important centres of education. Far from encouraging unfettered speech, I think we all need to recognise that language is a powerful weapon, and we should all be aware of the harm it can cause. We live in an age when we are, I hope, more aware of people’s feelings and of how words can affect people’s well-being and mental health. Protecting hurtful speech in the way the Bill does is not conducive to a more understanding society.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I was not going to declare an interest until I heard the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, which reminded me that I too had been a visiting parliamentary fellow at St Anthony’s, which I enjoyed very much. I was a joint fellow with a Conservative Peer and we planned a schedule of lectures with competing arguments, so I understand the value of challenging thought and ideas—it is absolutely what makes for progress.
As we heard in the excellent introductory speech from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, the Bill has had a fragmented and bumpy ride through Parliament. Not many Bills would be introduced in May 2021, and complete their Committee stage in September of that year, and then finally get to Report and final stages on 13 June this year. What a long ride it has had.
The Bill is primarily searching for a problem. Sadly, my noble friend Lord Blunkett could not be with us today, but last week he put it to me that it is all about gesture politics. He said it is “Putting up an Aunt Sally that doesn’t really exist and knocking it down again”. What is the evidence? We have heard views about that. The report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights into free speech at universities in 2018 found that there was no major crisis of free speech on campus. As the noble Lord, Lord Storey, highlighted, the Office for Students said that 0.21% of invitations were rejected. We have heard a lot about the chilling effect, and it has lots of implications; whether it be for financing, through the number of foreign students, or for the number of grants, I have no doubt that it influences the response of institutions.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, referenced the UCU evidence. What I found really interesting about the UCU briefing on this matter is that, when I was at university, academics talked about tenure guaranteeing freedom of speech and guaranteeing academic freedom. Now when a student goes to university, half their teachers are on short-term contracts and likely to be sacked for all kinds of reasons. If that is not a chilling effect on academic freedom, I do not know what is. Let us make sure that we look at the evidence.
My noble friend Lord Blunkett also said to me that this is a distraction from what really matters to the sector and to students. Three out of four students are currently worried about managing financially, one in four have less than £50 a month to live on after rent and bills, and 5% of students are using food banks. In my opinion, that is the real crisis in our universities. Of course, the challenges faced by students reflect what is going on in wider society. As my noble friend Lady Thornton said in her opening speech, unlike the Conservatives over the years, Labour has always championed free speech. It was a Labour Government who introduced a law guaranteeing freedom of expression.
What have we got here? We have a Bill that has gone through the Commons and that will create a director for freedom of speech and academic freedom on the OfS board, as well as a new OfS registration condition on free speech, strengthening an existing duty known as Section 43. It also introduces a statutory tort, giving private individuals a right to seek redress for loss incurred as a result of a breach of Section 43, and so-called enhanced contractual protections for academics with regard to academic freedom. It is very difficult to see that given the stats which I have just mentioned. The Bill also has the addition of a duty to disclose overseas gifts and contracts affecting freedom of speech—which no doubt has persuaded some noble Lords to support it.
Across the House, throughout this debate, I have heard the serious reservations of noble Lords about the unintended consequences of these proposals. I listened with great interest to the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, whom I do not often agree with but on this one I completely agree with her. It is those unintended consequences that we should be most worried about. The Bill reflects a top-down, one-size-fits-all approach, which the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, referred to. It demonstrates a weakness at the heart of the Government and their misplaced lack of trust in the academic community.
I hope the noble Earl will address the concerns raised in the debate, which are shared not only by noble Lords across the House but by the sector. We need to know how the Bill will interact with existing legislation and other duties which relate to free speech and academic freedom, including, as my noble friend highlighted, the proposals to reform the Human Rights Act. Ministers have claimed that the new statutory tort would be a backstop, but what safeguards will there be to ensure that it does not lead to universities having to defend themselves against vexatious and frivolous claims brought by anti-vaxxers, Holocaust deniers and hate preachers?
We have also heard, from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry, about the interaction between the role of the OfS free speech complaints scheme and the director for freedom of speech and academic freedom, and how they will interact with existing ombudsman and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, said, the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education. We also believe, on these Benches, that there should be a requirement for the new director for freedom of speech to consider competing freedoms when investigating free speech complaints.
The noble Lord, Lord Johnson, raised overseas donations —a late addition to the Bill. As the noble Lord said, will the Government ensure that duties on overseas funding are targeted with risk-based exemptions and proportionate reporting? What sort of extra duties will be placed on universities? We need to have a proper assessment.
I have no doubt that we will return to these issues in Committee. I repeat my noble friend’s assertion: we will be tabling amendments to ensure that an independent appointments procedure is used for the post of director for freedom of speech, and also to ensure it is not a party-political appointment. I do hope the Minister will respond to her questions, specifically those about the post being advertised, the job description, and the requirements of the person specification for the job, which does not seem to address what we are being told the job is about. Certainly, with a closing date of 13 July, will we see this appointment being made before parliamentary approval?
Labour will also seek to broaden the definition of academic freedom, to include for example, criticism of institutions, conducting research and joining a union—something that I think is fundamental to a free and democratic society—and will also propose, as my noble friend said, a sunset clause to the legislation.
There is one thing I wanted to return to in more detail. If there is a problem—and I have heard from noble Lords and I accept there are issues to address—is this legislation the best way to deal with it? Surely, adopting and promoting best practice in our universities and with academics and teaching staff is the real answer. We have a sector that leads the world, and I understand the view of Universities UK that it is important that additional legislation and duties placed on universities that seek to address the small number of incidents that we have heard described this evening need to be proportionate. I have heard and read that Universities UK has stated its willingness to work with the Government on the Bill to demonstrate their members full and firm commitment to freedom of speech, which I think I have heard from across this House. But what I find most disappointing about the Government’s attitude is they have not really examined the vast array of really good practice. How do we encourage good practice? The Manchester guidelines, the Chicago principles or even Robert French’s independent review of freedom of speech in Australian higher education—to name but three—show countries around the world have similar issues, but the point is how they go about addressing them.
If the Government were really interested in promoting and protecting freedom of speech and academic freedom, they would seek to encourage this approach across the sector, as I think was referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. It would be far more effective and would not have the unintended consequences that this proposed legislation would have. Such approaches would go a long way to fostering the healthy culture of debate that we all want on our campuses. We have to understand that, sometimes, institutions and student unions will get it wrong. That is the nature of debates on the parameters of free speech, but it is a small price worth paying for a collective and more consensual approach to protecting freedom of speech on campus.
I have heard about the competing pressure on freedom of speech, safe places and respect. As a student 45 years ago—or maybe longer, I suppose—as a young gay person trying to study in that environment, actually, disrespect did turn into hate speech, and hate speech turned into violence. Do not think of words as simply a painful experience, if they encourage violence. That is what we experienced with Section 28—words that said that you cannot preach something in schools because it is a danger to children. That was in Section 28, and it is what we must guard against. Respect is about respecting all; it is not just about a difference of opinion. I want debate but I also want to protect individuals.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, this has been a memorably good debate. I thank all speakers for the knowledge and personal insights that they brought to it. I am grateful particularly to those noble Lords who felt able to give the Bill a broad welcome and I look forward to their constructive support as it proceeds.
As we heard, by no means all who have spoken were so positive. Some, such as the noble Lords, Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Collins, the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Royall, and my noble friend Lord Willetts are clearly very troubled by the Bill. So it is perhaps appropriate for me to start by addressing some of the deeper-rooted concerns that were expressed.
From the noble Lords, Lord Wallace and Lord Collins, the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, and others, we heard genuine concern that there is no substantive problem to be addressed and that any chilling effect or cases of no-platforming are being exaggerated, possibly even for political reasons. I understand these concerns, but let me try to allay them. The reality is that one needs look no further than the available data and information from the higher education sector itself to see that there is a problem.
In October last year, 200 academics wrote to the Times to report that they had received death threats and abuse simply for expressing views. They did not feel supported by their universities. One of those academics had expressed an opinion about the need to protect women-only spaces, such as refuges, prisons and hospital wards. However, this brought her into conflict with students and staff, who saw her opinions as transphobic. It also caused her to be compared to eugenicists and white supremacists, in addition to being called a bigot. This is just one case among those 200 staff who wrote to the Times.
Several studies, surveys and reports highlight instances in which freedom of speech and academic freedom are being curtailed in the higher education sector. A 2019 King’s College London report showed that 26% of students think violence can be justified in preventing someone espousing hateful views. A similar proportion reported not feeling free to express their views at university for fear of disagreeing with their peers.
There are also high-profile cases in which academics have been harassed for expressing perfectly lawful views. The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, cited the case of Professor Kathleen Stock, who resigned from her post at the University of Sussex due to fears over her personal safety after harassment from students. There are many similar examples. Professor Rosa Freedman’s door at the University of Reading was drenched in urine. At Oxford a left-wing feminist academic, Selina Todd, had to be given security guards after threats to her safety. Raquel Rosario Sánchez, a PhD student at the University of Bristol, was subjected to a campaign of intimidation by trans activists after agreeing to chair an event, held by Woman’s Place UK, called A Woman’s Place is Speaking Out. I could go on.
There is without doubt a problem with the suppression of free speech on university campuses. I want to be very clear: it is not confined to either the right or the left of political opinion. This leads me on to my next point, which is to address concerns that the introduction of the Bill is politically motivated. Students and academics from across the political spectrum have been impacted by the censure of free speech on campuses. From those on the left to those on the right, there is a real fear about airing what might be controversial opinions. The Bill is designed to protect free speech on a diverse range of topics, including minority ones. Freedom of speech and academic freedom are fundamental principles in higher education. This is not about promoting and protecting one political view over another.
I will clarify a further point, prompted by the noble Baronesses, Lady D’Souza and Lady Garden, and mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. The Bill is not just about eradicating no platform. It is about creating a wider culture on campus, such that everyone feels able to express their views and challenge those of others, even when those views are unpopular or controversial, and to do so without fear of negative consequences. Everyone needs to be aware that when things do not go as they should, there is a meaningful route of redress for individuals.
The noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, followed that up by asking: does this not need cultural change, not just legislation? Absolutely, yes. This needs cultural change, and we welcome initiatives by universities, academics and students to do all they can to move in that direction. But as we have seen historically on issues such as gender equality, race discrimination and human rights, cultural change occurs more readily when backed by appropriate legislation.
I turn now to an issue that has given rise to a number of expressions of concern. I listened carefully to noble Lords such as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry, my noble friend Lord Willetts and the noble Baroness, Lady Shafik, who are worried that the creation of a new tort, as proposed in Clause 4, may lead unintentionally to a deluge of court cases initiated by vexatious, publicity-seeking pressure groups. Nobody, least of all the Government, wishes to see universities burdened in this way. It may be helpful if I explain why I do not think the scenario that some noble Lords envisage is at all likely.
To succeed with a civil claim, a claimant would need to be able to show that a provider, college or student union owes them a duty of care; the category of those potentially owed a duty of care under the Bill is narrowly defined. They would then need to point to a genuine and material loss they had suffered as a result of a breach of the freedom of speech duties. Those tests are not a low bar, and any claimant who pursued their case vexatiously would certainly struggle to prove it. In the background, of course, a vexatious claimant would be assuming a considerable financial risk, not only in the form of their own legal costs but by being potentially liable for those of the defendant. That is why we believe the tort will be resorted to very much as a backstop. The availability of the free complaints scheme through the Office for Students, which will provide a much easier and more straightforward route to redress, should make litigation unnecessary and therefore unlikely in the vast majority of circumstances.
Setting aside for a moment the concerns around the tort, the noble Lords, Lord Wallace and Lord Storey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, expressed a worry that the wider provisions of the Bill would impact on higher education institutions in terms of administrative burdens. I am the first to agree that unnecessary bureaucracy directly impacts on how well higher education providers can do their job; every pound spent on unnecessary bureaucracy is a pound less that is being spent on teaching and research. However, I am also convinced that if straightforward measures can be put in place to protect our core UK values, it is right and necessary that we do so. We have ensured that their scope is proportionate to the risk. To pick up a point made by the right reverend Prelate, we sincerely hope that providers and student unions will embrace the mission to generate rigorous and healthy debate on campus, understanding how vital it is to academia and our country’s democracy.
I turn to the proposal in the Bill to create a new post in the Office for Students: the director for freedom of speech and academic freedom. The noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Royall, and the noble Lords, Lord Storey, Lord Wallace and Lord Collins, asked several questions about the appointment of this individual. As has been mentioned, the role was advertised publicly from 13 June 2022. To allay the doubts expressed on that score by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and the noble Lord, Lord Collins, I can reassure them that the Government can undertake preparatory actions in anticipation of full implementation following Royal Assent.
Worries were expressed about bias in the appointments process. Freedom of speech and academic freedom are fundamental principles in higher education, not the preserve of one particular political view. The director for freedom of speech and academic freedom will be appointed in the same way that other members of the OfS are appointed, under the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 by the Secretary of State, and this will be done in the usual way in accordance with the public appointments process.
My noble friend Lord Willetts, who I am sorry to see is not in his place, asked why we need the regulatory route as well as the tort. As he is not here, I will write to him about that and copy the answer to other noble Lords.
The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, argued that the Bill establishes the possibility of simultaneous penalties. It is already possible for there to be a complaint through the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education and regulatory action at the same time. The Bill does not change that. These actions perform different functions, with the complaint having the potential to provide the individual with redress but with regulation intended to ensure that provider behaviour as a whole meets its registration conditions using a proportionate approach based on risk.
The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, asked what the difference will be between the Office for Students complaints scheme and the complaints scheme operated by the OIA. While the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education will remain the body for general student complaints about providers, the OfS scheme will focus exclusively on freedom of speech and academic freedom. The OfS will offer a complaints scheme for staff and visiting speakers who cannot complain to the OIA, as well as for complaints about student unions also not covered by the OIA scheme. All those who consider that they have suffered because of a breach of the new duties will have access to the OfS scheme, including students.
On a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, I make it clear that it will be for the OfS to make decisions, not the director personally. It is not unusual for a regulator to be able to consider legal matters when making decisions; for example, the Charity Commission already does this in relation to charity law. It is also common practice for out-of-court redress schemes to consider legal issues when making decisions around a recommendation of redress. If alternative dispute resolution bodies could not consider legal issues, they would not be able to fulfil their functions. For example, the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education does this.
Returning to the issue of political bias—I draw this to the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace—it is important to note that the chilling effect on free speech appears to increase when political views are expressed. Studies confirm that this affects people from across the political spectrum. Policy Exchange polling shows that 15% of those identifying as centre or left are choosing to self-censor. The Government are clear that freedom of speech is not about promoting and protecting one political view over another.
The noble Lord, Lord Sikka, asked how providers are supposed to know what speech is unlawful. The Bill does not change the legal position in this country on what speech is lawful and what is unlawful. It will be for providers, constituent colleges and student unions to determine the lawfulness of speech by considering it in the light of the provisions of criminal law, such as the Public Order Act 1986 and legislation such as the Equality Act 2010. That is no different from the process that they must go through already.
My noble friend Lord Willetts asked whether the Bill was designed to protect all legal speech. Once again, as he is not here, I will write to him about that and copy my answer to other noble Lords. However, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, that there is nothing in the Bill that encourages higher education providers or student unions to encourage baseless and harmful claims or bad science on campus.
Certain noble Lords suggested that the Government were presenting a confused picture to universities on such matters as anti-Semitism. The example of the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism, also referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, was mentioned. First, it is up to providers as independent and autonomous organisations to decide on whether to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism. Secondly, the Government do not see a conflict between protecting freedom of speech and adopting the IHRA definition. I believe the Bill strengthens protections for freedom of speech likely to support Jewish students and staff, who, on a number of occasions, have had their speech shut down by others. However, the Government recognise that the adoption of the definition is necessary but not sufficient, and there is more that providers need to do to make sure that instances of anti-Semitism on campus are not tolerated.
I shall comment briefly on the Prevent duty, mentioned by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald. The Government are clear that the Prevent duty should not be used to suppress freedom of speech. The duty requires providers and constituent colleges, when exercising their functions, to have due regard to the need to prevent people being drawn into terrorism. The legislation imposing the Prevent duty in relation to higher education specifically requires that providers must have particular regard to the duty to ensure freedom of speech and to the importance of academic freedom.
A number of speakers, including the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, referred to the vexed issue of Holocaust denial. I wish to be very clear on this point: any attempt to deny the scale or occurrence of the Holocaust is morally reprehensible and has no basis in fact. In many cases, those who deny the Holocaust also have links to neo-Nazi extremism, anti-Semitic violence and intimidation. The European Court of Human Rights has held that Holocaust denial is not protected speech under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and our legislation does not change that. For the avoidance of any doubt, this legislation will not protect those who deny the Holocaust.
The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, asked about the Bill of Rights and specifically how that Bill and its amendments to Section 12 of the Human Rights Act will affect this Bill. The proposals to strengthen freedom of expression through reforms to the Human Rights Act complement the creation of this tort, which is seeking to give greater protection to free speech as well. If anything, the MoJ proposals only bolster the requirement that universities take steps to ensure free speech.
As a general comment, and in answer to those who have asked how the new duty fits with other legal duties a provider, college or student union may have under the Equality Act or criminal law, the duty to take “reasonably practicable” steps means that providers, colleges and student unions can take account of all their legal duties on a case-by-case basis. If another legal duty requires or gives rise to a certain action, it would not be “reasonably practicable” to override that.
My noble friend Lord Strathcarron was worried about the potential clash between this Bill and the Online Safety Bill. It is perhaps a debate for Committee, but I shall seek to persuade my noble friend that there is no conflict between that Bill and the one before us.
The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, raised the issue of overseas funding and asked why the OfS will ask for information about this pre-emptively. We are ensuring that the scope of the new reporting requirement on overseas funding is proportionate to the risk. We recognise the importance of protecting commercial sensitivities so that the sector does not fall behind its competitors in the rest of the world. We must ensure that the Office for Students has the information at its disposal to enable it to better understand the possible extent of influence from a foreign source at a country level. The reasons for that were well articulated by my noble friend Lord Moore.
My noble friend Lord Johnson, the noble Baroness, Lady Shafik, and the noble Lord, Lord Storey, questioned the level of the proposed threshold for reporting the receipt of overseas funds by a university and argued that the threshold should be higher than £75,000, which is the currently intended level. For now, I have listened carefully to the points they made. The Government have struck what they consider to be the right balance, but this is a matter to be determined in regulations, so there will be ample time to discuss it further.
In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, who asked what criteria will determine what overseas funding is acceptable, we continue to welcome foreign investment and donations to higher education as they are a key part of supporting innovation and development within our universities. Through the Bill, we are simply trying to implement measures that help to safeguard our world-leading higher education sector from those who may wish to interfere with our values. I would be happy to meet the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and other noble Lords to discuss these issues.
Time is now against me, as I have just been rightly reminded. I shall write to noble Lords whose questions I have not had time to address, including my noble friend Lord Eccles and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, who asked me why the Bill does not cover the rest of the UK. I thank all speakers for their contributions once again. I hope that my responses provided some useful clarification in response to the thoughtful points and questions that noble Lords raised.
Freedom of speech in our universities is under threat: unfortunately, a growing trend aims to prevent anyone from airing ideas that some groups may disagree with or find offensive, and we cannot ignore that. Hence, today, I have set out how the Bill will ensure that freedom of speech is both protected and promoted in higher education. It will strengthen existing freedom of speech duties and directly address gaps in the existing law, introducing clear consequences for breaches of the duties. Therefore, I take pleasure in commending the Bill to the House.
Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts