House of Commons
Prayers
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Speaker
I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that His Majesty has signified his Royal Assent to the following Act:
National Insurance Contributions (Reduction in Rates) Act 2023.
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mel Stride)
I had the great pleasure of visiting my hon. Friend’s jobcentre in April. Since then, it has been closed temporarily, I believe, and moved to Gloucester. I am sure there is no connection. [Interruption.] I am really sure, I can reassure the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner). Of course, it does a fantastic job in matching jobs through work coaches, jobs fairs, recruitment days and an extensive skills offering.
Siobhan Baillie
Work experience is often really hard to nail down—places go to those with friends and family in the sector, and employers are really busy. That is particularly so for small skilled manufacturing businesses in Stroud, so I am working with employability experts Finito to launch a campaign for low-fuss shadowing work experience across the board. We want to allow everybody, young and old, to find out more about weird and wonderful jobs, and to allow employers to assess candidates. Is that something my right hon. Friend is interested in, and will he meet me to discuss it?
Mel Stride
I thank my hon. Friend for the question, and I would be delighted for either me or the relevant Minister to meet her. I know the terrific work she has done, particularly with organisations such as Finito, in getting young people ready for work. Indeed, I believe she set up the all-party parliamentary group on the future of employability. I am very happy to have a meeting.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
Access to Work remains in high demand. We are increasing the number of staff processing Access to Work claims, and prioritising renewal applications for those with a job start within four weeks. We are improving the service through increased digitisation to improve the time from application through to decision.
Daniel Zeichner
I thank the Minister for her answer. Back in September, I asked the then Minister about the impact of long waiting times for Access to Work assessments on the neurodiverse, and I would like to press further on the impact of long waits for assessments in the NHS. What analysis has been done, and does the Minister appreciate the cost to the economy of not making the right adjustments to unlock such unused potential?
Mims Davies
I thank the hon. Member for his point. I, too, pressed the previous Minister on this matter, and I shall be pressing myself going forward. In fact, we met and fed in work involving Thriiver in my constituency, and we have been working with stakeholders, partners and employer organisations to make sure this link is joined up. We are determined that Access to Work will continue to be fit for purpose, and that we will deliver a modern and efficient digital service. Our new online portal is part of that. I think it is key to hear the experiences and to link up with other Departments.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
I welcome my hon. Friend to her new expanded role in the Department for Work and Pensions. The last time I raised Access to Work with her, it was about a particular blockage in my constituency, and I thank her for resolving that. She will know as well as I do that one of the biggest challenges for young disabled people is the transition into work. What reassurance can she give me that she is prioritising the applications of young people, so that when they move into their first job, that is not impeded by too slow a reaction from Access to Work?
Mims Davies
I thank my right hon. Friend, and I hope I am the Minister for getting things done in this brief, as I have been in all my other briefs in my almost five years at the DWP. I will be leaning very much into those details. I will be very clear with the House that the focus on youth transitions is really important for the sector and for the individual people we are talking about. I agree with my right hon. Friend, and I will be looking into that in the new year.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to welcome the new Minister to her post. After a week of no news, I was starting to worry that the Prime Minister was not going to appoint anyone. I think she is aware of the huge Access to Work backlog her predecessor failed to tackle. Over the last year, it has reduced by only 942, with a staggering 24,339 still waiting, so hardly a dent has been made. What will she do to speed this up and ensure that thousands of disabled people are not left waiting months to start work?
Mims Davies
I thank the hon. Lady for her welcome to this post, and I hope that I have already spelled out my commitment to delivering in this brief. I think that prioritising the process of Access to Work claims, renewals and job starts within four weeks is key, as is making sure that those with mental health support needs get additional support and that those who are deaf or hard of hearing also get that focus and that reach. I assure the hon. Lady that we have increased the number of staff in this space. On my handover from the previous Minister, I would take issue with the hon. Lady about the focus he had on reforming Access to Work and making sure it was fit for purpose, but I am happy to engage with her further.
Vicky Foxcroft
All we see from this Government are delays: delays processing Access to Work applications; delays publishing the disability action plan; and now delays in appointing the new Minister. When her new role was finally announced, it had been downgraded from Minister of State to Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State. What message does she think that sends to disabled people, and will she push to be made Minister of State like her predecessor?
Mims Davies
I thank the hon. Lady for lobbying for my elevation and rank in this House. I am delighted to respond by making it clear to the lobby and to those we are talking about and looking after that that makes no material difference to their day-to-day life. There is no difference in my convening power or in the day-to-day work. Our next cross-Government ministerial disability champions meeting is in the new year. Let me be clear: this is not about rank. We are sent to this House to serve people and to engage and listen, and I will do that whatever the title or rank.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
The Minister for Employment (Jo Churchill)
It is a pleasure to be back, Mr Speaker. We are delivering a suite of measures as part of the back to work plan, supporting customers on their journey to employment. That is focused on developing skills and building confidence through interventions such as the restart scheme. We are working across Government to support those with health conditions get back to work, with programmes such as our WorkWell service.
Mr French
As a Conservative MP from a working-class background, I believe fundamentally in aspiration, hard work and fairness. Does my hon. Friend agree that the benefit system must be a safety net for those in genuine need, and that those people who can work should work?
Jo Churchill
I thank my hon. Friend because he speaks perfectly for those of us across the Conservative family. Work is positive, a force for good, and the system should be fair to the taxpayer and the claimant, with checks and balances. It is right that, on average, those in work are some £6,000 better off per year. Universal credit was introduced and further rolled out because it is a welfare system that makes work pay.
Greg Smith
Skills are clearly key to supporting the long-term unemployed to find work. Buckinghamshire Council is launching a series of skills bootcamps, targeted at the long-term unemployed. For example, one bootcamp will provide construction skills, including a construction skills certification scheme card, plus support to reach self-employment and wraparound support on how to set up a company. Will my hon. Friend congratulate Buckinghamshire Council on that initiative, and say what more she can do to ensure that those who need to upgrade their skills base are able to do so?
Jo Churchill
I am delighted to congratulate not only Buckinghamshire Council but my hon. Friend on the fantastic work he does in his constituency. Upskilling jobseekers, particularly in areas such as construction where we need more domestic workers, is vital. The Department for Work and Pensions continues to support individuals into employment through back to work programmes such as the restart scheme, which provides tailored training programmes and sector-based work academy programmes similar to those mentioned by my hon. Friend. It offers training, work placements, and guaranteed job interviews, and I am committed to exploring what more can be done.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Earlier today I met Everyone’s Environment, and we talked about how we can ensure that people with disabilities benefit from some of the new green jobs and training that are coming on board. I know that the Minister’s predecessor as Minister for employment sat on the green jobs delivery group, so will she say what involvement she has had with that group to date?
Jo Churchill
I have already had a meeting of the inter-ministerial group on green jobs, and I have met many of those from across the disability sector. When I was a Minister in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, I sat on the inter-ministerial groups for green jobs and for disability access. It is vital that we use everybody’s talents, because work is a force for good. Someone’s disability should not stop their talent shining, and I will not let it do so.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for that response. Many of the long-term unemployed have disabilities. Some of them cannot work, but some wish to work, and they need flexible hours because they do not know the times and days that they will not be able to work and will be off. What can be done to help those who have disabilities get into work, so long as their health can dictate when?
Jo Churchill
We have a whole suite in the back to work plan and the investment of £2.5 billion so that we can work with individual people to tailor plans for them. It is vital that if, for example, someone’s health condition restricts when they can travel on public transport, we work with them to ensure that they can travel after rush hour. They might need a taxi or some other tailored support. That can be done, and it will be done.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mel Stride)
The Government are committed to increasing employment. Payroll employment is at a near record high of 30.2 million, which is up 1.2 million on the pre-pandemic level. The Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts that our back to work plan will see 30,000 more people in work over the forecast period.
Chris Elmore
The OBR revealed at the time of the autumn statement that after more than 13 years of this Conservative Government, 600,000 more people will be on health and disability benefits by 2028-29. Far from it being a back to work Budget, the Secretary of State knows that that is not anything like the truth and that the Tories are failing the employment market in this country.
Mel Stride
I cannot agree with that. In fact, I point the hon. Gentleman to the figure of 371,000, which is the number of people fewer the OBR forecasts will be on those very long-term sickness and disability benefits because of the reforms that this Government are bringing in.
Judith Cummins
Last week, the Office for National Statistics published figures showing that 6.6% of people of working age in Bradford are claiming out-of-work benefits, which is the highest rate in the Leeds city region. Does the Secretary of State believe that the Government’s back to work plan is working for people in my constituency of Bradford South?
Mel Stride
The back to work plan has billions of pounds-worth of investment behind it, including the £3.5 billion announced by the Chancellor in the spring Budget. Such things as extending restart, bringing forward mandatory placements after 18 months to ensure that people get into work and doubling universal support are important measures that will see increased numbers in work.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
All we hear from the Secretary of State on employment is smoke and mirrors, but thankfully the OBR has published the numbers. We have just heard what he believes is happening with employment because of his policies, but when the OBR looked at his policies, did its forecast show the employment rate, compared with today, to be going up or down in 2024-25?
Mel Stride
I have already shared the figures with the House, which are that payroll employment is at a near historic high and unemployment is at a near historic low. As the hon. Lady will know, we have never had a Labour Government leave office with unemployment lower at the end of their term than when they started. Youth unemployment went up 45% under the Labour party, whereas under this Conservative Government it has reduced by 45%.
Alison McGovern
You can always tell the Conservatives are struggling to answer the questions, Mr Speaker, because they go back to those same old things about what happened under the last Labour Government. After 13 years, they have nothing to be proud of. If what the Secretary of State said was true, we might expect that after a little time some of his policies would work, but is it not true that it is not just next year that the OBR forecasts the employment rate to be down, but the year after that, too?
Mel Stride
We will continue to bear down on the level of unemployment. As the hon. Lady knows, economic inactivity has reduced, and we have 300,000 fewer people in economic inactivity than at the peak during the pandemic. We have a plan. Is it not the reality that the Opposition have no plan and no ideas as to how to get those numbers down? We do, and it is working.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mel Stride)
In 2022-23, fraud and error fell by 10%. We are investing £900 million in addition to that which we have already put forward to prevent £2.4 billion of fraud and error by 2024-25.
Nigel Mills
I thank the Secretary of State for his answer and welcome the measures the Government are taking. On the new powers to search through bank accounts to look for fraudulent transactions, can he confirm that the Government will seek to use them only where fraud is suspected and will not, as some people have suggested, search every state pensioner’s bank account to look for something that almost certainly will not be there?
Mel Stride
I thank my hon. Friend for what is a very important question, because there has been a great deal of scaremongering about what exactly these powers are about. I can make it categorically clear from the Dispatch Box that these powers are there to make sure that, in instances where there is a clear signal of fraud or error, my Department is able to take action. In the absence of that, it will not.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
The cost of living payments are a vital means of support during the cost of living crisis, but my constituent has lost out, through no fault of her own, because of the well-known issue whereby two of her work paydays fell within the assessment period used to assess eligibility. Will the Government review the eligibility process for the third cost of living payments to ensure that no one else misses out?
Mel Stride
This is a long-standing issue that crops up every few years. It is not something on which the Government intend to take specific action. We trust people to manage their finances, such that they can cope with the occasional eventuality where there is an additional year within any one calendar year.
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
This Government have made it clear that we believe that work is the best route out of poverty. It is important for different types of work to exist, as each individual worker’s circumstances are personal to them, and DWP has an in-work progression offer to support low-paid claimants to progress into better-paid and more secure employment.
John Penrose
Does the Minister agree that the difference between insecure or exploitative work and going plural with a portfolio of well-paid freelance or part-time roles depends on how valuable someone’s skills are? Ministers are rightly offering fresh opportunities for jobseekers to improve their skills, but in a post-pandemic world that is very different from what went before, what plans does she have to revisit and update the recommendations of the Taylor review to protect people whose skills have not yet been upgraded?
Mims Davies
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. As someone who was self-employed for not far off 15 years, I understand where he is coming from. Our work coaches at Jobcentre Plus offices engage with claimants to support access to skills provision. They get a comprehensive range of support, which includes apprenticeships, skills bootcamps, vocational and basic training skills, and careers advice, so that they can work in a way that suits them. Less than 1% of workers on zero-hours contracts want more hours—it is more about caring or other flexibilities—but I am happy to look at the points he has raised in the Chamber today.
Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
Last week, Uber came to Parliament to brief MPs on partnerships it has set up to support its drivers, including its recognition agreement with the GMB trade union. All Uber private hire drivers are now auto-enrolled into a pension, but legal uncertainty means that that is not the case for Uber’s competitors. Is it not high time for the Government to bring forward their employment Bill, which was promised after the Taylor review, to provide a level playing field for employers and to tackle these problems of insecurity in the gig economy?
Mims Davies
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for his question. In fact, I have an Uber T-shirt from my time as employment Minister, which the company gave me when it brought in the pension. I applaud the work that Uber has done to support its workforce. The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which is actually for another Department, but I will take those messages away.
Andrew Western (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
In 2023-24 we are spending around £124 billion through the welfare system on people of working age and children. Evidence shows the importance of work in reducing the risk of child poverty. With over 900,000 vacancies across the UK, our focus is on supporting parents into, and to progress within, work. Our recent autumn statement announcements, which included the back to work plan, increasing benefits and increasing the national living wage, are all part of our clear approach to ensuring that everybody gets the right support to progress and thrive.
Andrew Western
I hear what the Minister says, but a recent report from UNICEF showed that of 39 OECD and EU countries, the UK came last in terms of improvements in child poverty between 2012 and 2021. As a result, one in five children in my constituency of Stretford and Urmston are growing up in poverty. What more can the Minister do to address this truly appalling situation?
Mims Davies
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that report. I have looked at it, and it is important that we react to it. I point to our record of action. When it comes to further support for households with low incomes, we have heard in the Chamber—indeed, the Secretary of State mentioned this—about raising local housing allowance back to the 30th percentile, which will benefit 1.6 million low-income households by, on average, £800 a year in 2024-25. When that is added to the national living wage, the uprating of benefits and the availability of work, we are determined that those families will progress.
Janet Daby
According to End Child Poverty, 30% of children in Lewisham East were in poverty in 2021-22, while Lewisham food banks have seen a 42% increase compared to 2022. That comes after 13 years of this Conservative Government. To make matters worse, the reported cut to the national household support fund means that more than £13 million for households across Lewisham have been taken away. Is the Minister really serious about showing the leadership needed to stop families in my constituency from falling into destitution?
Mims Davies
I am really serious about supporting our young people. In fact, in Lewisham the household support fund, which is my domain, has allocated an additional £13.3 million to support the hon. Lady’s constituents. There are local hubs for debt management and engagement with the local authority, and warm welcome hubs. I say to anybody struggling in her constituency to look at the benefits calculators, and indeed help for households, on gov.uk.
Mary Glindon
Figures from the Trussell Trust show that in the six months between April and September, food banks in the north-east provided a record 26,000 emergency food parcels for children, with the need having doubled over the past five years. The majority of families who turn to food banks do so because their income, whether from social security or from wages, is too low to afford the basic essentials. Will the Minister explain why the current design of universal credit is failing these families?
Mims Davies
As we have heard from the Secretary of State, 400,000 fewer children are in absolute poverty, and we thank our food banks for the work they do in supporting our communities. We do take this seriously. We have added food security questions to the family resources survey, and we will absolutely look at that. I would point to the hon. Member’s constituency having been allocated an additional £8 million in the last household support fund for exactly those families.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
On Friday, pupils at Shaftesbury Junior School in my constituency gave me the lovely Christmas earrings that I am wearing, which they made themselves using computer-aided design. I am so proud of all their achievements, especially when more than a third of Leicester’s children are growing up in poverty, with all the challenges that brings. As my hon. Friends have said, figures from UNICEF show that under this Government the UK has had the biggest increase in child poverty out of the world’s 40 wealthiest countries. My question is simple: what is the Minister going to do about it?
Mims Davies
The hon. Lady will have heard about our work on the LHA. I am extremely proud of the difference that it will make to families in her constituency and mine. With almost 1 million job vacancies across the UK, our firm believe is that supporting all families to progress and do well is the right thing to do. That comes with the full uprating that we have done this year on working-age benefits and supporting the LHA. The hon. Lady made the point that it has been a difficult time, and the household support fund and the cost of living payments, which start again on 6 February, will assist.
Liz Kendall
The Minister is completely out of touch with the reality facing families in Britain today: 3.8 million people face severe hardship this year, including 1 million children. Quite frankly, that is a shameful figure that has almost trebled since this Government abolished Labour’s Child Poverty Act 2010. Millions of parents are now worried about how they will feed, clothe or keep their children warm this Christmas, let along how they will buy them presents. When will the Minister change course, follow Labour’s lead and deliver a cross-Government child poverty strategy that gives every child the start in life that they deserve?
Mims Davies
We will absolutely not follow Labour’s lead—let us look at their record. People might be worried ahead of Christmas. Cost of living payments, the household support fund, the benefits calculator and help for households are all out there. I want the people watching now to know that support is there. Progression will vary depending on circumstances; we have a tailored approach. We have 37 district progression leads to help exactly those families that the hon. Lady talks about.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
The actions that we take to lift children out of poverty say an awful lot about our values. In Scotland, we have lifted 90,000 children out of poverty, with measures such as the game-changing Scottish child payment. Here in London, we have a Westminster Government, supported by the Labour party, wedded to a two-child policy that pushes 250,000 children into poverty. What does the Minister think it says about Westminster’s values on child poverty that they are wedded to a two-child policy with a rape clause?
Mims Davies
Adults in workless households are seven times more likely to be in poverty than those in working households. That is why our focus is on work. The Scotland Act 2016 gave the Scottish Parliament the powers that have been invoked, including on the child payment, and that is very pleasing for us. The Act transferred those powers for carers and disability benefits, worth £3.3 billion. The hon. Gentleman and his Government can make the decisions that suit their communities. That is the right approach.
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Paul Maynard)
More than 8 million pensioner households will receive a £300 payment this winter to top up their winter fuel allowance payment. The 1.4 million pensioners currently in receipt of pension credit may also receive cost of living payments totalling up to £900 in 2023-24.
Damien Moore
In Southport we have a significant number of pensioners who, having lost their partners, now face the added challenge of managing increased living costs alone. Can the Minister kindly elaborate on what specific initiatives or support mechanisms are in place to assist people in those financially difficult circumstances, to ensure that they get the support they deserve?
Paul Maynard
Anyone who suffers a bereavement at any time will potentially be in severe financial difficulties. I direct my hon. Friend to the funeral expenses payment, which is part of the social fund. I would also point to the wider measures that we have taken, such as applying the triple lock—there will be an 8.5% increase in the state pension next year. We will also include cost of living payments in the winter fuel payment, of £500 or £600, depending on the age of the recipient.
David Simmonds
Despite the welcome fall in inflation, my constituent Deborah Garrard speaks for herself and many pensioners who are concerned about a second winter of high fuel prices. Will my hon. Friend outline what further measures the Department is considering to help reduce pensioners’ financial burden?
Paul Maynard
I know that Mrs Garrard will not be the only older resident in the country concerned about energy prices this winter. I just mentioned the increased cost of living payment that we are adding to the winter fuel payment. In addition, we have increased the warm home discount to up to £150, and there is a whole suite of cold weather payments that can be made in the event of seven days of sustained cold weather. We have a wide range of measures to help support people when faced with cold weather and high energy costs.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
The Minister for Employment (Jo Churchill)
Universal credit is specifically designed to make work pay, with strong financial incentives such as the 55% earnings taper and work allowances. Working families can also get support with up to 85% of their childcare costs. The maximum amounts have been increased by 47%, up to £950 for one child and £1,630 for two or more children. Additionally, the rise in the national living wage from April means that some 2.7 million workers will be £1,800 better off, on average, as well as benefiting from national insurance cuts.
Stephen Metcalfe
I thank the Minister for her answer and welcome her back to the Front Bench. Basildon jobcentre recently hosted two health and social care recruitment events, which resulted in the filling of 20 vacancies, helping to reduce local unemployment. Does the Minister agree that work is the best route out of poverty and that it is this Government who are helping more people into work and aligning vacancies with employees?
Jo Churchill
First, I would just like to take a minute to thank Basildon jobcentre, and indeed all jobcentres, for the work they do, from Chorley to the west country and back to the east. Targeted recruitment fairs are a great way to work with specific sectors that have shortages, including health and social care, construction, manufacturing, and hospitality. My hon. Friend is right that getting more people into work is a top priority for the Department and across Government. We know that it is good for wellbeing, both personally and financially, and those in work are on average £6,000 better off a year.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
The overall number of children in absolute poverty after housing costs remained stable between 2020-21 and 2021-22. The latest statistics show that in 2021-22 there were 400,000 fewer children in absolute poverty, after housing costs, than in 2009-10. The Government continue to provide comprehensive support to help people find, progress in and thrive in work, recognising that that has to be sustainable in tackling poverty.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
A couple of weeks ago, when I asked the Prime Minister why 34% of children in Stockton North live in poverty, he claimed that child poverty was down. But even if we rely on his and his Government’s unique measuring tool, child poverty is still up, considerably, across every part of the north-east under his watch. According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 1 million British children have suffered destitution in the past year. When will the Prime Minister and his Ministers stop pretending that they care and make way for a Labour Government who will sort out the mess that shames the Tories?
Mims Davies
The Government are determined to ensure that all children, wherever they come from, have the best start in life. We are committed to supporting families and helping them into work. The full uprating, this year and last, is the signal.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mel Stride)
The Government are, of course, fully committed to protecting the most vulnerable, which is why we rolled out £104 billion in cost of living payments across the period from 2022 to 2025. It is why, as the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies), has repeatedly stressed, we increased the rates for the LHA housing support, and why benefits increased by the full 6.7%.
Richard Burgon
It is absolutely heartbreaking that in the world’s sixth-richest country we now have 4 million people living in destitution. We know that disabled people are more likely to live in poverty, yet this winter disabled people will not be getting any additional help with the cost of living after the separate disability cost of living payment was quietly dropped. The cost of living for disabled people is still going up, so will the Secretary of State commit to reinstating the payment, and at a level that meets the extra living costs faced by disabled people?
Mel Stride
I am not sure precisely which disability payment the hon. Gentleman is referring to, but certainly the cost of living disability payment has been paid this year, in addition to the increase in the national living wage, tax cuts and national insurance tax cuts, all of which help people, particularly those on low pay. That is why, under this Government, the level of absolutely poverty has fallen by 1.7 million since 2010, with 400,000 fewer children in poverty.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
The Minister for Employment (Jo Churchill)
Flexible working can play an important role in supporting people to start, stay in and succeed in work, and for businesses to grow. I have already seen at first hand examples of good employers offering tailored roles or changed hours to support workers, particularly parents, who have caring responsibilities. Flexibility has made a difference and drives success for all.
Tim Loughton
As the Minister mentioned, the hospital industry—especially in coastal constituencies such as mine—is suffering disproportionately from high vacancy levels exacerbated by covid and the shift in working patterns. What more can the Government do to encourage smarter working and job sharing? For example, students and younger people could work some of the later and weekend hours—the less social hours—sharing with parents with family responsibilities, who could work more regular hours during the daytime.
Jo Churchill
The UK hospitality industry does a fantastic job, particularly at this time of the year when it is helping us to enjoy the festive season. I am providing help and collaboration by delivering pilot schemes across the industry. In particular, we are developing a more standardised approach to training, which includes a proposal to award a hospitality skills passport. We need to do all we can with workers to build confidence and the right skills. I am interested by my hon. Friend’s idea of helping employers to refocus where the needs are, and I shall be happy to work with him, because hospitality offers a great career and transferable skills.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Paul Maynard)
I am fortunate in having already been able to meet representatives of the Pensions Regulator twice since my appointment to discuss the full gamut of their responsibilities.
Mr Carmichael
Members of the BP pension scheme, a defined-benefit scheme, have seen the value of their pensions fall by 11% in real terms as a consequence of their senior management’s refusal to upgrade them in line with the cost of living, although the pension fund itself has a £5 billion surplus. Does the Minister agree that if the rules allow companies such as BP to deal from the bottom of the deck when it comes to their own pensioners, these are rules that need to be changed?
Paul Maynard
That is certainly something I need to look into. When people raise the issue of specific pension schemes, I am always conscious of just how many thousands of scheme members are potentially watching, so I do not wish to speak off the cuff and raise hopes that I may not be able to fulfil. However, I shall be happy to meet the right hon. Gentleman to discuss the circumstances in greater detail and see what can be done.
Mr Speaker
I call Rob Roberts. He is otherwise engaged. I call Virginia Crosbie.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
The Government have a range of initiatives to help disabled people and people with health conditions to start, stay in and succeed in work. We built on that in the autumn statement by expanding universal support, launching WorkWell pilots, reforming the fit note and establishing an expert group on occupational health.
Virginia Crosbie
Does the Minister agree that the Disability Confident jobs fair that I am hosting in Holyhead with my brilliant Anglesey DWP team is an opportunity for excellent local businesses such as Hafan y Môr and Llechwedd Meats, and organisations such as Môn Communities Forward and the Menter Môn enterprise hub, to help people with disabilities back into work, and will she lobby the Secretary of State to visit Ynys Môn in February to open the disability jobs fair?
Mims Davies
I do not want to commit the Secretary of State, but I have a feeling that he will be in Ynys Môn in February. I thank my hon. Friend for the huge amount of work that she does in respect of local jobcentres, and for her work with those employers. I met her just last week to discuss her focus on young people. Her Local Jobs for Local People campaign is a great example of her tireless work for the future of the community in Ynys Môn—so, iechyd da!
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mel Stride)
May I begin by welcoming my new team to the Front Bench? Joining the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies), and Lord Younger in the other place are the new Minister for Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), and the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard). I know that they will make a great contribution to the Department. Let me also thank those who have departed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) and my hon. Friends the Members for Corby (Tom Pursglove) and for Hexham (Guy Opperman), who have important other duties in Government.
This has been a year of considerable achievement for my Department. We have already heard about the cost of living payments, the support for the most vulnerable, the 6.7% increase in working-age benefits, the 8.5% increase in respect of the triple lock for pensioners, welfare reform, near-record levels of payroll employment and almost historically low levels of unemployment, and rising real wages.
Siobhan Baillie
I welcome the Government’s decision to boost childcare payments for parents on universal credit by almost 50%, which the Work and Pensions Committee pushed for. I have asked the Department to review childcare rules for parents in training and education, but can my right hon. Friend outline the other ways in which the Government are supporting low-income families in Stroud?
Mel Stride
My hon. Friend is being too modest in laying all the progress at the door of the Select Committee, because it was she in particular who pushed for those reforms to childcare within universal credit, and I believe that she was quite rightly name-checked by the Chancellor in his Budget statement. We of course have the back to work plan, the extension of restart, the doubling of universal support, the greatest-ever increase in the national living wage and the reductions in employee national insurance, all of which are there to drive further employment.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
During the recent covid inquiry, the former Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), said that statutory sick pay was “far too low” and that if he had a magic wand, he would fix it. Given that the Secretary of State has the magic wand, as the Minister responsible for this, when is he going to fix it?
Mel Stride
I am certainly not going to start making policy up on the hoof at the Dispatch Box this afternoon or promising more money for statutory sickness pay. That would require discussions across Government, but I note the point that the hon. Gentleman has made.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
The Minister for Employment (Jo Churchill)
I thank my hon. Friend and note his relentless support for the seafood industry more broadly and the processing industry in particular. I understand that the former Minister for Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), visited Scotland earlier this year to look at that industry. Work coaches offer tailored employment support to all jobseekers and the flexible support fund is available at the discretion of jobcentres to purchase goods and services, including travel, to support claimants to move from one area to another in order to take up job opportunities. I know that my hon. Friend is working hard in his local area to find solutions, and I am always happy to discuss ideas with him.
Sarah Dyke (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Paul Maynard)
The advice to anyone seeking to top up their pension or buy extra national insurance credits would be to ring the Future Pension Centre in advance of making any payments, to determine whether they would actually enhance their pension by making them. It is always best for people to check before they make those payments, to make sure that they will improve their pension.
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
Jo Churchill
The DWP regularly publishes statistics on its employment programmes, and the latest statistical release of the restart programme was published on 7 December. The back to work plan announced further measures to tackle long-term unemployment, such as mandatory placements for those who complete restart without securing a job. The policy detail, including the reporting, is yet to be worked through.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
Mel Stride
As the hon. Lady will know, these are matters for the Treasury, and specifically for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He and I have conversations on these matters and others. Announcements will be made in due course, but of course the household support fund will be in place until the end of March.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
Paul Maynard
As pensions Minister, my main focus is on making sure that we have a high-quality, sustainable pension system that, year on year, keeps the value of the overall state pension as high as possible and that meets our manifesto commitment to the triple lock. That is the best way of focusing on the value of the state pension.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Twenty months ago, the Equality and Human Rights Commission issued a section 23 agreement request to the Department, following concerns regarding breaches and potential discrimination against disabled people. Why has the Department still not reached an agreement?
Mel Stride
As the hon. Lady will know, there are ongoing discussions on these matters. By virtue of the legislation that underpins those interactions, the discussions are necessarily held in private. I am informed that they have resulted in positive engagement, and that the Department and the EHRC will come forward with a response as soon as possible.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
Jo Churchill
It is fantastic to hear of the job opportunities created by Lidl in South West Bedfordshire. I know my hon. Friend will be working hard with Lidl and his local jobcentre to make sure the vacancies are filled with local talent. Jobcentres can work closely with large employers, as I have recently seen at Morrisons, which has a specific neurodiversity pilot to bring people into the job market. The barriers that restrict neurodiverse people are often challenges around confidence and so on. Jobcentres are a brilliant force for good, and I recommend that everybody engages with them on bespoke schemes for neurodiversity or any other focus on tackling long-term unemployment.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
In 2010 there were 117,000 16 to 24-year-olds on long-term sickness and health benefits. That figure now stands at a massive 235,000. Why is that, and what are the Government doing about those appalling figures?
Mel Stride
The hon. Gentleman is right. There has been a marked increase in the prevalence of mental health conditions, particularly among those aged 16 to 24, which is why we are bringing in measures such as universal support and talking therapies within the national health service, for which 400,000 additional places were announced by the Chancellor at the autumn statement. We have introduced measures such as WorkWell, and others, to address exactly these issues.
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
I have patiently sat through questions, and I have not heard Disability Confident mentioned once. Disability Confident was, and I hope still is, a very successful scheme that I launched when I was a Minister—I went around the country with Simon Weston. Can I have confidence that the scheme is still in place?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
My right hon. Friend will be delighted to know it is at the heart of the work that the Employment Minister spoke about today. It is at the heart of our disability action plan, which Members will hear more about in the new year. I advise all employers to focus on being disability confident and employing with confidence, rather than just writing about it on a website.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
After the UK Government appallingly downgraded the dedicated role of disabilities Minister, Scope’s executive director, James Taylor, wrote to the Prime Minister saying that
“the UK’s 16 million disabled people deserve so much better than this treatment.”
It is a clear message that the UK Government do not view disabled people as a priority. Will this Government urgently reverse their decision and reinstate the role?
Mel Stride
That is a complete misunderstanding; the hon. Lady refers to reinstating the role, but all the responsibilities of the previous disability Minister have been taken over by the current one, the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies), who happens to be the most experienced Minister in my Department. She is extraordinarily capable; she absolutely understands the issues and will do a fantastic job.
Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
I warmly welcome the new disabilities Minister, as I know she shares my passion for closing the autism employment gap. Will she work with me, as we reach the closing stages of my independent review of autism and employment, to make sure that the publication of the report will be the beginning of a process whereby we can dramatically tackle the scandal of having fewer than three in 10 autistic adults in employment?
Mims Davies
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for the opportunity to build on that incredible work, which will be life-changing for many of our constituents. The people we are talking about today are not statistics; they are humans, and they need to have a real difference in their lives. For Opposition Members, and everyone else listening today, let me say that I am determined to make sure that those people have a voice across Government and that I use my experience to deliver.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), a recent report by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research suggested that destitution in Northern Ireland is set to rise to 67%. That is a truly horrific and worrying figure. What discussions has the Minister had with partners back home in Northern Ireland on this matter?
Mims Davies
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this point. Our focus is on tackling poverty and making sure that work supports everyone across the UK. I am delighted to be coming to Northern Ireland fairly soon, when I will pick up those discussions further.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
The great working city of Gloucester has a high employment rate, but we still have some people who could help to fill vacancies in both city and county. So the Gloucester opportunities fair on 23 February provides a great opportunity not just for all my constituents, including to get free advice on debt, volunteering and benefits, but perhaps for the new Employment Minister, whom I welcome to her place, to come to join us in celebrating the availability in Gloucester and the support for those working there.
Jo Churchill
If my diary allows, I would be delighted to join my hon. Friend.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
My constituents Susan and David Cfas have made representations to me about the situation facing them and many other pensioners who are having to access benefits and other Government support because they are stuck in an annuity trap, whereby at retirement they posted an annuity, which has remained fixed. Will my right hon. Friend meet me to discuss the plight of pensioners in that situation to see whether more can be done to encourage them to access different approaches to increase their income?
Paul Maynard
That is certainly one reason why we are trying to get people to engage in a more considered way with what they do at the point of the decumulation of their pension funds, but I am more than happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss his specific concerns about annuities in due course.
Andrew Western (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
The Trussell Trust has recently reported that in the past year there has been an 80% increase in the number of children in Stretford and Urmston being supported with food parcels. Can the Minister tell me why it believes that is the case?
Mel Stride
The record speaks for itself: this Government have been behind £104 billion-worth of support for the most vulnerable over the period 2022 to 2025; poverty in absolute terms, after housing, has fallen by 1.7 million since 2009-10, when the hon. Gentleman’s party was last in office; we have 400,000 fewer children and 200,000 fewer pensioners in absolutely poverty—under the last Labour Government, we had the fourth highest level of pensioner poverty in Europe; and we have put the national living wage up by 9.8% and cut taxes as well.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
May I add my warm welcome to my near neighbour, the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex, as the new disabilities Minister? Does she acknowledge that one feature of covid has been a big increase in the incidence of mental health issues, particularly among younger people? What is her Department doing to tailor its programmes to get those non-working parts of the population who have not been working since covid and are suffering from mental health challenges back into the workforce?
Mims Davies
I thank my hon. Friend for welcoming me to this brief. I will still be very much focused on young people and those key transitions in their lives. We have our reform relating to universal support, our fit note reform and our WorkWell partnerships, which launched on 16 November and will support 60,000 long-term sick and disabled people to start, stay and succeed in work. The youth hubs we have at the Department for Work and Pensions, which are focused on the under-25s, zero in on this issue in particular.
Trial of Jimmy Lai
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs what steps he is taking to support Jimmy Lai during his trial and if he will call for his immediate and unconditional release.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
The Foreign Secretary has called on the Hong Kong authorities to end their prosecution of Jimmy Lai and release him. He also urged the Chinese authorities to repeal the national security law and end the prosecution of all individuals charged under it. The Foreign Secretary and I welcomed the opportunity to meet Mr Lai’s son, Sebastien, again last week and to listen to his concerns as the trial approached.
As the Foreign Secretary has made clear, Mr Lai’s prosecution is politically motivated. He has faced multiple charges to discredit and silence him. As an outspoken journalist and publisher, he has been targeted in a clear attempt to stop the peaceful exercise of his rights to freedom of expression and association. The Foreign Secretary raised Mr Lai’s prosecution with Foreign Minister Wang Yi on 5 December, as his predecessor did in Beijing on 30 August. We will continue to press for Mr Lai’s release with the Hong Kong and Chinese authorities.
Diplomats from our consulate general attended court today as a visible sign of the UK’s support, and they will continue to do so. We will continue to press for consular access to Mr Lai, which the Hong Kong prison authorities have repeatedly refused. China considers anyone of Chinese heritage born in China to be a Chinese national. It does not recognise other nationalities and therefore considers Mr Lai to be exclusively Chinese.
More broadly, we have made it clear that the national security law has damaged Hong Kong and its way of life. Rights and freedoms have been significantly eroded and arrests under the law have silenced opposition voices. It is a clear breach of the Sino-British joint declaration, the legally binding UN-registered treaty that China willingly entered into. Its continued existence and use is a demonstration of China breaking its international commitments. We will continue to stand up for the people of Hong Kong, to call out violations of their rights and freedoms, and to hold China to its international obligations.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I thank my right hon. Friend for her response.
Jimmy Lai is and has always been a full British citizen and he has never held a Chinese passport, and therefore he should have been publicly recognised by the Government some time ago. However, I welcome the change in rhetoric by the Foreign Secretary, who said today that
“Jimmy Lai is a British citizen”
and called on the Chinese Government to release him. I am pleased that there seems to have been a shift in policy. Notwithstanding that, I and hon. Friends have raised the issue of his citizenship with the Foreign Office to no avail, until now.
At the heart of the issue lies the Sino-British agreement. I recall that at the time of its signing, the ambassador in Beijing, Percy Cradock, said of China’s leaders that they may be “thuggish dictators” but that they were “men of their word” and could be
“trusted to do what they promise”.
How history always shows us wrong. We cannot trust thuggish dictators, and they have trashed the Sino-British agreement without so much as a by-your-leave. Instead, we now have political persecution, destruction of press freedoms, forced confessions and the targeting of foreign nationals as a matter of course. The national security law is the key, because it has been stripping away their rights, and particularly those of Jimmy Lai, who faces a lifetime in prison.
A new axis of totalitarian states has formed, including China, North Korea, Russia, Iran and Syria. We must be on our toes and realise that their target is democracy itself. Given that, will the Government reconsider their words in the integrated review and reinstate the idea that China is a systemic threat, not just to us but to the very values that we seek?
I must tell the Government that an individual already known to me and some others is being used in the persecution of Jimmy Lai. We know that he has been tortured to give evidence, so, clearly, his evidence cannot be relied on. In the light of that, will the Government give a commitment today that if and when UK or other citizens are targeted through the evidence at Jimmy Lai’s trial, concrete actions will be taken to protect them, and that we will do so by working with our allies, including the US, Japan, and others in Europe? This is a very serious issue and it may yet erupt.
Will the Government now sanction John Lee and others responsible for Hong Kong’s national security law? After all, the US has sanctioned 10 people and we have sanctioned none. Are the UK Government considering how to allow Hong Kong asylum applications to switch to British National (Overseas) applications to save all the heartache? As we approach Christmas, Mr Speaker, this brave and devoted Christian will—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sorry, but the right hon. Gentleman is way, way over time. I am sure that other hon. Members will bring in the other points.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I think we all agree with my right hon. Friend that the breaching of the Sino-British joint declaration is a great tragedy. As the Foreign Secretary set out, the national security law, which we are calling on the Hong Kong authorities to repeal, is breaching so many of those values that we understood that China was willing to maintain with Hong Kong after 1997.
My right hon. Friend mentions the integrated review refresh, in which the Prime Minister set out very clearly our perspective, which is that we consider China to be an epoch-defining challenge. It then sets out in great detail a number of areas of concern around China and economic coercive activity. We continue to work closely with the G7 and other partners around the world to tackle that and to work together to try to persuade China to reverse some of those policies.
Importantly—I say this a lot at the Dispatch Box as the sanctions Minister—I listen very closely, as do all of us here and our officials in the Foreign Office, on all issues related to potential future sanctions. We continue to look at those under the global human rights sanctions regulations in this arena, but we do not speculate about future sanctions designations, because of course that could reduce their impact.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
The ongoing detention of Jimmy Lai, a British citizen, is a stark symbol of the decline of Hong Kong’s freedoms and China’s flagrant disregard for the legally binding Sino-British agreement, which promised a high degree of autonomy for Hongkongers for 50 years. Jimmy Lai’s trial is a further chapter in the erosion of the liberties promised then to the people of Hong Kong.
My right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary and I have met Jimmy’s son, Sebastien, regularly and made unequivocally clear Labour’s position that Jimmy must be released immediately and that the national security law under which he is being charged is abhorrent. I welcome the intervention by the new Foreign Secretary as Mr Lai’s trial begins today, but there must be sustained interest by the Government, in a way that has been sorely lacking until now.
We cannot sit idly by while British citizens experience a politically motivated trial and the authorities attempt to stifle freedom of expression. I urge the Minister to give a firm commitment right here that the Foreign Secretary’s intervention will not be a one-off, and that the Government will follow Labour’s lead in sustained, consistent and full-throated support for Mr Lai and his legal counsel, and in putting the freedoms promised to the people of Hong Kong at the top of her agenda.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
As the Minister both for the Indo-Pacific region—China and Hong Kong are in my purview—and for sanctions, the issues of Jimmy Lai and others held in this way are very much at the top of my agenda. They always have been and always will remain so.
I have met Sebastien Lai on a number of occasions this year, and have worked closely with him and his team to understand the situation and to look at the support that we can provide. The frustration is that we are not able to provide consular access, because we are not allowed to visit him in prison. The Foreign Secretary set out yesterday that he has called for Jimmy Lai’s release, and we will continue to sustain that throughout the trial. At the moment, we expect the trial to last some 80 days, so we expect to see it wrap up in the summer. We will be working very closely with like-minded partners—US, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, European and Swiss representatives were also in court today—to make it clear that we all have one view, which is that this is a trial from which Jimmy Lai needs to be released.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I am interested in the question of Mr Lai’s nationality status. If he is a full British citizen, will my right hon. Friend confirm whether Hong Kong has unilaterally withdrawn consular rights for foreign missions to visit their citizens in prison, or is that specifically the case for those imprisoned under the national security law? Whichever it is, could she confirm that the Foreign Office has done everything possible to ensure that the Hong Kong Government realise that those rights of access for our citizens should not be violated lightly?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
My hon. Friend is right that consular access should, in an ideal world, be provided to all those who find themselves in prison, whatever the country. The frustrating fact is that it is up to a country—not specifically China—whether it considers dual nationality acceptable. Obviously, we will consider such a dual national British; they will have a British passport. We have absolutely done everything, and we continue to ask for consular access for Jimmy Lai. I was able to help him get a new passport earlier in the year because his old one had run out; we worked with the Home Office to ensure that. We are very comfortable and certain that he is indeed a British citizen, but as I set out, the Hong Kong authorities consider a Hong Kong national born in mainland China to be a Chinese citizen—hence their view on dual nationality, and the impossibility of our authorities visiting him in prison at the moment.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing this urgent question, and Lord Alton, Baroness Kennedy and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for their continuing and unwavering support for Jimmy Lai, who, as a UK national, is entitled to expect much more support from the Government than he has thus far received.
A 76-year-old pro-democracy campaigner in ailing health has been imprisoned for more than 1,000 days on trumped-up charges, yet it was only yesterday that his Government finally called for him to be released. I hope that I have misunderstood the Minister, but are we to believe that the UK’s influence is so diminished that we cannot get access to Mr Lai in prison? Will she detail what practical support is being given to him now that his show trial has started, and will she give a cast-iron guarantee that, in the event that Beijing gets the verdict that it is looking for, the Government will proactively come to this House to make a statement on what action they intend to take, rather than having it dragged out of them through another urgent question?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I will not reiterate my previous answer on the subject of consular access and the challenges that we face in being able to support Jimmy Lai in that way. I reiterate the hon. Member’s point that many colleagues across the House have been ardent champions and supporters of Jimmy Lai, and indeed of his family as they seek to ensure that his case is understood across the world. We will continue to call for Jimmy Lai’s release. The national security law needs to be repealed. Those are messages that we will continue to highlight with the authorities at every possible opportunity.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
Can I thank you personally, Mr Speaker, for granting today’s urgent question? The pantomime trial of Jimmy Lai is just the tip of a huge iceberg of the Chinese Communist party’s industrial-scale abuse of human rights and indifference to the international rule of law. Today, Parliaments around the world are expressing their solidarity with Jimmy Lai and the oppressed, freedom-loving people of Hong Kong, but there must be consequences. It is no good just monitoring human rights sanctions across the globe; my right hon. Friend has had years to name some of the legal and other officials of the Chinese Government who are undermining and abusing human rights as we speak. When will we see action, and what is she doing to address the concerns about the continual erosion of the judicial process in Hong Kong, and the involvement there of British judges? We need action, not constant warm words.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
We continue to use sanctions tools across the piece at every opportunity where the evidence comes to us and we can use it, bearing in mind that, as we always say—I am sorry that it is frustrating for colleagues—we will never discuss potential future sanctions designations, because it could reduce their impact. We will always listen to and look closely at the evidence brought to us, and indeed at the work that our teams across the world do, to try to bring to bear our sanctions regimes against the human rights violations that we are seeing.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
Sadly, as we predicted, the people of Hong Kong have seen their freedoms systematically eroded since the national security law was introduced in 2020. Pro-democracy activists such as Jimmy Lai have been detained, public libraries have been emptied of books seen as promoting so-called bad ideologies and the recent “patriots only” local elections saw opposition candidates banned from standing. Can the Minister please explain how the UK Government plan to uphold their commitment to human rights and freedom for all Hongkongers?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
The hon. Lady is right; it has been tragic to see the disintegration of all those freedoms, which, when both countries signed up to the Sino-British joint declaration, we considered that China would stand by. Of course, when we saw the national security law coming in, we responded very quickly and decisively, in particular with the new immigration path for British national overseas passport holders, so that we could provide that security for those who felt under most stress. We also suspended the extradition treaty with Hong Kong indefinitely to provide protection for those people and we have extended our arms embargo on mainland China to cover Hong Kong. This is a tragic situation, and we will continue to call for change and for the Hong Kong authorities to reverse the national security law and restore those freedoms that were part of Hong Kong’s extraordinary opportunity for economic success, as well as other things.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
Given everything that is happening in China, including this pitiful show trial, is it not now time that the Government of this country developed a proper, coherent cross-Government strategy for dealing with China, since they are patently lacking one at the moment?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
As we set out in the integrated review refresh published in March, China’s challenge to both economic and global security is one that we consider to be right at the heart of the challenges we face. We continue to work closely with officials and in concert with G7 and other partners around the world to tackle some of those challenges.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Minister will be aware, I hope, that Timothy Owen KC, who is part of Jimmy Lai’s defence team, is currently in Hong Kong but, because of the failure to give him a visa to deal with Jimmy Lai’s case, is not able to appear for Jimmy Lai. Will she make representations to the local authorities as a matter of urgency saying that surely the right to appoint counsel of one’s own choosing is a fundamental in any fair legal system, and that we would expect that opportunity to be given to Mr Lai?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
The interpretation by China’s Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress of the national security law at the end of last year stated that the Chief Executive would have to certify whether an act or issue involved national security, including the question of overseas lawyers’ participation; otherwise, its statement was that the Chief Executive-led National Security Committee should make the decision. So, attempts to challenge that have sadly failed and the High Court has noted that Hong Kong courts have no jurisdiction over it, but we have called on the Chief Executive to respect those rights and freedoms in Hong Kong and to uphold the rule of law as we all understand it.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
How many times must a totalitarian communist state behave like a totalitarian communist state before the Government will recognise it as a totalitarian communist state?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I do not quite know how to follow such an articulately put question. My right hon. Friend highlights one of the many challenges for those of us who believe in, uphold and want to allow other countries around the world to uphold those values and freedoms—freedom of speech, freedom of choice and freedom of association—and we will continue to work with allies and partners to highlight and to sanction, where we can and where we have the tools to do so, those who continue to breach those freedoms.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
I pay tribute to Jimmy Lai’s UK-based legal team. However, they have been subject to incredible levels of cyber harassment and other forms of harassment and interference while working on his legal case. What is the Minister doing with other Departments to ensure that lawyers and journalists involved in promoting and advocating for freedom and democracy around the world are protected from such unacceptable levels of transnational repression?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
The hon. Lady is absolutely right: there have been shocking attempts to dissuade, make fearful and stop Jimmy Lai’s legal teams here in the UK getting on with their job of defending his case and raising the issues that we have set out today. We work closely with the Home Office, as do his lawyers, to support it and other parts of Government to provide those teams with the technical support that they need. We will continue to do that. It is perhaps a question to pick up and discuss in more detail with the Minister for Security, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat). I can ask him whether he will discuss it with the hon. Lady, should she so wish.
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
Ten days ago, on 8 December, Jimmy had his 76th birthday—it is not rude to say that he is not a young man. This House could send a message to the rest of the world through an early-day motion. An early-day motion was tabled on 13 December by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and more Members need to sign it. I will not give the honour to people outside this Chamber who decry early-day motions—although, in fact, there are not that many of them. If we want to send a message, there is a methodology, although it is not the only one. I know that lots of colleagues do not like signing early-day motions, but on this occasion, perhaps they should.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The tools that we have at our disposal here in the mother of Parliaments, which allow for freedom of speech and expression, are incredibly important. As a Minister who spends a lot of her time on the other side of the world in countries large and small, I am very conscious that the messaging from this Parliament is heard loud and clear in every other country. We perhaps forget just how important our voice is in standing up for the values that we believe in.
Andrew Western (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Mr Lai’s detention is a shocking symbol of the erosion not just of human rights but of freedom of expression in Hong Kong. Given everything that we are seeing unfolding, what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that we are supportive of what remains of a free press in Hong Kong?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
Jimmy Lai has been an extraordinary champion of free speech, which he chose to continue, despite the changing landscape in Hong Kong. We continue to support people across the piece, many of whom have come to the UK for sanctuary, to be able to be able to speak out and use our freedom of press to share their concerns and highlight the abuses they are seeing.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I join the calls for Jimmy Lai’s release. He is a devout Catholic, and his faith motivates his courageous campaigning for democracy in Hong Kong. After the sustained dismantling in Hong Kong of freedoms of expression, of association, of the press, of judicial independence and others, does the Minister share my concerns that the threats to freedom of religion or belief in Hong Kong are now very real? If she does not, will she please read “Sell Out My Soul: The Impending Threats to Freedom of Religion or Belief in Hong Kong”, the new report by Hong Kong Watch?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
My hon. Friend continues in her role to be an extraordinary champion for freedom of religion or belief, and I absolutely agree with her. We continue, of course, to monitor freedom of religion or belief in Hong Kong through our regular six-monthly reports to Parliament and through interactions with local faith leaders. The latest report, published on 19 September, noted that:
“Religious practice is generally not restricted,”
with a variety of
“religious practices coexisting across the territory.”
She is absolutely right: the strength that Jimmy Lai seeks and finds through his faith is extraordinary and it will help him in this very difficult time.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on securing the urgent question. Jimmy Lai has many supporters in the UK, including Brits and those from Hong Kong, but many of them have experienced intimidation and harassment here in the UK from the Chinese Communist party. Those from Hong Kong face certain persecution, arrest and detention if they are forced to return. Twelve activists have recently been told by the UK Government that they are not at risk and have had their asylum claims rejected. Can the Minister explain UK Government policy on whether Hong Kong campaigners should qualify for asylum in the UK?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
As I set out earlier, we brought forward the British nationals overseas route for Hong Kong residents to come to the UK. So far, approximately 191,000 applications have been processed, and 184,700 have been granted. The point the hon. Gentleman mentions is one that I am aware the Home Office is looking into. There has been a change in relation to age in the processing, and there is an issue there that I know it is looking at now. I will ask the Home Office to update him once it has finished its review.
Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
A regime such as this has to be judged not on its words, but on its deeds. In its systematic demolition of the rule of law and now of the independence of the legal profession itself, which was such a lively part of an economically successful and prosperous Hong Kong, China is demonstrating its real intentions. What more can the Government do not only to take direct action by way of sanction against the individuals concerned, but to make the strong point that the Basic Law is not an historical document, but a living instrument, and that we expect it to be adhered to?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
My right hon. and learned Friend highlights an issue with which he is very familiar—he practises the law—and, indeed, he is absolutely right. The judiciary, the legal profession and those who are servants of it assure the safety and the right outcome of cases, and we will continue to challenge the Hong Kong authorities on the failures of the national security law and call for it to be repealed.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
The rule of law and how it is upheld across the world are absolutely essential to our global security and peace, and Mr Lai’s case shows how fragile they are, so what more can the Government do to reassert the importance of our all abiding by the rule of law?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and much of the work that our diplomatic teams across the world do is in countries where the rule of law is not necessarily adhered to, but where there are abuses, human rights violations and so on. We continue to highlight and challenge those, working alongside international partners to persuade those leaderships to change their ways, and to understand both the merits of a well-delivered legal system and the value that adds to the credibility of the political leadership of their nations. It is something we do week in, week out. Sadly, there are many countries across the world where these challenges continue, but it is right at the heart of the diplomatic service’s work.
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
The use of international lawyers has been a long-standing practice in Hong Kong, and we have failed Mr Lai. Will the Minister advise exactly what steps will be taken, and when, to secure or attempt to secure international legal representation of the British citizen Mr Lai?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
As I set out in answer to an earlier question, Jimmy Lai obviously wanted to have his own choice of legal representation. He has a fantastic team of lawyers here in the UK supporting him. The challenge for those representing him at the trial is one that we continue to highlight, as I set out earlier. The frustration in the way this system works means that he does not have the international lawyer of his choosing with him. However, we will continue to highlight those failings and, as so many colleagues have highlighted, what we consider the right use of the legal system and such independent representation should be.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
Every reasonable democrat will be happy to support the plea of the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on behalf of Mr Lai. However, there is a whiff of hypocrisy in the air. In 2021, former ambassador Craig Murray was imprisoned on the fabricated conceit of jigsaw identification, and Julian Assange has been held in Belmarsh prison for 1,300 or more days. Will the Government lead by example and desist from harassing journalist Craig Murray and others, and free Julian Assange now?
Mr Speaker
Order. I am not quite sure that that meets what we were expecting, so I call Jim Shannon.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
While I am thankful that the Foreign Secretary publicly acknowledged the case of Jimmy Lai at the United Nations in February 2023, and reportedly raised the case with Chinese officials during his visit to Beijing, the fact is that a British citizen remains behind bars. May I gently remind right hon. and hon. Members of early-day motion 213, to which they might want to add their names, and ask that the Foreign Secretary, with the voice of the entire British Government, including our Prime Minister and this House, calls for the immediate and unconditional release of Jimmy Lai, who has spent 1,000 days behind bars? Will the Minister do that today, and follow it through tomorrow with the appropriate channels?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
The hon. Gentleman is the most incredible champion for so many whose lives, and whose families’ lives, continue to be blighted by challenges to freedom of religion or belief. He is always willing to stand up for them. As a Minister, I do not think I am allowed to sign EDMs, but should you wish to change that rule, Mr Speaker, I would be extremely happy to sign this one. I think that all Members of the House who are able to sign it should do so.
Mr Speaker
I cannot sign EDMs either—even the girl guiding one—but I am sure that other Members will wish to do so. Let us move on.
Global Combat Air Programme Treaty
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Grant Shapps)
Thank you for that warm welcome, Mr Speaker. With permission I would like to share details of the treaty that I signed with my Japanese and Italian counterparts last Thursday.
A year ago, the Prime Ministers of the UK, Japan and Italy agreed to work together on a joint programme to develop a new generation of military combat aircraft. Supersonic and armed with an array of revolutionary new capabilities, our global combat air programme, or GCAP for short, will deliver vital military capability, strengthening and sustaining our combat air sectors, and setting the standard for future combat air. Above all, it will bolster our collective security. The fact is that we are living in a much more dangerous and contested world. Our skies and international airspace are increasingly contested, not least from threats posed by Russia and China. All three treaty countries are already making significant investments in combat air to pursue these lofty ambitions. During recent years, the Ministry of Defence alone has invested £2 billion in UK combat air technology, with a further £600 million from industry to shape the capabilities and develop the necessary skills pipeline to deliver this state-of-the-art aircraft for the future.
Today I am pleased to announce, as an early Christmas present to the House, a major milestone in that programme. On Thursday 14 December in Tokyo, alongside my Italian Defence Minister colleague Guido Crosetto and my Japanese colleague Minister Minoru Kihara, I signed the GCAP treaty. It establishes the legal basis for the formation of a new GCAP international governmental organisation. As everyone seems fond of acronyms, the GIGO—or, as Guido Crosetto told me, the “JIGO”—is now formed. It is with great pleasure that I now confirm that the headquarters of the GIGO will be in the UK.
The GIGO will be responsible for delivering vital military innovation, strengthening our trinational industrial capacity, and getting the most punch out of our pounds, euro and yen. While located in the UK, it will, however, be a partnership of equals, which is why the first chief executive of the new GCAP agency will be from Japan, and the first chief executive officer of the joint venture will be from Italy.
It is worth spending a brief moment reiterating why GCAP is so strategically important. It will immeasurably enhance our freedom of action, ensuring that the RAF has the global reach and cutting-edge capabilities it needs to conduct operations and exercises for decades to come. It will deepen our collaboration with partners in the Euro-Atlantic at a time of increasing instability, and it will also ensure that we remain a key player in the Indo-Pacific theatre, which will only grow in geopolitical influence and importance over decades to come. Indeed, our new treaty already builds upon our existing defence relationships with Japan, complementing the recently signed reciprocal access agreement, which facilitates mutually beneficial defence co-operation, and I was able to speak about that in Japan last week.
Like AUKUS, today’s treaty is a truly multi-decade endeavour with like-minded partners who share our view of the international environment. The agreement arrives two years after we deployed our magnificent Royal Navy carrier strike group in 2021, and it is two years away from a planned carrier strike group deployment in 2025, which will include Japan. Collectively the signal we are sending both to our allies and to our adversaries is clear: the UK is deeply committed to Indo-Pacific security and Euro-Atlantic security, as well as global security. In increasingly uncertain and deadly times, we will do everything in our power to preserve an open and stable international order.
We should never forget, however, that GCAP is more than just an engine of security; it is also an engine of prosperity. With key combat air hubs in the north-west and south-west of England and in Edinburgh, GCAP will help accelerate economic growth across the country. There are already around 3,000 people working on the future combat air programme in the UK, with almost 600 organisations on contracts across the country, including many SMEs and academic institutions. The GIGO headquarters alone will support hundreds of jobs here in the UK. It will attract substantial inward investment in research and development, providing opportunities for our next generation of highly skilled engineers and technicians, not to mention the prospect of thousands more high-value jobs right across the supply chains of our three nations.
More than that, it is a programme of such size and sophistication—it is a programme that will innovate on such an extraordinary scale, using artificial intelligence, digital twinning, open architecture and robotic engineering —that I believe it will inspire a whole new generation to get into engineering, aerospace and defence. Today, we are glimpsing the future, and it comes after months of intensive work to get this together with Japan and Italy, establishing the concept of a GCAP aircraft and the joint structures to launch the development phase in 2025.
One year on from the landmark deal that three Prime Ministers put together, our GCAP partnership is soaring to new heights. Getting here has been the product of immense effort and long sleepless nights from colleagues in all three countries. I pay tribute to their tireless effort, because today we fire up the thrusters to turbo-boost our nations towards a revolutionary air capability. That capability will one day surpass an earlier pantheon of legends in the sky, from the Spitfire to the Tornado and from the Typhoon to the F-35. It is a capability that will initiate a step-change in the industrial co-operation between our three nations and will usher in a new era of combat air power. Given all it will do for our country, I have no doubt that, when it comes to formally laying the treaty for ratification before this Parliament, it will meet with the approval of colleagues on both sides of the House. The treaty has been published on gov.uk today, and I commend this statement to the House.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
I thank the Defence Secretary for his statement this afternoon and for early sight of it.
We welcome the treaty that he signed on behalf of the UK last week with Japan and Italy, and we warmly welcome the decision to locate the GCAP government headquarters in London. The treaty is the latest in the planned steps for developing our tri-nation sixth-generation fighter and weaponry. Ukraine has shown us that some of our strongest allies are in east Asia and the Pacific, and we share with them concern about China’s growing military power and assertiveness in the region. We want to see peace, stability and deterrence strengthened in the Indo-Pacific. GCAP is, like AUKUS, a strategic UK commitment to contribute to that. I know it is welcomed in Washington and Canberra, just like AUKUS.
Most importantly, developing a sixth-generation fighter will ensure that we can continue to safeguard our UK skies and those of our NATO allies for decades to come. It will inspire innovation, strengthen UK industry and keep Britain at the cutting edge of defence technology. The Defence Secretary is right to report that to the House.
Defence industrial collaboration underpinned by treaty is unusual. It is a multi-decade undertaking for this nation. As the Secretary of State says, it should command support across the House, and Ministers should report on it openly and regularly. May I ask him what scope the treaty allows to work with other allies, both at a secondary level and as primary partners? Does article 50 ensure that the export problems with the Typhoon will not be encountered with GCAP? When will he lay the treaty before Parliament for ratification?
This month, the National Audit Office reported on the MOD’s equipment plan. It exposed a £17 billion black hole in Britain’s defence plans and showed that Ministers have lost control of the defence budget. In June, the defence Command Paper reaffirmed that the UK would spend £2 billion on this project “out to 2025”. Will the Secretary of State confirm what funding has been made available for GCAP in the defence budget for 2025 and 2026? In response to a written question, the then procurement Minister, the right hon. and learned Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), told me back in March:
“We will determine the cost-sharing arrangements ahead of the next phase”.
Has that now been done, ahead of the treaty signing?
Meanwhile, the Infrastructure and Projects Authority this year downgraded the GCAP programme to red, which rates
“successful delivery…to be unachievable. There are major issues which at this stage do not appear to be manageable or resolvable.”
What are the major issues that led to the IPA downgrade? What action is the Secretary of State now taking to lift the red rating?
The Secretary of State said this afternoon that the joint development phase will launch in 2025. His press statement on the treaty signing said this combat aircraft is
“due to take to the skies in 2035”.
Keeping the programme on time, as well as in budget, will be critical, so by what date does he expect the design to be locked down, the national work shares to be settled, the manufacturing agreements to be in place, and the first flight trials to begin?
Signing the treaty is the easy part. Britain and its allies must now do the hard work to get this new-generation fighter aircraft in the air and on time.
Grant Shapps
May I start by warmly welcoming the right hon. Gentleman’s welcoming of this treaty signing and the overall programme? As I say, Members on both sides of the House agree that the defence of the realm comes first. In an ever more dangerous world, it is important to have the facilities that a sixth-generation fighter aircraft would bring.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned that the HQ is coming to London, but I want to put it on record that it is coming to the UK. We have not decided a location for it yet. I think there are 20-plus potential locations, so I would not want to assume that it will be based in London. We are not as London-centric on everything as he may be.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about examples of working internationally previously. It is worth pointing out that the Typhoon was Italian, British, German and Spanish, and it has been a very successful programme. We are used to working with partners, including Italy, which is involved in this programme.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about article 50 export issues. I think his question is born out of a specific concern about German export licences, which we believe are resolvable. Time will tell. On a wider basis, we recognise that such an aircraft can only be truly successful if the market is greater than the UK, Italy and Japan.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the broader equipment plans, and he mentioned the £16.9 billion programme. There are a number of caveats. Of course, we have seen huge inflation, but at the other end we have also seen a big expansion of the amount of money that is going into our 10-year equipment programme. That number, which was a snapshot in time, was taken before the refresh and takes into account programmes that will and will not happen, so it is not quite as black and white as he presented.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about cost sharing on the programme. That is part of what the process of discussions both on the treaty and on the new GIGO organisation will ascertain. That is because the industrial capacity and capability of each of the three countries is important, as is the intellectual property that will be brought forward. That is part of what that organisation is currently establishing. It cannot be prejudged simply because we are likely to have greater industrial capacity in certain areas relative to other countries. The amount of project ownership will therefore fall on these factors: how much money goes in, the intellectual property and the industrial capacity.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about RAG—red, amber, green—ratings. If I remember rightly—I will correct the record if I am wrong—one of the reasons for the red rating was about laying a treaty for the project. That is one of the reasons why we are laying the treaty for the project, and we will carry on systematically working through any other factors that could be slowing up the programme or causing the rating to be lower.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the timing for the treaty. I am pleased that there seems to be strong cross-party consensus on this. As he will know, passing such treaties in this House is not a particularly complex matter—the treaty will be laid before the House, and it will be a question for the business managers. In other countries—in Italy and particularly in the Diet in Japan—there is a rather more complicated process, so the time limiter is likely to be more on their side than on ours. They will be looking to lay the treaty at their end in the spring, and that is more likely to be the issue.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the timings overall. It is a compressed timetable, with a specific requirement for it to be in service for 2035, which comes from the Japanese side because of its aircraft replacement programme. Japan pressed the target, which we are fully signed up to, and there are a large number of milestones along the way, including a UK demonstrator aircraft, which will be very much sooner. I hope that that information is helpful. I am happy to write to him with any further detail and to take further questions.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
In welcoming this project for a long-term future aircraft, may I ask the Secretary of State whether he agrees that the threat picture that will face it will in large measure depend on the outcome of the conflict between Ukraine and Russia? Can he say anything to the House about the efforts that he and fellow NATO members are making to ensure that Ukraine has some current aircraft with which to defend itself, so as to improve the prospects that will face us when this future aircraft comes into being?
Grant Shapps
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that air facilities and combat capabilities are essential to Ukraine, as we have seen. That is not just aircraft but unmanned vehicles of all types. That is why this aircraft—it will be known to some in the House as the Tempest, which was the name when we originally set off—will have the facility to fly unmanned. We know that Ukraine has chosen the F-16. We do not fly F-16s, but to persuade the world to give Ukraine aircraft, we offered the first training. That seemed to create a situation where other countries pitched in. We do, of course, help Ukraine in many other ways on unmanned aerial vehicles, some of which perhaps we will not go into here.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight his statement. The SNP welcomes this defence co-operation between responsible allies that will be taken forward. The Secretary of State rather brushed away the question from the Labour shadow Secretary of State about the £17 billion black hole in the defence equipment budget. Since the Secretary of State mentioned expansion, will he expand on that? Will he guarantee that other areas in defence spending are not to be sacrificed and that they will get the support that is required? When will he come to the House to detail how that support will be delivered? I will come back to that in a moment.
The Secretary of State talked about the additional market for this equipment. What concerns are there about Saudi Arabia joining the programme and the potential use of future combat aircraft in Yemen? What assessment has been made of the possibility of the programme increasing tensions with China and worsening the situation in the Taiwan strait?
Finally, I want to come back to finance. Can the Secretary of State detail how the UK will adhere to its treaty commitments if the shortfall in the MOD budget increases to £29 billion, as projected?
Grant Shapps
I should point out again that it is not a shortfall in the budget but a snapshot of a forecast done before the refresh.
Grant Shapps
It is not, simply for the reason that the projects in there may or may not go ahead. The largest increase in that budget was to do with the nuclear enterprise, which we all know the hon. Gentleman does not approve of in the first place because he does not want us to have that ultimate security of constant nuclear defence at sea. We are totally committed to that, and will make sure that it always exists.
The hon. Gentleman asked a good question about Saudi or any other country’s engagement. A programme of this nature is of great interest to many other nations. We receive constant inquiries. The Saudis have been partners with us in air combat for many decades—since Margaret Thatcher’s time at this Dispatch Box. We will see how their interest develops. He mentioned Yemen in relation to Saudi Arabia. Surprisingly, he completely failed to mention that Houthis from Yemen have been attacking ships, including the British ship HMS Diamond, which fired down one of their unmanned aerial vehicles this weekend.
The reality, as ever, is that the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the global context. We will back our RAF to have sixth-generation aircraft capable of being the best in the world.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
This is a really exciting announcement, and I congratulate the Defence Secretary. As we procure the sixth generation, we will become a leading nation in advancing air capability. Our world has turned a dark corner and has become more angry. It is right that we collaborate internationally—that is the way forward in upgrading our defence posture. He did not mention how many airframes he planned or hoped to build—perhaps that was deliberate. He did mention the F-35B. We originally wanted more than 130 of those, but we might be lucky to get half that. As has been said, the world will look very different in 2035, and we will need more F-35s. Can he confirm how many of those airframes will be procured? I do not apologise for saying this again and again: is it now time to increase our defence budget to 2.5%?
Grant Shapps
I thank my right hon. Friend for his points. He is right that having a sixth-generation aircraft in our fleet will ensure that we keep ahead. He will know that Typhoons are at four and a half, and the F-35B is a very capable fifth-generation aircraft. Our current plan is to have 48 by 2025, and another 27 after that. For 2035, it is not possible right now to provide an exact number of a sixth-generation aircraft that is yet to be designed and built. As my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) pointed out, we do not know quite what the shape of air war will be at the time, particularly with drones, swarms and many other developments. We do know that air combat will continue to be vital in future, and that we will have the best form of air combat available through GCAP.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, delivered in his usual “never knowingly undersold” style. I welcome the treaty, but does he agree that if GCAP is to be successful, he must ensure that we have a vibrant manufacturing base in the UK? I do not know if he is aware or whether his officials have briefed him, but following the completion of the Qatari order at BAE Systems at Warton, there is no more manufacturing taking place at that site. What will he do to fill the gap between delivering the development phase of GCAP and the final aircraft?
Grant Shapps
It is worth pointing out that the Tempest programme, the UK side of GCAP, already employs 3,000 people in this country—I mentioned that £2 billion has been spent so far—and the right hon. Gentleman will be interested to hear that 1,000 of those are apprentices. He asks about a factory run by what is essentially a private business, or rather not Government, in BAE—
Grant Shapps
It is factually true to say that it is a private business. I was going to answer the right hon. Gentleman’s question by saying that he will perhaps be aware that there is further interest in Typhoon around the world. I cannot go into specifics, but I very much hope that it is successful in winning that. As a Government, we will certainly be fully behind that.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
I have the honour of being the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Japan. The GCAP treaty is a powerful testament to the very close and like-minded relationship between our two countries. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that it would be helpful if Japan were to revise, carefully and sensibly, the three principles governing its defence technology exports, to allow GCAP to be most effective in today’s changed world?
Grant Shapps
Mr Speaker, they speak so highly of my right hon. Friend in Japan that I heard of little else while I was there last week. I am very grateful for his work in helping to ensure that the GCAP treaty came to the conclusion that it did last week. He asks about the three principles. They are not in Japanese law, but relate to its Cabinet, and they determine where and how things from the defence world can be exported. When I was in Japan last week, I made it very clear that, in no small part to help the programme to operate successfully, changes to the three principles were likely to be needed, in just the same way that, for AUKUS, Congress needs to make changes to allow exports to happen between the UK and Australia. It is a very similar situation in Tokyo and I did gently persuade my opposite number that that will need to be taken care of.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
I welcome the statement and the treaty set out by the Secretary of State. One key problem with procuring new assets and equipment is that once it is specified, lots of changes come in further down the line and the costs shoot up. Given his discussions, has he set a date for when this asset will be specified? What safeguards has he put in place to ensure that it is not continually changed, therefore delaying the project further and adding extra costs?
Grant Shapps
The hon. Gentleman will be interested to hear that a huge amount of work has been done. On Thursday in Tokyo, we received yet another update from the industry consortium that has been working on the specifics of both the concept behind the joint venture and the different aspects of the aircraft’s performance. It is not yet known in detail exactly what those will be. The technology is so cutting edge that, as he knows, part of the programme is R&D. That will be an iterative programme.
The hon. Gentleman’s central point is absolutely right: the single greatest danger is mission creep that keeps adding on new facilities. One thing that we, as the UK, will be saying is, “Let’s get the aircraft flying and stable as a valuable asset, and then let it iterate or spiral over a period of time once it is in service.”
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
I congratulate the Secretary of State on the treaty and on forming a technological partnership with Italy and Japan to face some of the more difficult challenges in the world. The right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) said that it is all very well to sign the treaty, but it is about the hard work and the skilled work. May I gently remind my right hon. Friend that Lancashire has the heritage, the skills, the apprentices and the site? Does he agree that the best place to put a new site would be next to the National Cyber Force centre in Lancashire, because of the mixture of skills that would come together beautifully?
Grant Shapps
As I corrected the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), London is not guaranteed as the headquarters, and I think the whole House heard my hon. Friend’s valuable pitch for Lancashire.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his positive statement—it is good to hear positivity at any time of the year, but more so at Christmas. It is great to hear of the proactive nature of this programme, and I thank the Secretary of State and his team for the hard work that they have done so far. I note that the north-east of England and Scotland are seeing jobs and engagement. Will the Secretary of State outline how this will enhance skills and labour throughout the United Kingdom and particularly in Northern Ireland, which has a skilled business workforce and industrial trades just waiting to be used? We are here for the Secretary of State’s use, if he will only give us a chance.
Grant Shapps
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the skills that the programme will provide throughout the UK. I am reminded of Thales, in Northern Ireland, and of how important the Next-generation Light Anti-tank Weapon has been to the battle in Ukraine—pivotal, I am told, when I speak to my opposite number. I have no doubt that some of the great skills and brilliance from Northern Ireland will be part of GCAP.
Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
Having been involved in some of the early discussions with Italy and Japan, I warmly welcome this treaty and congratulate my right hon. Friend—they are truly excellent partners. However, he is right in saying that if we are to maintain those manufacturing bases for decades to come, we will need export orders. May I encourage him from the outset not only to look at exports from the licensing point of view, but to look at the potential for export variants, which will allow us to export while also maintaining national security?
Grant Shapps
I thank my right hon. Friend—a brilliant Minister for Defence Procurement in a former time—for what he has said. He is entirely right about exports. I do not think we can forget the significance of Japan’s engagement in the programme, and I congratulate him on his earlier work on this. For Japan, its involvement is a totemic shift from its settlement after the second world war. I think that over time it is countries that are democratic, that want freedom and that are on the side of people’s liberty and rights that will need to have this sixth-generation aircraft. As I said in my statement, we are living in a far more contested world, and one in which it is more important than it has been in any recent decade that we have the best capabilities, and those are what this will bring us.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
The Secretary of State is clearly very pleased with himself, which would presumably account for the unnecessary amount of levity following a statement that was actually very serious. I pay all tribute to Italy and Japan for signing the treaty—I would not trust a cheque that this Government had signed, much less an international treaty—but I suspect that they take their confidence from MBDA, from BAE Systems, from Rolls-Royce and from Leonardo, which are behind this project, unlike the UK Government, who are just signing it off. Does he agree that it is absolute testament that the beating heart and the brain of this platform comes from Leonardo’s facility in Edinburgh? Will he also redouble his efforts to bring Sweden inside this tent? We need Sweden for its industrial base and its technological know-how, and for further orders.
Grant Shapps
I do not think that anyone in the House would accuse the hon. Gentleman of undue levity and cheerfulness, although it is Christmas. None the less, I wish him well. Of course we want to ensure that all our defence companies succeed as a result of this, including those in Scotland—and who knows, that could be a location for the headquarters.
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
As a former serviceman and a former Defence Minister, I, too, welcome the treaty that the Secretary of State has announced. What worries me, though, and what worried me when I was a Defence Minister, is slippage, under previous Governments and under this Government. Can the Secretary of State assure us that no airframe will be taken out of service on the basis of something coming in in 2035? We need to keep what we have until this is available in the air.
Grant Shapps
The 2035 date is really the absolute backstop, as I mentioned before, and not just for us but for our Japanese partners, who have a specific issue with their previous airframe coming out of service at that time. That is, as it were, our guiding light. As for the way in which the Royal Air Force itself decides to operate its airframes in the meantime, that is in no small part a question of what happens with technology during this period. As I also mentioned, over the last nearly two years in Ukraine we have seen the development of air combat at a speed that would have seemed impossible to us before the Ukraine war, so I would not want to pre-empt it entirely, while still supporting my right hon. Friend’s principle that we should ensure that we have sufficient airframes operational and in the sky at all times—which, as the Typhoons and the F-35Bs remind us, is so very important.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
The GCAP is a prestigious project that will offer careers and high-skilled roles to people across the global supply chain for decades. Will my right hon. Friend commit to keeping up the work of the armed forces in their support for technical education in our schools and colleges, which is critical to making these projects a big success?
Grant Shapps
I absolutely will commit to doing that. My hon. Friend is right to highlight it. I am in conversation with my Cabinet colleagues about how we can maximise the amount of skills, not least because we need them for this programme. It is a matter of great pride that there are already 1,000 apprenticeships involved in the UK side of this.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
As the world becomes a more dangerous place, I very much welcome this statement. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the global combat air programme is another demonstration of this Government’s commitment to Indo-Pacific security?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend is absolutely spot on, not only about GCAP today but about AUKUS. I think that, five years ago, people would have been surprised to find that we had signed a global arrangement with Australia and America for nuclear powered subs and pillar 2 for AUKUS, and I think they would now be surprised to discover that we are bringing in a treaty to allow for joint aircraft production and research and development with Japan. This is all a sign of our commitment to the Indo-Pacific and to making sure that the waterways and skies around the world remain free and open for commerce and for every country to use.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I welcome this treaty and project, which will bring the GCAP alongside AUKUS and the five power defence arrangements at the heart of our Indo-Pacific defence partnerships. Could the Secretary of State confirm that this will also secure the future of the supply chain behind Typhoon and Eurofighter, including the landing gear and avionics from Gloucestershire? By the way, Gloucestershire airport would make an outstanding choice for project headquarters. I make a declaration of interest here: will he also confirm that he will be deploying the Prime Minister’s Indo-Pacific-focused trade envoys to ensure that other nations in the region are aware of the opportunities that this offers? That would also bring us greater air compatibility.
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the supply chain. There is a strong read-across between the 4.5 version of the Typhoon and the GCAP, so it will be important for our defence supply chain, particularly when it comes to combat aircraft. I note his pitch for a potential HQ, and I also want to thank him publicly for his work in south-east Asia, where he does a tremendous job as one of the trade envoys.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I join others in welcoming this treaty, not just in the defence sense but for the benefits it could bring to the south-west region. In the light of recent incidents with North Korea and the rising threat of China, can my right hon. Friend say a bit more about how he sees this as part of our genuine commitment to stand with our allies if they come under threat?
Grant Shapps
We have a choice as a nation, as indeed does the world: we see a much more aggressive Russia invading its neighbour; we see China looking threateningly towards its neighbours; and it is important to understand the dynamics of North Korea, of Iran and of what is happening in the middle east. We are undoubtedly living in a more contested and more dangerous world, and preparing now for the sixth-generation fighter combat aircraft is therefore more important than ever. This Government are entirely committed to securing our future and that of the global order of the world.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. As somebody who represents Samlesbury in the Ribble Valley, may I give him advance notice that I shall be knocking on his door shortly?
Infected Blood Inquiry: Government Response
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (John Glen)
With permission, I would like to make a statement on the Government’s response to the infected blood inquiry. I made clear my intention to do so at Cabinet Office questions on 23 November, and the Minister of State at the Ministry of Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), reiterated this on the Floor of the House on 4 December.
First, and most importantly, the suffering of the victims must be recognised. The distress and trauma that each individual has faced as a result of this tragedy is unimaginable, and the Government understand that no measures can fully compensate for the losses and hardships that they have suffered. The priority here must be to ensure that victims get the justice they deserve.
With the interim compensation payments issued last October, the Government recognised the immediate and urgent needs of those most severely impacted. This was the start of the process, not the end. The Government have accepted the moral case for compensation, and I am fully committed to ensuring that we bring this matter to its long-awaited conclusion.
In April 2023, the Government welcomed the publication of the infected blood inquiry’s second interim report, which set out a detailed framework for compensation for both those infected and those affected by infected blood, and it is a significant step towards the culmination of the inquiry’s deeply important work.
The inquiry has taken a wide-ranging and innovative approach to compensation, and I was pleased to see that the Government’s commissioning of Sir Robert Francis KC’s compensation study assisted in the inquiry’s work. It is now a year on from the Government’s acceptance of the moral case for compensation, and I understand the calls for urgency. I know that, from many of those infected and affected, there is anger and frustration with the Government’s response so far.
The inquiry’s recommendations are not without complexity, and it would be inappropriate for the Government to prejudge the findings of the final report. For these reasons, the Government are not yet in a position to share any final decisions on compensation. However, Members on both sides of the House have made it clear that we must do right by the victims, and the Government recognise this. I am personally committed to making sure that we do that.
I also give enormous credit to the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) on her continuing hard work to advocate for the victims of the infected blood scandal. The Government recognise the strength of feeling across the House on this matter and the importance of what the amendment seeks to achieve.
The Government are working through the implications of the amendment. Cabinet Office officials worked hard under my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Jeremy Quin), to develop this policy, and we are reviewing this work in the light of the amendment made two weeks ago today.
I am also pleased to provide the House with an update on the wider progress we have made in this area, and on the steps we are taking to address the concerns of this House. First, I announce that the Department of Health and Social Care will fully implement a bespoke psychological service for people infected and affected by infected blood products, delivered by NHS England. Our intention is for this service to go live in early summer 2024. We recognise the harrowing impacts of the infected blood scandal and the psychological impact this has had on many infected and affected individuals. This announcement is an important step for victims in England. The service will provide tailored support to meet the unique needs of infected and affected individuals.
The Government are also urgently appointing clinical, legal and social care experts to advise the Cabinet Office on detailed technical considerations early in the new year, which will ensure that the Government have the relevant expertise to make informed choices in responding to the inquiry’s recommendations on compensation.
Finally, I reiterate the commitment that the Government will seek to provide an update to Parliament on next steps through an oral statement within 25 sitting days of the inquiry’s final report being published. As my predecessor made clear both to this House and to the inquiry, there are a number of technical issues that must be considered as they will have a significant impact on public finances. It is important that any decisions on compensation funding are taken carefully, and the House should expect the Government to work through the associated costs to the public sector while, at all times, considering the needs of the community and the far-reaching impact that this scandal has had on their lives.
The victims of the infected blood scandal deserve justice and recognition. Their voice must be heard, and it is our duty to honour not only those still living and campaigning but those who have passed without recognition. This is my highest priority, and I will continue to progress this work with all the urgency it deserves. I commend this statement to the House.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
I welcome the fact that this statement has been made, to which the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice committed at the Dispatch Box earlier this month. I am also grateful to the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General for advance sight of his statement today.
The amendment to the Victims and Prisoners Bill passed by this House makes the will of this House, on a binding and cross-party basis, absolutely clear. I applaud the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), the campaigning and advocacy organisations, the all-party group on haemophilia and contaminated blood, the journalist Caroline Wheeler and all who have worked tirelessly to bring us to this point. I, too, pay tribute to the bravery of the victims of this scandal, who, over decades, have suffered for far too long.
The Government have repeatedly accepted the moral case for compensation, as indeed the Minister did today. On Report, the Minister of State in the MOJ was also definitive in committing that the Government will
“put in place the necessary legislative framework and timescales for a delivery body for compensation for the victims of infected blood to be established, in line with the overall objectives set out”—[Official Report, 4 December 2023; Vol. 742, c. 136-37.]
in the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend. I say to the Minister: there is no need to wait for the Bill to come back or for the inquiry to publish its final report before making the required urgent progress on setting up the basis for the compensation scheme. The Government should make good on the spirit of that commitment and recognise the will of the House, not least because a commitment to act was also given in the King’s Speech.
I am not suggesting for a moment that this is not a complex matter. However, as my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor and I have repeatedly made clear, we are open to working on a cross-party basis to shape a compensation scheme that can deliver justice urgently. The Government should now establish an arm’s length body to deliver compensation payments, which will allow some of the preparatory work to be done while we wait for those final recommendations. As with any arm’s length body, the Government will be responsible for appointing the chair and the members, and setting the budget and the rules for the scheme and its administration, including on decision making and accountability. I am also conscious that compensation will apply to those infected in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and that there is important work to do with devolved Governments. Of course, I welcome what the Minister said in his statement about psychological support, but will he please tell us why there is a need to wait until the summer of next year for it to go live, given how long this matter has been going on?
I would be grateful if the Minister would also address the following questions. Why can the Government not commit to beginning the steps in January, not just to take the technical advice that he has referred to, but to bring forward primary legislation early in the new year to enable the establishment of the compensation scheme, given that this House has shown its support for that? Will he also commit to continuing to work closely with all the victims’ groups in the future, so that their voice is heard throughout the establishment of the compensation scheme? To the extent that he has announced a timetable today, when might people receive the final compensation? This is so pressing because, on average, one person dies every four days as a result of this scandal. Will he also give a commitment that the Government will act on each and every recommendation in the inquiry’s report? He mentioned a statement 25 working days after the publication of that report, but he did not give a timetable for action on those recommendations—will he give that to the House in his response? Finally, will he confirm what preparatory work is being done by the Treasury? Will he commit to being as transparent as possible about that process? The Government have admitted both the case for compensation and the need for urgency. This House has shown strong cross-party support for action. It now falls to Ministers to deliver urgently.
John Glen
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his constructive approach. There is consensus across the House that this urgent matter needs to be addressed as quickly as possible. As I said at Cabinet Office questions during my second week in post, this is the most urgent priority that I will face, whatever happens in this office, and I take my responsibility to bring forward the scheme very seriously. However, we need to examine carefully the amendment that was passed two weeks ago and how it interacts with work that is under way. I am doing everything I can to bring that work forward. Second Reading of the Victims and Prisoners Bill will happen today in the other place and the process that will follow from that will be clear in the new year.
The right hon. Gentleman asked a number of specific questions. I want to deliver psychological support as quickly as possible, working closely with NHS England on provision of support and allowing people to have direct access to it. I will do everything I can to bring that forward by June, at the latest, I hope. A few months ago, I made an announcement about clinical, legal and social care advisers. Contact has been made with individuals and there will be ongoing conversations to get those people in place as early as possible, so as much work as possible can be done along the lines I have set out.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the 18 recommendations and when people will receive further clarification on Government compensation. Those are substantive matters that will be attended to as quickly as possible, in line with what I have already said. On 17 January, the inquiry will issue a notification about when that report is expected, which will give clarity on the timetable to which we are working. I assure the House that we are doing everything we can to work across relevant Departments, including the Treasury, to ensure everything is delivered as quickly as possible.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope that you realise that after I have asked my question, and the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), and another Conservative Member have asked their questions, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) will be the definitive person to put to Government what needs to be done.
I say to the Minister and, through him, to our right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Jeremy Quin), the Minister’s predecessor, that we are not doing enough, fast enough. How many months have passed since Sir Robert Francis produced his report? I hope the Minister will confirm that it is about 20 months. How many months have passed since Sir Brian Langstaff produced his final recommendations on compensation? It is about eight months. Those are the relevant issues.
The fact that the Government will act 25 working days after Sir Brian’s final report comes out next year does not deal with the issue of what the affected and infected need and should get now. If it is a question of money, how much and the cashflow for the Government, they should say so now. There is nothing that can be said on compensation 25 days after the report comes out that could not be said now, so please will the Minister say it?
John Glen
I thank my hon. Friend for his questions. I could not agree with him more about the level of urgency that is attached to the Government’s response. He is right about the publication dates; I think the whole House is aware of that. In the past five weeks, I have taken concrete steps, building on the work of my predecessor, to take the actions necessary to make those decisions as quickly as possible along the timescale I have set out. I cannot reiterate enough the Government’s commitment to dealing with the issue as quickly as possible, and I am doing all I can to gain consensus across Government to move things forward as quickly as possible.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Most of what we have heard today is not new. All we are hearing from this Government are the same old delays, while those affected continue to feel let down and failed. The Government have been working at a snail’s pace on the issue and were shamed when they voted against a new compensation body for those impacted by the scandal. Those affected and the bereaved will not forgive them for that callous act and the ongoing delays, and today they will have those feelings all over again at this non-statement.
On 5 April, Sir Brian Langstaff published his final recommendations relating to compensation. Crucially, he recommended that interim payments be made to bereaved parents and children in respect of deaths as yet unrecognised. To date, the Government have not responded in practical terms to any of those recommendations. The Government’s position continues to be to wait for the full report expected next spring before considering whether to extend the compensation. That heaps insult upon injury to those affected and their families, as every four days another victim of this scandal dies. Time is of the essence for those affected. To delay this full compensation is to stand against justice and all that is morally and ethically right. To delay compensation to those who are literally running out of time is cruel and unnecessary. This Government need to rethink and listen to the will of this House, as expressed on 4 December in the face of shameful opposition from those on the Government Benches, and deliver justice and full compensation.
Where is the urgency? The Minister has used the words “urgency” and “urgent” several times today, but it does not feel to those who are affected that there is any urgency from the Government to address the great wrongs and losses that they have suffered.
Today, given the expressed will of this House, we were hoping for a timeline from the Government for when a full compensation body would be established and operational. Again, sadly, all we have is delay and obfuscation. Does the Minister feel no shame in coming here today to give a statement that says nothing?
John Glen
I do not accept that characterisation of what I have said today, as I have made a number of specific announcements on the progress that is being made. Neither do I accept the characterisation of the Government’s position as a callous act. This Government launched a public inquiry, and last year we made interim payments. I accept that a substantive response cannot happen soon enough, but I am doing everything I can, working with colleagues across Government, to look at the best way of delivering as quickly as possible, and I will continue to do so.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
I thank the Minister for what is now our traditional end-of-term statement on this subject, but, to be clear, this is one festive tradition that we need to see the back of, because people are dying without seeing justice. May I return the Paymaster General to a line in his statement where he talked about “clinical, legal and social care experts” to advise him on detailed technical considerations in the new year? Can he clarify when in the new year, because, clearly, that could cover 12 months of 2024. Moreover, further to the points made by the shadow Minister, how much can the Government do now to pave the way for serious progress and payment when the Government and the Treasury are in the position to move?
John Glen
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I have been in discussions on the appointment of clinical, legal and social care experts since my first week in office in November. We have identified individuals, and communicated with them last week. We want to get them on board with this work in the early days of the new year, so that that work can happen as quickly as possible. I wanted to avoid a situation where people were going out to compete for roles. What we want is the best people across those specialisms so that this work can make urgent progress, aligned with our intention to respond substantively later in the year.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
In April 2023, Sir Brian Langstaff said:
“I recommend that a compensation scheme should be set up now and it should begin work this year.”
What exactly does the Minister not understand in that statement? This statement today will cause huge anguish to victims of the 50-year-old scandal and, in noting that the Prime Minister whipped Conservative Members to vote down the new clause on 4 December, fuel their suspicion that the Government are still playing for time, even though they accept the moral case. This therefore is adding one final insult to injury. Will the Minister tell us why the Prime Minister can find what the Deputy Prime Minister said yesterday is unlimited funding for the Rwanda policy, but is still pushing back, after a five-year public inquiry, against compensation—and even interim compensation for the groups that have never received anything—for people who have suffered so much for so long after what the state did to them?
John Glen
I recognise the right hon. Lady’s frustration and disappointment with where we have got to. The work that she has done, and the work that was expressed in the amendment, is urgently being examined by me and my officials.
John Glen
I recognise Sir Brian’s recommendations, and I have done what I can to move us to a place where we meet the expectations as quickly as possible in the new year. I said to the right hon. Lady when I met her and my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) that my officials were engaged in looking at the options for the delivery vehicle. I must now examine how that operates with the legislative vehicle, which has been amended by the House. I will do everything that I can to update the House as quickly as I can.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I have some sympathy for the Minister, who I suspect might go slightly further in his comments if he had complete free rein at the Dispatch Box. I have experience of dealing with the Windrush compensation scheme, which similarly looked back decades at the impact on individuals, with records often incomplete and people having moved many times, and it brought home the complexity of this type of compensation scheme, even when it gets to work. What is his timeline for people to start dealing with these cases, because that will be the first step in getting compensation finally paid to people who, as we have touched on, we are losing literally every day?
John Glen
That is what the experts will do—the calibration of tariffs and allocation of compensation, as per the excellent work that has been done by the inquiries. This is urgent, and work will begin in the new year on that aspect. As I said, on the legislative vehicle to establish the necessary mechanisms, that process is under way as well.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister has referred many times to urgency. I think that he is a good man, and I know that he will be trying to do his best, but I had a message this afternoon from the organisation Factor 8, which said:
“Today, one of our members has died. He was infected with Hepatitis C through infected Factor VIII blood products. Two weeks ago, he was diagnosed with cancer (caused by his Hepatitis C) and now has died without seeing justice. These stories are sadly familiar within our community.”
That is the reality for so many people who have been affected, including my own constituents; I spoke to them years ago and was convinced of their case for justice. Who else is holding this up elsewhere in the Government?
John Glen
The hon. Gentleman makes the right point, which we have all heard from our constituents; my constituents have made representations along those lines, too. All I can say is that there is nothing stopping me moving this forward. I am doing everything that I can to put in place the legislative mechanisms to set up the process and ensure that, when the Government respond, the response is as comprehensive as it can be. I acknowledge the distress caused to so many people. I will do everything that I can to bring this forward as quickly as I can.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
Two weeks ago, I met a gentleman called Barry. Barry had been a constituent of a former Member of this place, Alistair Burt, in North East Bedfordshire. Barry spoke to me of how hard Alistair had worked, alongside the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), but of course Alistair Burt left this place before we ever found a resolution to the scandal. Can I ask my right hon. Friend, who I believe is going to do his best, whether we will see compensation before any more of us leave this place?
John Glen
My right hon. Friend is ingenious in her question, but I go back to what I said: I will do everything I can to put in place all the elements to allow us to respond substantively. We will know the date of the report, I believe, on 17 January, so we will have a definitive timetable in the new year. I recognise that she, Alistair Burt and many others across the House have campaigned on this issue for many years and I am determined to bring it to the conclusion that the House expects.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
Like many hon. Members present, I have a number of constituents who were infected with HIV or hepatitis C through the scandal and several have lost family members. I want to echo what some of them are feeling. One of my constituents described her parent’s diagnosis with HIV due to infected blood as
“a catalogue of soul destroying, humiliating neglect and ultimately alienating experiences”
and told me that it is now 30 years since her parent died,
“and the intense sense of loss and pain remains profound and is felt every single day.”
People infected and affected need tangible action now to help to alleviate that suffering. The question the Minister has to answer is when he will establish a full compensation body and when that will become operational.
John Glen
I am obviously going to have to repeat myself several times. I have set out clearly what is new today: the psychological support and the appointment of the necessary expert, in a matter of days, to take forward the work needed to get to the point where a comprehensive response can happen. We have committed to when the timetable will happen with respect to the final inquiry, and we are doing everything we can to reach that. While I recognise that that is a matter of three or four months further down the road, I am trying to make sure that, when the response comes, it is as comprehensive as it possibly can be, addressing all the dimensions of the misery that the hon. Lady movingly spoke about.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
When the House debated the amendment by the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) a couple of weeks ago, I gave the Government the benefit of the doubt and abstained. If I could turn the clock back, based on what I have heard today I would now want to vote for that amendment. In a couple of weeks I have a constituent coming to see me who is a family member of one of the victims. I am afraid that if I showed her this statement, she would immediately point out things such as “summer 2024” and say, “That is just too long.” Can the Minister give me some assurance that, by the time I see that lady, there will be a little bit more certainty?
John Glen
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question and I will happily talk to him privately. I am sorry that he draws that conclusion from what I have said today. In the past 35 days I have done everything I can to move the scheme forward, and I wanted to make an oral statement before the House rose for the recess. I recognise that there is a lot more that could be said, but a lot more needs to be done before we get to that point. The reference to June is to do with the psychological support. The comprehensive response that the Government have committed to will come at a defined moment after the publication of the final report, the date of which we will clarify on 17 January—it will be some time after the report’s publication in March.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
Thousands of people across the country have been affected by this scandal, and constituents who have been in touch with me describe their quest for justice as “upsetting”, “frustrating” and “depressing”. The Haemophilia Society said after the recent vote on the amendment to the Victims and Prisoners Bill that the Prime Minister “should be ashamed” that he had been forced to do the right thing. Does the Minister agree with that assessment, and will he apologise to those affected for the excessive delays in delivering compensation to victims?
John Glen
I reaffirm what I have said about my commitment to doing this as quickly as possible. Of course I regret the delays that have occurred over many years, and I want this to be brought to a conclusion as quickly as it can be. I think I neglected to answer the question from the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) about working with the various victims’ groups, of which there are a large number. I undertake to work with them to give them as much clarity as possible about the timetable and the work that I am undertaking.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Will the Government be making these payments within their own lifetime?
John Glen
I will give a comprehensive response along the timetable that I set out earlier.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) and to the journalist Caroline Wheeler for their tireless campaigning on this issue.
I think we all know, as we have heard in a couple of questions from Conservative Members, why the Government have tried to delay compensation for so long; they are clearly hoping that it will be another Government’s problem. Perhaps the Minister can help me to understand. He says that he recognises the
“distress and trauma that each individual has faced,”
so why has it taken until today to announce a bespoke psychological service for people infected and affected by infected blood products, and why will it take until the summer to set up that service?
John Glen
The timing of the delivery of that service has been worked through with NHS England. I signed off the funding for it when I was Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and I am pleased that we can announce it today. I wish that it could have been sooner, but we are where we are, and I am pleased that we have made some progress. As with all these matters, of course I wish that I could accelerate it, but I have to work through all the deliberate steps needed to get the legislation in the right place to ensure that we can answer all the questions that so many people have—I recognise they have waited too long.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his statement, particularly his assurance that the scheme will cover the infected and affected. I have mentioned my constituent David Corroyer in this Chamber before. He contacted hepatitis C in the ’70s—over 40 years ago—not from a transfusion but from donating blood, as a needle was used multiple times. He gave evidence to the inquiry but is still waiting to hear whether his particular circumstances will be covered. Can the Minister help him?
John Glen
I do not think that I can be expected to respond to individual cases here, but I have ensured that we have the right range of professional expertise—the very best available in this country—so that all those different cases of infected and affected, going off quite a range of experiences over a very long period, are properly interrogated as the details of the scheme are worked through.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
The Government had to make this statement after losing the vote two weeks ago, but there is little in it for families like the Smiths, who—please know this, Minister—finally saw hope in that vote. Campaigners have called for months and months for the preparatory work to be done. How long will victims now have to wait for what the House has asked for?
John Glen
As I said, it will be 25 sittings days after the publication of the report. That is when the Government’s comprehensive reply will be given.
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
From 2006 to 2010, I was a shadow public health spokesman on the Opposition Benches. I committed a future Conservative Government to compensating. That was easy to do in opposition, but I accept that it is much more difficult in government. I trust the Minister, but I know that a lot of people are sceptical. We need to build back trust by saying that we will compensate both those infected and those affected, because those families need the money—they needed it years ago. It is not just this Government who have been slow; previous Governments have been slow, too. This needs to be resolved now. We need to rebuild trust; I am sorry, but it is lacking.
John Glen
My right hon. Friend makes wise and fair observations. This is complex, but it is urgent. My right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Jeremy Quin) did an enormous amount of work in getting us to today’s statement and to a lot more, which will come to fruition as quickly as possible. But my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) is absolutely right: this scandal has lasted almost two generations, and I am determined to do everything I can to bring it to a conclusion.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
The one tradition that has been upheld today is that of the Paymaster General coming to the House to make a statement that says nothing. He is the ninth Paymaster General since the inquiry was announced, and they keep saying nothing. In the past fortnight alone, he has had to face oral questions and has been defeated in the voting Lobbies, and the Prime Minister was asked a question about this on Wednesday, but we are still no nearer where we need to be. This is a cruel, cruel tease, is it not?
John Glen
I am sorry, but I do not accept that characterisation. What I would say is that, as I think the hon. Member appreciates, there are deeply complex matters in relation to how to allocate funds in the right way and create the most effective and reliable way to honour the recommendations and deal with this comprehensively, and I am doing everything I can to make sure that is achieved.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
All of us here are unhappy about the fact that this has taken so long—the events actually took place up to 40 years ago—but, my right hon. Friend has reacted very strongly to the conversations I and others have had with him since the original statement. What he has outlined today about the final report, the bespoke psychological service and some technical issues, followed by serious announcements for those of our constituents who have suffered or had partners who have since died, and the personal commitment he has given to resolving this during 2024, are useful steps forward. I am grateful to him for making this statement before the Christmas recess.
John Glen
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his words. The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North said at business questions last Thursday that she did not want a written statement on the last day. I do not think that having an oral statement on the penultimate day is that much better, but I was determined to at least address that concern. What I will commit to is doing as much as I can to update the House as early as possible. That commitment is there, and obviously we have Cabinet Office questions early in the new year—the day after the announcement of the date—and I will, I hope, be able to say more then.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Sir Brian Langstaff came up with the recommendations that he did because he recognised that people were dying without getting justice. The amendment that was passed in this House two weeks ago, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), was Sir Brian’s recommendation word for word. The Minister has come to the Dispatch Box sounding as though he has only just started work on this, and that there was no work done by his nine predecessors. Has he met Sir Brian Langstaff, and what does Sir Brian Langstaff say to him about this constant delay in paying compensation?
John Glen
I have not met Sir Brian Langstaff yet, but of course I build on the work that my predecessors have done. As I indicated to the chairs of the all-party parliamentary group, as soon as I was in office I set up a meeting and I was aware of the ongoing work. I now have to work out the interaction of that amendment with the work that exists and bring forward a substantial response to it.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
This is a disappointing statement in some ways, but let me give the Paymaster General an opportunity to build trust and confidence. It is unclear in his statement whether the Government accept the principle of an independent compensation body—an arm’s length body—so can he confirm that that is the case? Does he accept that, for the victims and their families, that is a prerequisite for building trust and confidence, and that they will not accept a Government Department involved in this scandal administering the compensation scheme?
John Glen
I am very cognisant of the 18 recommendations, and the sensitivity about the trust needed in the delivery mechanism, whatever that is. That is one of several considerations on which we need to reach the right conclusion. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) said, I recognise that restoring trust is a serious matter on which we have to deliver.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
My constituent Eileen lost her father in the infected blood scandal. She told me earlier this year:
“This lack of transparency is causing great stress and anxiety to those of us at the heart of this NHS treatment disaster, who have already waited decades for our loss and suffering to be recognised.”
When the Government committed to a statement before Christmas, there was an expectation that there would have been further progress on the compensation scheme, and I do not think that was an unreasonable assumption. In the absence of that, what assurances can I give Eileen and her family that she will be recognised by this Government and that she will be compensated?
John Glen
Today we are putting in place the expertise needed to deal with the recommendations and look at the distribution for compensation. The Government are committed to responding after those 25 sitting days from the day that the report is published, the date of which will be known on 17 January. What I have announced today is a milestone on that journey, and we are in that last lap as we get towards the day when the Government will respond substantively.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
My constituent lost her brother and her sister-in-law, and her nephew was orphaned at a young age. Her mother, a pensioner, was left to raise her nephew. The family has not received a penny, and her nephew is in dire need of support. As everybody has said, this is already too late, so I urge the Minister to do everything in his power to ensure that something is done sooner rather than later. Will he explain exactly what new legislation he needs to bring in?
John Glen
Some ex gratia payments have been made since 1992, but I recognise that a large number of people have been excluded in different ways. The work that will be undertaken and the experts who have been appointed will be designed to ensure that the fairest settlement is made, taking full account of the inquiry’s recommendations. I cannot offer any specific assurances to the hon. Lady or her constituents, but I will be doing everything I can to bring this forward as quickly as I can.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
My constituent Michael, and so many more, will be disappointed by today’s statement. The Minister rightfully spoke about urgency, yet there is no timeline that reflects that urgency. People still do not know when the independent compensation body will be set up, or when they will ultimately get justice, and get that compensation to victims of this infected blood scandal.
John Glen
I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s disappointment and that of many in the House today. I shall reflect carefully on that, and do everything I can to do better next time. The steps we are taking, deliberately and carefully, to work through what is required to make a substantive response after the publication of that final report in March, are serious. I will be having meetings over Christmas and early in the new year, week by week, to work through what is required to deliver on the Government’s commitment.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
Speaking about last, I could sort of reference some of the things the Minister has referred to—well, if only I could. I only wish I was able to, and could talk of complex matters. The victims want to hear a clear timeline for when final compensation payments will be made. They want to see the urgency that the Minister talked about. There is a view that the Government are trying to kick this issue into the next Parliament, and that the Treasury is dragging its heels. The Minister has been asked this a couple of times: will he confirm that this issue will be all resolved before this Parliament is dissolved?
John Glen
That is my expectation. I am doing everything I can to bring this to a substantial conclusion after the publication of the final report. I am speaking to colleagues in many Departments, and working with officials across Government to get to the end point that I have set out several times this afternoon.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Paymaster General for his statement. I know he is an honourable gentleman, and his commitment will be to deliver what we wish to see. I also thank the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) for the amendment that she tabled and won in this House by four votes. Those four votes were enough to show the mind of this Parliament, and where we want to be. During the last topical questions to the Cabinet Office, I asked the Paymaster General whether he had the figures for those who have sadly passed away this year, before compensation had been made available to them. The Minister committed to confirming those numbers so, two weeks later and with no reply, has he been able to access the figures I asked for, as we approach the rise of the House for Christmas 2023?
John Glen
I am not aware whether those figures are available yet, but I will ensure that the moment I leave this Chamber, I will do everything I can to get the hon. Member a response on that. If I cannot give them, I will let him know why.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the Minister for his statement and for responding to questions for 45 minutes.
Tackling Spiking
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Laura Farris)
With permission, I will make a statement about the Government’s action to tackle spiking. Spiking is an insidious act with potentially life-threatening consequences. We know it constitutes a danger to people, particularly women, in nightclubs, bars, on student campuses, at festivals or in any social setting. No one should have to worry that a substance has been put into their drink or that they could be targeted with a needle. More than 5,000 cases were reported last year, and that is perhaps only the tip of the iceberg.
These offences have potentially devastating effects. First, there are the immediate physical effects, which can include struggling to speak or to stand up, loss of consciousness and hospitalisation, to name just a few. Secondly, there is the psychological trauma, which can manifest itself in a number of ways, including anxiety or, most acutely, shame about what happened and what may have ensued. The impact can last for months, years or a lifetime. Some will be victims of secondary offending, which they may struggle to recall, that may well be of a sexual nature. Thames Valley police told the Home Secretary and me just last Friday that spiking is the hallmark of the sexual predator. Anyone who has read the harrowing accounts of victims will understand why it is vital that we crack down on these crimes. We owe it to all of them to redouble our efforts, and that is precisely what this Government are doing.
As Members will be aware, the Government were required, under section 71 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, to produce a report on the nature and prevalence of spiking and the action we intend to take. Publication has been delayed, and I understand why the hold-up has been a source of frustration, but that delay has enabled the Home Secretary and I—both new in post—to take a step back and consider how best we can focus our efforts to address this crime.
We want the law to be crystal clear and for individuals to have no doubt as to their rights and remedies. We have concluded that there is a case for a legislative change to capture the modern and insidious nature of this crime. I can therefore confirm to the House that the Government intend to bring forward amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill that modernise the language of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. This will remove any ambiguity and make it clear that the offence covers spiking in every form, be that via food or drink, vape or by needle. We hope that this step will improve public awareness but, most importantly, encourage victims to come forward.
I will add two points. It has been said, and we of course accept, that the existing laws already cover the range of behaviours that incorporate spiking. While it is not in dispute that that is the case, we recognise that some of the existing offences on which we rely are not readily seen to cover spiking. We give the illustration of sections 22 to 24 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, which use the language of poisoning for nefarious purposes, which we believe we can clarify through this change.
By their very nature, spiking cases are complex. The work we have done tells us that there are particular challenges in identifying perpetrators and gathering evidence. To bolster our legislative plans, we have developed a package of practical measures to improve public safety. The police have already developed a rapid, lab-based urine testing capability, but we want to go further. First, the Home Office will be funding efforts to research the capability and reliability of existing rapid drink testing kits. There are never any guarantees with this sort of work, and we are only at the beginning, but to understand what is possible, we have to gather evidence on testing efficacy, and that is what we will be doing in the months ahead.
Secondly, additional funding will be provided to the police to run several spiking “intensification weeks”, which we have seen successfully deployed for other types of criminality, including county lines and knife crime. Thirdly, the Security Industry Authority, the regulator of the UK’s private security industry, has committed to introduce spiking training for door supervisors as part of its existing licence-linked qualifications. This will enable them to better and more quickly identify victims onsite.
Fourthly, we will support the police to roll out their spiking reporting and advice tool, to improve the quality of data. This enables the public to report cases of spiking quickly and simply, including anonymously if they so wish. It has been successfully rolled out across 20 forces as part of a pilot programme in England and Wales, and will be expanded to the remaining 23 forces shortly. Several other measures are detailed in the statutory report, but I am conscious of the time, so I will simply add that the report is available on the gov.uk website and emphasise that we are strengthening our response across the board.
Before I conclude, I take this opportunity to urge the public to remain vigilant, particularly over Christmas. If anybody believes that they or someone around them has been spiked, they should report the incident to the venue and the police. I also want to offer my thanks to the campaign group Stamp Out Spiking and Members on both sides of the House. I will not mention them all, but I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins), my right hon. Friends the Members for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) and for Witham (Priti Patel), my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies) and the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), who have campaigned so assiduously on this issue. Their insight and commitment have been instrumental, and they will no doubt continue to provide support and scrutiny as our work progresses.
Spiking is an appalling, predatory crime that ruins lives. As we have shown time and again, this Government will do everything in their power to protect the public and reduce violence against women. I commend this statement to the House.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. Once again, I welcome her to her role. She has been a long-standing advocate for action on tackling violence against women and girls, and I am confident that there will be opportunities to work together to make progress on these incredibly important issues.
Let us be clear: Labour completely welcomes today’s announcement on spiking, although action to crack down on this dangerous and devastating crime is long overdue. The scale of the problem, as the Minister well knows, is vast. As the Government’s own report makes clear, between May 2022 and April 2023 the police received 6,732 reports of spiking. Of those, just four—0.05%—resulted in a charge. On average, we had 561 reports a month, with the majority coming from females who believe their drink was spiked, although spiking can affect anyone. Some 957 of the more than 6,000 reports included needle spiking.
Spiking is a dangerous and invasive crime that creates both immediate physical danger for victims and long-term psychological impacts. The words in the statement are all well and good, and the Minister knows she has my full support, but we must also recognise that this Government’s record on issues relating to violence against women and girls has been one of dither and delay. Stronger action is always welcome, but why has it taken the Government so long to act? The Home Affairs Committee published its report on spiking in April 2022, which is more than a year and a half ago.
Labour has repeatedly called for action on spiking, including the creation of a stand-alone criminal offence that would make it easier to prosecute, easier to raise awareness, and easier for people to come forward to report what has happened and point to crystal-clear breaches of the law. There has been years of campaigning and advocacy about the epidemic of spiking here in the UK but, once again, the Government have sadly dragged their feet. Since the Select Committee published its report, there have been two freshers weeks, two years of festive parties and two years of music festivals. During that period, more victims have been left vulnerable to this awful crime.
Where is the urgency when it comes to tackling violence against women and girls? The Government’s response has been pitifully slow. The report published by the Government today on the nature and prevalence of spiking, which is required as part of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, was originally due to be published on 28 April—nine months ago—but has been delayed time and again. That simply is not good enough. In the months of delay, dangerous criminals will have been let off, and victims have been consistently let down.
While it is positive that the Government are now bringing forward legislative changes to create more clarity about the criminality of spiking, it has taken too long for them to accept the significance of the problem. Last year, the National Police Chiefs’ Council told the Home Affairs Committee that poor data quality and the absence of a clear criminal offence presented a challenge in policing spiking. It said:
“A more defined standalone offence of spiking would help understand the scale of the problem”
and
“enable a far more accurate picture to be realised”
than through the current approach. Chief constables told the Committee that a defined offence for spiking would also allow enhanced support for victims, but last December, in response to the Committee’s report, the then safeguarding Minister, the hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales (Miss Dines), said
“we have concluded that there is no gap in the existing law which a new offence would fill”
and that introducing a new specific spiking offence
“would not increase the likelihood of charging or prosecuting an offender for spiking offences.”
Yet we now understand that there will be legislative amendments to update and modernise existing offences to make the offence explicit and capture the modern-day nature of the threat. The Minister has acknowledged:
“Whilst the offence is nominally covered by existing laws, this comprises a patchwork of different laws—some now well over a hundred years old—which were drafted to cover other kinds of offending.”
That is a clear admission that the current legal framework is not fit for purpose, but it has taken the Government more than 18 months to accept and put forward changes to rectify that.
The Minister has made a personal commitment in her new role to go further than her predecessors, and I commend her for that, but Labour remains concerned that these tweaks to existing laws will fall short of doing the right thing of creating a stand-alone spiking offence. We fear that the Government’s approach simply will not go far enough and will not provide the clarity and focus required for all involved. That being said, we will eagerly await the detail of any amendments and will scrutinise the proposed legislative changes in Committee.
The Government are right to say in their report that night-time economy venues are areas of opportunity for safeguarding and prosecutorial support, and that the early collection of evidence, identification of perpetrators and the ability to support customers are key. There is no doubt that as well as getting the criminal justice system to take spiking more seriously, we need much more prevention work in clubs, bars and pubs and joint working between premises and the police to catch perpetrators. The Government’s new training plan sounds like a step in the right direction, but we are concerned about the small scale of the new programme. The announcement talks about training hundreds more door staff, but we know that there are tens of thousands of venues up and down the UK where these crimes are being committed regularly. How on earth does the Minister expect even to scratch the surface of the issue with those numbers?
We urgently need to see more detail to understand how impactful the changes will be. For example, can the Minister set out exactly how the new training will work, including how many venues will receive training, whether it will be voluntary or mandatory, and what happens if venues fail to engage or repeatedly ignore spiking incidents at their premises? We need a robust and comprehensive approach across the country; this should not be opt-in. We also need a proper national strategy for dealing with this abhorrent crime, which would include looking at the licensing arrangements for late-night venues where these crimes take place.
Tackling spiking at its root is a huge challenge. The Government have had 13 years to get it right, but the simple truth is that the Tories have been too focused on their own in-fighting rather than tackling issues such as spiking, which pose a genuine risk to women up and down the country. I urge the Minister to be bold in her commitments—I know that she will be—and I sincerely hope that she will work hard to rebuild the trust that women and girls have lost over the last decade when it comes to feeling safe in our communities.
Laura Farris
I will come back on two or three of the hon. Lady’s points.
First, on the hon. Lady’s observation that few such cases result in a charge, if I may correctly her gently, the principal reasons the police have given for that are: too few people coming forward in the first place, which we hope this legislative change will address; the narrow window of time in which a urine sample can be accurately tested, which is one reason why we are funding further research into rapid, on-site testing; and the difficulty in establishing who is doing the spiking. Simply, the difficulties that we have identified and spoken to the police about come at every level in the process. We are changing the law to make spiking crystal clear so that public confidence is improved and victims feel encouraged to come forward, because that is the first bit of the jigsaw.
Secondly, on the scale of our response, from the bouncer on the door of the club in the small town to the statute book, we want to change the response to spiking at every level. Whether it is a question of a friend reporting an incident, a victim coming forward, a test being done more rapidly, or the police having any doubt about which of the provisions under statute apply, it will be crystal clear.
Thirdly, the hon. Lady talked about developing an accurate picture of where spiking takes place and how we develop the response accordingly. That is the focus of the reporting tool, which a member of the public can use to report an incident of spiking even if they are not affected and it appears to have happened to someone at a table on the other side of the room. The tool will enable the police to develop an accurate picture—some of which we already know, some we are less clear about—to see the extent of it, where it happens and how we can focus resources.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
My hon. Friend will know that last week there was a debate in Westminster Hall on this subject. Afterwards, I spoke to Dawn Dines at Stamp Out Spiking and had an email from Colin Mackie of Spike Aware, who made the point that none of us had mentioned vape spiking. That was our omission, and I am pleased that this afternoon it has not been the Minister’s, as she included it. We need a 21st century solution to 21st century crime.
Could the Minister expand a little about perpetrators? We know that spiking is done for a variety of reasons: perhaps to effect a sexual assault, physical assault or robbery; or just for entertainment, particularly to humiliate individuals. What other steps are the Government taking alongside this legislative clarity—which I welcome—to ensure that those people who still think it is okay to humiliate, embarrass and assault women get a clear message that it is culturally unacceptable?
Laura Farris
I thank my right hon. Friend for her typically wise question. She is right to mention the vape issue, which I was not previously aware of. That proves the point that whatever legislative changes we make will have to be fit for the future and envisage how the crime might evolve and develop over time. She makes a good point about perpetrators. That was exactly what Thames Valley police told the Home Secretary and me on Friday: a critical part of the VAWG strategy that it and the police nationally focus on is perpetrator behaviour. As part of licensing conditions, the police increasingly work with bar staff, who make a note to establish who is behaving in a certain way in the bar, and who is often on their own or looking to isolate people. Using CCTV can be a critical first step in the police identifying the perpetrators, where they are working, which locations they frequent and who poses the greatest risk to women in a local community.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I welcome today’s statement and pay tribute to all those who have campaigned for changes in spiking law. But it is almost 20 months since the Home Affairs Committee produced our report, and more than seven months since the statutory deadline for the Government to publish their own report on the issue was missed. The report tells us that the Government are still considering many of the Committee’s recommendations, including the gathering of vital data on crime recording and perpetrators, options for the delivery of a training programme for the night-time economy and options for joint communications on spiking, including working with festivals ahead of summer events and engaging with universities over freshers week. As the report is late, can the Minister explain why it has not accepted the clear, full recommendations on all these points, and why there is still consideration going on in the Home Office?
Laura Farris
I pay tribute to all the right hon. Lady’s work individually and as part of the Home Affairs Committee. I do not want her to be left with the impression that there is a lack of complete commitment on this issue. As I hinted at in the statement, and for the purpose of brevity, some training happens already for bar staff. There is probably a gap with how much those working on the doors know, and they are critical first responders to these cases, which is why I mentioned them. She should not interpret anything in this report as evidence of a lack of ambition by the Government. My statement today is to assure her that we have given this issue our full commitment.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
Chelmsford is home to a vibrant night-time economy, with lots of very popular bars, clubs and restaurants. We also have a really strong reputation for being a safe place to enjoy a night out, but from time to time even in Chelmsford stories of spiking come to light. I therefore warmly welcome this package of initiatives, in particular the promise to modernise the law to make it crystal clear that spiking, whether in a drink, through a needle or via a vape, is illegal. It is very timely, as the Criminal Justice Bill is going through Parliament right now and we can put it into law quickly. Does the Minister agree with me and very many campaigners that clarifying the law will act as a strong deterrent to perpetrators and thus help keep women safe?
Laura Farris
I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend and thank her for her question. First, as I said, the purpose of clarifying the law is to empower more people to be clear on their rights and to come forward. But it is also the case that by having a clear offence in which spiking is defined, the police will be able to use the data of people who come forward and report a spiking incident. That will allow us to build a much more accurate picture, through the criminal justice system, of the extent to which this offence occurs.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for the statement. I welcome any measures to tackle this awful crime of spiking, so I look forward to the Government’s amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill. The National Police Chiefs’ Council has stated that a stand-alone offence would help it to understand the scale of the problem, enable a more accurate picture to be realised and allow enhanced support for victims. Will she outline her reasons for ignoring the NPCC’s concerns and missing a clear opportunity to create a stand-alone offence of spiking? It is welcome news that, as she has just stated, hundreds of door staff will be trained to change the response to spiking at every single level, but I am at a loss as to the logic for why the Government have not included training for staff at outdoor music festivals, where tens of thousands of under 18-year-olds attend, often camping out, and where private security firms are tasked with their safety. Will the Minister extend the training to outdoor music festival staff in order to protect our young people?
Laura Farris
I thank the hon. Lady for her question and for all her work on this issue. I think we are arguing on two sides of the same coin. We agree, without reservation, that there is a need to define spiking in law and that is what we are committing to do. Effectively, it could be viewed as an offence, which will enable people to report clearly and the police to record data in the way that I have suggested. Essentially, there is no particular difference between where the NPCC is and where we are on this issue. I hope that will satisfy her. I encourage her to have a look at the report itself. The ambition is very much to work with staff at every level. We are in no doubt about who the frontline responders are. Yes, festivals are a primary location, as are student campuses. Of course bar staff come into this. The direction of travel is absolutely to further their work in recognising and—ultimately, if our research goes further—perhaps playing a role in testing and supporting the police effort on this particular crime.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
This is the best early Christmas present for thousands of our constituents who have been spiked and the many tens of thousands who worry that they may be spiked. It is testimony to the new safeguarding Minister that in my hon. Friend’s first statement to the House she has announced the updating and modernising of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, which so many of us who have been campaigning on this issue believe is overdue. She has done this in the presence of both the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor, both of whose unwavering support on this matter I much appreciate. Will my hon. Friend tell the House when she believes it might be possible to start the process of training, when we might be able to expand the roll-out of the police reporting pilot project, and when we might expect to get an early report back on the results of the drink testing kit, which is so important to a successful implementation?
Laura Farris
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the exceptional work that he has done in driving this forward, working with Ministers and explaining to us issues that we may not have considered previously. I think that was one of the best examples of MPs and, I hope, Government working together—along with other MPs, of course.
My hon. Friend asked, very properly, questions about the reporting and the timeframe. I do not have an answer for him, but I will take his questions back to my officials and see whether we can set a sensible timetable for when he and others can expect some report from the Home Office on what is being done, how effective it is, and what difference it will make. On the question of updating legislation, everyone who has read the published report will be aware that there was a difference of opinion, with some police officers expressing the belief that existing law covered this offence. However, in the life of the current Parliament there have been other important ways in which we have changed the law when some would have said that an offence was already covered. One example is non-fatal strangulation. I have spoken to criminal barristers who say they are securing convictions for that offence in circumstances in which they would not have necessarily done so in the past, and I hope that we will see the same difference in this instance.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I welcome some of what the Minister has announced. When the National Police Chiefs’ Council ran a data collection for spiking incidents at festivals and other events last year, they found that the average age of a spiking victim was just 21, with some victims, shockingly, as young as 14. We know that spiking victims are disproportionately young women, and it is therefore vital that we tackle sexist attitudes early. I am proud that some of the schools in my constituency are taking innovative approaches, but may I ask the Minister to commit to working with her colleagues in the Department for Education to improve and strengthen the sex and relationships education curriculum? In particular, will they look at the recommendations from Women’s Aid for reform of the curriculum so that it directly addresses misogyny and violence against women?
Laura Farris
I am glad that the hon. Lady has asked me that question, because I have had discussions with Women’s Aid and Ministers in the Department for Education very recently to discuss exactly that. I have formed the view that there is a strong imperative for us to look carefully at how we teach children about relationships and about attitudes on these subjects at the start of secondary school, and even, I think, at the end of primary school. Once these issues develop, they are much more difficult to shift, and the key is to prevent them from developing in the first place. There are some good precedents for that being highly effective in other areas, which is what I am exploring at the moment.
Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
I warmly welcome my hon. Friend to the Dispatch Box for what I believe is her first statement—the first of many, I am certain. I was alarmed to hear in the statement that the 5,000 cases reported last year were
“perhaps only the tip of the iceberg”.
Will the reporting tool enable anonymised cases to be reported, so that we can have a better sense of the scale of this crime?
Laura Farris
I thank my right hon. Friend for his kind words. Yes, absolutely; that is a key feature of the reporting tool. The purpose is partly to address some of the issues that prevent people coming forward: they do not think they will be believed, or they think that they made a fool of themselves, or they cannot really remember what happened on the night. The ability to report the incident using an anonymous tool without having to go through the entire criminal justice process—if that is not what the victim wishes to do—is an important element. It has been piloted very successfully in 20 forces so far. We hope that it will encourage people to come forward, and will also help us to develop an accurate picture of what is happening across the country.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I have to say that I was surprised by the rapid onslaught of both the spiking of drinks and the use of needles. I do not know many young women who do not put their the hand over their glass when they are out. I hope that I am not being pedantic, but I want to press the Minister: will spiking be a stand-alone offence? She has talked about its being effectively seen as an offence, and about modernising the language, but it is extremely important for it to be a stand-alone offence. Can she please commit herself to that?
Laura Farris
Let me be completely clear about this. We will be amending the Offences against the Person Act 1861 so that the language of an existing statutory provision will capture the modern offence of spiking in all its forms, because we recognise that the language in that Act, although it nominally covers the offence of spiking, will not be clear to a member of the public.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
I thank the Minister for her statement. Very serious and worrying cases have been raised with me locally, but I know that this is a widespread, national problem, so I strongly welcome these measures, and I pay tribute to the Minister and all who have campaigned on the issue. May I return to the answer she gave on the ability to report anonymously? Does she agree that that is critical both to gaining a better understanding of what is going on and the scale of the problem, and to making it easier for people to come forward and report?
Laura Farris
I do indeed think that the ability to report anonymously is a critical part of this. I hope the use of that tool on a national basis will mean that people become accustomed to being able to report these incidents, and that as a result they are reported more widely. I hope that today’s statement will generate publicity, and that we will collectively make this an offence that people will feel much more ready to come forward and report.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Minister’s statement. Brighton has a thriving night-time and entertainment economy—that is what we are based on—but far too many people I know personally have been spiked, predominantly women. When they try to get a test via the health services, very often the pathways are closed to them. Will the Minister ensure that pathways to testing are available not just through the criminal justice system but through the health system, and that it will be a licensing requirement for venues to direct people to the right place—to safety, and then the criminal justice system? Will she also ensure that licensing rules are focused on people’s safety? I hear many reports that licensing rules prevent people from taking a glass out of a venue to get some air, so they leave the glass inside and leave themselves open to danger. Some of this needs to be changed, but outdated licensing rules prevent that from happening and end up putting people at risk.
Laura Farris
The hon. Gentleman has made three excellent suggestions. I will take them all back and write to him.
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
These measures will be welcomed by the police, who have been calling for them for many years. When I was Policing Minister, they were starting to inquire about this. Most important, however, is the fact that we worry about our loved ones when they go out. My daughter lives in Sydney, Australia, and spiking is rife there too. I heard an alarm bell ring when the Minister spoke about testing. I am a former Roads Minister as well as a former Policing Minister. When I first introduced the concept of drug-driving, the response was, “Oh, this is very difficult and technical, because there are so many different drugs.” There was discussion of urine testing and how that could be done. The saliva test leads to the prosecution of most drink-drivers and drug-drivers who are stopped. The type approval that the Home Office is looking for needs to be very open-minded. The industries will come forward with the technology. The Minister will be told that it is very expensive—tough; the more we use it, the more the price will come down.
Laura Farris
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his wise observations. I hope that he was able to infer from my statement that what currently exists is a urine test that the police can roll out. On more than one occasion, the police have told me that they are sometimes inhibited by the fact that even if they do the test, it is not within the window when the drug is still in the bloodstream, so they do not obtain an accurate reading. The reason the Home Office is funding research on rapid drink testing tests—it is still at an early stage—is that, hopefully, it will be possible to test the drink on site. If someone reports symptoms, the venue will be able to work out very quickly what might have happened, using a kit, and the path to redress for the victim can begin on the night itself.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her statement but urge her to go much further in tackling this terrible crime. In particular, I ask her to look again at further work at music festivals. Thousands of vulnerable young people attend the Reading festival in my constituency, many of them teenagers. It would be good to hear that work is under way to protect them and other young people at such festivals.
Laura Farris
I would like to write to the hon. Gentleman —I have said the same to others—about what we are doing in relation to festivals, but the Reading festival resonates, and not just because my constituency is nearby. When I spoke to Thames Valley police about this issue recently, they said that the Reading festival was not just a festival where they saw spiking, but the festival where they saw the highest correlation with a secondary offence—namely, a sexual offence that was perpetrated afterwards. The hon. Gentleman does not need to impress on me the urgent need for us to look specifically at festivals as a particular danger zone for this type of crime.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
I very much welcome my hon. Friend’s statement and her clear determination to stamp down on this evil crime. She mentioned the police intensification weeks, which I suspect will be very successful, largely down to the use of police power to stop and search in venues in order to find spiking paraphernalia on the perpetrators. However, in the long term there will be a need for training of door staff and bar staff, as she mentioned. Can she give a commitment that if further powers need to be handed down in a very limited scope to door staff—be it at a music festival, a nightclub or a late-night venue—she will not rule that out, to ensure that these crimes can be prevented in the first place?
Laura Farris
My hon. Friend is quite right. Spiking intensification is a form of training that develops how the police think about this issue, but it is likely that it will have to be complemented by what happens among door staff and bar staff, as I mentioned in my statement. We have had feedback from the police that additional powers in both regards would be helpful to them, and we are giving serious consideration to that.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Spiking is such a degrading crime. I remember the sense of shame felt by the victims I dealt with when I was taking down the reports of the offences as a sexual offences operational police officer. We need to change the culture in the longer term so that perpetrators do not even think about committing such offences, and I commend the University of St Andrews in my constituency for its consent module in that vein. We need to look at how we can actively prevent these offences, and I welcome the proposals for door staff training. Will the Minister give consideration to the amendment to the Victims and Prisoners Bill tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) on mandatory training for certain police officers and the Crown Prosecution Service in relation to violence against women and girls?
Laura Farris
The hon. Lady is right to say that spiking is a form of violence against women. The data is irrefutable: the principal victims are young and predominantly women. It is a classic gateway offence by somebody who is at risk of going on to commit a much more serious form of offending, so this is not just about stamping out the crime; it is about making it impossible for perpetrators to behave in this way in the first place. The hon. Lady talked about the police training, and I want to provide her with some reassurance. I hope I am answering her question when I say that we now have 2,000 police officers in England and Wales who are undergoing specific rape and serious sexual offence—RASO—training. I met some of them on a visit to Bristol recently and I am due to see more in the new year. I would be happy to update her on how that is going and how effectively I think it is being rolled out across forces in this country.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
I want to put on record my thanks to the new Minister for her rapid work in this area and to colleagues who have worked so hard to secure these changes to our spiking laws. Will she join me in thanking Braunton Councillor Pru Maskell and Barnstaple’s Soroptimists for their campaigning to tackle spiking and their promoting the use of Spikey bottle tops and stop-tops for glasses in North Devon?
Laura Farris
What a brilliant idea! Of course I thank the local organisations that my hon. Friend mentions. This has been a collective effort. Perhaps representing Parliament is at its best when so many MPs have worked with their local authorities or local charities, or have heard the voices of victims who have come to see them in their surgeries, and relayed all that into Government. We have drawn all that information together and got to where we are today but, honestly, without the testimony and hard work of so many local groups such as the ones she mentions, we probably would not be here now.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for the second good news story that we have heard today in this Chamber. We are very pleased to have that. Can I also thank the hon. Members for Gloucester (Richard Graham) and for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) and others in this House who have contributed to this potential legislation? It is great to hear these announcements on tackling spiking, especially as we approach the Christmas period when so many young people—and elderly people as well—are attending Christmas parties and events across the whole of the United Kingdom. As I understand it, the changes to the legislation will apply to the 43 police forces in England and Wales. The Minister referred to 5,000 cases on the UK mainland. Just to give her an idea of the impact in Northern Ireland, we had 120 cases there in one month. Will she ensure that discussions take place with the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the relevant Government Departments to ensure that we in Northern Ireland can adopt this same legislation and keep our people safe as well?
Laura Farris
I am rapidly doing the maths, and it looks as though the scale of the problem in Northern Ireland is at the same level as it is everywhere else in the country. I will make a note that we undertake to work carefully with that force and ensure that there is standardisation across the United Kingdom.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
I congratulate the Minister on tackling this issue and my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) on his persistence in bringing it to her attention. Sussex police actively helps to prevent spiking by providing anti-spiking drinks covers and stop-tops and by using a drone in Brighton, where there are four universities, to act as a mobile form of CCTV. Can the Minister provide further details on how the Home Office will work with the National Police Chiefs’ Council to target key weeks when spiking tends to be more prevalent, in order to crack down on the number of incidents and to ensure that police forces share best practice to avoid a postcode lottery?
Laura Farris
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has been really vocal on this issue and deserves credit for everything she has done on it. She made two excellent points. The first was about whether the Home Office would respond to flashpoint time periods such as freshers’ week. I think that that is absolutely within our purview and it is set out in the spiking report, which I hope she has had an opportunity to read. The second was about best practice, and that is an excellent point on which I hope to update the House over the course of next year. We can create as many new offences or practices as possible in this House, but unless they are being applied evenly across every force, we cannot be sure that they are working as well as they should be. I hope my hon. Friend will continue to scrutinise the Government on that issue in the months ahead.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
I hugely welcome this statement from the Minister and thank the Government for taking strong, positive action on tackling the horrific crime of spiking, which affects young and older people, including students and non-students, and hugely negatively impacts public safety. Can my hon. Friend reassure the House and the public at large that the police and hospitality businesses will be supported to better detect this crime and so ultimately bring these perpetrators to justice?
Laura Farris
I can provide my hon. Friend with that reassurance. The critical part of our response today is that we are working at every single level from the barman to the bouncer to the statute book. We recognise it as critical that people are protected when they are out at night and if they have cause to go to the police the following day. Our objective is to stamp out spiking.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I would like to thank the Minister for her statement and for responding to questions for over 40 minutes. I am now going to seamlessly hand over to Sir Roger Gale.
Bill Presented
General Medical Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules (Amendment) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Daisy Cooper presented a Bill to provide that an allegation concerning a medical practitioner’s fitness to practise may be considered by the General Medical Council irrespective of when the most recent events giving rise to the allegation occurred; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the first time; to be read a second time on Friday 26 April 2024, and to be printed (Bill 142).
Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill
Monday 18th December 2023
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Act 2024 View all Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Barclay)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill before us today will cement our position as a world leader on animal welfare. It will ban from Great Britain the export of cattle, sheep, goats, pigs and horses for slaughter and fattening, putting a permanent end to this unnecessary trade. I am proud to say that we are a nation of animal lovers. We have some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world and we continue to strengthen them. Indeed, the UK was the first country in the world to pass legislation to protect animals and we are currently joint top of the world animal protection index. The Bill builds on our proud record by preventing the unnecessary journeys of animals being exported abroad for slaughter.
We have already delivered a raft of measures to protect and enhance animal welfare. In the past five years alone, we have introduced tougher sentences for animal cruelty through the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021 and recognised in law the sentience of all vertebrates and some invertebrates via the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022. We brought into force the ivory ban, one of the world’s toughest bans on ivory sales, and the Wild Animals in Circuses Act 2019 prohibits travelling circuses from using wild animals, in recognition of the intrinsic value of wild animals and the need to respect them.
We continue to go further to improve animal welfare. Just this year, we have brought forward compulsory cat microchipping, and we are banning the keeping of primates as pets. Today marks another step forward in delivering better welfare for the animals in our care, as the Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill will end unnecessary journeys abroad for slaughter. Taking advantage of Brexit freedoms, we can now legislate to end this trade, which we were unable to do for so many years due to European Union trade rules.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
If I may have the liberty of saying so, I am sure that Mr Deputy Speaker would be speaking enthusiastically in support of the Bill if he were not in the Chair, because of his commitment to animal welfare.
The Secretary of State has just said that this is a Brexit freedom, and I very much remember it being trumpeted during the Brexit campaign, but that was more than seven years ago. By the time this Bill becomes law, it will be eight years. What has taken him so long?
Steve Barclay
I would have thought the hon. Lady would welcome the fact that we are able to legislate. For so many years, Members of this House called for the ability to prevent live exports, but we were not able to do so. Where I agree with her is on Mr Deputy Speaker’s support for animal welfare, which is recognised across the House.
I want to take a moment to acknowledge Members who have championed this important issue over a number of years, which speaks to the hon. Lady’s point. In particular, I recognise my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay), who has repeatedly lobbied on this issue and, indeed, in 2016 proposed a private Member’s Bill to amend the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847 to allow ports and local authorities to ban live exports.
I recognise my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), who also actively championed a ban, including, in 2017, tabling a private Member’s Bill to prohibit live exports. Although her proposals did not make it on to the statute book, they reminded the House of the public concern on this important issue and, indeed, helped to lay the groundwork for the Bill before us today.
I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) who has championed this issue both within the Department and within this House. Indeed, there have been numerous debates during which many Members on both sides of the Chamber have spoken passionately about ending live exports, reflecting the strong support in the country for a ban.
I also thank the tireless campaigners whose efforts have helped to raise awareness of this issue among hon. Members and the wider public, particularly the RSPCA and Compassion in World Farming, which have both actively campaigned on this issue over many decades, as well as World Horse Welfare, which was founded in 1927 to stop the export of horses for slaughter.
Live animal exports have been a focus of campaigning by animal welfare charities for more than 50 years. Indeed, in the 1990s, when millions of animals were exported for slaughter each year, several legal challenges sought to ban live exports. These challenges were unsuccessful, not least because, as a member of the EU, we were bound by EU rules on animal welfare during transport, which prevented the House from acting.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for chatting to me earlier. The export of live animals somewhat suggests travel by sea and, because we do not have an abattoir on the Isle of Wight, we have to export animals to the UK for slaughter before bringing them back. There are potentially more humane ways of dealing with animals, one of which would be to have a small-scale abattoir on the Isle of Wight. On the current small-scale abattoir programme, the Government are working only with current abattoirs and abattoir owners. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss how we can get a small-scale abattoir on the Isle of Wight, so that we can enjoy the spirit, as well as the de jure benefits, of this excellent Bill?
Steve Barclay
My hon. Friend raises an important point. The Government have committed £4 million of additional investment through the smaller abattoir fund, recognising the importance of reducing animals’ journey times. As we have discussed separately, I am happy to meet him to discuss what more we can do in the context of smaller abattoirs, particularly recognising the specific issues of geography in his constituency.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
I warmly thank my right hon. Friend for his kind comments about my long-term involvement. It is great that we no longer have EU barriers, but how can we be sure that we will not run into World Trade Organisation issues? What work has he done to ensure that the Bill survives any potential challenge on trade grounds?
Steve Barclay
I drew attention to my right hon. Friend’s long campaigning, and I will return, if I may, to the trajectory of this issue before addressing her point.
Calls for a ban intensified after 2012, when the Animal and Plant Health Agency intercepted a consignment of sheep due to sail from the port of Ramsgate and 42 sheep were humanely killed after being found unfit to travel. I welcome that, since the 1990s, we have seen export numbers decline significantly. In 2020, around 6,300 sheep were exported from Great Britain to the EU for slaughter, and around 38,000 sheep were exported for fattening. I am pleased to say that, thanks to the UK’s exit from the EU, there have been no recorded exports for slaughter or fattening from Great Britain to the EU since January 2021, and now is the time to enshrine that in law.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for making the point that, from 2021, there have been no further exports for slaughter. My farmers are concerned about reproduction. Can he clarify whether the Bill is just about slaughter? What can be done about the gene pool, by making sure that people are still allowed to trade genetic material across the world in order to strengthen stocks?
Steve Barclay
My hon. Friend characteristically raises a pertinent point, which I will address. He is right to draw a distinction between exports for slaughter and wider breeding programmes, particularly in the horse industry.
Given the demand from Europe’s slaughterhouses for livestock, especially British sheep, there is no reason to think that this trade would not resume at the first opportunity if we did not legislate now to ban live exports. That is why we must put an end to this unnecessary trade.
Long journey times can lead to a host of animal welfare issues, including stress, exhaustion, dehydration and injury. The journeys that once took young, unweaned calves from Great Britain to Spain for fattening were found to last on average 60 hours, and in some cases over 100 hours.
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)
I warmly welcome the Bill, on which the Department has been working for some time. This measure was a big component of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill in the last Session.
This Bill sends a very important message internationally, because where the UK leads on animal welfare, other countries often follow. My right hon. Friend will be aware that some of the worst problems and the longest journeys relate to livestock going from Australia to the middle east for slaughter. Does he share my hope that the Australian Government will learn from this British example and modernise their laws to end that trade?
Steve Barclay
My right hon. Friend raises an extremely important point. In large measure, that international leadership comes from the leadership he showed, when he was Secretary of State, in placing animal welfare at the forefront of the approach taken by the Government and the Department. I hope other countries will look at that approach and at the benefits it will bring. His leadership is a very good illustration of that.
As my right hon. Friend will recall, even the shortest direct-to-slaughter export journeys from Britain to continental Europe in 2018 took 18 hours. The UK Government, along with the Scottish and Welsh Governments, commissioned the Farm Animal Welfare Committee to examine and report on animal welfare in the transporting of livestock. Its 2018 report drew on a range of sources—
Steve Barclay
Before updating the House on that important point, I will, of course, give way.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Secretary of State and, as I have not had the opportunity to do this yet, wish him well in the position he now holds. He understands, as I am sure almost everyone in this Chamber does, that the farmer loves his animals and wants to do what is best for them. What discussions has he had with the National Farmers Union and the Ulster Farmers Union about this issue, ever mindful that the farmers wish to do what is best for their animals?
Steve Barclay
I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman that farmers care passionately for the welfare of their animals. A similar point arises where one often sees the debate on nature and sustainable farming set up as if those things are in conflict. I do not think they are. I think that farmers are the custodians of the land and want to pass it on to future generations in better health, with better soil quality, than before. They have a similar approach to animal welfare issues. Farmers care for their livestock, which is why so many of them will welcome the measures we are taking today.
I was just touching on the 2018 report by the Farm Animal Welfare Committee commissioned by the UK, Scottish and Welsh Governments, which included expert opinion through stakeholder engagement, the responses to a call for evidence on welfare in transport, and a systemic review conducted by Scotland’s Rural College and the University of Edinburgh. The report identified several aspects of transport that have a detrimental effect on animal welfare, such as the stress of unfamiliar surroundings, vehicle motion, confinement and poor ventilation. The report expressed concerns about lengthy journeys, recommending that animals should be transported only when necessary.
In line with the Government’s manifesto commitment, and following the FAWC report, in 2020 we undertook a public consultation with the Welsh Government on banning live exports. The strength of public feeling against live exports was clearly demonstrated; we received more than 11,000 responses to that consultation, showing that the public care deeply about this issue. Some 87% of respondents agreed that livestock and horses should not be exported for slaughter and fattening, and now is the time to lock in a ban to permanently end those unnecessary export journeys.
The Bill’s core provision prohibits the export of relevant livestock from Great Britain for slaughter and makes doing so an offence. The Bill is focused on banning live exports where major animal welfare concerns have been identified. Accordingly, it legislates to end all exports from or transit journeys through Great Britain of cattle, sheep, pigs, goats and horses for fattening and slaughter.
It may be helpful to speak to the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans) and set out briefly what the Bill does not prohibit. The Bill still allows exports of livestock, including horses, for other purposes such as breeding, shows and competitions, provided the animals are transported in line with legal requirements aimed at protecting their welfare. Animals exported for breeding are transported in very good conditions so that they can live a full and healthy life once they arrive in their destination country. Moreover, the export of breeding livestock from the UK can assist in food resilience of local breeds in third countries. Indeed, British breeds can offer advantages, such as genetic disease resistance and high-quality animals.
The Bill does not apply to journeys within the UK, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, nor does it apply to livestock and horse movements within the UK, such as those from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. That is to ensure that farmers in Northern Ireland have unfettered access to the UK and Republic of Ireland markets. This Bill will not apply in Northern Ireland.
In addition to the central provision that introduces the ban, the Bill contains a delegated power to provide regulations about enforcement of the ban. It empowers the appropriate national authorities to make regulations to provide for enforcement and sets out the scope of those enforcement regulations, including safeguards relating to powers of entry and the criminal offences that may be created.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The Minister has identified a point of great resentment to people in Northern Ireland who are concerned about animal welfare, and it should be a point of concern for people right across the UK. He has indicated that the Bill cannot and will not apply to Northern Ireland. The journeys that he says are unnecessary, stressful and exhausting, and can cause injury to animals when they are transported from Great Britain, will be able to occur for animals based in Northern Ireland. They can be taken to the south of Spain without any of these requirements being applied to them. How does he explain that?
Steve Barclay
It is because the Bill ensures that farmers in Northern Ireland have unfettered access to the UK and the Republic of Ireland. The point that the right hon. Gentleman highlights is part of the wider issues that the House has debated at length, not least when considering the Windsor framework. We have discussed those issues on many occasions in this House.
The Bill empowers the appropriate national authorities to make regulations to provide enforcement and includes safeguards relating to powers of entry and the criminal offences. The power will enable the Department to work closely with the Scottish and Welsh Governments to provide an effective and proportionate suite of measures to enforce the ban across England, Scotland and Wales. It will ensure that the enforcement of the ban can work alongside the existing protections on the welfare of animals in transport, which are set out in detail in existing legislation.
The Bill also repeals sections 40 to 49 of the Animal Health Act 1981. Those provisions were intended to prevent the export of horses and ponies for slaughter, particularly by setting minimum value requirements. Now that we are banning all live exports, including of horses and ponies for slaughter, those provisions are no longer necessary. Their repeal will streamline the legislation, avoiding any confusion that might arise from the existence of two measures for controlling the export of horses and ponies for slaughter. Given the degree of support for the ban on live exports, I want to reassure Members from across the House that the ban and its associated enforcement regulations will come into force as soon as possible.
In conclusion, continuing to allow the unnecessary live export of animals for slaughter would undermine this country’s proud record on animal welfare. I am confident that many Members of this House will agree on the importance of advocating for the animals in our care and that this Bill marks another significant milestone in our progress towards delivering better animal welfare across the nation. In 2016, the EU referendum brought renewed public interest in finally ending live exports for slaughter. Now that we have this long-awaited opportunity, I urge the House to support the Bill in consigning this unnecessary trade to the history books. I commend the Bill to the House.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
If you will allow me, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to start by paying tribute to my right hon. Friend Mark Drakeford MS, the First Minister of Wales. Mark announced that he was standing down from the Senedd last week. I want to thank him for his friendship to me and pay tribute to his service to the people of Newport West and of Wales over many years. I wish him a very long, happy, healthy retirement.
Where is the Minister for animal welfare? Disgracefully, he is sitting in the other place, having been appointed to the House of Lords last week. The sudden appointment of an unelected peer in the days before Christmas does not inspire confidence that this Government care about animal welfare. The Prime Minister seems to have such little faith in his MPs, such a lack of trust with his Back Benchers, that he cannot find a single Member sitting on the Benches opposite to be the animal welfare Minister.
I welcome the Bill, on behalf of Labour Members, but it beggars belief that it has taken so long to bring this unnecessarily cruel trade to an end. With Christmas in a few days, I acknowledge that this is the season to be kind and festive. On that basis and with Tory Ministers finally doing the right thing, Labour will support the Bill, even if it is long overdue.
I gently say to the Secretary of State that Labour called for a legal ban on live exports for slaughter and fattening from or through Great Britain in 2019, and has been encouraging the Government to act ever since. The Opposition have long called for a ban on live exports because millions of farmed animals risk facing long-distance journeys every year when exported for fattening and slaughter, causing them unnecessary suffering. As we have heard from the Secretary of State, those journeys can cause animals to become mentally exhausted, physically injured, hungry, dehydrated and stressed. That is why the Bill and the changes it will bring about are so important. The Bill prohibits the export of relevant livestock from Great Britain for slaughter, and provides that a person who commits an offence in England and Wales under those clauses in the Bill is liable
“on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the maximum term for summary offences, to a fine or to both”.
The Bill will make it an offence to send, transport or organise transport, or to attempt to send, transport or organise transport for livestock for export from or through Great Britain for fattening and slaughter outside the British Isles. The ban in the Bill applies to a range of livestock, including cattle, horses, sheep, goats, pigs and wild boar but, we note, not poultry. The Bill is narrow in scope and reach, and the majority of its provisions will extend to England, Scotland and Wales, so the House will be interested in hearing from the Minister about what concrete discussions took place with the devolved Administrations. The Secretary of State has already mentioned research and consultations, but what actual discussions were had with the Administrations in devolved areas?
I am proud of the Labour party’s track record on delivering progress on animal welfare in Government. We ended the testing of cosmetic products on animals in 1998 and stopped the cruelty of fur farming in 2000.
Theresa Villiers
In the last Parliament, Labour MPs and their leader did everything they possibly could to keep us in the single market. If they had succeeded, we would never have been able to ban live exports.
Ruth Jones
I thank the right hon. Lady for her intervention, but I am not sure that it is relevant to what we are talking about today. We introduced the Hunting Act 2004 and the landmark Animal Welfare Act 2006.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I particularly commend her point about foxhunting and the action taken by the last Labour Government to tackle that appalling activity. Does she agree with me that there is enormous interest in animal welfare, both around provisions set out in the Bill and wider aspects of the issue? Does she agree that the Government have spent a very long time on this but they have not yet delivered a comprehensive animal welfare Bill, despite previous attempts? Would she now like to see further action taken on that, and on many other matters?
Ruth Jones
My hon. Friend must have read my speech and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), because we certainly want people to go further and faster. As the Secretary of State has already said, it has taken seven or eight years to get to this point. Although we are clear that the Bill is only one step towards improving animal welfare, the Government have dithered, delayed and let down livestock, our pets and animals. There have been 13 and a half years of inaction, failure and disappointment.
The Tories have taken a weak approach to animal welfare, from pulling Bills to caving in to their Back Benchers. There has been little commitment to following through on their promises and pledges. I say to Government Members—well, to those who are here—we will take no lessons from this Conservative Government that recently ditched plans to end puppy farming and trophy hunting, among other examples of letting us down on animal welfare. We cannot forget the much missed Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, because that is where the Bill comes from. Back in May, the Conservative Government threw out the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill and instead decided to implement various measures separately, which is why we are here today.
The Tories’ track record on animal welfare has been nothing short of a disaster. They have shown themselves to be a party that cannot be trusted when it comes to protecting vulnerable animals, just as they have proven themselves to be a party that has no interest in helping vulnerable people. Will the Minister tell us where the ban on cages for farmed animals is? Where is the animal welfare labelling or the action to ensure that farmers from Newport West to Newcastle-under-Lyme, from High Peak to the highlands, are not undercut by low welfare imports?
In particular, where is the Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill? My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed) said:
“Hunting endangered animals is barbaric and must be confined to history. We must stop the selfish trophy hunters who want to slaughter then display endangered animals’ body parts for their own perverse self-gratification. The Conservative government must stop siding with these killers. If they refuse to act, they will be complicit in the slaughter as they break yet another pre-election promise.”
Does the Secretary of State agree with that and, if so, what will he do about it? If he does not agree, why not?
There is even more. Where is the action to stop puppy smuggling? Where is the plan to stop pet theft? When will we finally see a ban on the importation of dogs with cropped ears? Will we ever see a ban on snares? The Welsh Labour Government have banned snares and, thanks to pressure from the Labour party, the Scottish Government are planning to do the same, so why is Westminster still dithering and delaying?
Many of these promises were contained in the 2021 action plan for animals. Has the Minister read the action plan? If so, why has he abandoned so many of the promises contained in it? Making changes through private Members’ Bills is not leadership. If Ministers really want Tory Back Benchers to lead on animal welfare legislation, the Prime Minister could make one of them animal welfare Minister.
Dr Luke Evans
As a Back Bencher who served on the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill Committee, the biggest problem was that lots of additional legislation was potentially being added to the Bill. Would the Opposition spokesperson like to comment on the Labour party’s position on halal slaughter, for example?
Ruth Jones
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue; I look forward to that discussion in Committee.
Making changes through private Members’ Bills is not leadership. Rather than Tory Back Benchers leading on animal welfare legislation, Ministers need to get on with it. I pay tribute to all the stakeholders and campaigners who devote their time and attention to fighting for the strongest animal welfare provisions we can deliver. The Opposition stand ready to facilitate a speedy journey through the House for the Bill, but we will seek to make it as strong, effective and durable as we can.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
The hon. Lady is talking about the Labour party promoting animal health and welfare. How does she square that with the Welsh Labour Government’s policy on tuberculosis in cattle and the UK Labour party saying it will stop control of the wildlife reservoir for tuberculosis, when it has been scientifically proven that that Conservative Government policy has been reducing the instance of tuberculosis in cattle in the United Kingdom?
Ruth Jones
I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his interest, knowledge and expertise in this area, but the science is disputed. We will continue to listen to all sides of the scientific argument and look forward to discussing the issue in Committee.
I am grateful for advance warning of the Committee of the whole House, so staff who support the shadow DEFRA team can do some planning over the festive period and enjoy a well-earned rest. I wish the Bill well. When the question is put today, we will support it and I look forward to seeing it signed into law—the sooner the better.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
It is a huge pleasure to speak in the debate. We have been waiting for this Bill, which was one of our manifesto commitments, but we had not left the European Union back in 2016 so we had to wait until such time as we could take a decision. As soon as we could make a commitment, we made the decision to introduce the Bill.
The way the Opposition have tried to present themselves on aspects of animal welfare has been somewhat suspect. Indeed, earlier this year, the Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mark Spencer) shared the reasons why the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill could not be taken forward. I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth) at the debate, as well as other right hon. and hon. Friends. For the record in Hansard, there is not a single Labour Back Bencher on the Opposition Benches—the one who was there, the hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda), has just walked out of the Chamber—but meanwhile there are 15 to 20 Members on the Government Benches.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
While the Labour party talks a good game on animal welfare, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is the Conservatives who are significantly improving protections for animals and our much-loved pets?
Dr Coffey
I totally agree with my hon. Friend. However, I do think that we should be open about this. Animal welfare should not be a matter for competition, as some try to suggest. We are a nation of animal lovers. That is why there will be strong support for this Bill. We should not try to play each other off, suggesting that one side cares more than the other. Of course, conservation is very much in the DNA of our Conservative party, and that is why I am delighted to be supporting the Bill today.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Let me try to take the partisan element out of this. Our great friend Sir David Amess, who was a Conservative MP and a patron of the excellent Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation, was also very skilled at working across parties to achieve objectives, and he was passionate about this cause. Does my right hon. Friend, the former Secretary of State for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, agree that it would be a great tribute to him if all of us, in all parts of this House, could pass this very important Bill into law?
Dr Coffey
Of course I agree with my right hon. Friend. Indeed, I am standing in front of the shield of my former hon. Friend, a conscious reminder of the sacrifice that he paid for being a Member of this House. He will be known forever for his passion for animal welfare, and I am delighted that, as well as his closest friends, his successor, my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth), has continued that journey.
The Bill is straightforward; it does what it says on the tin. That is the right approach. I wish that other parts of the European Union would agree to this. I am delighted that this legislation is one of the Brexit bonuses. It will be the second piece of primary legislation that DEFRA has introduced—the first being the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023. I know that there is more to do, and I know that there are plenty of speakers who wish to speak today, but let us think carefully about how we can accelerate this Bill so that it gets through the next stage in one day—I believe that business has been tabled for the first week back—so that we can make sure that this legislation comes into effect as quickly as possible. That is good for the welfare of animals and good for our reputation around the world. It will show the leadership that we can bring and make sure that we continue to be strong in what we are doing while still recognising the ongoing animal welfare reforms that this Conservative Government have already put in place, and I know that there will be many more to come.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
This Second Reading debate on the Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill is not simply another ordinary piece of parliamentary business this evening. It marks a profound moment. It is one step of the many steps still required to fortify our collective commitment to the welfare of all sentient beings. At the heart of the Bill lies a commitment to redefine our treatment of animals. Its primary objective is to prohibit the export of live cattle, sheep, goats, pigs and horses for slaughter or fattening from the United Kingdom. This is not merely a matter of regulatory oversight in need of correction; it is a principled stand against the unnecessary stress, exhaustion and injury inflicted on sentient beings during their exportation. The Bill is not about restriction; it embodies progress, evolution and the establishment of more ethical standards in our treatment of animals. Its aim is to ensure that animals are slaughtered in high welfare domestic slaughterhouses here in the United Kingdom, preventing their export to potentially lower welfare conditions elsewhere.
The UK Government’s commitment to allocating funding to farmers to improve welfare conditions is welcomed, as is the provision of the £4 million fund for smaller abattoirs that the Minister outlined, underscoring the comprehensive approach to the legislation. It signifies investment in the wellbeing of our livestock as well as an acknowledgement of the pivotal role that farmers play, and will continue to play, in our communities and in society.
The journey through this milestone has not been without challenge. As we know, the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, which was first proposed in 2021, faced internal turmoil within the Tory party, preventing its progression through this place and, ultimately, leading to the Government scrapping it altogether. Two years later, four DEFRA Ministers and persistent advocacy from every quarter have prodded and prompted the Government to this point—to addressing the pressing issues of animal welfare.
The SNP has been fully committed to the banning of live exports of animals for fattening and slaughter, and we welcome the outlined aims of the Bill. Our track record in Scotland of implementing and managing robust animal welfare standards aligns with our national ambitions. This legislation holds particular significance for Scotland. The Scottish Government have been at the forefront not only in considering animal welfare initiatives, but in protecting our exquisite, world-beating Scottish produce, as well as standing up for those who produce it for us.
The proposed changes in the Bill to livestock transportation times reflect a nuanced understanding of the physiological and psychological impact of transporting these beings.
The maximum journey times for cattle, sheep, pigs, calves and broilers are designed to reduce stress and discomfort during their transportation, demonstrating a commitment to their wellbeing. Collaborative efforts between the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission and the UK Animal Welfare Committee have sought not only to address shared concerns in this specific area, but to extend their attention to various other issues of concern, including avian influenza control, the culling of male chicks, precision breeding, responsible sourcing of fur, livestock breeding, and the welfare of pigs and equines at slaughter. This collaboration exemplifies the potential for an open and collaborative approach to address broader animal welfare challenges that we will face in the future.
It is crucial to re-emphasise that this legislation is not just about animal welfare; it is about our identity as a society and the values and compassions that we have for ethical treatment. The call for a ban on live exports is not an isolated action, but part of a broader movement for change. Public support for a ban is overwhelming, as has been demonstrated by the many petitions calling on the UK Government to take the kept animals Bill through Parliament. It is crucial to be clear that the ban, as proposed, will apply only to exports for fattening and slaughter from, or through, the United Kingdom. It explicitly excludes the export of breeding animals, recognising their vital role in Scotland’s agricultural sector.
In addition, any changes in legislation must continue to be crafted with a keen understanding of Scotland’s established patterns of livestock movements from islands and remote areas. Any ban must not disadvantage Scottish farmers or crofters by impeding movement between the islands and the mainland. This will be a key concern for us going forward. The ban should not include animal exports for breeding, which are an integral part of Scotland’s agricultural sector, particularly in trade with the Republic of Ireland.
The Scottish Government welcome the UK Government’s intention to introduce this Bill and express a willingness to work jointly with them and other devolved Administrations to ensure smooth implementation across the nations. We in the Scottish National party believe the legislation, if enacted, will not only reflect our commitment to improved animal welfare but also safeguard our reputation as a nation that champions the wellbeing of all living beings. Collectively, let us not squander this chance to make history, to set a standard for compassion, and to ensure that our actions align with the values that we hold dear.
As we continue to debate the intricacies of this legislation at its next stage, let us remain steadfast in our resolve to protect our farming communities and to build a future where the welfare of animals is a non-negotiable priority.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
I declare a personal and professional interest as a veterinary surgeon.
I very much welcome not only the introduction of this animal welfare legislation but, importantly, the cross-party support for it across the United Kingdom. The Bill will ban the export of cattle, sheep, goats, pigs and horses from Great Britain for slaughter or fattening. That has a huge benefit for animal welfare, decreasing both the stress on the animals that have travelled long distances, and the incidences of injury and diseases that are associated with long travel. This will fulfil a 2019 Conservative manifesto commitment, and I strongly welcome that. As has been mentioned by Members across the House, it will also help to ensure that animals are slaughtered domestically and close to home. That is so important to improving animal welfare, because if we reduce the distances that animals are transported, that will be a huge benefit to the animal. It is so important that animals are reared, slaughtered and then eaten locally. That is good for the environment, good for animal welfare and good for local businesses.
Importantly, this Bill stipulates that the meat can then be transported and exported as well. It is much better to transport on the hook rather than the hoof. However, we still need to work on improving transport conditions for all animals—farm livestock as well as horses. I urge everyone not to drop the ball on that. Just because this brilliant Bill is coming in, it does not mean that we do not still have work to do to improve transport conditions for animals.
I welcome the comments of the Secretary of State on the exemptions for the movement of animals for breeding and other purposes, potentially including sport. However, it would be helpful if that was made a little clearer in the Bill and the explanatory notes, so that any doubt is removed. As I said, it is important that animals are slaughtered close to home. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has produced reports on that topic, such as “Moving animals across borders” and many others. One of our key recommendations was that we need to support the UK abattoir network, and ensure that sufficient numbers of abattoirs are spread around the country to reduce the distance to travel. I hugely welcome the Government’s announcement last week of the £4 million smaller abattoir fund, which will go a long way to help with that situation.
I also welcome the Bill’s stopping the export of young unweaned calves for long journeys for fattening and slaughter. In addition to the Bill, we need to ensure that we adapt, and use more of the animals farmed here. We need to reduce the production of dairy bull calves that are then lost to wastage. We can do that with such things as semen selection. We should also encourage the rearing of dairy bull calves locally and the use of less popular cuts and types of meat, such as rose veal. That will help animal welfare in the future too.
Throughout the debate we need to be cognisant of food security, which came into sharp focus with the pandemic and the war in Ukraine. Food security is so important for our country, and we need to be much more resilient in producing food. We need to think about the workforce issues. Again, I declare an interest as a veterinary surgeon. An EFRA Committee report recommended that we keep an eye on the number of vets we train and retain in the profession. Prior to our leaving the European Union, 90% to 95% of veterinarians who worked in the meat hygiene sector were from the EU. We need to keep on our radar the need to staff our abattoirs and food processing plants adequately. Last year, we had a crisis in the pig farming sector, with pigs damming back on farms because they could not be taken to slaughter to be processed.
We need to keep an eye on the workforce issues, and think about the resilience of some of the infrastructure. Carbon dioxide is an indirect result of fertiliser production, and CO2 is needed for the slaughter of poultry and pigs. In the last couple of years, CF Fertilisers has shut its plant in Ince and ceased ammonia production at its Billingham plant. For food security and resilience, Government need to keep a watching brief on that.
Mr Francois
As my hon. Friend has mentioned pigs twice, another area where we would like the Government to move—I hope with the support of all parties—is on banning the awful use of pig farrowing crates. I am sure that were the Government to introduce legislation for that purpose—again, the issue was close to Sir David’s heart—it, too, would enjoy great support in this House.
Dr Hudson
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention.
On horses, I welcome the comments of the Secretary of State, and the Bill’s provisions, but huge numbers are still being illegally exported to Europe, under the guises of sport, competition or breeding, where they end up being slaughtered. On the EFRA Committee we heard harrowing evidence from World Horse Welfare that the practice still goes on. I welcome the Bill’s trying to stop that illegal practice, but we need to do more work on that. We need to improve the identification of horses and get a central equine database. The Bill is welcome, but we must not drop the ball on other issues.
Prior to our leaving the European Union, we had a tripartite agreement whereby high-performance, elite and high-health horses were able to move smoothly between Ireland, France and the United Kingdom. We need to try to get a replacement scheme in place. The movement of animals in and out of the country is important in animal health and welfare, and for the United Kingdom’s biosecurity. I welcome the Government’s moving forward with the border target operating model. Hopefully, the station at the Sevington campus in Kent will be in place soon to help with that.
The Secretary of State mentioned the great work of the Animal and Plant Health Agency. I put on record my thanks to the staff of APHA for maintaining our biosecurity—for animal health, plant health and, indirectly, human health. Those staff do so much in keeping the sector safe. As has been mentioned, avian influenza is still with us. The Farming Minister is well aware of that; I have had correspondence with him about it. The bluetongue episodes in ruminants that we are seeing in both Kent and Norfolk show us that we must be diligent with our biosecurity. African swine fever is rising up through the continent of Europe; we need to ensure that we are vigilant to stop that horrific disease coming into the United Kingdom. Heaven forbid that another disease like foot and mouth disease comes into the country. That shows us how important APHA is for our biosecurity and for the future of British business. I urge Ministers to keep making the case to the Treasury to refurbish the APHA HQ in Weybridge, Surrey. It is so important for our national security.
The Bill also has many pragmatic measures. It does not apply to movements within the United Kingdom, which will help, and importantly Northern Irish farmers will still have access to the UK and Irish markets. Some of the practical measures in the Windsor framework are developed in the Bill, but we need further clarity on the movement of animals between GB and Northern Ireland, and vice versa. I know that colleagues in the Democratic Unionist party feel strongly about the availability of veterinary medicines in Northern Ireland; 50% of veterinary medicines were going to be lost, but a suspension in December 2022 has extended availability for a further three years to 2025. It is important that we work with our European friends and allies to get clarity on long-term availability of veterinary medicines in Northern Ireland.
The Conservative Government have a strong record on animal welfare. I agree that it should not be a party-political issue. The Government have passed the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022; created the Animal Sentience Committee so that every piece of legislation must have due regard to animal sentience, which is so important; passed the Sentencing Act 2020 to increase the penalties for cruelty to animals; and brought in the compulsory microchipping of cats. Just last week, we talked about banning the keeping of primates as pets. As we have heard, individual Bills such as today’s are being introduced, as well as private Member’s Bills to tackle pet theft, pet smuggling and puppy smuggling, and to stop the import of dogs that have had their ears horrifically cropped, of cats that have had their claws horrifically taken off them, and of heavily pregnant cats and dogs. Those Bills are being introduced, as is another on livestock worrying.
Animal welfare unites us in humanity and across the House. It is so important that we pass the Bill. I welcome the cross-party support, and I wish the Bill well as it travels.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I am happy to follow my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson), and to agree with many of the things that he said. My party and I are very supportive of the Bill. To ban the live export of animals, in particular cattle, sheep, goats, pigs, horses and other equine beasts, is a really positive step. We hope there will be no opposition to the Bill this evening, but should it come to a vote, we will support its Second Reading. If there is, we will join the Minister in the Aye Lobby.
We are disappointed—and we are not alone in this—by what is not in the Bill, because it was dropped in the last Session; by the fact that the measures previously promised by this Government are now either being dropped altogether or put through the very unreliable route of private Member’s Bills; and by the length of time it has taken to get here. But we cannot avoid the fact that the ban on live exports of animals is a positive move towards easing unnecessary suffering of animals. The journeys that those animals have been forced to make before being slaughtered are often needlessly stressful and distressing and a threat to animal welfare. It is a basic act of decency that today we begin the process of legislating accordingly.
However, as has been mentioned by more than one contributor to the debate so far, we signed trade deals not very long ago with at least one country that is not abiding by this kind of legislation. Australia still permits live export of animals over long distances, including overseas, for the time being, and in a country much larger and much hotter than the one in which we are legislating to regulate. If we are talking about the impact and influence that this country has on animal welfare, why did we not use that sovereignty and that power to ensure that we were not just exporting the animal welfare problems while importing produce to this country?
That deal threatens not just animal welfare globally, but the wellbeing, welfare and incomes of our own farmers, who abide by animal welfare standards often higher than those we legislate for in this country and legislated for previously through the EU, and are a beacon of strong animal welfare performance. For them to be undermined by that trade deal was an outrageous assault on our farming community and a threat to animal welfare. I hope the Government will learn the lessons from that in any future trade deals.
The Secretary of State, who is no longer in his place, was right when he said that the UK has the best animal welfare standards in the world. I think that is accurate. Not only does it feel correct, but I think it is accurate. I am concerned, though, that they are not just accidentally so. One of the reasons they are so is the nature of the farming we have in the United Kingdom: largely small family farms, maybe large in geographical scope but small in terms of the size of the businesses. They are the basis of our farming economy across the United Kingdom.
I would say that getting rid of the common agricultural policy and moving to the environmental land management scheme is one of those rarely sighted beasts, a Brexit benefit—a good thing, if the Government were handling the transition well, but they are not. We see that at least a sixth of the money that the Government promised to English farmers is not being spent and has not been spent in the last financial year, not because the Government have chosen to cut that money, but because they have just not managed to spend it. Farmers are losing vast amounts of their basic payments and are gaining very little in environmental payments to replace them. I talked to a farmer on Friday who reckoned that he would make up about 7% or 8% of what he had lost in basic payment via the new schemes.
What does that do to farming across the country? We lose farmers. If we lose farmers, we lose the ability to do good environmental work on our landscape, we lose our ability to feed ourselves as a country and we increase the chances of moving to ranch-style farming, which tends to have less close animal husbandry and therefore, culturally and necessarily, lower standards of animal welfare. As we pass this legislation, and I hope we are going to start that ball rolling tonight and that we will all agree to it, let us ensure that we are not, through our fiscal actions, undermining animal welfare throughout the country.
It is true that how we treat animals is a sign of what we are as a culture and whether we are decent or whether we are not. It is absolutely right that we are doing what we are doing; while the challenges out there still remain, if we can minimise journeys of animals from where they are reared to slaughter, as my neighbour the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border rightly pointed out, that is of great significance and importance to tackling animal welfare problems.
My fear is that the red tape and the collapse of the workforce in our abattoirs, not just the inability to bring in vets from overseas, but the lack of other members of the slaughterhouse workforce, mean that many small abattoirs are under enormous threat. Four million pounds will not even touch the sides when it comes to protecting small abattoirs in Cumbria, which are the best in the country—they are family firms, they aid animal welfare and they are massively important to our local economy.
This Bill does many good things, but it does nothing to address a series of other compassionate moves that could have been dealt with in one swoop, as the Government originally were planning to do. The RSPCA, which of course has campaigned for this particular ban for 50 years, found that the dropping of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill last year and the omissions in the King’s Speech broke a grand total of 14 pledges on animal welfare. I will just list a handful of them.
The first pledge was on zoo licensing. The original plan was for animal welfare standards in zoos to be enforced more thoroughly, increasing the penalties for zoos that missed those animal welfare standards. That pledge was dropped and there was no sensible reason for that. The second was livestock worrying, which is a serious problem for our communities in Westmorland. It is unbelievably distressing to farmers, their families and everybody else to see the goring of livestock by uncontrolled animals. In the Government’s original plans, the police would have been given additional powers to protect sheep and livestock from dogs, something that was not only an animal welfare issue, but an economic one for the farmers. There was no obvious reason why that would be dropped.
The third pledge was a ban on primates being held as pets, and dropping that ban was a ridiculous nonsense. There was no reason why it should not have been in this Bill or why the original Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill should not have proceeded. That has been omitted. It is bizarre that that was not all in the same legislation. The fourth was puppy smuggling. We know that, as things stand, people can bring five animals per person in a vehicle over the border legally. We know that puppy farming is a problem, and the failure to tackle it through this Bill just seems peculiar. The lack of additional intervention and action to punish the theft and unlawful importation of such animals seems a massive missed opportunity.
By the way, the Government could have adopted my presentation Bill, the Pets (Theft and Importation) Bill, just a few months ago, if they had wanted to go down that route. The Bill was a reheating of their own promise from the 2019 Conservative manifesto. I just wonder why the Minister did not just seek to adopt my Bill and put it into practice. I would obviously have been very happy if they had stolen every single word of it.
To conclude my remarks, I also regret any sense that one party loves animals more than any other. I understand that, and I am sure that the Government Front Bench is filled with animal lovers as much as every other part of this House. Nevertheless, it is regrettable that that was not enough for, maybe not the Minister, but Government business managers to have acquired the backbone to take on their own Back Benchers when they threatened to be troublesome over a more comprehensive version of this Bill, the one that was promised in the Conservative manifesto and that has now not been delivered.
The omissions from this Bill are a source of shame and anger for many of my constituents in Westmorland, but what remains in the Bill is good, so it would be foolish to oppose it, and we will support its Second Reading.
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
I think we should acknowledge at the outset, Mr Deputy Speaker, the work that you did before you were in the Chair, on this issue and other animal protection schemes over many, many years. It is quite right that we have mentioned David Amess, but his neighbour for many years was Sir Teddy Taylor. I worked for Sir Teddy in the ’90s, when we were desperately trying to get the ban on transporting livestock and we could not—off the hoof and on the hook.
I was also a journalist for a part of that time, and the Express group, as it is now, paid for me and some of the Express photographers, because our lorries were being stopped going to Italy by French farmers. The French were worried about what was happening to their livestock and their incomes. Very often, when they opened those lorries, particularly as they got closer to the Italy-France border, a lot of the animals were dead. I completely agree that farmers want to protect their livestock and look after their husbandry brilliantly, but we could not say that about a lot of the hauliers—I say that as a former haulage Minister. I was really appalled at the money-grubbing way in which some hauliers, particularly those that came across empty from Italy to take livestock back, worried about how much diesel they were using and whether their tachograph was running properly.
The Bill is brilliant. Teddy passed away a few years ago, but he will be watching down on us now absolutely thrilled about the Bill. I agree with the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) that there is more that we would like—absolutely. I cannot understand, for instance—this has not yet been mentioned—why we ban the production of foie gras in this country but allow its import. I am sorry, because there are probably people in this Chamber who completely disagree, but it is barbaric. How on earth can someone force-feed an animal? That was rightly banned in this country when we were in the European Union, yet we allow it to be imported.
There are things that we can do, including on puppy-smuggling. My youngest daughter has just spent an awful lot of money on a new puppy. I really hope that it does not destroy her new home in the way that many of the puppies that I have had have done. There are things that we can do. To be generous, I would turn around and say, “This categorically could not have been done while we remained in the European Union.” There have been complaints that it is taking too long, but the time that has passed since we settled Brexit is relatively short. In agriculture and farming, we have had to create a whole new financial field.
Thank goodness for campaigners who are now, sadly, long gone from us. David went too early. You are still here with us, Mr Deputy Speaker. But for those of us who were fighting for this in the ’90s, I am absolutely chuffed to be here this afternoon.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. You just threw me off there—I was expecting to jump up and then sit back down again, as always. I am very pleased to speak in the debate.
I share the attitude of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron). We will not oppose the Bill either, but I must put on record some concerns. I declare an interest as a member of the Ulster Farmers Union and a landowner. In an earlier intervention, I referred to the importance of the land. Someone can always buy another house but they cannot always buy the land; Land can never be replaced. It is important to understand that, and I know that the Minister understands it as well as I do. His love of the land is similar to my own.
I do not deal in livestock. Our neighbour uses the land as part of his dairy farm. Some might think that we are all part of the cattle mart in this House. I think that would be rather harsh, but some might see it that way. I hail from a farming community and a country background, so I see at first hand the need for animals to be kept in humane conditions. I am thankful for the farmers in my area, particularly my neighbours, who take such good care of their animals. To me, the Bill’s provisions will not be difficult obligations for our farming community to fulfil because they are already rightly doing so in their care for their animals.
As has become the norm—the Minister probably knew this was coming, but I must put it on record—Northern Ireland is being treated as a third nation with different rules. I agree that there needs to be a sensible working relationship with our neighbours, that our farmers need to be able to meet their market obligations while meeting our animal rights obligations, and that we simply need a better way of doing things, but in a letter to colleagues the Minister said:
“To ensure that Northern Ireland farmers have unfettered access to the UK and Irish markets this Bill will not apply in Northern Ireland.”
My right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) said as much during his intervention on the Secretary of State, and he will make that case much better than I can when he has the opportunity to do so later. That sounds like a generous pro-Union move to help Northern Ireland in the light of all the problems with the protocol and the Windsor framework.
The hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson) referred to the veterinary issue. I get regular reports, from across the Chamber, from across my constituency and from across all of Northern Ireland, that vets cannot get the veterinary medication they want. There might be a deal to say that we have a longer period in which to use medications, but the fact is that we do not have that deal, and vets in Northern Ireland are telling me every week that they cannot access the medications they need. I understand that the hon. Gentleman has a deep interest in that matter, but for the factual evidential case we need to put on the record where the problems really are.
If we look at the framing of clause 1, it becomes immediately apparent that there is no need whatever for the Bill not to apply to Northern Ireland, because it does not prohibit the movement of live animals within the British isles. The clause could be changed so that the words “Great Britain” are replaced with “the United Kingdom”, because the offence the clause would create is about movements beyond the British islands.
In that context, it immediately becomes apparent that there is one reason, and one reason only, that the Bill applies only to part of the United Kingdom: because the Government have—and I say this respectfully—given into EU pressure to disrespect the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom. The EU is claiming the right to make laws in Northern Ireland, including on animal movements. We feel greatly aggrieved about where we are in relation to that. I love my Britishness and my United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but I am a second-class citizen. My people—the people of Strangford and elsewhere across Northern Ireland—are also second-class citizens. That annoys me greatly.
We are thus subject to the decisions of legislators whom we did not elect and about whom we know nothing. It seems to me that, rather than protecting the Union and animal welfare within it, the Bill sacrifices the integrity of the United Kingdom, democracy in Northern Ireland and animal welfare at the altar of the all-important wishes of the European Union. I know that the Minister and I are of the same mind on Brexit, but the Brexit that he has is very different from the Brexit that I have. I wish that I had the same as him, but that is not the case just yet. If he could provide a credible alternative explanation, I would be very glad to hear it. Again, my concern is not about the Bill, which is necessary and welcome, but about the exclusion of Northern Ireland so specifically in this scenario. I agree with the Ulster Farmers Union about the need for the free flow of animals, but I am unconvinced that the Bill needs to exclude Northern Ireland. I await the Minister’s response.
I have spoken about puppy farming in Westminster Hall and this Chamber, including in Adjournment debates. Perhaps the Minister will confirm his position. We have criminal puppy-smuggling gangs bringing dogs across from the Republic of Ireland into Northern Ireland. Ultimately, they are able to bring them across the water as well. We need clarification on that. I know that the Minister is always keen to respond and give us the encouragement that we need, and tonight I need encouragement that puppy farming and illegal puppy smuggling are done for good, and that the gangs who live off the back of those poor, innocent animals are given very short shrift.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
I warmly welcome the Bill as further evidence of the Conservative commitment to improving standards of animal welfare in this country. The presence of the Bill on our agenda means, in my view, that this is a good day for Parliament.
This has been a long time coming. I am talking not about the demise of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, but about the decades-long concern about this issue. It was at the end of the Victorian era that the public first started to express their grave concern about the suffering of animals transported overseas for slaughter. Demands that this trade be brought to an end led to Committees being established by Ministers as far back as 1957 and 1974. An attempt to restrict exports in 1992 by the Major Government was blocked by the European Court of Justice on the grounds that it impeded the operation of the EU single market.
The trade peaked at over 2 million animals a year in the early 1990s and opposition to live exports also grew in the 1990s, as we have heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning). Very large-scale protests took place, including what became known as the battle of Brightlingsea in 1995. This saw a somewhat unlikely alliance between local Essex residents and animal rights protesters banding together to try to prevent the export of livestock through the town. While, thankfully, exports from the UK have stalled over the past few years, around the rest of the world about 2 billion animals are still subjected to excessive long-distance transportation.
As we have heard many times in this Chamber over the decades, live exports can involve animals crammed into trucks and on to ships for journeys in shocking conditions that can last several weeks, during which they suffer distress from mishandling, overcrowding, excessive heat and cold, motion stress, injuries, prolonged hunger and thirst, restriction of movement and an inability to rest. Of course, the UK livestock sent to Europe should in theory be protected by the EU’s rules on live transport—rules that I certainly fought to toughen up when I was an MEP—but as successive reports from the European Parliament confirm, these rules simply are not always complied with or enforced, so the suffering continues.
Moreover, there is a danger that some animals exported to European destinations, particularly Hungary or Bulgaria, may be sent on to the middle east, suffering even longer journeys and slaughter conditions that are frequently inhumane. Even the animals that stay in the EU can be subject to lower welfare standards. For example, Spain permits barren conditions to be used for calves, which would be illegal if deployed in this country, and cruel and illegal practices in abattoirs in France have been highlighted on a number of occasions, including in reports by the French Parliament.
Practical reasons may have brought this trade from Britain to a halt for now, but we must legislate to ensure that it does not start up again. Vital ethical principles are at the heart of this very long-running debate: the principle that, as sentient beings, animals cannot be treated simply as a commodity; the principle that a civilised society must ensure that all animals, particularly those used by humans as part of our food supply and for other purposes, are treated with compassion and spared unnecessary suffering; and the principle that sending livestock to other jurisdictions, over which we have no control, violates our moral responsibility to prevent unnecessary animal suffering.
Today is an opportunity for us to listen to our constituents, who tell us again and again that they want to end live exports for slaughter and fattening once and for all. I pay tribute to every one of my constituents and other members of the public who over these past decades may have signed a petition, attended a protest, written to their MP or just played a part in this long-running campaign. Like others, I want to thank groups such as Compassion in World Farming, including the redoubtable Peter Stevenson, the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation, the RSPCA, World Horse Welfare and all those who have worked so hard to get us to this point, as well as figures such as Selina Scott and Joanna Lumley for their commitment and dedication to the cause over many years.
I welcome this Bill, because it will deliver the ban for which I have been campaigning for a quarter of a century, first as an MEP and then as an MP. I committed the Government to it when I was the Environment Secretary, and I secured its inclusion in the 2019 Conservative manifesto. That was the first time that Conservative promises on this issue extended beyond live exports for slaughter to include fattening as well. That was a crucial change, and it is a crucial part of this Bill.
The loss of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill was frustrating, but now we have left the EU and the single market, this House finally has the power to determine what our laws on this crucial question will be. With that freedom, now is the time to get this done to set an example to countries around the world where these hellish long-distance international journeys still continue, to ensure that animals produced in this country remain subject to our very high standards of animal welfare—standards determined by this Parliament—and to implement the long-held wishes of the constituents of each and every one of us. Mr Deputy Speaker, as I am sure you will agree, now is the time to ban live exports.
Sarah Dyke (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
Although I very much welcome the return of this Bill, I wish it had not been an afterthought. I wish this was not another U-turn, albeit a partial U-turn, designed to paper over the cracks of 13 years of Government failure. More than anything, I wish this Government showed the same concern for the welfare of those who care for our livestock.
Farmers and farms are facing huge deficits in their finances. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has cut, cut, cut funding to our farms. This Government have failed to create a system that is equitable, as the reformed system still disproportionately benefits large landowners. The take-up of the flagship environmental land management policy, the sustainable farming initiative, is very low: only 82,000 eligible farmers are currently signed up. All the while, DEFRA figures show a cut in departmental communications at a time when farmers are the least financially secure in 50 years.
Farmers are being sent like lambs to the slaughter by this Government, and have been betrayed and undermined by the botched Tory Brexit deal and the shambolic lack of planning that has devastated farm finances, leaving many farmers on the brink. Farmers have been let down by trade deals with countries that have far lower animal welfare standards than our own, flooding the market with cheap and lesser-quality produce, and markets continue to narrow further.
I must declare an interest at this point. I may be merely a spring lamb in this place, but I am from a farming family, my neighbours are farmers and my friends are farmers. We are the custodians of the countryside and we care about the welfare of our livestock, so I am keen to shed light on how this Government’s policy, or lack of it, affects farmers. National Farmers Union polling data from August shows that 87% of dairy farmers in England are seriously worried about the effect of Government regulation on their finances. Farmers make up 1% of the UK population, but they account for 14% of workplace incidents, a rate 20 times higher than the UK industry average. Unfortunately, last year, 36% of those were suicides.
The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)
Does the hon. Member want to give us a single example of a regulation this Government have introduced on dairy farmers?
Sarah Dyke
I will not at this stage—I will carry on with what I am saying—but of course lots of funding has been cut.
In 2021, the Royal Agricultural Benevolent Institution’s big farming survey found that over a third of respondents displayed symptoms classifying them as having poor mental health as a flagging concern, while 47% displayed anxiety and 21% showed signs of depression. The farmers at the highest risk of poor mental health were those working with pigs, grazing livestock and dairy, the sectors primarily affected by this legislation. The Liberal Democrats were the first to assert that mental health is equal to physical health. I am very grateful to the Farm Safety Foundation for its work, and I hope Members will join me in supporting its Mind Your Head campaign in February. I urge any farmers listening today to use its fantastic “Little Book” to get information and help.
However, we need the Government to step up and stop expecting charities to fill their wellies. I urge Ministers to listen to our farmers, reflect on Government messaging, and devise a properly considered, fully financed, long-term plan for food and farming resilience in this country. I call on the Government to listen to our farmers and to the Liberals Democrats, and to plan for the long haul and value the welfare of our hard-working farmers as much as the welfare of our livestock.
Steve Tuckwell (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con)
It gives me great pleasure to speak in support of this wonderful Bill. Its Second Reading is hugely welcome, and not before time. I am assured by the words of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and his statements on the Government’s continued dedication to animal welfare. I have appreciated the opportunity to speak with Front-Bench colleagues about the importance of the Bill, and to share the views of my constituents directly with Ministers. On behalf of residents, I have had the opportunity to engage directly with various animal welfare organisations such as the Dogs Trust, the RSPCA and Cats Protection. The Bill supports the continuing focus on animal welfare, which is important to my constituents.
I recently visited Oak Wood School in Hillingdon, which was hosting a Christmas fair for students with special educational needs that involved interaction with animals. Such interaction not only supports education, but significantly enhances the wellbeing and confidence of young people. The people of Uxbridge and South Ruislip are huge animal lovers. No one could go far in my constituency without spotting many dog walkers enjoying the wonderous open and green spaces that are part of one of London’s greenest constituencies. My inbox is often full not just with campaign emails, but with genuine heartfelt messages that touch on all elements of animal welfare. That has been especially the case over the past couple of weeks, as residents have echoed my feeling in support of the Bill. Indeed, more than 85% of the 11,000 respondents to the Department’s consultation on live exports agreed with the measures in the Bill.
The Bill seizes on the opportunity post Brexit to put an end to journeys that have been described as incredibly arduous, stressful and exhausting for livestock. No more will unweaned calves face cross-channel journeys that could last more than 60 hours, or sheep be transported for days on end. That is especially important when we consider that livestock could end up being exported to countries with far lower standards of animal welfare. According to DEFRA figures, there have been no recorded live exports from the UK since the Government announced their intention to introduce the ban. It is therefore imperative that we pass the Bill, in order to consolidate those figures and make them permanent, while making prohibited or under-the-radar transports illegal.
The Bill continues to build on this country’s proud tradition as one of not just animal lovers, but upholders of animal welfare, as evidenced by the UK’s status as the highest-ranking G7 nation in the animal protection index. It is good to see new statutory welfare codes for pigs, laying hens and chickens, the ban on conventional battery cages for laying hens, and the mandatory introduction of slaughterhouse CCTV. There are tougher penalties for offences relating to animal cruelty, measures to strengthen the law on animal sentience, compulsory cat microchipping, and many other measures. I care deeply about such issues, as do residents across Uxbridge and South Ruislip. I am glad to support the Bill this evening, and I look forward hopefully to joining many colleagues across the House in doing so.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
I cannot speak in this debate without starting by talking about my amazing predecessor, who campaigned tirelessly on animal welfare during his 38 years in this House, as I know you too have campaigned, Mr Deputy Speaker. Sir David was the champion of all creatures great and small, many of which he protected in the confines of his own parliamentary room. At its height, it was home to five bird cages, seven fish tanks and even a tank that housed two turtles on their own, in addition to regularly housing Vivienne, his daughter’s French bulldog. I cannot speak about animal welfare in this House without referring to Sir David. He raised the issue six times during this Parliament before he was murdered; his last contribution in the House, just weeks before his murder, was to ask for a debate on animal welfare. I promised the residents of Southend and Leigh-on-Sea that I would do everything in my power to build on his legacy, so I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak today.
We are undoubtedly a nation of animal lovers. That is why in 2019 we promised the British people that we would ban the live export of cattle, and tonight we are making good on that promise. It is shocking that live animals have long been exported to the EU from the UK for breeding, fattening and slaughter. In most recent years in which live exports have occurred, we were exporting between 25,000 and 50,000 sheep and calves for fattening and slaughter. It is good that the last instance of the export of live animals was in December 2020, but that does not negate the necessity of our passing the Bill. This Bill is a point of principle, and it underpins our commitment to high animal welfare standards.
Some 87% of those who took part in the Government’s consultation on live exports in 2020 thought that livestock and horses should not be exported for slaughter and fattening. That view is echoed by my constituents in Southend and Leigh-on-Sea, nearly 100 of whom have written to urge me to vote to ban live exports. Doing what our constituents and the general public specifically sent us to this place to do is never a bad place to start with any Bill.
It is not surprising that the public take such a view. We all as children saw images on our TV screens of animals in crowded crates and lorries, and it would take the most callous person not to recognise the stress, injury and exhaustion that those animals were subjected to. We have heard about unweaned calves from Great Britain travelling to Spain on journeys lasting an average of 60 hours. That is two days, two nights and another whole day in a crowded, hot crate with not enough food and in absolutely disgusting conditions. In 2018, the shortest journey direct to slaughter from Great Britain to continental Europe was 18 hours. That is an affront to every decent human being. It is high time that we passed this ban, and I am proud that we are doing so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson) made the point that if we ensure that animals are transported domestically for slaughter, we can ensure that the conditions in which they are slaughtered are humane. If they are exported off to the continent, we have no idea what pain and suffering they go through when they are slaughtered, and we have heard evidence of very much lower welfare conditions.
I wholeheartedly support making it an offence to send, transport or arrange transport for the export of live livestock such as cattle, sheep, goats and wild boar for fattening and slaughter. I also welcome the necessary exemptions for breeding and competition. Horseracing makes a unique contribution to the UK’s sporting culture, and in particular to the rural economy. I am pleased that the Bill will enable racehorses to continue to travel for racing and breeding, provided that they are transported in line with legal requirements aimed at protecting their welfare. We must remain ever vigilant in making sure that happens.
It is also important, as others have said—this is absolutely something that Sir David would have said—that we remember that we can bring in these measures only because we are no longer members of the European Union. For 50 years, despite multiple campaigns by animal welfare charities, we were unable to ban live exports because we were an EU member state bound by the EU rules, which the European Court of Justice had ruled were lawful. The trade in the live export of animals was held to be lawful as long as welfare in transport was complied with.
This Bill is a real Brexit benefit. It may have been a long time coming, but that does not negate the fact that it is a real benefit. Brexit gives us the freedom to go beyond our European counterparts and underpin our credentials as a world leader in animal welfare. I am proud to be part of a Government who are passing such a Bill. I am proud that this Conservative Government have introduced world-leading protections in any number of areas, and I use this opportunity to encourage Members from all parts of the House to support my Pet Abduction Bill on its Second Reading on 19 January. I also call on DEFRA—I am sure the Minister knows what I am going to say—to look again at Emilie’s law and criminalising dog-on-dog attacks in England, which are such a scourge for so many responsible pet owners who lose their beloved four-legged companion unnecessarily due to the irresponsibility of another pet owner.
I am delighted to support this Bill today. Banning live exports is the right thing to do. The export of live animals has been a stain on our society for far too long. I am glad that it is being stopped, but I am even more glad that, if we pass this Bill tonight, it will never come back again.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I am not going to congratulate the Minister on bringing forward this Bill, first because we should ask: why has it taken so long? The Conservatives had this issue in their manifesto in 2017, they boasted in the 2019 general election that they would use Brexit freedoms to bring in animal welfare measures, and now, at the end of 2023, we are finally seeing a Bill emerge. There is no doubt about the need for this protection. Members have outlined the undue and unnecessary suffering involved in the live export of animals, and Ministers have made reference to it—whether it is the stress, injuries and trauma for animals; the fact that they are taken to destinations where they are often treated far worse than they would be in abattoirs here in the United Kingdom; the starvation, or the fact that many animals die during those journeys. Of course this is a necessary piece of legislation.
If the Government had grasped the Brexit opportunities, we could have introduced this Bill a long time ago. It is no excuse to say, “We have not had any live exports of animals anyway, so it did not matter.” The fact is that there was a promise and an ability to deliver on it, but it was not done. Members have mentioned many of the other animal welfare measures that could have been introduced on leaving the European Union, but they have not happened. That is the first reason why I will not congratulate the Minister: the Bill is tardy, and it is a mark of the Government’s unwillingness to use the opportunities that Brexit made available to the country.
The second important reason why I will not congratulate the Minister is that the Bill does not refer to the whole of the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland is left out. When I intervened, the Secretary of State gave the totally spurious reason that Northern Ireland was left out to give Northern Ireland farmers—because we can have movements within the British Isles—the benefit of being able to trade with the rest of the United Kingdom and with the Irish Republic.
The farming Minister may well argue that trade with the Irish Republic may not involve long journeys for animals, because some of the abattoirs are just over the border, and there is significant trade across the border, and that is true. However, if it were only a case of applying this Bill to Northern Ireland so that we can trade with the Irish Republic, it would have been easy to provide for that by having this Bill cover the whole United Kingdom with a clause making it clear that when animals are being exported to the Irish Republic, a final destination must be stated, because of the nature of trade across the border. If the real aim of this Bill, as the Secretary of State has said, is to stop the disgraceful trade in animals being taken for long journeys in terrible conditions with terrible suffering, it has not achieved that for the thousands of animals who will still be able to be transported from Northern Ireland into the continent of Europe.
Mr Francois
I suspect the House would thank neither me nor the right hon. Gentleman if we tried to embark on a long debate about the Windsor framework tonight. I am sure that the Minister would not, either. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree in principle that it would be a desirable outcome if the Government could find some mechanism in Committee—if they could be ingenious about it—so that the benefits of this Bill applied to animals in Northern Ireland?
Sammy Wilson
If the Government did that, I would eat the words with which I started my speech and I would congratulate the Minister. I have suggested that it could be done by making the Bill cover the whole of the United Kingdom. If the only concern is about the volume of cross-border trade on the island of Ireland, the Government should state in the Bill that the livestock must have an end destination in Ireland.
Let me just spell out the Bill’s implications. Thousands of animals are exported to continental Europe every year. The good thing is that we will now, Pontius Pilate-like, be able to wash our hands and say, “If they are going to continental Europe, they will not go through Great Britain.” The Bill makes it clear that a person who exports
“relevant livestock from Great Britain”,
or,
“transports, or attempts to transport, relevant livestock from or through Great Britain”,
or,
“organises, or attempts to organise, the transport of relevant livestock from or through Great Britain”
will be breaking the law. However, there is nothing to stop someone from Northern Ireland taking the animals in a lorry the whole length of the island of Ireland down to Rosslare for a 20-hour sea journey. They could then go on to continental Europe and down to Spain, or wherever the final destination happened to be, and all the suffering that this Bill is attempting to stop would not be prevented for exports from Northern Ireland.
People may say, “There are safeguards on the journey.” When the Northern Ireland Assembly was operative, I remember raising the case of unweaned calves with an agriculture Minister. I asked him to refuse to accept journey logs unless the calves were given milk replacer and unloaded before the lorry went on a ferry. That is a ferry journey, do not forget, of nearly 20 hours. I will share the answer from the Minister, just so that I can spell out the welfare implications of omitting Northern Ireland from this Bill. He said that the Department does not consider it necessary to feed calves during their rest period or before they get on the boat. Even if people do not do that, they will be in compliance with EU regulations. That is the implication of leaving Northern Ireland out of this Bill. The real reason for doing so is not to ensure that farmers in Northern Ireland can have free access to the Irish Republic. The real reason was given earlier by another speaker: judgments have been made in the European Court of Justice.
Judgments made in the past still apply in Northern Ireland. Any judgments in the future will still apply in Northern Ireland. EU law will, and does, still apply in Northern Ireland. This Bill cannot apply in Northern Ireland because, as a result of the protocol, the Windsor framework and the arrangements that have been put in place, Northern Ireland is still gripped by the tentacles of the European Union. That is the real reason for leaving Northern Ireland out of the Bill. Do not let the Minister pretend tonight that he is concerned about farmers in Northern Ireland not being able to take their cattle to abattoirs or places for fattening in the Irish Republic. If that were the case, he could make that possible under this Bill.
I ask the Minister whether that has been considered in his discussions. If it has been considered and rejected, why has it been rejected? Is he content that a part of the United Kingdom will still have the ability to export sheep, cattle and animals of all sorts right across the continent of Europe and over a long sea journey? The sea journey will be longer now because we cannot use the land bridge of Great Britain. The sea journey will be from Rosslare to somewhere in northern France. To me, that does not look like concern for the welfare of the animals that will be transported.
Although it is not the subject of today’s debate, one of the impediments to getting an Executive set up in Northern Ireland is that kind of intrusion. Even if the Executive were operating today—I believe that the majority of MLAs in Stormont want the same provisions as there are for the rest of the United Kingdom—they would not be able to bring in those provisions, because this is an area where it appears that Westminster does not have any control over the law in Northern Ireland. The Assembly would not have control over the law in Northern Ireland; Brussels makes the decision on this. The European Court of Justice has made a ruling on it, and the sufferers are the animals that are subject to inadequate protection in law.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
The first thing I want to do is thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth). She paid a lovely tribute to her predecessor, who would be very proud of the remarks she made.
I am here today not only on behalf of the numerous constituents across North Norfolk who have emailed me about live exports, but because this is a matter that I am passionate about personally. I have spoken on animal welfare matters in this place time and again, and I have posted on my social media many times about the importance of respecting, caring for and looking after animals of all shapes and sizes, right down to the tiniest. As Members will know, I am the UK glow worm champion, which always gets a slight chuckle here. Of course, the House will remember my record-breaking dark skies debate on the glow worms that inhabit Sheringham park in my constituency, which I led back in October. On a serious matter, however, we must put animal welfare at the forefront of all spheres of our decision making, and I am really proud that this Conservative Government are doing that time and again.
As the Minister will know, livestock farming—particularly pigs and cattle—is a crucial part of my North Norfolk agricultural market; I have been to see him enough times about it over the years. Locally, we ensure that animal welfare is maintained. Norfolk produces 6% of England’s livestock output, totalling just under £600 million. With that economic backdrop in mind, I am a firm believer that this Bill, when enacted, will bring substantial advantages to local farmers in North Norfolk as well as to our agricultural heartlands, as we have heard from Members of different parties this evening. It will not only bring economic advantages, it will also enhance our local farmers’ capabilities to produce high-quality local food.
In North Norfolk, we go to extraordinary lengths to look after animal welfare. Last summer, I visited the Paterson farm in Worstead, in the wilds of North Norfolk, and saw the wagyu herd. I did not even know what wagyu was at the time.
Duncan Baker
It is.
There was relaxing zen spa music playing in the calving shed. I said, “Is that for the farmhands?” No, it was not. It was to keep the calves and the birthing herds calm, so that they were relaxed and, in turn, all those animals were looked after. Of course, the meat was less stressed as well. That is taking animal welfare to the absolute limit. I do not suggest that every farmer implements a public address system in their calving shed, but it shows the level of care that my farmers take over the welfare of their herds.
This Bill is supported not just by my constituents, but by industry representatives across Norfolk and the UK more widely. I do not think that anyone has mentioned that the National Farmers Union supports it as well, as does the RSPCA. Although it is great that we will no longer see the fattening and slaughter of animals transported overseas, which will be outlawed—it is great that we have not seen that since 2021—it is also important that we get on and pass this legislation swiftly through Parliament, and put it permanently into practice. I will have particular pride when residents come up to me and say, “Name me a benefit of Brexit,” because I can now turn round and say there is yet another one. This legislation is only possible because we have been able to take back control and sovereignty of our lawmaking. By doing away with decision making being bound by the European Union’s animal transport laws, we have been able to introduce this Bill.
No animal should be reared for slaughter and have to suffer in this way. We have changed track, and we have been able to do that by leaving the European Union. We will now continue our world-leading status on animal welfare.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to respond to tonight’s debate, not least because we are graced with no fewer than four former and current DEFRA Secretaries of State on the Government Benches this evening. I found myself looking for a collective noun to describe them: a swarm, as in bees, a shiver, as in sharks, or a crash, as in rhinos. There are endless possibilities.
May I offer festive greetings to those on the Government Front Bench? I am afraid that is going to be the end of my kindness for tonight, because what is inescapable is that the Bill is massively diminished in ambition, just like this Government. I say to the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning), who spoke with real passion, conviction and knowledge—I agree with much of what he said—that the issue for the Opposition is that this could all have been done more than two and a half years ago. Those of us who sat on the Bill Committee for the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, as I did, will recollect the days and days of interviewing witnesses, taking up their time and expertise, and raising their hopes and the hopes of millions across the country that action would be immediately forthcoming. Days were spent in Committee. Yes, the Opposition tabled amendments and made suggestions—that is our job—but there was also strong support from the Opposition for what the Government said they were trying to do, because that Committee was trying to address the very real problems of the day: the suffering of caged primates; the worrying by dogs of farm animals; puppy smuggling; cruel mutilation such as ear and tail cropping; and the pain of pet theft. All that and more has been happening every day since. For almost 1,000 days, the Government have allowed those abuses to continue. Perhaps the Minister will explain why we have had to wait so long.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend makes a good point about measures in the kept animals Bill. Several other measures, including the foie gras ban, are in scope of this Bill, but the Government have chosen to use private Members’ Bills to try to further that agenda. Is that not a hugely flawed approach?
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who hits the nail on the head. The Government are so timorous and afraid of further suggestions—[Interruption.]. You should be, actually. They are so afraid that they have had to resort to this piecemeal approach. Frankly, it a complete abrogation of responsibility, and what a profound disappointment to those voters who in 2019 read the Conservative manifesto and thought that the Conservatives cared about animal welfare and would do these things. What a let-down.
This pared down slither of a Bill is welcome only in that there is finally, belatedly some action on this one issue. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) said in her opening remarks, we welcome it, we will not oppose it, and we will try to improve it in Committee.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
The shadow Minister mentioned the Conservative party’s 2019 general election manifesto. My predecessor Neil Parish sought to amend the Agriculture Bill to prevent the ratification of any trade agreement that did not guarantee that the same animal welfare standards would be applied to imported food. Does the shadow Minister agree that standards for UK production are only half the picture unless we demand those same animal welfare standards are applied to imports?
Daniel Zeichner
Absolutely. Of course, Labour Front-Bench Members made that point repeatedly, as did the hon. Member’s predecessor and others on the Government Benches, including, of course, former Secretaries of State who find themselves no longer in their posts and now free to speak their minds.
These issues matter because the British public really care about the health and welfare of animals. We have seen this in many polls, but a recent one has indicated that more than two thirds of respondents believe that we should do more to improve animal welfare and protect animals from cruelty. We really are a nation of animal lovers, as many have said, and a significant majority think that the Government have a clear responsibility to protect innocent and vulnerable animals from unnecessary suffering. It is indeed one of the main roles of the state to protect the most vulnerable in our society, and that must include animals. The Government’s track record on animal welfare, which did indeed once look promising, is now in tatters, but we are relieved that at least some progress is being made in the form of this ban on live exports. As my colleague stated at the outset of the debate, we will support the Bill and look forward to its being signed into law at very long last.
The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)
May I first draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests?
I thank Members from across the House for their constructive approach and for their comments and support for the Bill. It has been brilliant to hear that consensus. Although there are a few areas on which we may disagree, it is clear that we can agree on the core aims of the Bill. That deep value that we all place on animal welfare acts as our lodestar, and I am grateful for that shared perspective.
The Bill builds on our proud record as world leaders on animal welfare. Ending the unnecessary export of livestock, including horses, will prevent the associated stress, exhaustion and injury caused by those journeys. It will signal to our international partners our firm commitment to improving welfare standards for kept animals and reinforce our position as global leaders on this important issue.
Many animal welfare groups have called for this ban on live exports. We have heard support for the Bill from Government Members. May I put on record my acknowledgement of the KALE—Kent Against Live Exports—group, which has done an enormous amount of campaigning on the issue, working with my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay), who cannot be in his place today, and other colleagues across the House? We know that there is huge public support for the ban, as evidenced by the flood of respondents to our consultation, 87% of whom agreed on the need for the ban on exports for slaughter and fattening. There is clearly broad recognition that we must end these unnecessary journeys, and we are taking the opportunity to do that.
May I pay tribute to a number Government Members? My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson), who has vast experience in this area, gave an excellent speech and has focused a great deal of effort on making sure that horses are not affected by their export. He also referred to bluetongue and African swine fever. I assure him that we are very much on the case of making sure that our borders are secure. This week, I will talk to the chief veterinary officer about bluetongue and our response for next spring.
I also pay tribute to all four former Secretaries of State, and it has not gone unnoticed that we have had four times as many former Secretaries of State on the Government Benches as there are Labour Back Benchers in their places. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), who is a good friend of mine and drove the Bill forward during her time. I will get myself into trouble, but I also draw attention to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), who started the process. She has been an amazing campaigner and has a fantastic track record on animal welfare. It has not gone unnoticed that my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Steve Tuckwell) is a passionate campaigner on animal welfare, just as his predecessor was. I cannot stand at the Dispatch Box without paying tribute to the former Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, who was a passionate campaigner on animal welfare issues. That leaves to the end my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth), who has picked up the baton from her predecessor. I knew that we were to get a lecture on Emilie’s law as she is a campaigner who wants to stop dog-on-dog attacks. I pay tribute to her for all her efforts on animal welfare.
I was amused by my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker), who told us about cows being played music and radio stations. I hope that they will not be played Radio 4 and “Farming Today” on a regular basis—that could be quite depressing for those animals. I assure the House that it certainly does not cheer me up every morning.
We have had a mostly positive debate. There were a few little chips from Opposition Members, but I will not dwell on them too much. Party politics should not really play a role in animal welfare. We in this House all care about animals because we are members of the United Kingdom and we are British—caring about animals is within our DNA. The Government will continue to push hard on animal welfare.
Mr Francois
As the Minister knows, I have always had a lot of time for him, so I shall not press him on the Windsor framework, but I think that the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) had a point. Our great friend Sir David would have warmly welcomed the Bill, but he had a long shopping list, so, at the risk of pressing on the Minister’s generosity, will he agree to meet David’s excellent successor, my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth), and me early in the new year to talk about the Farm Animal Welfare Committee’s 2015 report on farrowing crates, so that we can at least have a discussion on the issue and see whether anything at all can be done?
Mark Spencer
I am always delighted to meet my hon. Friends. Should my diary allow, I am sure we can find a slot for that to happen.
I pay tribute to all colleagues who have participated today.
Sammy Wilson
I thank the Minister. I hope that he was not coming to a conclusion, but was about to address the very important point that I raised in the debate. The Bill should include animal welfare provisions right across the United Kingdom. There is a route by which his concerns about cross-border trade between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic would be dealt with, while at the same time ensuring no loophole for long journeys for animals into continental Europe. Will he take that up in Committee?
Mark Spencer
I commit to continuing this conversation with the right hon. Gentleman beyond the Chamber. I should be clear that livestock transported for slaughter from Great Britain to Northern Ireland must go directly to a slaughterhouse. It would be an offence for them to move anywhere else. On arrival at the slaughterhouse, the animals and the accompanying health certificates must be presented to the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs officer at that point. Livestock exported for any other purpose—not for slaughter—would need to remain at the place of destination in Northern Ireland for a minimum of 30 days and be re-tagged. That is necessary to comply with the animal identification requirements after arriving in Northern Ireland.
The requirements would mean that livestock must remain in Northern Ireland for a minimum of 30 days, and would make the slaughter trade uneconomic in those circumstances. I am more than happy to continue the conversation with him offline. We have given some thought to this and have had conversations with our friends both in the Ulster Farmers’ Union and Northern Ireland.
Sir Mike Penning
The Minister is very kind. One thing he probably did not hear me mention was foie gras. He has not mentioned the fact that I made a speech, because it was not that good. Will he commit the Secretary of State to meet me—my office is only two doors down the corridor from him—to discuss why we are allowing foie gras to be imported into this country, when we banned its production here? I made that point in my speech but, clearly, I did not get it across hard enough.
Mark Spencer
The danger of mentioning colleagues by constituencies is that, occasionally, I miss one out. I apologise to my right hon. Friend for not singling him out for his brilliance, which is a matter of record in this House. I get into trouble for making commitments at the Dispatch Box for my own diary, so I am not about to start making them for the Secretary of State’s diary. I am sure that if my right hon. Friend were to write to the Secretary of State, he would be able to answer that question.
Once again, I pay tribute to colleagues who have participated in the debate. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Animal Welfare (Livestock Export) Bill (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
Proceedings in Committee, on Consideration and on Third Reading
(2) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement.
(3) Any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion four hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee of the whole House.
(4) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House, to any proceedings on Consideration or to proceedings on Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(5)Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Mike Wood.)
Question agreed to.
Business without Debate
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
With the leave of the House, we will take motions 3 and 4 together.
Ordered,
Public Accounts
That Sir Simon Clarke be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Gary Sambrook be added.
Work and Pensions
That Steve McCabe be discharged from the Work and Pensions Committee and Marsha de Cordova be added.—(Mr Marcus Jones, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
Highways Maintenance and Integrated Transport Funding
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
The good news is that, to everyone’s relief—including yours, Madam Deputy Speaker—I do not intend to use the full time technically available to me to filibuster on this important matter, although I do hope to make an important contribution.
Potholes drive us potty in the Potteries, which is why one of my top priorities is to fix our broken roads and pavements. The great city of Stoke-on-Trent has suffered from decades of under-investment in our roads. Previous Labour-run administrations failed to invest into our road network. It was not until 2019 when Councillor Abi Brown, the former leader of Stoke-on-Trent City Council, and her deputy, Councillor Daniel Jellyman, made the right decision to invest a record £39 million to resurface more than 1,200 roads and pavements and fix more than 30,000 potholes. This was helped by being the first local authority to have the Staffordshire technological advancement, the JCB Pothole Pro, which fixes potholes twice as fast and at half the cost of other machinery. It is excellent that we now have one of those revolutionary machines for Staffordshire County Council, which will serve the people of Kidsgrove, Whitehill, Talke, Butt Lane, Newchapel, Mow Cop and Harriseahead.
The Prime Minister’s recent Network North announcement unlocks transformational funding for our road infrastructure, demonstrating that it is a priority for this Government. More than £8.3 billion has been set aside for councils to bring roads and pavements up to scratch. The Local Government Association argues that this will significantly improve councils’ ability to improve our road infrastructure.
Despite that investment, the funding that comes to us via the National Highways funding formula is simply not good enough, and it puts pressure on a local authority with the second poorest council tax base in the country to take money from other services in order to ensure that our roads are fit for purpose. Given the pressure on local authority budgets, it is essential that smaller cities such as Stoke-on-Trent are not put at a disadvantage.
Comprised of six towns, Stoke-on-Trent is geographically unique. Realistically, my constituents need to drive or take the bus from Burslem, Tunstall, Smallthorne or Kidsgrove—to name a few—if they to go out and about, shopping, visiting loved ones, attending a GP appointment or simply enjoy a pint down the pub. People in Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke rely on their cars more than people elsewhere, because we do not have a tram network like in Manchester or an underground network like in London. That is why it is essential that our city has a reliable road network to better connect our communities.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman on bringing forward this issue. We all know that he is an assiduous and eager MP for his constituency. Does he agree that the scope of the formula ensures that rural towns and villages providing transport routes to all major towns will be fighting for the table scraps? Recognition needs to be given to the roads in small towns and rural areas on the way to the big cities. When they are closed, that means no deliveries and no commutes. The formula should treat the feeder areas as a priority as well.
Jonathan Gullis
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which is a rite of passage in Adjournment debates. On rural communities, the Minister helpfully reminded me—believe me, I do know—that lambasting on behalf of Stoke-on-Trent will probably not go down as well with my Staffordshire-based county council, which benefits from the funding formula. Later, I will explain why the formula could be looked at or there should be a top-up element for smaller regional local authorities such as Stoke-on-Trent. They need investment, while hopefully not unfairly disadvantaging rural constituencies, such as the one the hon. Gentleman represents with great dignity and pride. Ultimately, it is as important that their roads are resurfaced and repaired as it is for the places of Stoke-on-Trent. I appreciate that I am walking a tightrope with the very people I serve, but hopefully I will fall on the right side of it, if I fall at all.
Out and about in Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke, and when dealing with casework in the office, the state of roads and pavements comes up frequently. That is evidenced by my regular pothole patrol, where my team and I go out at least twice a week across the constituency looking for roads and pavements that need repairing, reporting back to the local authority. Let me use this opportunity to put on record my thanks to Nathan, Conna, Jess and Mya, who all work in my office in Tunstall, for going out in all weathers to assist me and the community by reporting potholes to our local authority.
One of the reasons for Stoke-on-Trent’s broken roads and pavements is the unfair road funding formulas. The formulas put busy cities like Stoke-on-Trent at a disadvantage, and I have been campaigning to change them since 2020. The current highways funding formula used by the Department for Transport is calculated on road length, rather than road usage. Therefore, a busy road in the centre of a city will get less funding than a long winding D road in the countryside that is used less intensively and with fewer vehicle types such as heavy goods vehicles. Research conducted by the Department for Transport in 2018 suggests that A roads under local authority control made up only 10% of road length across the country, but that that 10% carries 31% of the nation’s traffic. Minor roads made up 88% of road length, but the proportion of traffic they carry, 34%, was only slightly greater than that on A roads. The remaining 35% of traffic is carried on the 3% of roads that are motorways or trunk A roads.
Clearly, the current road funding formula is putting smaller cities like Stoke-on-Trent at a disadvantage. I want to see new considerations introduced to the formula that would top up cities like Stoke-on-Trent, which lack the mileage of minor roads but show due regard for road type, with principal A roads attracting a premium in some way related to their reported condition. The high concentration of warehouses in Stoke-on-Trent means that our roads are used by heavy goods vehicles more regularly. Again, that puts the city at a disadvantage because bigger vehicles carrying heavier loads do more damage to road surfaces. There would need to be safeguarding against false reporting of road conditions, and it would be useful to include a match-funding element for cities, such as Stoke-on-Trent, that put precious resources into roads despite having a low council tax base.
It is not something we like to brag about in Stoke-on-Trent, but there is an old folks’ tale that the word “pothole” originated in our fine city after Josiah Wedgwood decided to dig up all the clay available in the road to make his fine pottery, and to put the pottery that was not up to scratch back into the roads to make sure we had a surface. It is not something we like to brag about, but it is certainly something we want to deal with to ensure we have a pothole-free community. When I start seeing constituents floating ducks or planting flowers in their roads—once or twice I have even thought about a bit of pitch and putt in some of the streets, because of their poor condition—it is vital that they feel they are getting their rightful investment.
Westminster City Council spends around £70 million a year on road maintenance thanks to its parking revenue. That is in stark contrast with Stoke-on-Trent, which spends on average between £700,000 and £800,000, or around 1% of Westminster’s figure. It is extremely difficult for Stoke-on-Trent to match Westminster’s parking revenues, which means more support needs to be directed to areas that struggle to generate as much revenue as the likes of Westminster. For example, I have been campaigning to resurface Gloucester Road and Newchapel Road in Kidsgrove, a key arterial road linking the parish together. Four schools, a day nursery, Maple Tree Court care home and the pump track at Newchapel Rec, which I secured from the Kidsgrove town deal funding, are all located off this road, so it is critical that it is safe for both pedestrians and motorists. Over 300 local residents today have backed my petition to Staffordshire County Council, and I hope the Minister will use this opportunity to add his weight to my campaign.
I also hope that, in trying to get the funding formula changed, the campaign will be a roaring success with motorists in the constituency, just like the victory we secured when over 1,100 residents backed my petition to call on Stoke-on-Trent City Council to rule out Sadiq Khan’s disastrous Marxist ultra low emission zone policies from coming to our great city. I commend Stoke-on-Trent Labour for its bravery in standing up against its national party policy, when Labour’s deputy leader, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner)—I informed her ahead of the debate—said she wanted to see ULEZ
“in towns and cities across the whole of the UK”.
Cabinet member Councillor Wazir remained silent for over 100 days before finally coming out against ULEZ-loving national Labour to rule out these anti-motorist policies. It is a relief to residents across Stoke-on-Trent and wider north Staffordshire, who will be able to use our improved roads without facing farcical attempts to punish them for getting from A to B.
The Government’s Network North announcement presents a new deal for the north and the midlands, helping the region to compete with London and the south-east. Along with the improvements to our bus and rail networks—such as the reopening of the Stoke to Leek line, closed since the Beeching cuts of 1969, following my petition which received the backing of over 1,000 local residents and a campaign alongside my north Staffordshire colleagues—Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire’s road network will also benefit significantly. As I said earlier, over £8.3 billion has been set aside for councils to bring roads and pavements up to scratch. Money from that £8.3 billion will be used to upgrade junction 15 of the M6, a main access route to the Potteries from the south, which will reduce delays coming off the motorway.
We are also going to see upgrades to the A50-A500 corridor from Stoke to Derby, which could save drivers over 30 minutes every weekday. These enhancements could create over 12,000 new jobs and generate millions for the west midlands economy. Following a report called “Levelling-up Stoke, Staffordshire, Derby & Derbyshire: The Road to Success”, a series of recommendations were put forward for long-awaited upgrades badly needed to alleviate bottlenecks along the 90 km-long A50-A500 corridor, which links Derby, Nottingham and Leicester to Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire and the north-west. The road is one of the UK’s key arteries and large manufacturers such as JCB, Rolls-Royce and Toyota rely on this key east-west route to keep supply chains moving and provide links to international markets.
Currently, traffic congestion on the A50-A500 threatens to stand in the way of business growth. The route sees between 60,000 and 90,000 vehicles passing along it every single day and needs urgent support. The project has the backing of MPs, local authorities and businesses, and is key to unlocking growth in the west midlands, where cities such as Stoke-on-Trent will benefit significantly if those businesses flourish. I am pleased that the money from Network North is being set aside to help deliver this key route.
Finally, while I have the Minister here, I want quickly to mention another beneficiary of the Prime Minister’s Network North announcement: Kidsgrove railway station. Having spent months negotiating who is responsible for remediation works to mitigate the risk from former mining activity at the site, I am dismayed that Network Rail has still yet to take full responsibility. Plans include a new car park to increase capacity and drive more footfall into Kidsgrove town centre, which will supplement the landmark town deal funding. That is in addition to other upgrades at the station, including new shelters on the platforms and a café. There is also the shared services hub, which is another significant beneficiary of the town deal. I am calling for Lord Hendy, chairman of Network Rail, to hold James Dean, the west coast main line’s route services director, to account for repeated failures to act in the interests of the people he is supposed to serve.
I am incredibly proud of the work we have done as a local community to secure investment in Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire since 2019, but there is more to be done both in Stoke-on-Trent and nationally. The overriding mission of levelling up is to allow places such as Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke, which have not seen the benefits of an economic consensus driven by Whitehall, to compete with other parts of the UK. The road funding formula is symbolic of that and changing it would be of huge benefit to our city. It is a litmus test for the Government’s levelling-up agenda.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Guy Opperman)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) on securing the debate and on enlightening the House so much, as he always does, about his amazing community—I know it well, as I visit it frequently. He is genuinely transformational in his representation of it. It is rare in an Adjournment debate to be enlightened by the words and actions of Josiah Wedgwood, the origins of the word “pothole”, a limerick or lyric to describe how they drive the community potty in the Potteries, and so much more. Reference was made to the amazing Tunstall Team, as I shall now call them, who have transformed action in the local community. I pay credit to all the team who are doing great work in bringing forward action on the local roads.
This is an important topic and there should be no doubt whatsoever that we in Government take it very seriously. My hon. Friend rightly raises the condition of local roads, which up and down the country are a matter of great importance for motorists and local communities.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
One area where potholes are at the forefront of people’s minds is Devon, where we have an 8,000-mile road network—as long as Iceland’s, and twice the length of Rwanda’s. In rural areas such as Devon, the roads are also affected by, for instance, agricultural vehicles, which place greater strains on them than are placed on urban roads.
Guy Opperman
I believe that the community that I represent in rural Northumberland is the second biggest in the country. It takes me the best part of two hours to drive across it. I am extremely familiar with the impact of the farming community, and I am well aware of the consequences of forestry lorries in my own patch in Hexham. However, I would say gently to the hon. Gentleman that the Government recently gave a 30% uplift to Devon County Council. It also gave an uplift to Stoke-on-Trent City Council, which I will discuss shortly in rather more detail. While the hon. Gentleman has made the fair point that there is much to be done to upgrade the road network, it is unquestionably the case that there has been a massive and utterly unprecedented increase in funding for local authorities up and down the country.
That derives, of course, from the Prime Minister’s October announcement about Network North and the plan for drivers, which make it clear that this Government are firmly on the side of the motorist, and also firmly on the side of those who wish to improve our road network. Even before the Network North announcement, the Government were already allocating more than £5.5 billion to local councils in England over the current Parliament to enable them to maintain their roads. On 4 October, however, the Prime Minister confirmed £8.3 billion of extra funding for highways maintenance for the next 11 years, following the challenging but necessary decision to scrap the northern leg of HS2. This unprecedented funding increase will be additional to what local authorities were expecting to receive over the period in question. It will enable an unprecedented transformation in the condition of our highways, and will help to tackle the scourge of potholes.
Local authorities in the midlands and the north that are not part of mayoral combined authority areas will also receive their share of the brand-new local integrated transport settlement fund that was announced as part of Network North. We believe that local communities know best what transport solutions work in their areas, and the LITS fund will empower local authorities to fund the local transport infrastructure that their areas need. That could include upgrading road junctions, upgrading pavements, reducing congestion, and helping buses to run more reliably. The money could also be spent on additional highway maintenance activities, over and above those already funded through the Department’s highways maintenance block, if that is a local priority—and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North has made it very clear that as far as he is concerned, it is a local priority. The Department hopes to publish the LITS allocations for individual local transport authorities shortly—that is, in the next couple of months.
In keeping with the Prime Minister’s commitment, all funding previously allocated to the north and the midlands will still be allocated there, which I am sure my hon. Friend will welcome. Of the £8.3 billion, £150 million is being made available in the current financial year to allow authorities to make an immediate start on resurfacing their roads. The Department made the first payments—this is apposite in the context of the debate—on 1 December, and it will give them their share of an additional £150 million again in 2024-25.
Let me now turn to what this means for local highway authorities in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North. Stoke-on-Trent City Council received an extra £378,000 this month as its share of the Network North uplift, on top of the earlier increase of £528,000 that it received as part of the £200 million uplift announced in the 2023 Budget. That means that, overall, Stoke-on-Trent will receive 30% more road repair funding than it received last year, which is a massive step forward. This is, we believe, a real and tangible benefit that the people of Stoke-on-Trent will see for themselves, and a great testament to the work of my hon. Friend and his Stoke-on-Trent colleagues in advocating more road investment.
That share of the uplift is very good news for my hon. Friend’s constituents. All this takes Stoke-on-Trent’s total highway maintenance funding from the Department to more than £3.8 million in the current financial year, on top of about £1.6 million of integrated transport block funding. Over the full 11 years of Network North funding—as my hon. Friend knows, it is provided for a period on a continuous basis—Stoke-on-Trent will receive an additional amount of more than £22 million.
I note that some of my hon. Friend’s constituency falls in Staffordshire, and I take on board the point raised by my good friend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). Some support will also go to Staffordshire County Council, amounting to an uplift of more than £3 million this month, on top of the increase of £4.5 million that it received after the 2023 Budget. Over the full 11 years of Network North funding, Staffordshire will receive over £186 million of additional funding. This long-term certainty gives time for local authorities and their supply chains to ramp up and then deliver their programmes of work. The funding is much more than the local highway authorities were expecting and represents an increase of around two thirds in the Department’s support for local highway maintenance. We want to ensure that the funding delivers a transformational improvement in the condition of local roads.
With so much extra funding, there also needs to be greater scrutiny of how the money is spent. We will therefore require all local authorities to publish by March 2024 a summary of the additional resurfacing work that they will deliver with the new funding over the next two years. They will thereafter publish quarterly reports summarising what additional work they have done and which roads have been resurfaced, and then publish a long-term plan for the full use of their 11-year funding and the transformation it will deliver.
My hon. Friend raised the issue of ringfencing and I want to try to address that. Clearly this is an important point about the way in which funding is provided to local authorities. I know that some would prefer capital funding for local councils to be ringfenced, and I have some sympathy with that argument, but the funding is not strictly speaking ringfenced in law. What happens is that, in providing it, the Department makes it clear to all local authorities that it expects every penny to be spent on highway maintenance activities. If there is any evidence that it is not, the Department makes it clear that it reserves the right to reduce future grant payments to the authority.
Those new reporting requirements that we are imposing as part of Network North will also allow the public as well as Members of this House to hold their local authorities to account to ensure that we have proper use of the funding. We want to introduce proper, democratic accountability for taxpayer-funded repairs to roads and upgrades to potholes, so that there is proper accountability and we can ensure that this funding is being spent properly.
My hon. Friend also made an important point about the way in which the current funding formula works. He argued that it should take account of traffic volumes as well as road lengths, to reflect the fact that urban roads generally carry more traffic and therefore need more maintenance than lightly trafficked rural roads. I accept that this is a potential argument and it is one that he makes with great eloquence, although others have pushed back and, representing a highly rural community with thousands of miles of roads, I fully understand the alternative argument.
The funding formula methodology was created following a public consultation in 2014. Traffic volumes and different types of traffic certainly contribute to road wear and tear, but there are other factors, such as the weather, that can cause roads to deteriorate. The Department has no immediate plans to change the formula, and we would not do so without consultation with local authorities. That would unquestionably be required. Any change would result in winners and losers across the country, which would without a shadow of a doubt be a matter of concern to many Members of the House and to individual local authorities. The most important thing the Department can do is to increase the overall funding amount to benefit all local highway authorities, and this is what we have announced with the Network North plan. Obviously, as always in this House, we take on board the comments made by my hon. Friend, and this is part of the ongoing debate and consideration, but I stress that it is not our intention to proceed down that route at the moment.
My hon. Friend raised specific roads—I think Gloucester Road was one that he mentioned—and I take those points on board. Clearly, good-quality roads are essential, upgrade is important and the good maintenance of the roads is vital. We are working with local highway authorities in England and National Highways to assess the condition of road surfaces, but we are also working with the British Standards Institute and the Transport Research Laboratory to develop a new standard for assessing road condition which will help councils to deal with road defects more effectively.
We are also encouraging the use of new technologies into the market, one of which is the famous Pothole Pro that my hon. Friend mentioned, which was developed in his area. It is a genuinely innovative way ahead for dealing with this, and I greatly look forward to getting involved with it. I am trying to persuade the Department to find me the appropriate bit of machinery that I will then drive to address his particular problem. There are some health and safety issues that I have to overcome, but he will understand that it is a mission with which I am shortly to engage.
We want to reduce the time that drivers lose, and the stress that they experience, due to roadworks. We are also making it quicker and easier for local councils to establish lane rental schemes, and we are consulting on requiring local authorities with such schemes to use at least half of any surplus funds on pothole repairs. We are also helping councils to find innovative ways to look after their roads through the £30 million Live Labs programme run by the Association of Directors of Environment, Economy, Planning and Transport, which will try new, environmentally friendly ways of managing and maintaining local roads in various parts of the country.
Through Live Labs, we are testing a wide range of different highways materials to support the move towards net zero carbon for local roads and infrastructure. My hon. Friend will be aware of the plan for drivers, which the Government announced in the autumn. We are not only trying to support motorists in a variety of individual ways, as set out in the plan, but we are using taxpayers’ money to support local authorities with record increases in funding. There has never been such funding.
The Government are putting in place transformational new funding to maintain the local road network over the next 11 years, with significant uplifts from the present basis. We are firmly on the side of the motorist, and I welcome my hon. Friend’s comments.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Corrections
Education
(1 year ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Robert Halfon
Not content with being in the anti-apprenticeship party, given her plans to weaken the apprenticeship levy and halve the number of apprenticeships, the hon. Lady is also taking on the mantle of T-level denier. We have 18 T-levels; we have, as I mentioned, a 90.5% pass rate; we have 10,000 students doing our T-level programme; and we expect the data that we will release early next year to show that many thousands more students are doing the T-level programme.
[Official Report, 11 December 2023, Vol. 742, c. 597.]
Letter of correction from the Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education, the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon):
An error has been identified in the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra). The correct answer should have been:
Robert Halfon
Not content with being in the anti-apprenticeship party, given her plans to weaken the apprenticeship levy and halve the number of apprenticeships, the hon. Lady is also taking on the mantle of T-level denier. We have 18 T-levels; we have, as I mentioned, a 90.5% pass rate; we have 10,000 students doing our T-level programme in the 2022 cohort; and we expect the data that we will release early next year to show that many thousands more students are doing the T-level programme.
After-school Childcare: Long-term Educational Outcomes
The following is an extract from Education questions on 11 December 2023.
David Johnston
In October, the Government announced the allocation of £289 million of start-up funding to local authorities for wraparound care, which we know supports parents to work, as well as having the potential to improve attainment, engagement and attendance.
[Official Report, 11 December 2023, Vol. 742, c. 597.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Wantage (David Johnston):
An error has been identified in the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn). The correct answer should have been:
David Johnston
In October, the Government announced the allocation of £289 million of start-up and expansion funding to local authorities for wraparound care, which we know supports parents to work, as well as having the potential to improve attainment, engagement and attendance.
Pupils with SEN and Disabilities
The following is an extract from Education questions on 11 December 2023.
David Johnston
We are investing £2.6 billion to transform the special educational needs and alternative provision system. That has included a 36% increase in funding to Birmingham, where the timeliness of EHCPs has been getting better each year between 2020 and 2022.
[Official Report, 11 December 2023, Vol. 742, c. 600.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Wantage (David Johnston):
An error has been identified in the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mrs Hamilton). The correct answer should have been:
David Johnston
We are investing £2.6 billion in capital funding to transform the special educational needs and alternative provision system, and there is a 36% increase in revenue funding to Birmingham, where the timeliness of EHCPs has been getting better each year between 2020 and 2022.
Higher Education Institutions: International Students
The following are extracts from Education questions on 11 December 2023.
Robert Halfon
As I said to the hon. Lady, we have something like 689,000 international students and our target is 600,000 a year.
[Official Report, 11 December 2023, Vol. 742, c. 605.]
Letter of correction from the Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education, the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon):
An error has been identified in my answer to the hon. Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith). The correct answer should have been:
Robert Halfon
As I said to the hon. Lady, we have almost 680,000 international students and our target is 600,000 a year.
Robert Halfon
I am absolutely committed to the target of 600,000. As I said in response to the previous question, we have surpassed that, with well over 680,000 students.
[Official Report, 11 December 2023, Vol. 742, c. 606.]
Letter of correction from the Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education, the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon):
An error has been identified in my answer to the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western). The correct answer should have been:
Robert Halfon
I am absolutely committed to the target of 600,000. As I said in response to the previous question, we have surpassed that, with almost 680,000 students.
Road closures in South Northamptonshire
UK Meal Card Scheme
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
International Health Regulations 2005
(1 year 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
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 635904, relating to the International Health Regulations 2005.
In March 2021, a group of world leaders including the then UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced an initiative for a new treaty on pandemic preparedness and response. The initiative was taken to the World Health Organisation and will be negotiated, drafted and debated by a newly established, intergovernmental negotiation body. This is the second time that the Petitions Committee has scheduled this issue for debate. In April this year, a petition that called for the Government to
“commit to not signing any international treaty on pandemic prevention and preparedness established by the World Health Organization (WHO), unless this is approved through a public referendum”
was debated after it reached the threshold of 156,086 signatures. Today’s e-petition calls on Parliament to
“Hold a parliamentary vote on whether to reject amendments to the IHR 2005”.
The Government have responded to the petition, explaining that the UK supports strengthening the IHR and the amendment process.
Having met the petitioner, I know that she would like the Minister to address the concerns of the petitioners in his response, specifically which amendments, if accepted, would require changes to UK domestic legislation; who represents the UK; if the information will be publicly available; the Government’s position on the amendments that change language in the regulations from “may” to “shall”; and if the UK will vote against those changes. What is the UK’s position on whether the regulations should be binding or non-binding, and has it proposed any amendments? I hope that the Minister will be able to address those issues in his remarks when we get to that stage of the debate.
In the March 2021 joint article, the group of leaders said:
“The main goal of this treaty would be to foster an all of government and all of society approach, strengthening national, regional and global capacities and resilience to future pandemics. This includes greatly enhancing international co-operation to improve, for example, alert systems, data-sharing, research and local, regional and global production and distribution of medical and public health counter-measures such as vaccines, medicines, diagnostics and personal protective equipment.”
Given the weekend news coverage of the fallout from some of the challenges faced in the procurement of PPE, it is perhaps timely that we debate the petition today. When the next pandemic happens, I hope that any future Government will have learned the lessons from the past.
On specific questions of UK sovereignty and amendments relating to restrictive measures, the UK Government have explained in their response to the petition that
“we have been clear that the UK will not sign up to any IHR amendments that would compromise the UK’s ability to take domestic decisions on national public health measures. There are currently no plans to hold a vote on IHR amendments. Should the UK Government wish to accept an IHR amendment, then depending on the content of the respective IHR amendment, changes to domestic law considered necessary or appropriate to reflect obligations under the IHR amendment, may be required. The Government would prepare such draft legislation before Parliament in the usual way. In all circumstances, the sovereignty of the UK Parliament would remain unchanged, and the UK would remain in control of any future domestic decisions about national public health measures.”
Finally, I take the opportunity to thank all our healthcare workers who worked through the pandemic. As we go into the Christmas period, many of them will be working while we are enjoying turkey dinners with our families, so I pay tribute to their commitment and to all others who work in our healthcare systems. The pandemic affected us all differently, and I hope that in this season of good will we are mindful of all those who are more vulnerable than ourselves. With that, and on behalf of the Petitions Committee, I thank all members of the public who have engaged with e-petitions, including this one in 2023. I look forward to hearing the well-informed contributions of hon. Members.
Dame Maria Miller (in the Chair)
Before I call the first speaker, I remind Members that if they wish to contribute, they should bob. I remind those sitting in the Public Gallery that there should be no applause and no photographs at any time.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
It is a pleasure as always to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Maria. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) for moving the motion and agreeing to the debate in her role as Chair of the Petitions Committee—it is very much appreciated. I also thank the 116,391 people who signed the petition, including 189 of my Shipley constituents, which helped secure this important debate.
In preparing for today’s debate, I looked back at the contributions made in April when another petition on this topic was debated here in Westminster Hall, as the hon. Member mentioned in her opening remarks. I have to say that I was disappointed by some of the rhetoric, when valid concerns were dismissed as an “overreaction and hysteria”. It is clear that this is—quite rightly, in my opinion—an important issue for the public. We can see that that is the case from not just the full Gallery, but the large numbers signing the petitions.
So what are we dealing with here? We have two international legal instruments, both designed to increase the WHO’s authority in managing health emergencies. The first concerns the amendments to the existing International Health Regulations 2005—the IHR—and the second is the World Health Organisation’s new pandemic treaty, which would support the bureaucracy and financing of the expanded IHR. Both instruments are designed to transfer decision-making powers to the World Health Organisation, with the admirable aim, no doubt, of improving how the world prevents and better prepares for disease outbreaks. However, in practice, what is being proposed could have a huge and detrimental impact on all parts of society and on our sovereignty. If the IHR amendments go through, countries will have undertaken to follow recommendations, not merely consider them: it is proposed to remove the word “non-binding” from article 1, while the regulations in article 42 are to be
“initiated and completed without delay”
by member states. Therefore, we can only assume that the intention behind the amendments is for them to be binding under international law.
I do not wish to over-egg the nature of the proposals, but I cannot help but be concerned by the thought of removing the word “non-binding”. There is much in the existing IHR that would suspend fundamental human and bioethical rights, such as requirements for vaccinations and medical examinations, and implementing quarantine or other health measures for suspect persons—in other words, mandates and lockdowns. It is all there in black and white under article 18. We may have become only too mindful of the harms of lockdowns, and I am sure that hon. Members will be aware of the latest findings published by the Centre for Social Justice about the harms caused by lockdowns. That is not to mention the non-existent science used to enforce wearing a face mask—the covid inquiry has also uncovered the fact that that was based on absolutely no science whatsoever.
At the debate in April, we were told by the then Minister that it is “simply not the case” that
“the instrument will undermine UK sovereignty and give WHO powers over national public health measures”.—[Official Report, 17 April 2023; Vol. 731, c. 34WH.]
I think it is worth revisiting this question, because I am not clear how national and parliamentary sovereignty can be upheld if the proposals are agreed. I draw attention to draft new article 13A, which calls for member states to
“undertake to follow WHO’s recommendations”
and to recognise the World Health Organisation not as an organisation under the control of countries, but rather as the
“coordinating authority of international public health response during public health Emergency of International Concern”.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend share my concern about the lack of accountability? We are having an extensive and public examination of the Government’s response to covid, but there is no comparable examination of the important decisions and advice that the WHO offered to the whole world, and it probably had more influence.
Philip Davies
My right hon. Friend is, as ever, absolutely right. We should all be concerned about that and concerned that we do not end up falling into the same problems as we have had in the past, being in a position where there is nothing we can do about it and sleepwalking into a disaster.
We are talking about a top-down approach to global public health hardwired into international law. At the top of that top-down approach we have our single source of truth on all things pandemic: the World Health Organisation’s director general, who it appears will have the sole authority to decide when and where these regulations will be deployed. Let us not forget that the director general is appointed by an opaque, non-democratic process—and I think that is being rather generous.
Rather worryingly, in their response to this petition the Government have said they are
“supporting the process of agreeing targeted amendments of the IHR as a means of strengthening preparedness for and response to future health emergencies; including through increasing compliance and implementation of the IHR”.
They have also previously said that they support
“a new legally-binding instrument”
—that certainly sounds like a threat to parliamentary sovereignty to me. Will the Minister commit today to laying those plans before Parliament so they can be properly debated, and if I had my way, robustly rejected?
It is also vital to take a step back and understand what is driving this pandemic preparedness agenda. At a recent meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on pandemic response and recovery, Dr David Bell gave a briefing on how the World Health Organisation, with the backing of the World Bank, says these amendments are the only way to prepare for future pandemics that it says are getting more frequent, and where there is more risk from zoonotic—animal to human—spread. The reality is that the WHO’s figures do not tell the whole story. When we take into account population growth, significant natural pandemics are rare events. We also have to take into account that there has been a huge expansion of tests and genome sequencing over the last few decades. The invention of polymerase chain reaction testing, for example, has had a massive impact on the detection rate of those outbreaks that the World Health Organisation is now using to justify its agenda.
Since the Spanish flu over 100 years ago, we have only had two pandemics above the average yearly seasonal influenza mortality rates, thanks to antibiotics and advances in modern medical care. We hear a lot about disease outbreaks that actually have low mortality burdens when compared to other public health threats: for example, in 2003, SARS-CoV-1—severe acute respiratory syndrome —had the equivalent disease burden of about five hours of tuberculosis. Funnily enough, in its 2019 pandemic influenza recommendations, the World Health Organisation itself could find no evidence that serious zoonotic pandemics were increasing. What is undoubtedly increasing are the eye-watering costs of managing pandemics, with vast sums of taxpayer money being wasted on poorly conceived initiatives, such as locking down the economy for two years.
It seems to me that the World Health Organisation has no need to rush any of this—we have time to reassess and get it right—and it seems I am not the only one to think that. In recent weeks, we have seen signs that some countries, including Estonia, Slovakia and New Zealand, are looking to question the proposals. It is not clear if any member states have submitted formal notices to reject them and opt out, but New Zealand does appear to have lodged a reservation to allow the incoming Government more time to consider whether the amendments are consistent with a national interest test required by New Zealand law. That is entirely sensible, and I would like to see our own Government take a pause to apply some critical thinking to this situation before blindly supporting the World Health Organisation’s installation as our new global public health power.
It is absolutely essential that the Government make a clear and unambiguous promise that they will neither support nor abide by anything that in any way undermines our national sovereignty. We have not spent so many years battling to get out of the frying pan of the EU to jump straight back into the fire with the equally unaccountable, undemocratic and hopeless World Health Organisation.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Reclaim)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Maria. I, too, thank the 116,000 members of the public who signed this public petition so that we can have this important debate today. I would also like to thank Dr David Bell—someone who actually worked for the WHO for a number of years—for his briefings to me, and also the Swiss lawyer Philipp Kruse for his contributions to the information I have with me today.
I would like to start by agreeing with the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). Both he and I spoke in the public petition debate on 17 April this year when we considered the pandemic treaty. It is impossible to consider either the pandemic treaty or the amendments to the international health regulations in isolation; they are two linked instruments of the WHO, and they need to be considered in parallel. My opening question is this: why does the WHO make false claims regarding proposals to seize states’ sovereignty?
In referring to the WHO’s new pandemic agreement and the proposed amendments to the international health regulations currently being negotiated, the director general of the WHO has stated:
“No country will cede any sovereignty to WHO.”
His statements are clear, unequivocal, and also wholly inconsistent with the text he is referring to. I remind the Chamber that this is the unelected, unaccountable, non-taxpaying, and immune-from-prosecution-due-to-diplomatic-immunity director general of the WHO. All employees of the United Nations and the WHO enjoy those particular perks.
Any rational examination of the text in question shows that the documents propose a transfer of decision-making power to the WHO regarding basic aspects of societal function that countries undertake to enact. The WHO director general will have the sole authority to decide when and where they are required, and the proposals are intended to be binding under international law. Continued claims that sovereignty is not lost, echoed by politicians in this House, other elected assemblies, and of course the media, therefore raise very important questions concerning motivations, competence and ethics.
The intent of the texts is a transfer of decision making, currently vested in nations and individuals, to the WHO when its director general decides that there is a threat of a significant disease outbreak or other health emergency likely to cross multiple national borders. It is very unusual for nations to undertake to follow external entities regarding the basic rights and healthcare of their citizens, more so when that has a major economic and geopolitical implication. The question of whether sovereignty is being transferred, and the legal status of such an agreement, is therefore of vital importance, particularly to legislators of democratic states such as ourselves. We have an absolute duty to be sure of our ground, and I systematically examine that ground here today.
Amending the 2005 international health regulations may be a straightforward way to quickly deploy and enforce what appears to be the new normal for health control measures that we have seen implemented since the covid-19 pandemic. The current text applies to virtually the entire global population, counting 196 states, including all 194 WHO member states. Approval may or may not be required by a formal vote of the World Health Assembly: the recent 2022 amendment was adopted through consensus. If the same approval mechanism were to be used in May 2024, many countries, and indeed the public, might remain unaware of the broad scope of the new text and its implications for national and individual sovereignty. That is why today’s debate is so important.
The IHR set recommendations under a treaty process that currently has force under international law. Those recommendations seek to provide the WHO with some moral authority to co-ordinate and lead responses when an international health emergency occurs, such as the pandemic. Most are non-binding, and those regulations contain very specific examples of measures that the WHO can currently recommend. That includes article 18, under which it can
“require medical examinations; review proof of vaccination or other prophylaxis; require vaccination or other prophylaxis; place suspect persons under public health observation; implement quarantine or other health measures for suspect persons; implement isolation and treatment where necessary of affected persons; implement tracing of contacts of suspect or affected persons; refuse entry of suspect and affected persons; refuse entry of unaffected persons to affected areas; and implement exit screening and/or restrictions on persons from affected areas.”
When implemented together, those measures have generally been referred to since 2020 as lockdowns and mandates—“lockdown” was previously a term reserved for people incarcerated as criminals. It removes basic, universally accepted human rights. Such measures were previously considered by the WHO itself to be detrimental to public health.
However, since 2020, it has become the default standard for public health authorities to manage epidemics, despite its contradictions to multiple stipulations of the universal declaration of human rights—the UDHR. I will remind the Chamber of those rights. Under article 2,
“Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind”,
including, under article 9, no arbitrary detention. Protected under article 12,
“No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence”.
Under article 13,
“Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state”
and,
“Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.”
Under article 19,
“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
Under article 20,
“Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.”
Under article 21,
“The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government”.
Under article 23,
“Everyone has the right to work”.
Under article 26,
“Everyone has the right to education.”
Under article 28,
“Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.”
Under article 30,
“Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group of person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.”
These UDHR stipulations are the basis of the modern concept of individual sovereignty and the relationship between authorities and their populations. Considered the highest codification of the rights and freedoms of individuals in the 20th century, they may soon be dismantled behind closed doors in a meeting room in Geneva.
The proposed amendments will change the “recommendations” of the current documentation to requirements through three mechanisms. The first is the removal the term “non-binding” from article 1, as we have already heard from the hon. Member for Shipley. Second is the insertion under new article 13A the phrase that “Member States” will
“undertake to follow WHO’s recommendations”
and recognise WHO not as an organisation under the control of countries, but as the “co-ordinating authority”. New article 13A states:
“States Parties recognize WHO as the guidance and coordinating authority of international public health response during public health Emergency of International Concern and undertake to follow WHO’s recommendations in their international public health response.”
As article 18 makes clear, these include multiple actions directly restricting individual liberty. If the transfer of decision-making power—sovereignty—is not intended here, then the current status of the IHR as “recommendations” could remain and countries would not be undertaking to follow the WHO’s requirements.
Thirdly, under article 42, “State Parties” undertake to enact what previously were merely recommendations, without delay, including requirements of WHO regarding non-state entities under their jurisdiction. Article 42 states:
“Health measures taken pursuant to these Regulations, including the recommendations made under Article 15 and 16, shall be initiated and completed without delay by all State Parties, and applied in a transparent, equitable and non-discriminatory manner. State Parties shall also take measures to ensure Non-State Actors operating in their respective territories comply with such measures.”
“Non-State Actors” means private businesses, charities, and individuals. In other words, everyone and everything comes under the control of the WHO, once the director general declares a public health emergency of international concern.
Articles 15 and 16 mentioned here allow the WHO to require a state to provide resources,
“health products, technologies and knowhow”
and to allow the WHO to deploy “personnel” into the country—that is, it will have control over entry across national borders for whoever it chooses. The WHO also repeats the requirement for the country to require the implementation of “medical countermeasures”—testing, vaccines, quarantine—on their population where the WHO demands it.
Of note, the proposed article 1 amendment to remove the term “non-binding” is actually redundant if new article 13A and/or the changes to article 42 remain in place. That can, and likely will, be removed in the final text, giving the appearance of a compromise without actually changing the thrust of the transfer of the sovereignty, because of the two other articles.
All of the public health measures in article 18, and additional ones such as limiting freedom of speech to reduce public exposure to alternative viewpoints—as annex 1, new article 5(e) says, “Counter misinformation and disinformation”—clash directly with the UDHR. Although freedom of speech is currently exclusively for national authorities to decide, and its restriction is generally seen as being negative and abusive, United Nations institutions including the WHO have been advocating for censoring unofficial views in order to protect the people from what they call “information integrity”. No doubt, if these amendments were in place, I would not be allowed to give this speech and, if I was, it would not be allowed to be reported in the mainstream media or even on social media.
It seems outrageous, from a human rights perspective, that the amendments will allow the WHO to dictate to countries to require individual medical examinations and vaccinations whenever it declares a pandemic. While the Nuremberg code and the declaration of Helsinki refer specifically to human experimentation in cases such as clinical trials and vaccines, and the universal declaration on bioethics and human rights refers specifically to the provider-patient relationship, they can reasonably be extended to public health measures that impose restrictions or changes to human behaviour and specifically to any measures requiring injection, medication or medical examination, which involve a direct provider-person interaction.
If vaccines or drugs are still under trial and not fully tested, the issue of being subject to an experiment is also real. There is a very clear intent to employ the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness and Innovations’ 100-day vaccine programme, which, by definition, cannot complete meaningful safety and efficacy trials within the timespan. As we know, the covid-19 vaccines are still experimental, years on from their first introduction, because they are still under emergency use authorisation. Forced examination or medication outside of a situation where the recipient is clearly not mentally competent to be able to comply or reject, when provided with the information, is unethical. Requiring compliance to access what are considered basic human rights under the UDHR would constitute coercion. If that does not fit with the WHO’s definition of infringement of individual sovereignty or of national sovereignty, then the director general and his supporters need to publicly explain what definition of sovereignty they are using.
The proposed pandemic agreement will set humanity into a new era that is strangely organised around pandemics: pre-pandemic, pandemic and inter-pandemic times. A new governance structure, under WHO auspices, will oversee the IHR amendments and related initiatives. It will rely on new funding requirements, including the WHO’s ability to demand additional funding and materials from countries and to run a supply network to support its work in health emergencies. That is under article 12, which states that
“in the event of a pandemic, real-time access by WHO to a minimum of 20% (10% as a donation and 10% at affordable prices to WHO) of the production of safe, efficacious and effective pandemic-related products for distribution based on public health risks and needs, with the understanding that each Party that has manufacturing facilities that produce pandemic-related products in its jurisdiction shall take all necessary steps to facilitate the export of such pandemic-related products, in accordance with timetables to be agreed between WHO and manufacturers”
and article 20(1)(e):
“provide support and assistance to other Parties, upon request, to facilitate the containment of spill-over at the source.”
The entire structure will be financed by a new funding stream that is separate from WHO funding and an additional requirement on taxpayers over current national commitments. Article 20(2) states that the funding will also include an endowment of
“voluntary…contributions from all relevant sectors that benefit from international work to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response; and…donations from philanthropic organizations”.
I wonder who those organisations referred to in article 20(2)(b) might be; perhaps someone who made a lot of money out of mRNA vaccination.
This is taxation without representation. Currently, countries decide on their level of foreign aid on the basis of national priorities, apart from limited funding that they may already have agreed to allocate to organisations such as the WHO under existing obligations or treaties. The proposed agreement is remarkable not just in greatly increasing the amount of money that countries must give as part of treaty agreements but in setting up a parallel funding structure disconnected from other disease priorities, which is quite the opposite of previous ideas on integrated health policy. It also gives power to external groups, which are not directly accountable, to demand or acquire further resources whenever they deem it necessary.
In a further encroachment into what is normally within the legal jurisdiction of nation states, the agreement will require countries to establish, under article 15:
“no-fault vaccine injury compensation mechanism(s)”.
That will consecrate effective immunity for pharmaceutical companies for harm to citizens resulting from use of their products that the WHO recommends under an emergency use authorisation—that will be embedded; that will be the norm—or indeed that the WHO requires countries to mandate on their citizens.
As is becoming increasingly acceptable for those in power, ratifying countries will agree to limit the right of their public to voice opposition to the WHO’s measures and claims regarding such an emergency, under article 18, in order to:
“combat false, misleading, misinformation or disinformation, including through effective international collaboration and cooperation”.
As we have seen during the covid-19 response, the definition of “misleading” information can depend on political or commercial expediency, including factual information on vaccine efficacy and safety and orthodox immunology that would impair the sale of health commodities. This is why open democracies put such emphasis on defending free speech, even at the risk of sometimes being misleading. In signing this agreement, Governments will be agreeing to abrogate that principle regarding their own citizens when instructed to do so by the WHO.
The scope of this proposed agreement and the IHR amendments is broader than pandemics, greatly expanding the scope under which a transfer of decision-making powers can be demanded by the WHO. Other environmental threats to health, such as changes in climate, can be declared emergencies at the director general’s discretion, if broad definitions of a One Health policy are adopted as recommended.
It is difficult to think of another international instrument where such powers over national resources are passed to an unelected external organisation, and it is even more challenging to envisage how this can be seen as anything other than a loss of sovereignty. The only justification for this claim would appear to be if the draft agreement is to be signed on the basis of deceit and that there is no intention for us to treat it in any other way than as an irrelevant piece of paper or as something that would perhaps only apply to less powerful states than the United Kingdom—possibly as a colonialist tool. I have spoken at length to elected representatives in Africa and urged them to urge their elected assemblies to reject this power-grab by the unelected and unaccountable WHO.
Both texts are intended to be legally binding; the IHR already has such status. Therefore, the impact of the proposed changes on the need for new acceptance by countries are complicated national jurisdictional issues. There is a current mechanism for rejection of new amendments. However, unless a high number of countries actively voice their opposition and rejections, the adoption of the current published version, dated February 2023, will likely lead to a future shadowed by the permanent risks of the WHO’s lockdown and lockstep diktats.
The proposed pandemic agreement is also clearly intended to be legally binding. The WHO discusses this issue, and it has been supported by the International Negotiating Body and various declarations of the G20.
As I have said, the IHR already has standing under international law. While seeking such status, WHO officials, who previously described the proposed agreement as a “treaty”, now insist that neither instrument impacts sovereignty. The implication is that it is states’ representatives at the World Health Assembly who will agree the transfer, not the WHO itself, as if that makes any difference to the UK’s loss of sovereignty.
The WHO’s position raises a real question of whether its leadership is truly ignorant of what is being proposed or is actively seeking to mislead countries and the public in order to increase the probability of acceptance. The latest version, dated 30 October 2023, requires 40 ratifications for the future agreement to enter into force, after a two-thirds vote in favour within the WHA. Opposition from a considerable number of countries will therefore be needed to derail the project. Because it is backed by powerful Governments and institutions, financial mechanisms, including the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and bilateral aid, are likely to make opposition from lower-income countries extremely difficult to sustain. Much of the world therefore looks to our Parliament to step up to the plate and protect democracy around the world.
The relevant question regarding the two WHO instruments should be not whether sovereignty is threatened, but why democratic states would forfeit any sovereignty to an organisation that is significantly funded by and bound to obey the dictates of corporations and self-proclaimed philanthropists, and jointly governed by member states half of which are not even open and transparent democracies. Why would we do that? If sovereignty is being knowingly forfeited by Governments, without the knowledge and consent of their peoples and based on the false claims of Governments and the WHO, the implications are extremely serious. It would imply that leaders were working directly against the interests of their people. Most countries have specific fundamental laws for dealing with that practice, so it is important that those defending these projects to either explain their definitions of sovereignty and democratic process, or explicitly seek informed public consent.
The other question to be asked is why public health authorities and the media are repeating the WHO’s assurances of the benign nature of the pandemic instruments. They assert that claims of reduced sovereignty are misinformation or disinformation, which they assert elsewhere are major killers of mankind. Although such claims are somewhat ludicrous and appear intended to denigrate dissenters, such as myself, the WHO is clearly guilty of the very crime of which it accuses others. If its leadership cannot demonstrate how its claims regarding these pandemic instruments are not deliberately misleading, its leadership would appear ethically compelled to resign from their positions, and we should defund them.
The WHO lists three major pandemics of the last century: the influenza outbreaks in late 1950s and 1960s, and the covid-19 pandemic. The first two killed fewer than die each year from tuberculosis. The reported deaths from covid-19 never reached the level of cancer or cardiovascular disease, and remain almost irrelevant in low-income countries compared with endemic infectious diseases including tuberculosis, malaria and HIV/AIDS. To put the pandemics in perspective, no other non-influenza outbreak recorded by the WHO that fits the definition of a pandemic—that is, the rapid spread across international borders for a limited time of a pathogen that does not normally cause significant harm—has caused greater mortality in total than a few days of tuberculosis, which kills about 4,000 a day, or more life years lost than a few days of malaria, which sadly kills 1,500 children under five every day.
If our Government, the Opposition parties and their supporters in the public health community consider that the powers currently vested in national jurisdictions should be given over to external bodies on the basis of that level of recorded harm, it would be best that we have a public conversation as to whether this is a sufficient basis for abandoning democratic ideals in favour of a more fascist and authoritarian approach. After all, we are talking about restricting basic human rights that are essential for any democracy to function.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I hope that the Minister will listen very carefully to the debate and the petitioners, because it would be a grave error were the Government to sign a treaty that gives away important powers over the future conduct of health policy. It is wrong to give to the WHO the sole power to decide when there is an emergency, and it is wrong to give away our powers of self-decision were such an emergency to be visited upon us.
We are, of course, members of the WHO, and I think we all agree that we should continue to be members of the WHO. We should share our information; we should draw on its research, and it will draw on research and knowledge in this country, where there is much medical and pharmaceutical company expertise, and together, as collaborators, we may get to better answers in the future. However, it would be quite wrong to vest the power of decision in people so far away from our own country who are not in full knowledge of the local circumstances.
Before any such power is vested in the WHO, there should be a proper inquiry and debate about how it performed over the course of the most recent covid pandemic. Why, for example, did the WHO seemingly concentrate on vaccines, rather than other methods of handling the problem? Why was there the delay or difficulty in testing existing drugs, which had already passed proper safety procedures and might have had beneficial or easing effects for those who got the condition? Why was more work not done on use of ultraviolet light behind the scenes in airflow systems, to clean up air when circulating? Why was more consideration not given to isolation hospitals and health centres, given that, unfortunately, quite a lot of the disease was spread through health premises. With the use of isolation, other healthcare could have continued during the course of covid treatment without so much cross-contamination within general hospitals. Why were there not recommendations and advice on isolation?
Why was there not more careful consideration of whether it would be better to concentrate on ensuring that those who were most vulnerable were protected from the presence of the disease as much as possible, rather than trying to lock down whole populations and then having to make exemptions so that we could keep the lights on and some food could be delivered to people’s homes? There was something rather arbitrary about who was allowed to go to work and who was not.
Why was more work not done by the WHO on cleaning up the data? We were given comparisons between countries, but when we looked beneath the data, we discovered that those countries were using very different definitions of what a covid death was. In individual countries, under the impact of the wave of the disease, there were often great difficulties in carrying out proper diagnosis of whether someone did have covid, or whether other medical problems that the person was suffering from were more likely to have caused the death. Some countries took a very tough line, saying that anybody with covid died of covid, even though they might have had lots of other conditions, so those countries had big figures, while other countries took a rather narrow view and said, “Well, this person was in their mid-80s and they were suffering from another a number of other conditions that might have led to the difficulties.”
Andrew Bridgen
Does the right hon. Gentleman share my concerns that the WHO refuses to conduct any review of the recommendations it issued during the covid-19 pandemic, so sure is it that its advice and recommendations were absolutely perfect? If we sign up to these instruments, we will only get more of the same.
John Redwood
That is one of my worries. We need more transparency, debate, discussion and challenge of those in the well-paid positions at the WHO, so that science can advance.
As I understand scientific method, it is not choosing a limited number of scientists and believing everything they say; it is having a population of talented and able scientists who challenge each other, because then we get more truth out of the challenge and exchange of ideas. We do not want an international body saying, “There’s only one way to look at this problem or to think about it.” We need that process of challenge, and we need it to be an accelerated process. When we have an urgent and immediate need of better medicines, vaccines, procedures and approaches to lockdown or non-lockdown, that is surely the time for healthy debate, constant review and sufficient humility by all of us who venture opinions, because time and events could disprove them very quickly. If that happens, we should learn from the process and be honest about it, rather than saying that we were right all along and there was only one possible approach.
That is all I wish to say, that I think we need much more accountability, exposure and proper debate. Yes, the WHO can make an important contribution and can be a forum for scientists, pharmaceutical companies and others who will be part of the solution should we get some future wave of infection, but please, Government, do not trust it with everything. Do not ensure that future Ministers are unable to act responsibly and well in response to public opinion and to medical opinion within our own country. Do not sell us short, because that would also sell the world short. This country has a lot to offer in these fields, and it will be best if we allow open debate, proper review and serious challenge.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Dame Maria.
I begin by declaring an interest. My wife, Olivia, works as a senior radiographer in the national health service. Throughout the pandemic, she continued to report for duty at her hospital, including, on occasion, knowingly treating patients who were covid positive. I married a good and brave woman, Dame Maria. She does not know I am about to say this: I want to pay tribute to her and all her colleagues in the national health service, who put their lives on the line to save those of many others. They deserve our admiration and thanks from their Parliament.
I have received quite a few emails from constituents on this issue. I have also had strong personal representations from Councillor Ian Ward, who ably represents Lodge ward on Rochford District Council, who feels very strongly—take my word for it, Dame Maria—about all this and has made his views very clear to me as his MP.
For the record, I am all for better sharing of information and intelligence between nations to try to prevent the spread of any future pandemic. Would that the Chinese had done more, and more quickly, to warn the rest of the world about what was coming from Wuhan. I reluctantly accepted the need for an initial lockdown, but I confess that as time wore on, I became increasingly uneasy at the effects of the lockdown, not just economically but socially, and not least the impact on people’s mental health. We are still seeing some of those effects playing out in our schools today, as my headteachers tell me when I visit local schools.
I am now concerned about the potential amendments to the International Health Regulations 2005 being brought about at the behest of the World Health Organisation, not least because the WHO will be given extremely strong powers in any future pandemic. As one constituent put it in her email:
“Almost no-one who is informed believes the…WHO performed anything other than appallingly during Covid, with disastrous results. Yet there seems to be no attempt to reform this unelected, unaccountable organisation, which British taxpayers fund in the millions. On the contrary, a drive is evident to give the totally undemocratic WHO ever more power, ever more of our money and ever less scrutiny.”
That was her opinion, but I think my constituent has a point.
I understand that on 31 May 2022, the delegates of the WHO formally adopted five new amendments to the international health regulations. I further understand that those amendments come into force under international law for all member states within 24 months—that is, by 31 May 2024—unless those member states choose proactively to opt out of them. Of the five new amendments, there is one of particular concern as it would severely compromise the ability of the public to lobby politicians to reject future amendments by reducing the time available before they might come into force. That amendment to article 59 would significantly reduce the time allowed for a country’s leadership to reject IHR amendments adopted at future World Health Assemblies from 18 months to 10 months.
Mr Francois
Forgive me, but the hon. Gentleman spoke at some length; perhaps he will let some of the rest of us have a go.
Up to 300 amendments to the international health regulations are being negotiated and finalised, to be voted on in May 2024 at the 77th World Health Assembly. The amendments being negotiated include: first, amendments to make WHO emergency guidance legally binding—it is currently only advisory—on member states; and secondly, amendments that would empower the WHO director general to single-handedly declare a public health emergency of international concern, giving this unelected, unaccountable individual unprecedented levels of power to dictate UK public health policy and to restrict fundamental freedoms.
Philip Davies
Is it not even more extraordinary that that power would be given to that person, given that, as I understand it, the UK voted against his becoming the director general of the World Health Organisation in the first place, and he was China’s man for the job. Does that not make it even more extraordinary that the UK would want him to have those powers?
Mr Francois
It does, although some people favoured by China have been doing very well lately. None the less, I take my hon. Friend’s point.
Thirdly, there are amendments to implement an international global health certification system enabling nations to enforce travel restrictions using tools such as vaccine certificates, passenger locator forms and travel health declarations—all tied, potentially, to a personal QR code. Fourthly, there are amendments that would increase censorship of dissenting voices by mandating systematic global collaboration to counter dissent to official governmental or WHO guidance.
Taken together, the proposed amendments empower the WHO to issue requirements for the UK to mandate highly restrictive measures, such as lockdowns, masks, quarantines, travel restrictions and medication of individuals, including vaccination, once a PHEIC has been declared by the WHO. That is something we should all be very concerned about. We as parliamentarians are guardians of the country’s liberty, so we need to be very anxious about that.
I have been known to raise concerns about the loss of our sovereignty in Parliament before. Section 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 states that the will of Parliament is sovereign—and so it should remain. I have a key question for the Minister—I have known him for years; he is a decent man. Will he take the trouble to answer this question very specifically in his wind-up? Otherwise, I will intervene on him. My key question is: could the amendments, even potentially, allow the World Health Organisation to put this country into lockdown without our approval? Yes or no?
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
I am very pleased to be able to speak in this debate. I thank all the petitioners and members of the public who are interested in the debate, and the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) who introduced it. It is worrying that so few Members are present. I am always proud to act in concert with my band of brothers here—we happy few who seem to fight on multiple fronts. This is a fringe issue in Parliament, as demonstrated by the empty Benches, but significant numbers of the public have a real interest in this topic, so what is going on?
I think the explanations are partly that it is a complex matter. It requires significant delving into pretty abstruse documentation and websites. As the debate goes on, it is not always thrilling. It is also that we debate issues of principle, such as the abstractions of sovereignty and individual rights, that often fail to get traction in the media. Although occasionally generating headlines, they do not generate proper attention in Parliament or the media.
The fundamental reason why the topic and the proposed regulations and treaty from the World Health Organisation have not generated the sort of disquiet that we few Members feel among our colleagues, the wider public and the media is that we want, as individuals and citizens, to trust in the Government when it comes to healthcare. We really do. That is why we have such a commitment to the NHS in our country. We want the state to be trusted, authoritative and capable when it comes to our health. We instinctively recoil at suggestions that there is a problem when it comes to the management of healthcare, and yet, as we have heard today from colleagues who put the details very well—I will not reiterate the points that have been made—there is clearly a difficulty, a challenge, a problem with the proposed regulations and treaty.
It is suggested by the World Health Organisation and the Governments who are contributing to the design of the regulations and the treaty that the WHO should move from being responsible for identifying pandemics on behalf of countries, and towards taking responsibility for co-ordinating the response to pandemics. That is an enormously significant change. It would co-ordinate the response of nation states and how they managed their health care. We have heard expressed very well the threat that that represents; it could mean enforced mandates, forced lockdowns and so on. I echo the call on the Minister to address the question whether the World Health Organisation will be able to impose a lockdown, or any other intervention, without the consent of Parliament.
I would also like the Minister to reflect on the provision in the proposed regulations that suggests that the World Health Organisation would require countries to tackle misinformation and disinformation. We must remember that in January 2020, the organisation aspiring to this power denied that there was human-to-human transmission of covid-19. For many months, it denied the possibility that the virus had a human origin and originated in a Wuhan facility. This is the organisation that we propose giving the power to intervene in national debates, and to close down discussion about the origins and appropriate response to pandemics under the guise of tackling misinformation and disinformation.
We should be concerned about the value of the World Health Organisation, given its record, and we should, I am afraid, have the same scepticism about our Government’s role. The trust that we all desperately want to have in healthcare has been badly tested by the experience of recent years. I echo many of the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) about radicalisation; we both experienced that radicalisation over the course of the covid experience. We went from a position of trust in the state to profound scepticism.
I want to call attention to a new book that has come out, to which I contributed the afterword.
Dame Maria Miller (in the Chair)
Order. I do not think that we do advertising in here.
Danny Kruger
Okay. Forgive me. I will not advertise the book, although I derive no benefit from it, I should emphasise. It is written by the campaigners UsforThem, who did such good work in calling attention to the effect of the lockdowns on children, and who became radicalised through the experience of covid. UsforThem has written a very good book about the lack of accountability for the response to covid. I do not share some of its concerns about particular decisions made by particular officials or Ministers, but I absolutely share its concerns about the failure of accountability in the system as a whole.
The inquiry into the whole covid episode, which we are all watching, is performing a fairly useful function in identifying misdemeanours, confusions, and, in a rather whodunnit way, which Ministers, officials and advisers deserve individual blame. What we are really getting out of it, however, is evidence that the system as a whole failed. There is no point in identifying the culpability of individuals when the fundamental problem that the inquiry, and the experience of us all, demonstrates is that the British state failed.
On the regulations, as I said in April, during the last debate we had on this subject in this place, the problem during the whole covid episode was not the lack of international co-operation; there was a very high, remarkable, degree of that. Almost every country did exactly the same thing, following China’s example. What we did not have enough of was independent decision making at nation state level. The bits that worked at nation state level were times when individuals and communities on the ground, local government, local public services and local businesses took the initiative to collaborate and develop their own responses, and took responsibility for supporting communities. That is what we needed at the national level, too—more independent decision making, while obviously collaborating and sharing information about what works.
I recognise the point made by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood. I hope that the Minister will say that the Government are committed to ensuring that British national sovereignty is reflected in the wording of any new treaty. I am afraid—we are familiar with this from current debates—that peppering legislation with the language of sovereignty is not sufficient. What we really need is the practice of sovereignty and the declaration of principles. Principles are only valid in so far as they are put into practice. We want actual practice of the principle of sovereignty through the treaty that emerges, and in any amendments to the regulations.
I conclude with four questions for the Minister, who I hope will be able to answer them. First, when will we see the next iteration of the draft regulations? I had understood that they were expected now. Secondly, which Minister is responsible for negotiating the treaty and the regulations? Is it him or a colleague? I would also be interested to know which civil servants are involved. We knew who the civil servants negotiating Brexit were. I wonder who has been delegated to the WHO and is working on our behalf there.
Thirdly, colleagues raised the issue of the WHO mandates potentially imposing a very significant bill on the taxpayer. Has work been done to quantify the potential cost to the taxpayer of implementing the requirements of the treaty? Finally, I appreciate that the Minister is probably not in a position to do so today, but will the Government commit to publishing their red lines—what they will and will not accept? Vague commitments to preserving sovereignty are not sufficient. What exactly will be acceptable and not? I appreciate that the negotiations are going on with other states, but I think it would be appropriate for our Government, at this advanced stage of the negotiations, to declare publicly what they are and are not prepared to cede, by way of our independence.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I, too, thank the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) for setting out the issue, quite succinctly. I also thank her in her capacity as Chair of the Petitions Committee for having allowed us a three-hour debate. A consequence is that once all the Back-Bench contributions have been heard, we will be able to hear in extenso how His Majesty’s official Opposition will deal with this issue. Even more importantly, we will be able to hear the Minister, who I am delighted to see in his place, say exactly what the Government are doing in response to each of the issues raised in this debate, which are of crucial importance to so many of our constituents.
One of the reasons why we are where we are today is that the response to the debate we had on a petition on this subject in April was, frankly, totally inadequate. It was full of generalisations, and vague suggestions that somehow it was all going to be all right in a day. It really was, “Why are you bothering the Government with this trivial material?” This issue goes to the heart of what the House is all about. It is about who is in charge. Are we, as a democratic Parliament, in charge of the laws of our country, and any attempt by the Government to give away control over those laws to an unaccountable international organisation? It is because of that concern that so many people have signed this petition and we are having this debate again today.
If my right hon. Friend the Minister does not address these issues today, people will say that the Government are not taking this seriously. That would be a disaster. Once we have given away these powers to the WHO, which is power hungry—what international organisation is not power hungry? The WHO certainly is—it is very difficult to get them back. There are ongoing discussions about where we stand in relation to international treaties and international law. There is the insidious development, following the recent Supreme Court case, of what is called “customary” international law. That development basically means that a group of outsiders can tell us in this country what is good for us and what is not.
Mr Francois
For the avoidance of doubt, will my hon. Friend agree that none of us has argued this afternoon for withdrawal from the World Health Organisation—we might call it Wexit, for want of a better phrase—
Mr Francois
“Yet,” says another hon. Friend. But we want to be assured that the WHO cannot overrule this sovereign Parliament. That is a fundamental difference, is it not?
Sir Christopher Chope
Absolutely; I agree with my right hon. Friend. We do not want to withdraw; there is no need to withdraw from a voluntary organisation that is confined to giving us advice and providing data and information. Who would resent having access to data and information? Indeed, the essence of the relationship between a responsible society and its Government is that the Government should provide information to enable individuals to decide for themselves whether they want to take particular medicines, go on trips to particular countries, be vaccinated in a particular way, or whatever.
I see the proper role of the WHO as providing information to Governments across the globe. Those Governments can then decide for themselves what they like and do not like, having regard to the fact that the WHO’s chairman seems to have been imposed on it by the People’s Republic of China, and was strongly opposed by our Government. It seems very much as though the whole WHO is too beholden to China. The WHO is also beholden to some of its big donors; if one analyses how the WHO is funded, one sees that organisations such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation are significant supporters. He who pays the piper calls the tune. I think that is a good starting point when looking at these things. In the case of the WHO, there is too much evidence that the people paying the piper are calling the tune to too great an extent.
Once bitten, twice shy. Let us remind ourselves what happened during the pandemic. As others have mentioned, the WHO went into the pandemic with a policy of saying that lockdowns were not, and could not be, the right answer to a pandemic for all sorts of reasons. We can now see the adverse consequences that flowed from our country’s decision to have a lockdown, and we can compare that with what happened in Sweden. Then, during the early part of the pandemic discussions, and without any evidence being brought forward, the WHO suddenly changed its advice. Why? There is a suspicion that it was because of undue influence from the pressures that I have been describing. We will never know why it changed its advice. All we know is that somebody who changes their advice like that, without any evidence, should not tell us what to do. We should say, “If you want to change your advice, fine, but why do you change it? We don’t have to follow it.” However, under the proposed treaty amendments, we would have to follow it. That is obviously of great concern, because people can see what happened in the past, and that is potentially a guide to the future.
Even more sinister than the change in advice on lockdowns was the WHO’s approach to finding a treatment for covid-19 patients. There was a lot of evidence to suggest that ivermectin—it was not the only such drug—could be used to really good effect to improve outcomes for patients suffering from covid-19. Strong evidence suggested that treatment with ivermectin might improve someone’s chances of survival by as much as 81%, but the WHO intervened at the behest of certain pharmaceutical companies that were in competition with the producers of ivermectin. It gave very dubious advice, to the effect that ivermectin should be used only in clinical trials.
To those who are not familiar with too much of the detail, I commend a book by Dr Pierre Kory, a distinguished physician and epidemiologist—I think he is an epidemiologist. He certainly deals with pulmonary and critical-care medicine; he is a specialist in that. He was in charge of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, and produced a book called “The War on Ivermectin”. It was a war, organised by the WHO, against a remedy for covid-19, because, obviously, the whole vaccine development programme was premised on there being no cure for covid-19, and no effective treatment for it. In the absence of such treatment, it was legitimate for experimental vaccines to be brought into play without undergoing the full process set out in the Licensing Act 2003, because there was there was nothing else. We were in the desperate situation of there being no other way out. Actually, however, there was a lot of evidence to suggest that ivermectin—
Dame Maria Miller (in the Chair)
Order. I am sure that the hon. Member is not intending to use a prop. Let us leave it to Amazon to sell books.
Sir Christopher Chope
I was holding the book as I was about to quote from it, Dame Maria. I was not trying to advertise it, and I have not contributed to it, although I have to admit that it was given to me; I did not pay for it. However, so that I can put it down, and so that people do not have to look at me waving it around any more, I will get to the quote. On the WHO’s recommendation against ivermectin, Doctor Kory says:
“The corrupt anti-recommendation that followed read like this:
We recommend not to use ivermectin in patients with COVID-19 except in the context of a clinical trial. This recommendation applies to patients with any disease severity and any duration of symptoms. A recommendation to only use a drug in the setting of a clinical trials…is appropriate when there is very low certainty evidence and future research has a large potential for reducing uncertainty about the effects of the intervention and for doing so at reasonable cost.”
That recommendation was given in the knowledge, as a result of work that had been done that, there was an 81% reduced risk of dying. Indeed, the reason that India was very successful in reducing the number of deaths immediately after the pandemic started was that it was using ivermectin in extenso. In the eyes of Dr Kory, the WHO’s refusal to endorse a remedy or treatment contributed to the loss of
“millions of lives across the world.”
Those are quotes from his book, which I will now put down, Dame Maria.
When I first read about that aspect of the work of the WHO, and the way in which it had been corruptly influenced by drug companies that had a direct financial interest in discrediting ivermectin, it raised alarm bells. I thought, “Hang on a minute, why is the WHO engaged in this sort of activity?” I hope that the Government will start looking really seriously, and sceptically, at the work of the WHO, and at the extent to which it is unduly influenced by external factors. A lot of its work is not based on straight science, but is actually political. Reference has already been made to the fact that the WHO does not seem too interested in getting to the bottom of how covid-19 began. Did it begin in a laboratory in China? That narrative would not fit in with the WHO effectively being under the control of the Chinese Government.
Philip Davies
This comes back to the point that our hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) made so effectively. The WHO said, prematurely, that it was “extremely unlikely” that covid started from a lab leak. Then, over a year later, I think, the director general said there had been a “premature push” to rule out the lab leak theory. Does that not confirm the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) that there are clearly external factors at play when the WHO gives its advice, and that it should be treated with caution, not as gospel?
Sir Christopher Chope
Absolutely, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing that to our attention.
Let us reflect for a minute on what other countries are doing. I would have thought that we were one of the proudest sovereign countries, determined to ensure that our Parliament retains control over these sorts of issues; but we seem to have been sidelined by Slovakia, Estonia and New Zealand. If those countries have already come out publicly with their scepticism about the process, why have our Government been sitting on their hands, not saying anything? Instead of being mum about this, I hope that our Government will now say, “By all means, let’s keep the WHO as a body that provides advice, but under no circumstances will we sign up to anything that will give them control over our lives.” It was bad enough that we effectively had a requirement in this country that people should take vaccines—that there was a vaccine mandate.
I spoke the other day to a constituent of mine who worked as an inspector of care homes. He was told that he would lose his job if he refused to be vaccinated; he still refused, and he lost his job. I am pleased to say that he won his case in the tribunal, but that was the sort of consequence for people who fell foul of vaccine mandates. The prospect that it would not be our Government telling people what vaccines they had to take, but rather some unaccountable, foreign international organisation, is even more disturbing.
These are really important issues, and I hope that my friends in Government will take them a lot more seriously than they seem to have done up to now. It is still not clear whether the Department of Health and Social Care or the Foreign Office is in charge of these issues. As has been said, we need to know who among the Ministers will get down to the detail, argue the toss, and ensure that the WHO continues as an organisation but does not take control of our lives.
[Sir George Howarth in the Chair]
I am pleased to see you in the Chair, Sir George. If I sit down now, we will have just shy of two hours in which to hear from the Front Benchers—it is significant that there does not seem to be any SNP spokesman here—on what action they will take to address the concerns of more than 100,000 petitioners on this subject, and a whole lot of other people besides.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir George, on this debate responding to the e-petition 635904, which relates to the International Health Regulations 2005. It is wonderful to see so many of the public in attendance.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith), who is Chair of the Petitions Committee, for opening the debate. I also thank the right hon. Members for Wokingham (John Redwood) and for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) and the hon. Members for Shipley (Philip Davies), for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen), for Devizes (Danny Kruger) and for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) for their contributions. I was in the debate responding to a similar petition regarding the draft treaty on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response in April; I hope hon. Members who were also in that debate will forgive me for retreading some similar ground.
The covid pandemic was one of the most surreal and seismic events of our lifetimes. Hundreds of thousands of people died here in the United Kingdom and millions more were extremely ill. There are perhaps two million people still living restricted lives, who are now in their fourth year of shielding because they are clinically vulnerable to the virus—we should not forget them. As our economy and public services still recover, it is vital that we learn lessons and take steps to strengthen our resilience for the future, and I hope that the inquiry taking place at the moment will be a valuable resource in that respect. Our NHS was badly prepared, the Government’s handling of public health measures was chaotic, and we jumped in and out of lockdowns. Some measures, such as guidance issued to care homes and eat out to help out, were raised as concerns by Members of this House, including myself.
As we discuss the petition, we must recognise the international dimension of the pandemic, too. Deadly infectious diseases do not respect borders. It is therefore squarely in our interests to co-operate with other nations and support efforts to co-ordinate the global public health response. The lesson of the pandemic was that no one is safe until everyone is safe, so it is clear that global co-operation on pandemics and biological threats needs to be strengthened. Labour absolutely supports the principle of legally binding international health regulations that define the obligations of countries in handling pandemic-level threats. That is critical to our national health security.
The international health regulations under discussion have of course existed in various forms since the 1960s. The latest iteration came into force in 2007. As they stand, the regulations obligate the 196 state parties to develop national core public health capacities for the detection, assessment, control and reporting of public health events. At some international ports, airports and ground crossings, they require parties to notify the WHO of serious diseases with risk of international spread. They set some of the human rights and other protections for any of us travelling abroad—protection of personal health data, for example. Those requirements are hardly controversial, apart from the fact that they were not on their own sufficient to prevent the spread of covid-19 around the world. That is why we think they must be strengthened. Climate change and globalisation mean that biological threats are only becoming more common, and future pandemics could be deadlier than covid-19. If another epidemic strikes with that same infectious potential, we must ensure that we are better prepared.
The subject of debate today is how amendments to the international health regulations and the pandemic accord under negotiation at the World Health Organisation might actually impact the United Kingdom’s public health policy in the future. Earlier I mentioned some of the measures taken by the UK Government during the pandemic, ranging from interventions like eat out to help out to the three national lockdowns. The variety of those policies and how they compare with some of the other 195 countries who are also signed up to the international health regulations shows that the UK and other countries were able to exercise considerable discretion in their domestic responses to the pandemic.
It is important to emphasise this fact: the e-petition we are discussing asks for Parliament to vote on amendments to the IHR, which are being negotiated alongside the draft text of the pandemic accord that we debated here in April. It raises concern that Parliament has not voted on an amendment to which the UK Government agreed and that was adopted at the World Health Assembly last year. That is a process-related amendment under article 59 of the international health regulations, which reduces the time for future amendments to come into force to 12 months. Of course, until any such future amendments are agreed, it will have no impact on the United Kingdom.
In any case, the principles that protect our national sovereignty will remain. The democratically elected Government are responsible for negotiating, signing, ratifying, amending and withdrawing from international treaties under their prerogative powers. Any legislation, if necessary to implement the regulations, would have to go through the proper parliamentary process. No international treaty can, by itself, change United Kingdom law. As for the future amendment, it makes sense that, as the only international treaty on infectious diseases, changes to the IHR are considered alongside the draft text for the pandemic accord. Of course, as negotiations are still under way, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
Mr Francois
If what the hon. Lady says is true, why has Parliament just spent two weeks arguing about Rwanda? Can I ask her a direct question? She has heard many concerns expressed from the Conservative Benches about these proposed amendments. With the exception of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith), who introduced the debate, not a single Labour Back Bencher has even been present, let alone contributed. Here is the question: would a future Labour Government be minded to accept the spirit of those amendments to the WHO treaty or to oppose them? Our position is very clear. What is the hon. Lady’s?
Sir George Howarth (in the Chair)
Order. I understand that feelings are running high and people have areas that they want to explore, but I hope that any further interventions are brief.
Preet Kaur Gill
We all know that Rwanda is just a gimmick by this Government, and I think that I have already set out my position very clearly. I will continue to make my remarks so that the Government are absolutely clear as to where we stand on this issue.
I am pleased that the zero draft highlighted that states must retain sovereignty, and that the implementation of the regulations
“shall be with the full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons”.
I ask the Minister to take this opportunity to update us on the progress being made in negotiations over the amendments and the draft text. Can he reassure our constituents that the Government would not sign up to anything that would compromise the UK’s ability to take domestic decisions on national public health measures?
John Redwood
I do not understand the hon. Lady’s argument. This amendment to the regulations would mean that the WHO could decide that there was a health crisis in our country, whether we thought there was or not. It could then tell us how we had to handle it in far more detail than its advisory work during the covid crisis—it would be mandatory. What does she not understand about that and why does she not disagree with it? [Interruption.]
Sir George Howarth (in the Chair)
Order. I say to those in the Public Gallery that I know that there are strong feelings and that they have come here with a great deal of interest in the subject, but they need to be quiet. It is not an occasion for applause or shouting out. I would be grateful if people respected that. Thank you.
Preet Kaur Gill
I think that I have made my position really clear, hence my question to the Minister. Our constituents want reassurance that the Government would not sign up to anything that would compromise our ability to take domestic decisions on national public health measures. Nothing has been agreed. Today is an opportunity to hear from the Minister about how those negotiations are going forward and what amendments have been accepted. I also want to hear from the Minister.
Preet Kaur Gill
I am not taking any more interventions. The reality is that although the pandemic is over now, the threat is not over. We must never leave our country with such a soft underbelly again. We strongly support efforts to strengthen the international legal framework to prevent, protect against, control and respond to cross-border health threats. It is squarely in our interests and integral to our security to encourage other countries to commit to do the same.
The Minister for Health and Secondary Care (Andrew Stephenson)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir George, and I am grateful to the British public and the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) for raising the important issues covered in the e-petition we are considering today. I start by thanking for their contributions the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) and my hon. Friends the Members for Shipley (Philip Davies), for Devizes (Danny Kruger) and for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), as well as my right hon. Friends the Members for Wokingham (John Redwood) and for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois). I also thank the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) for her remarks. I am only surprised not to see our friend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) here, although I am sure that he would be if he were able.
We have held a similar debate on this matter already. However, this debate is slightly different from the one we had in April; the matter before us is whether the House should vote on amendments to the international health regulations. That has stirred discussions both in this place and outside because it relates to two vital aspects of our governance: our sovereignty and our national interest. On both, I am pleased to offer assurances to colleagues and the public that I am satisfied that our approach to the negotiations safeguards our national interest without compromising our sovereignty. I will set out why I believe that before turning to the specific questions put by my right hon. and hon. Friends during the debate.
Why are the negotiations in our national interest? Because the international health regulations do not just exist to protect others from health threats: they directly benefit the UK and help to keep our people safe. The last decade has shown that diseases such as covid, mpox and Ebola do not respect borders. In the case of other health threats, such as the recent case of botulism in France, the IHR allowed us to swiftly engage with French officials to identify and follow up with exposed UK citizens. When Vladimir Putin committed an act of terror on our own soil, the IHR helped to slow and stop the spread in Salisbury. The IHR provide international standards for what it means in practice for each WHO member state to prepare for, detect, prevent and respond to public health events.
Andrew Bridgen
I thank the Minister for the speech he is making. The point he is actually making is that the IHR are currently working perfectly adequately—in which case, why do we need to amend them?
Andrew Stephenson
The IHR are working well. However, as a number of my hon. and right hon. Friends said in the debate, there has been lots of criticism of how they worked. As the hon. Gentleman will remember, our right hon. Friend who is no longer in this place—Boris Johnson, the former Prime Minister—was one of the leading voices in saying that we should update the IHR, because we surely need to learn lessons and move forwards.
I believe that there is mutual interest—interest for us and for other countries—in working together. One example is delivering a sensitive surveillance system providing an early warning of potential threats to inform decisions that national Governments will make during public health events and emergencies.
Mr Francois
The House has already heard that we may have to vote on the amendments, along with others, by the end of May 2024. It is possible that by then we will already have had a general election. The House has heard very plainly from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) that the Labour party would be minded to support all the amendments; when we challenged her, she stopped taking interventions. Labour would back these amendments if it was in government. What would the Conservative party do?
Andrew Stephenson
I thank my right hon. Friend for that point. I genuinely believe that a lot here is in all our interests, and I do not want to turn this into a party political ding-dong. I genuinely believe that having us in Government leading the negotiations and getting them settled before any general election is firmly in the UK’s national interest, because I believe that we will deliver a treaty that is in the interests of all our citizens and respects national sovereignty. However, I very much hope that an incoming Labour Government would do the same. That is one of the reasons why I believe that we need to make rapid international progress to agree any revisions to the IHR—because I believe that we are in a good place to do that now and should move swiftly, rather than kicking it into the long grass. The last pandemic taught us that trying to make things up as we go along was not the best course of action. Laying some good foundations and providing some better certainty on how things will be dealt with is the best way forwards.
Sir Christopher Chope
Surely the regulations and the changes are not just one block that we either accept or reject. The Government can deal with each proposed amended change seriatim—one by one. That is why I hope that my right hon. Friend will spell out, in response to the points that have been made, exactly which of the amendments he supports and which ones he does not.
Andrew Stephenson
My hon. Friend tempts me, but he will remember that we did not provide a running commentary on the Brexit negotiations. We do not provide a running commentary on our trade negotiations. We do not believe that is in the national interest. Indeed, it is very clear that no text in the latest draft of the accord, published in October and available on the WHO website, has been agreed yet. The whole text is still under negotiation. The draft is just a basis for negotiations, and it will evolve. There are areas of the new draft that we clearly reject and there are areas that we would like to make even stronger. This is an active negotiation between 193 member states to come up with revisions to the IHR that we all believe, by mutual consensus, will be in our global interest.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Would the Minister be kind enough to answer the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger)? Who is actually negotiating on this country’s behalf, and which Minister has ultimate responsibility?
Andrew Stephenson
The negotiations are being led by civil servants across Whitehall. [Interruption.]
Andrew Stephenson
I do not believe it is right to name those civil servants. I am the overall lead on this in the Department of Health and Social Care. I am working closely and have already met with the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell). Many other Government Departments will also have a very clear interest in this, including the life sciences Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith). Any treaty agreed will of course be subject to cross-Government write-rounds in the usual fashion, to agree a UK-wide position. It is fair to say that there will not just be one pair of eyes from the ministerial ranks looking at this. There will be multiple pairs of eyes looking at this from across Government to ensure that when we get to a deal, it is a deal that can be agreed across Government and that we believe is in the UK national interest.
John Redwood
The possibility that the language may shift from saying “may” to “shall” is fundamental. I welcome all that the Minister has said about the current collaboration. I am glad it is working so well, but that is based on advice and urging, rather than requirement. It seems to me that this is just like the British people voting for the Common Market with the assurance that we had a veto on any law we did not like, but then somebody came along and took the vetoes away without seeking the British people’s permission, and the relationship went wrong from thereon. This could do exactly the same to the WHO, if we take away the veto.
Andrew Stephenson
I hear where my right hon. Friend comes from and I share his concern. As I hope he will recognise, the WHO is led by its 193 member states, which are currently negotiating this. All international health regulations to date have been agreed by consensus, and we would hope that any changes to the regulations are also agreed by consensus. As I say, there are many amendments and parts of the draft that we would not agree to in their current form. I believe these negotiations will hopefully get us into a position—because I believe it is in all our interests and in the national interest—to agree revisions to the IHR. That has to be done through negotiation and consensus. I think that having an approaching deadline focuses minds, and I think it is the right thing to do.
I will give another concrete example of why I believe this is important. During the pandemic, the genomic data shared by our friends in India and elsewhere helped us to tailor vaccines as new variants emerged around the globe. We all saw over the pandemic that, as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston said, no one is safe until everyone is safe and that global problems require global solutions.
The best way to protect the UK from the next pandemic is by ensuring all WHO members can contain and respond effectively to public health events through compliance with strengthened IHR. Targeted amendments to the IHR will further strengthen our global health security, by helping Governments plan together, detect pathogens swiftly, and share data where helpful and necessary. The pandemic highlighted weaknesses in the implementation of the IHR for global health emergency response. For example, covid demonstrated that the IHR could be strengthened through a more effective early-warning system with a rapid risk assessment trigger for appropriate responses to public health threats.
Philip Davies
Does my right hon. Friend the Minister not fear that what happens in the World Health Organisation negotiations will be very similar to what happens at things such as COP26, COP27 and COP28, at which all these countries sign up to something—most of them knowing full well they have absolutely no intention of following what they have signed up to—and we are left following the agreements when other countries do not even bother?
Andrew Stephenson
I hope that no Government would sign up to any treaty that it will not follow. I agree that, in a whole range of areas, countries around the world have sometimes not fulfilled their part of international obligations, but the UK Government will certainly not sign up to something that we do not believe is fair and proportionate, that is not our national interests and that we would not seek to follow ourselves. I share my hon. Friend’s concern that other countries have not followed regulations in the past, and there is no point in our passing strengthened regulations if we do not believe that other countries will follow them. We believe that the regulations are designed to prevent and control the international spread of disease. They are limited to public health risks and designed to avoid unnecessary interference with international traffic and trade. That is why we support the process of agreeing targeted amendments to the IHR as an important way to better prepare for future global health emergencies.
Sir Christopher Chope
Can the Minister explain the process in relation to the amendments? He talks about consensus, but what happens if this country does not get its way in relation to some of the amendments that it opposes? Would that mean that, if those amendments are incorporated in the final text, we can and will opt out of them?
Andrew Stephenson
Yes, that is exactly what consensus means. To be clear, the WHO secretariat is supporting both processes by hosting the international negotiating body and the working group on amendments to the regulations, and by supporting the chairs to prepare texts and answer questions from member states. Both negotiations, however, are member state-led processes. It is member states that are negotiating; it is not the World Health Organisation. I completely appreciate that some see this as a WHO power grab, but it is important to remember that it is a member state-led process.
We came together with other nations through the World Health Organisation to agree a process to negotiate targeted amendments to the IHR at the 75th World Health Assembly back in May 2022. By consensus, we adopted process-related amendments under article 59 of the regulations. The UK supported those amendments because they increased the timeliness of member states’ compliance with future amendments to the IHR. That will better protect us from future global health emergencies. As part of the agreed process, member states could submit proposed amendments for consideration, and to that end a working group, made up of all WHO member states, through which the amendments would be negotiated and agreed was created.
Andrew Bridgen
The Minister is being generous with his time. The crucial question on which the Chamber and the public would like an answer from the Minister, who is speaking on behalf of the Government who are negotiating the instruments, is whether the Minister believes that the WHO guidance—recommendations, as they were—becoming mandatory under amendments to article 1 and new article 13A of the treaty are compatible with retaining UK sovereignty.
Andrew Stephenson
I think that that was covered in the previous debate and has been covered by various Ministers. We have been clear from the outset of the process that we will not agree to any amendments that cede UK sovereignty. If the UK Government accept an IHR amendment that we have negotiated with our international partners, then, depending on the context of that amendment, changes to international law may be required. In those instances, the Government would prepare any draft legislation, and Parliament would vote on it in the usual way.
It is important to remember that, in and of themselves, IHR amendments and the new pandemic accord do not change the power of UK law. If required, we would ourselves change UK law through our sovereign Parliament, to reflect our international obligations under the IHR amendments. Let me be clear: in all circumstances, the sovereignty of the UK Parliament would remain unchanged and we would remain in control of any future domestic decisions on national public health measures.
Mr Francois
I thank the Minister for giving way so often. To be clear and to follow on from my earlier question, he has put on the record that we have a right to opt out of any amendments with which the UK does not agree. That is reassuring. On that basis, if an amendment were to be voted on by the WHO to say that it could impose a lockdown on the United Kingdom without our approval, will the Minister give a commitment that we would opt out of it?
Andrew Stephenson
I can give a categorical reassurance to my right hon. Friend that that is a red line for the UK Government. We would never allow the World Health Organisation to impose a lockdown in the UK. That is a clear red line for us. I cannot think of any Minister who would agree to such a request.
I can confidently say to my colleagues—as someone who campaigned for Brexit and who has helped to deliver Brexit in this place—that I am passionate about this country’s sovereignty. I believe that the Government’s position needs to be crystal clear and it is one that I endorse. We support the member state-led process of agreeing targeted amendments to the IHR and the new pandemic accord for the sake of global health preparedness, but we will not agree in any circumstances to provisions that would cede sovereignty to the WHO. That includes the ability to make decisions on national public health measures, whether lockdowns, which we just mentioned, or vaccine programmes.
Philip Davies
The Minister will understand people’s nervousness about this. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) referred to, in the 1971 White Paper Ted Heath said that there was no question of Britain losing essential sovereignty by joining the Common Market. We saw how that went. My point, and what I am worried about, is whether the Government will have to bring forward proposals that the WHO insists on even if they do not like it, and so bring the power of Government voting to that decision. That is what I worry about, that Parliament will still decide, but that the Government will be forced to bring forward measures in Parliament, even though they may not necessarily agree with them.
Andrew Stephenson
I reiterate: this is a member state-led process, with 193 member states negotiating. It will be a difficult negotiation, but all previous regulations have been agreed by consensus. If the text ends up in a position where the UK Government do not feel that we can sign up to it, the other member states may decide to proceed, but they will not be regulations that we are bound by, because we will not agree to them. This is an evolving situation and we have agreed a pathway for negotiations. As right hon. and hon. Members know, the text and the amendments are available online.
May I turn to some of the contributions? I will start with those paying tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford in paying tribute to his wife and other NHS staff, who did an incredible job during the pandemic. Sometimes, when debating technical issues such as this, we can overlook their incredible contribution, but it is right what my right hon. Friend said today. He also talked about the importance of data sharing globally, which I think we would all agree is vital.
My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes asked when the next iteration of the text will be available. No new texts or amendments have been agreed yet, so there is nothing further to be shared. However, we expect negotiations to continue until May 2024, when member states will agree completion at the World Health Assembly. I am actively exploring ways in which I can keep the House informed of further developments, although as I say, the standing position of the Government on such issues is that we do not do a running commentary on negotiations. I am actively looking at what more we can do to keep Members informed.
That leads me on to another question that my hon. Friend asked about the costs of these measures. Obviously, as we have not agreed the provisions of the treaty, we cannot yet estimate how much it might cost and whether we would publish our red lines. Unfortunately, as I say, I will decline to say more on red lines now; I have set out one clear red line today and we have a very clear red line on sovereignty. However, I do not believe that we should run through these negotiations in public; I believe that we should give our negotiators time to reach as much international consensus as possible.
Mr Hollobone
The Minister is being extremely generous in giving way. One of the lessons from the Brexit negotiations was that civil servants in the room negotiating were not always following the ministerial line, so may I encourage my right hon. Friend to go himself to the negotiations, repeat what he has told the House today, and make sure that the civil servants who are in the room when he leaves get the message that he has just delivered?
Andrew Stephenson
I will certainly bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said. Some of the civil servants involved in the negotiation have already heard clearly from me, the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield, and my hon. Friend the life sciences Minister about various red lines and other things that we are very clear about, so there is clear ministerial input. There will be a part in this process where Ministers can get involved, but I will certainly look into what my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) suggests and what more I can do to ensure that UK sovereignty is in no way compromised, so that I can continue to provide further reassurance to all those right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken today.
We all want—well, maybe not all of us, but I believe the Government want a strong World Health Organisation that is fit for purpose and able to respond rapidly to global health challenges and future threats. The UK is working with our international partners to shape the WHO in that way.
Our priorities for the amendments and for the accord are global in scope but they are also in pursuit of our national interest. It is in our national interest to prevent another pandemic. Should—God forbid—another pandemic should occur, it is in the national interest to co-operate with others to slow and stop its spread. In these negotiations, I can assure right hon. and hon. Members that I would never countenance acting contrary to our national interest. We will protect our country from future public health emergencies without ceding an inch of sovereignty.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 635904, relating to the International Health Regulations 2005.
Written Statements
UK Emissions Trading Scheme and Carbon Leakage
(1 year ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Gareth Davies)
The UK is taking rapid action on industrial decarbonisation to meet net zero. This includes the use of carbon pricing through the UK emissions trading scheme (UK ETS). This action creates risk of carbon leakage as not all jurisdictions are moving at the same pace. Carbon leakage is the movement of production and associated emissions from one country to another due to different levels of decarbonisation effort through carbon pricing and climate regulation. It can undermine efforts to reduce global emissions and curtail private investment in decarbonisation—compromising efforts to limit global warming to 1.5°C.
The best solution to carbon leakage is an international one. The UK and many others around the world are working to reduce carbon leakage risk by pushing for ambitious climate action. But progress on international solutions takes time.
The Government therefore consulted on a range of potential domestic carbon leakage mitigation measures. The consultation “Addressing carbon leakage risk to support decarbonisation” ran from 30 March 2023 to 22 June 2023. It covered potential policies including a carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM), product standards, and other policy measures to help grow the market for low-emission products, as well as emissions reporting that could support the implementation of carbon leakage policy more broadly.
After careful review and giving thorough consideration to the potential implications, the Government have today published a summary of responses and Government response to the consultation, and confirm that:
The Government will implement a CBAM by January 2027. The UK CBAM will place a carbon price on some of the most emissions-intensive industrial goods imported to the UK from the aluminium, cement, ceramics, fertilizer, glass, hydrogen, iron and steel sectors.
A CBAM will ensure that UK decarbonisation efforts lead to a true reduction in global emissions rather than displacing carbon emissions overseas. It will give UK industry confidence to invest in the knowledge that its decarbonisation efforts will not be undermined.
The UK CBAM will work cohesively with the UK ETS to ensure imported products are subject to a carbon price comparable to that incurred by UK production.
The UK ETS Authority has today also published a consultation on the approach to UK ETS free allocation. The UK Government will work with the UK ETS Authority on interactions between a CBAM and provision of free allowances under the UK ETS.
The CBAM will be designed so that other countries which also have a carbon price will see the CBAM liability on their goods adjusted accordingly.
The scope of the CBAM will be kept under review, and delivery will be subject to further consultation in 2024.
The UK CBAM will be designed in compliance with the UK’s international obligations.
Alongside a CBAM, Government will work with industry to establish voluntary product standards that businesses could choose to adopt to help promote their low carbon products to consumers.
The Government will also seek to develop an embodied emissions reporting framework that could serve future carbon leakage and decarbonisation policies.
Voluntary standards and the embodied emissions reporting framework will be subject to further technical consultation in 2024.
The summary of responses and Government response to the consultation are available here: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/addressing-carbon-leakage-risk-to-support-decarbonisation. A copy of the document will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS146]
Armed Forces Covenant and Veterans Annual Report 2023
(1 year ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence People and Families (Dr Andrew Murrison)
The following joint statement is released on behalf of myself and the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer).
The events of the last 12 months have continued to highlight the vital work our armed forces carry out. Around the world they work with our allies to defend the global community and support vital humanitarian work. At home they protect our borders, provide military aid to our national communities, and lead epoch-defining state ceremonial events including Their Majesties’ coronations. More than ever, our armed forces community is central to our national life and represents who we are as a country, and we are delighted that public support for our soldiers, sailors, aviators and their families remains consistently high.
We are honoured to introduce the 2023 armed forces covenant and veterans report. This is the primary tool by which the Government are held to account in delivering the covenant. It includes contributions from across the MOD, the Office for Veterans’ Affairs, wider Government Departments, and the devolved Administrations. It is how the Government showcase the extraordinary work that is done throughout the UK to support our armed forces community.
Highlights from this year’s report include:
Improvements to service accommodation under the Defence Command Paper refresh, published in July 2023, which announced an additional £400,000,000 of funding over two years for programmes to address damp and mould issues, improve thermal efficiency and to carry out refurbishment works to unoccupied homes.
The modernisation of service families accommodation policy means over 5,200 families in committed relationships (who are not married or civil partnered), can live together in service families accommodation.
Funding to support the armed forces families strategy continues under the armed forces families fund, with funding of over £900,000 for early years projects, nearly £500,000 for the new supporting partners programme and over £2,000,000 for what was the education support fund.
Following the successful launch of the wraparound childcare scheme in September 2022, there are over 5,500 service families taking advantage of the funding toward their childcare costs.
The Op COMMUNITY pilot is underway across England. Op COMMUNITY is a point of contact for the armed forces community to offer support and guidance as they navigate NHS services.
The Office for Veterans’ Affairs, in partnership with the armed forces covenant fund trust, invested £3,000,000 into the veterans mobility fund
Launch of Op FORTITUDE, to create a pathway for veterans at risk of or experiencing homelessness.
Launch of Op RESTORE, to create a clear physical health pathway in the NHS for our veterans.
The number of armed forces covenant signatories has seen substantial growth as of 30
September 2023 with some 10,975 total signatories.
This report is a collaborative effort with input from service providers and professionals from a diverse array of backgrounds. I would like to thank colleagues across central Government, the devolved Administrations and local authorities, and those at every level and from every sector who are continuing to drive forward the work of the covenant and the strategy for our veterans in support of our armed forces community. We are also grateful to the representatives of the key external stakeholders who provided their independent observations.
The attachment can be viewed online at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2023-12-18/HCWS145/.
Children’s Social Care
(1 year ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (David Johnston)
The Prime Minister has been clear about the importance of family in ensuring children can thrive and this Government are determined to put families at the heart of society. I am therefore pleased to update the House on our progress to reform children’s social care to ensure that children and families get the support they need at the right time.
Earlier this year we set out bold and ambitious plans to reform children’s social care through “Stable Homes. Built on Love”. Our strategy, backed by £200 million investment, responded to reviews that provided a vision of how to do things differently—including the independent review of children’s social care and the national review into the murders of Arthur Labinjo-Hughes and Star Hobson. These reviews were clear that we must reform services to improve the outcomes of children and families. Our strategy set a vision for a transformed children’s social care system that makes sure families get the help they need, when they need it.
We have moved a step closer to realising this vision, and honour commitments to publish:
The first ever national kinship strategy, “Championing Kinship Care” which sets out support for family networks providing loving and stable homes to children.
A new children’s social care national framework which sets out the purpose, principles and outcomes that should be achieved in children’s social care.
Updated statutory guidance, “Working Together”, which sets out how to safeguard and promote the welfare of children.
•A data strategy which sets out the long-term plan for transforming data in children’s social care.
Through this statement I update the House on each publication, copies of which have been laid in the Libraries of both Houses. I am also informing Members that we will also increase our budget to deliver fostering reforms by up to £8.5 million, taking the total investment to £36 million. This is the largest ever investment in fostering in England and will support us to roll out recruitment and retention programmes to over 60% of all local authorities in England.
We want children who cannot live with their parents to be supported to live with people who are known to them and love them. Kinship carers need our support and backing to offer this care and love so that they can in turn help us achieve our aim of keeping more families together. Our kinship strategy, “Championing Kinship Care”, sets out the practical and financial support we will provide to kinship families, and is backed by £20 million investment. It details how we will provide further support for kinship carers, including launching a financial allowance pathfinder which will provide more financial stability for children growing up in kinship care and sets out our plans to champion the outcomes of children in kinship care in schools. Prioritising kinship care requires us all to champion, support and empower kinship families.
We must also deliver excellent standards of practice to improve outcomes for children, raise aspirations and ensure partnership working across all agencies, including police, health and education. We have published the children’s social care national framework as statutory guidance. It brings together the purpose, principles, enablers, and outcomes that children’s social care should achieve so children, young people and families can thrive. We want all local authorities to consider how their local offer of support makes a real difference to the lives of children, young people and their families.
Our plans for reform have always recognised the central importance of children’s welfare. Children must be kept safe, and this means we must take swift and decisive action to protect them when they are not. Our multi-agency statutory guidance, “Working Together to Safeguard Children”, has been updated and replaces a version from 2018. We want all parts of the system to embed new child protection standards for practitioners, and to use and deploy a multi-disciplinary workforce to provide co-ordinated help, support and protection.
Lastly, the data we collect about children and families and the information recorded about their lives and interactions with children’s social care is sensitive and personal. This data is held in many places, which makes bringing it together challenging. Our digital and data strategy sets out the foundations needed to embark on ambitious transformation, and the actions we will take between 2023-2025. We will also publish a children’s social care dashboard next year to understand progress towards the outcomes in the national framework.
The reviews from last year called for an urgent, fundamental and system-wide transformation of children’s social care. Today we reaffirm our commitment to reform. Transforming how we operate depends on the support and commitment of local Government leadership, leaders across children’s social care, safeguarding partners, relevant agencies and all practitioners. That is why we have also published a reform statement for local authorities and partners in the system.
Today is a time to reflect on the thousands of people who have shared their views since we embarked on reform, including children and families, kinship carers, social workers, dedicated professionals and practitioners and charities. I give my personal thanks to every individual in helping us reach this milestone in our reform journey.
[HCWS144]
Child Safeguarding Practice Review: Government Response
(1 year ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (David Johnston)
Today, the Government have published our response to the recommendations made by the child safeguarding practice review panel (the panel) review into safeguarding of children with disabilities and complex health needs in residential settings, published in April 2023. I would like to thank the panel for their vital work and their continued focus on improving learning, practice, and outcomes for children. I am grateful to everyone who contributed to the review for their commitment, professionalism, and expertise. A copy of the response has been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.
The abuse and neglect of disabled children in three dual-registered children’s homes and residential special schools was appalling. The settings have closed; as criminal investigations are ongoing; I am unable to comment further on the specifics of the case.
No system, however robust, can fully eliminate all risk of harm and abuse. Those committing abuse were deliberately concealing their actions. Nevertheless, the panel’s report highlights system-wide issues which allowed abuse to be concealed for too long. The owners of the three dual-registered settings and providers of care permitted inadequate leadership and management, poor-quality training, poor support and supervision of the workforce and inadequate compliance with statutory requirements. Statutory and partner agencies demonstrated a lack of oversight, limited professional curiosity, poorly exercised accountability, failures in information sharing and lack of rigour in regulation and inspection practice.
The panel’s recommendations reinforce our determination that every child and their family should get the right support at the right time. Disabled children should not be placed far from home. Local agencies need to work together so that children can be supported as close to home as possible, however complex their needs. The failures identified by the panel demonstrate the urgent need for the transformation of children’s social care and special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) that we are driving forward in the SEND and alternative provision improvement plan. Our strategy for children’s social care, “Stable Homes, Built on Love”, and NHS England’s long-term plan aim to improve the lives of disabled children and will deliver fundamental change. These reforms will ensure that disabled children receive the best support, safeguarding and protection, and care from all those who are looking after them.
Our response recognises the three key principles for disabled children to thrive and fulfil their potential:
All relevant agencies need to assure themselves that they are meeting their duties and promoting good practice to keep disabled children with complex health needs in residential care safe and are cared for.
We need to reform the care system so that all disabled children in residential settings have a stable, loving home that is safe and close to their friends and family.
We must provide the right support, in the right place and at the right time to disabled children and their families, so families are better supported to meet children’s needs at home and in the community, and we must reduce the institutionalisation of disabled children.
I have today also written to providers of residential settings, local authority chief executives, directors of children’s services, lead integrated care board members, police chief constables, Ofsted, and the Care Quality Commission (CQC) asking them to review their current working practices. Copies of these letters have been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.
The response we have published today sets out the steps that we are taking to address the failings identified by the panel. These actions include:
Asking Ofsted and the CQC to work with us to consider further what we could do better and differently now to safeguard disabled children living in regulated children’s homes. We are asking Ofsted and CQC to review the recommendation for joint inspections including any regulatory changes required and cost implications.
Setting a new standard on the provision of non-instructed advocacy for children with complex communication needs. We are strengthening the independence of advocacy services and improving the way these services are promoted so that advocacy support is more widely available to children and young people.
Exploring proposals for introducing professional registration of the children’s homes workforce as well as considering the development of a new Knowledge and Skills Statement and a national leadership programme to support recruitment of new managers.
Considering how information sharing, multi-agency leadership, safeguarding partnerships and cross-government working can be improved to support safeguarding. Committing to work with local authorities and Ofsted to review what changes need to be made to the responsibilities of local authority designated officers (LADO).
Asking the Law Commission to carry out a review of the legislation for disabled children, to inform future changes to legislation and/or guidance.
Consulting on updated statutory guidance “Working Together to Safeguard Children” to set out clear roles and responsibilities for safeguarding partners (police, health, and local authorities) to ensure they work more effectively together.
Many people work hard to care for our most vulnerable children and young people. However, I share the panel’s concern that—too often—agencies act in isolation when the children with the most complex needs require a holistic response. I am committed to working with my colleagues across Government to improve multi-agency and multi-disciplinary working to help, support and protect children.
Ensuring the safety and well-being of disabled children with complex health needs is one of the Government’s most fundamental priorities. We are committed to working with our partners and across Government to ensure all children are kept safe, have their needs met and receive the best support to fulfil their potential.
[HCWS143]
Energy Efficiency and Clean Heat Capital Funding
(1 year ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Claire Coutinho)
In the 2022 autumn statement, the Chancellor announced that new Government funding worth £6 billion will be made available from 2025 to 2028 to support households, businesses and the public sector drive improvements in energy efficiency and clean heating to bring down bills and emissions.
I can today announce to the House how this money is being allocated between the following schemes.
Nearly £2.5 billion of this funding will be allocated to mass market support for the electrification of heat and energy efficiency. This includes the boiler upgrade scheme (BUS), a new £400 million energy efficiency grant, and a new local authority led retrofit scheme.
Breakdown of the £6,050 million—schemes and total amount allocated for period 2025-28
Universal heat pump insulation support: boiler upgrade scheme—£1,545 million
Heat pump innovation accelerator competition—£15 million
Universal support with measure to help reduce energy bills and make more homes heat pump ready: energy efficiency grant—£400 million
Local Authority led support for low-income households to retrofit homes: local authority retrofit scheme—£500 million
Support installing low-carbon heating and energy efficiency in social housing—which requires match funding from social housing landlords: social housing decarbonisation fund (SHDF)—£1,255 million
Heat network infrastructure: green heat network fund (GHNF); heat network efficiency scheme (HNES)—£530 million
Support public sector organisations (e.g. schools, hospitals) with the capital cost of installing low-carbon heating by covering the difference between a replacement fossil fuel system and a low-carbon alternative: public sector decarbonisation scheme (PSDS)—£1,170 million
Industrial energy transformation fund (IETF)—£225 million
Support to drive industrial energy efficiency and decarbonisation (detail to be announced later subject to further policy development)—£410 million
[HCWS319]
UK Emissions Trading Scheme
(1 year ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Amanda Solloway)
My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Lord Callanan) has today made the following statement:
The Government and our partners in the devolved Administrations are today delivering on commitments to continue the development of the UK emissions trading scheme (ETS), a key part of our approach to achieving net zero by 2050. The scheme puts a limit on the emissions of the power, industrial and aviation sectors, and requires participants to obtain carbon allowances to cover their emissions. In doing so, it creates a carbon price signal that incentivises investment in decarbonisation.
In July the UK ETS Authority published an ambitious package of reforms to the scheme, to ensure it supports our net zero goals.
Today, building on those reforms, the UK ETS Authority has launched consultations on changes to market and free allocation policies within the scheme. It has also published a statutory review of the scheme’s operation since its launch in 2021, and a joint response to the UK ETS recommendations in the independent review of net zero.
Review of market policies
The markets consultation explores how to strengthen the functioning of the scheme by supporting market stability and providing long-term confidence for participants. Following a call for evidence last year, it seeks views on a range of potential market policies, including a new supply adjustment mechanism to support the long-term operation of the scheme.
The consultation also considers potential changes to the existing auction reserve price, which sets a minimum auction price of £22 for carbon allowances; and the cost containment mechanism, which allows the UK ETS Authority to intervene if the carbon price rises rapidly over a sustained period.
Free allocation review
The consultation on free allocation is the final stage of a comprehensive review of this vital area of the scheme. It offers UK industries an opportunity to shape UK ETS policy and ensure the scheme can support them in the transition to net zero.
Industries that face a risk of carbon leakage are supported under the UK ETS through free emissions allowances, to ensure their efforts to decarbonise are not undermined. Carbon leakage refers to the movement of production and associated emissions from one country to another, due to different decarbonisation policies, for example carbon pricing and climate regulation.
The consultation explores how to better target free allocations for those most at risk of carbon leakage. It follows the changes to the industry cap (the share of overall allowances put aside for free allocation) announced in July and considers how key UK-specific factors are accounted for when calculating free allocations from 2026. It also consults on new proposals that will ensure closed industrial sites under the scheme do not continue to receive free allocations after they have ceased activity.
Addressing carbon leakage risk to support decarbonisation
In parallel to the free allocation review, this year the Government consulted on a range of potential additional domestic carbon leakage mitigation measures. After careful review, and giving thorough consideration to the potential implications, the Government have today published a response to the consultation. The Government will implement a carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) from January 2027 which will place a carbon price on some of the most emissions-intensive industrial goods imported to the UK from the aluminium, cement, ceramics, fertilizer, glass, hydrogen, iron, and steel sectors.
The UK CBAM will work cohesively with the UK ETS to ensure imported products are subject to a carbon price comparable to that incurred by UK production, mitigating the risk of carbon leakage. The Government will work with the rest of the UK ETS Authority to consider whether free allocation should be adjusted to reflect changes to carbon leakage risk for given sectors.
Alongside a CBAM, the Government will work with industry to establish voluntary product standards that businesses can adopt to help promote their low carbon products to consumers, and we will seek to develop an embodied emissions reporting framework that could serve future carbon leakage and decarbonisation policies.
Delivery of the CBAM will be subject to further consultation in 2024, as will voluntary standards and the embodied emissions reporting framework.
UK ETS pathway and statutory review
The UK ETS Authority has also published a joint response to the independent review of net zero’s recommendations for the scheme. It confirms the authority’s commitment to continuing the UK ETS until at least 2050, and is intended to give businesses in sectors covered by the scheme the policy certainty they need to make the long-term decarbonisation investments.
Finally, the UK ETS Authority has published its first statutory review of the operation of the UK ETS since its launch. The review, supported by independent evaluation, confirms the scheme’s central role in delivering on the UK’s net zero targets, alongside recommendations to enhance its function, such as expansion to new sectors and technical amendments to its operation.
These publications demonstrate our commitment to delivering continued development of the UK ETS, and doing so in a way that works in partnership with affected sectors.
[HCWS140]
Publicly Accessible Registers of Beneficial Ownership: Overseas Territories
(1 year ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (David Rutley)
Illicit finance is an active and growing threat to the UK family, and can undermine our national security, prosperity and democracy. It is more important than ever that we work together to tackle the emerging challenges. Publicly accessible registers of beneficial ownership are an essential tool in the fight against illicit finance and corruption and provide substantial wider benefits to public trust in institutions and transparency in the business environment.
We welcomed the commitments made by all inhabited overseas territories to implement publicly accessible registers of beneficial ownership in line with the draft Order in Council issued in response to the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. In 2020, we set out in a written ministerial statement our expectation that the territories would implement registers by the end of 2023.
In November 2022, the Court of Justice of the European Union found that an EU requirement to implement publicly accessible registers was contrary to the EU charter of fundamental rights. This ruling does not apply to the UK or its overseas territories. However, several overseas territories have noted concerns about the legal implications of implementing a publicly accessible register of beneficial ownership if human rights provisions applicable to them were to be interpreted in a similar way. The UK remains satisfied with the lawfulness of our own register and the ability of territories to meet the requirements of the draft Order in Council.
Given our differing views on this ruling with several overseas territories, we have worked with them to find a way to make positive progress through the delivery of an interim step, which would involve the implementation of publicly accessible registers of beneficial ownership, with a legitimate interest access filter, next year. This would allow access to beneficial ownership information by members of the public who have a legitimate interest in doing so, including media and civil society organisations that are involved in the fight against illicit finance and money laundering.
Following intensive discussions with each of the overseas territories at the Joint Ministerial Council and across a series of bilateral conversations, we have made significant progress in the delivery of greater corporate transparency. I set out below the progress individual overseas territories expect to make over the next year to deliver against their commitments for greater corporate transparency. We will collectively review progress and discuss broader issues related to combating illicit finance with the overseas territories in March 2024 during the ministerial illicit finance dialogue.
The following territories have either already implemented a publicly accessible register of beneficial ownership or remain committed to delivering one as soon as possible in line with the parameters set out in the draft Order in Council. In recognition of the capacity constraints faced by these territories, the UK will continue to provide both technical and financial assistance.
Falkland Islands
The Government of the Falkland Islands are committed to having a full publicly accessible register of beneficial ownership, in line with the parameters set out in the draft Order in Council. Due to capacity issues, implementation is likely to be during the summer of 2024.
Gibraltar
The Government of Gibraltar successfully implemented a publicly accessible register of beneficial ownership in 2020.
Montserrat
The Government of Montserrat are committed to implementing a publicly accessible register of beneficial ownership, in line with the parameters set out in the draft Order in Council. Legislation is currently going through the Montserrat Legislative Assembly and has had its First Reading. It is expected to be passed in the new year and implemented during the summer of 2024.
Pitcairn Islands
The Government of the Pitcairn Islands are committed to implementing a publicly accessible register of beneficial ownership, in line with the parameters set out in the draft Order in Council. Due to capacity issues, implementation is likely to be during the summer of 2024.
St Helena
The Government of St Helena are committed to implementing a publicly accessible register of beneficial ownership, in line with the parameters set out in the draft Order in Council. The draft legislation is currently undergoing its final review with the intention for implementation in the first half of 2024.
The following territories have committed to strengthening their respective levels of corporate transparency through the delivery of publicly accessible registers of beneficial ownership with a legitimate interest access filter in 2024. The UK Government will provide technical assistance as required to expedite and support delivery.
Anguilla
The Government of Anguilla have committed to moving forward with the implementation of a publicly accessible register of beneficial ownership where a person or organisation/entity can access specific information by demonstrating a legitimate interest that is consistent with the constitutional framework. Anguilla aspires to having this register operational by the end of 2024.
Cayman Islands
The Government of Cayman Islands are committed to implementing a publicly accessible register of beneficial ownership with a legitimate interest access filter no later than Q4 2024. This will include access to parties seeking to prevent or combat money laundering and terrorist financing, for instance media and civil society organisations under specific circumstances.
Turks and Caicos Islands
The Government of Turks and Caicos Islands are committed to implementing a publicly accessible register of beneficial ownership with a legitimate interest access filter by Q4 2024. This will include access for media and civil society organisations with a legitimate interest.
The following territories have set out a commitment to delivering greater corporate transparency contingent on external developments. As a result, the parameters of their proposed registers, and the precise timelines associated with implementation, remain unclear. The UK maintains that the overseas territories should deliver greater corporate transparency, independently of action being taken in the European Union or other jurisdictions. The UK Government continue engagement with these territories in order to confirm that they will enable access at least to those with a legitimate interest, such as media and civil society organisations, and as soon as possible. The UK will make available technical assistance to expedite delivery.
British Virgin Islands
The British Virgin Islands Government have confirmed that they will implement a publicly accessible register of beneficial ownership consistent with the standards to be identified in the implementation review of the European Union’s fifth anti-money laundering directive. This directive does not apply to the overseas territories, Crown dependencies or the United Kingdom. The British Virgin Islands Government anticipate that the introduction of appropriate frameworks will occur in Q4 2024, but no later than Q2 2025.
Bermuda
The Government of Bermuda expressed their own commitment to make their register of beneficial ownership information accessible to the public within 12 months of the publication of the implementation review of the European Union’s fifth anti-money laundering directive. This directive does not apply to the overseas territories, Crown dependencies or the United Kingdom.
The UK Government welcome the continued co-operation of overseas territory Governments in this matter. Our long-standing commitments to meet the highest standards in beneficial ownership transparency set out our collective desire to be at the forefront of the fight against illicit finance. The commitments outlined above will represent a significant step forward in the overseas territories delivering their commitments to improve corporate transparency. We expect this interim step to be a part of the journey towards the implementation of fully publicly accessible registers of beneficial ownership in due course. The UK Government remain committed to publicly accessible registers becoming the global norm.
[HCWS150]
Tackling Spiking
(1 year ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Laura Farris)
Today will see the publication of the Government statutory report on the nature and prevalence of spiking in accordance with section 71(1) of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. This report has been laid before both Houses today and will be made available on gov.uk.
The report sets out the development of the Government understanding of spiking, the steps taken to provide better support for victims, the legislative measures we will be taking and the non-legislative action that Government, law enforcement and others will be taking to support its implementation.
I would like to thank all those who engaged with the Government as part of the development of this report, including the National Police Chiefs’ Council, and especially those who have shared their stories with us to help shape the response, and bring this practice to an end.
The publication of the report is a pivotal step in understanding the extent of this insidious offence, the context in which it occurs and the comprehensive approach the Government intend to take towards tackling it.
[HCWS141]
Provisional Local Government Finance Settlement 2024-25: England
(1 year ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Michael Gove)
On 5 December, I published a policy statement outlining proposals for the 2024-25 local government finance settlement to provide early certainty for councils. Today, I have set out the provisional local government finance settlement for 2024-25 and launched our formal consultation on the proposals. This settlement makes available over £64 billion for local authorities in England, an increase of almost £4 billion or 6.5% in cash terms in core spending power on 2023-24. This is a real-terms increase which demonstrates how the Government stand behind councils up and down the country.
Together, the policy statement published on 5 December, and this proposed settlement:
ensures stability by maintaining the funding guarantee introduced last year, to ensure that every council sees at least a 3% increase in core spending power next year before any local decisions on council tax rates; and
makes available an increase of almost £4 billion on 2023-24, of which £2 billion is additional Government funding; £1 billion of this is for children’s and adult social care in 2024-25.
Stability
Now is the time for stability and continuity. Despite recent decreases in the rate of inflation, the Government recognise that pressures still exist for all local authorities. In this proposed settlement, we are maintaining the funding guarantee we introduced at last year’s settlement to ensure stability for all local authorities, to support the vital work all tiers of local government undertake for communities across the country. By maintaining the funding guarantee, the Government are ensuring every local authority in England will see a minimum 3% increase in their core spending power, before taking any local decisions to increase council tax rates.
We are also uplifting core settlement funding, with the revenue support grant increasing by CPI, and local authorities seeing an increase in baseline funding levels (BFLs) and compensation grant as if both business rating multipliers had increased by CPI. We are continuing the approach set out at last year’s settlement for other grants such as the rural services delivery grant and new homes bonus, which we know are important to councils.
The Government note that whilst local authority reserves are falling, they remain significantly higher than prior to the pandemic. We continue to encourage local authorities to consider, where possible, the use of their reserves to maintain services in the face of these pressures.
We will continue to support projects that reduce costs and improve efficiency by extending the flexibility to use capital receipts to fund revenue costs of these projects to March 2030. We will also engage with the sector to explore additional capital flexibility options to enable invest-to-save and transformation initiatives.
The Government announced on 23 November that we are allocating £450 million across two years to a third round of the local authority housing fund, which will help support those in temporary housing need. This funding allows councils to manage homelessness pressures more effectively and makes it easier for vulnerable people to find a permanent home. The Chancellor announced at autumn statement that the local housing allowance will increase to the 30th percentile of market rents from April. This means 1.6 million low-income households will be around £800 a year better off on average in 2024-25.
Social care
The Government recognise that many local authorities are facing social care demand pressures. That is why we announced significant additional funding at the 2022 autumn statement. Together with funding announced in-year, this means £1 billion in additional grant funding for social care compared to 2023-24.
Council tax
The Government manifesto commits to continuing to protect local taxpayers from excessive council tax increases. This is an important local democratic check and balance to avoid the repeat seen under the last Labour Government, when council tax more than doubled. The proposed package of referendum principles strikes a fair balance. Local authorities should of course be mindful of cost-of-living pressures when taking any decisions relating to council tax.
As previously set out, we will allow councils to raise their core council tax by up to 3% without a local referendum, and will allow a further adult social care precept of 2% for all authorities responsible for adult social care services. The council tax referendum provisions are not a cap, nor do they force councils to set taxes at the threshold level. It is for individual local authorities to determine whether to use the flexibilities detailed above, taking into consideration the pressures many households are facing. These actions to protect hard-working people from excessive tax rises are in contrast to the Labour Government in Wales which is planning to hike council tax through a council tax revaluation and higher council tax bands.
The Mayor of London has requested flexibility to levy an additional £20 on band D bills to the Greater London Authority (GLA) precept to provide extra funding for Transport for London (TfL). The Government have expressed ongoing concern about the management of TfL by this Mayor, and it is disappointing that London taxpayers are having to foot the bill for the GLA’s poor governance and decision-making. Whilst the Government will not oppose this request, any decision to increase the precept is solely one for the Mayor, who should take into account the pressures that Londoners are currently facing on living costs and his decision to raise his share of council tax by 9.7% last year.
The exceptional financial support framework is available to provide support where a council has a specific and evidenced concern about its ability to set or maintain a balanced budget, including where there has been local financial failure. Where councils need additional support from the Government, they should take every possible step to minimise the need for that support to be funded by national taxpayers, while also recognising the cost-of-living pressures on families. As part of that process, the Government will consider representations from councils, including on council tax provision.
The Government view continues to be that councils in the most severe financial failure, that are seeking multi-year support from Government, should continue to take all reasonable local steps to support recovery including additional council tax increases. Therefore, for the 2024-25 settlement, in consideration of the significant financial failure of Thurrock Council, Slough Borough Council and Woking Borough Council, the Government propose that bespoke council tax referendum principles should apply. For Thurrock and Slough Borough Council, a core council tax referendum threshold of 8%; and for Woking Borough Council, a council tax referendum principle of 10%. Councils in significant financial failure can make use of any additional flexibilities provided to support their financial recovery and going forward the Government will consider all reasonable steps to protect both national and local taxpayers and ensure councils are acting responsibly.
Part time work for full time pay
We have made it clear that any attempt from a local authority to implement part time work for full time pay—for example, a so called “four-day week” or equivalent arrangements—is contrary to the interests of local taxpayers. This working practice does not represent good value for taxpayers’ money, nor places the sector in a good light with the public. We have included in the consultation our proposals to use financial levers within the settlement to disincentivise councils from operating part time work for full time pay in future settlements. Those councils which are considering or operating such arrangements should not start this practice or stop it immediately.
Conclusion
These proposals will provide councils with the support they need. It ensures stability, delivers additional resources for social care, and maintains balance on council tax.
I welcome representations from all interested parties on the consultation we have launched today. The consultation will run until 15 January. The Minister for Local Government will also be holding engagement sessions for Members of Parliament in the week commencing 8 January 2023.
This written ministerial statement covers England only.
[HCWS148]
Long-term Plan for Towns
(1 year ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Jacob Young)
In September 2023, the Prime Minister announced the long-term plan for towns, providing up to £20 million of “endowment-style” funding and support for 55 towns across Great Britain.
Today, my Department has published guidance that provides further information regarding the town board and development of the long-term plan. In addition to the guidance is a policy toolkit which sets out the powers available to towns, and a list of policy interventions with an already agreed case for investment. Boards should consider this toolkit when developing their long-term plan. We will release a dedicated Scottish and Welsh version of the policy toolkit early in 2024.
All town boards should be established by 1 April 2024 at the latest, or, wherever possible, sooner. Where a town already has an appropriate structure in place, we would encourage local authorities to utilise that forum to act as the town board. It is also a requirement that Members of Parliament whose constituencies fall within the boundary of a town sit on the town board, and an independent chair of the board should be appointed.
The long-term plan must be submitted to my Department by 1 August 2024 or sooner. The guidance published today sets out our expectations as to what should be covered in the plan. Each benefiting local authority will also shortly receive £50,000 of capacity funding to support the appointment of a chair for the town board and begin community engagement. A further release of £200,000 of capacity funding will be released on 1 April 2024, once boards are in place.
This publication is another important step in our mission to level up the United Kingdom. We are putting power with local people at the heart of communities; equipping our towns to unlock new opportunities and respond to future change.
[HCWS149]
Project Gigabit Progress Update: December 2023
(1 year ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Data and Digital Infrastructure (Sir John Whittingdale)
On 15 December 2023 we published Building Digital UK’s (BDUK) latest progress update on Project Gigabit, the Government £5 billion mission to deliver lightning-fast, reliable broadband across the UK.
In this update, we report on the four latest contracts to be signed in north-east Staffordshire, north Oxfordshire, south Oxfordshire and Derbyshire. Combined, these contracts represent £76 million of Government investment to deliver gigabit-capable broadband to up to 33,000 premises.
The report also highlights the progress of Project Gigabit across the Union. In addition to our live procurements in England and parts of Wales, we have worked with the Scottish Government to confirm the first Project Gigabit procurements to be launched in Scotland, and we have confirmed our approach for Northern Ireland and the remainder of Wales.
The delivery update also notes the recent publication of BDUK’s annual report and accounts, reporting BDUK’s performance during the period 1 April 2022 to 31 March 2023. BDUK exceeded its Project Gigabit delivery target for the year, passing 162,600 premises with gigabit-capable broadband, against the minimum target trajectory of 133,000 set out in its corporate plan. In total, BDUK has delivered gigabit connectivity to 929,700 premises, in mostly hard-to-reach communities across the UK. I will place a copy of the latest Project Gigabit progress update in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS147]
Transport for London: Capital Funding
(1 year ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Mark Harper)
I am pleased to be able to inform the House that today the Government have agreed a capital funding settlement for 2024 with Transport for London (TfL).
This Government have showed its continued commitment to supporting London’s transport network to recover from the uncertainty of demand following the covid-19 pandemic. Since March 2020, Government have provided TfL with almost £6.4 billion of funding to maintain service levels and support the delivery of major capital projects as well as passenger revenue protection. This is on top of around £1.9 billion per annum of retained business rates for transport, including over £1 billion per annum for capital investment.
In addition, the Government have today agreed a capital settlement which provides a further £250 million of funding, which will enable TfL to continue to deliver its current capital programme and its committed major capital projects, including the delivery of the Piccadilly line upgrade phase 1. This not only provides benefits to Londoners, but it provides benefits for the rest of the country—the Piccadilly line upgrade on its own is expected to support an estimated 700 skilled jobs with a further estimated 250 jobs created in construction and up to 1,700 indirectly in the supply chain.
The current longer-term settlement will end in March 2024, and I continue to encourage Transport for London to modernise and to become a modern, effective, efficient and financially stable operator. Government support has enabled TfL to be on track to being financially sustainable and this capital settlement therefore requires TfL to demonstrate to Government that it is financially sustainable at the end of March 2024, and it will provide to Government in July 2024 its plan demonstrating how it will maintain and strengthen its financial sustainability from FY 24-25.
The decision to provide capital funding to TfL was made at a time when Government are also facing significant financial pressures, as is the rest of the country. Across the board the Government have taken difficult decisions on funding to support those who are hit hardest by rising costs. This is a settlement that is fair and proportionate to London whilst also taking into account funding provided elsewhere in the country and the cost to the national taxpayer, at a time of great pressure on national finances.
Through all of this, Government are continuing to work with the Mayor and TfL to ensure London’s transport system delivers for the public and businesses and contributes to the country’s economy.
[HCWS142]
Grand Committee
Child Support (Management of Payments and Arrears and Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 2023
(1 year ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Younger of Leckie
That the Grand Committee do consider the Child Support (Management of Payments and Arrears and Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 2023.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Viscount Younger of Leckie) (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to introduce this statutory instrument, which, subject to approval, will help more families to access the vital support that is available through the Child Maintenance Service. It will also ensure that efforts and resources can be focused on taking action to collect unpaid arrears in those cases that will make the biggest difference to children. These changes build on a number of improvements that we have already made and are among the first in a further wave of legislative measures that we plan to bring forward to ensure that the service is more accessible, simpler and speedier and ultimately gets more money to more children more quickly.
Families are the cornerstone of our communities. Each family is unique, but the importance of the bonds that bind them together is universal. When these bonds fray or falter, the impact on children can be significant, including where parents separate. It is therefore right that we continue to take action to promote family cohesion and reduce conflict, so that children grow up with the love and support that they need.
It was an honour to respond to the recent debate on the Love Matters report, commissioned by the most reverend Primates the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of York. The report delivered a powerful reminder of why love and support matter and the importance of strengthening and supporting family life, including ensuring that children get the best start in life.
The Child Maintenance Service plays a key part in that endeavour. It is part of a wide-ranging set of programmes and initiatives that my department is leading on. For example, through the reducing parental conflict programme, we are supporting parents to reduce the impact of frequent conflict. Delivered through local authority family services and with local community and faith partners, we are on track to have directly supported 40,000 parents in the last two years. Since we introduced it in 2014, the family test has been guiding policymakers in looking at the potential impact of policies on the family. It is something that I have actively supported in my role and I am committed to promoting it across government. Our new childcare offer has removed one of the biggest barriers to parents working and providing for their family, with a nearly 50% increase in the amount of childcare costs that parents on universal credit can claim back.
I will just highlight a number of other linked programmes happening across government. In addition to the childcare change for parents on universal credit, the Government are also substantially increasing the amount of free childcare that working parents in England can access, with 30 hours of free childcare a week all the way through from nine months up to their child starting school. Our £2.4 billion Supporting Families programme is showing how intervening early can improve outcomes for families in the long run. The Start for Life and family hubs programmes have created a network of centres and extra support for families with children.
I return to the Child Maintenance Service, which I oversee. Alongside the range of help that I have just outlined, it plays a crucial role in securing financial support for children where parents have separated, mandating, and where necessary, enforcing arrangements so that money flows from paying parents to receiving parents. This can benefit children and help to prevent them from falling into poverty. The Child Maintenance Service is currently supporting nearly a million children through maintenance arrangements. Between 2020 and 2022—the latest figures available—160,000 children were kept out of poverty each year because of parents coming to private arrangements and with our interventions through the Child Maintenance Service.
Furthermore, the Government supported two child maintenance Private Members’ Bills, which gained Royal Assent earlier this year. This included the Child Support (Enforcement) Act 2023, which we consulted on in November to seek views on how we accelerate enforcement by replacing the slow and outdated court-based process to obtain a liability order. Once implemented, this will reduce the process from 22 weeks to as low as six weeks, making it quicker to see money flow through for children.
These regulations are intended to further improve access to the Child Maintenance Service for all families and to ensure that it runs effectively to focus on getting more money to children. First, to improve access, the regulations remove the £20 application fee that currently needs to be paid to access the Child Maintenance Service. By way of background, the original rationale for introducing the fee in 2014 was to help parents to think twice before going down the statutory route by default and encourage them to come to their own arrangements. However, as part of an evaluation of the fee and its impact, we found that it has not quite worked as intended.
Research published by my department found that the fee is not a major factor for parents when making decisions about whether to apply to the Child Maintenance Service. Indeed, the evaluation found that families on lower incomes, who we know disproportionately experience conflict and are therefore often in need of support, can find the application fee a financial barrier to accessing the service. It is important to highlight that around 54% of all applicants already pay no fee because of existing waivers, such as victims of domestic abuse and those aged under 19. Therefore, we think it sensible to remove the application fee completely for all, ensuring that those most in need can get support more easily.
Secondly, the regulations will ensure that the service can more efficiently focus resources on getting larger, more-recoverable unpaid payments flowing to children. We continue to engage with parents who refuse to pay child maintenance and fail to take responsibility for their children, through a range of enforcement powers to collect unpaid amounts. However, in these regulations, we are taking a pragmatic approach to bring forward powers to write off very minimal amounts of £7 or less, in a small number of inactive cases that would otherwise have been closed were it not for this outstanding balance.
We are doing this for two pragmatic reasons. First, the reality is that keeping these cases open requires considerable resource and taking action to recover such small amounts often costs more than the actual value of the debt. Left open, the cost of maintaining them could increase for decades with no greater chance of money being paid to receiving parents. We need to ensure that taxpayers’ money, as well as the time and effort of caseworkers, is being directed effectively, such as by focusing action against parents who owe significantly larger sums and where the impact on children missing out on that money is greater.
Secondly, given that we will close only the cases in which we have stopped calculating child maintenance payments, it is likely that they are longer needed. This could be because the child has become an adult, the parents have reconciled or the absent parent has unfortunately died. It therefore makes sense to close these cases, not least for the certainty and clarity that it would provide for families. As I said, we expect only a small number of cases to qualify and the vast majority are likely to have outstanding arrears of less than £1. The full details of the criteria permitting write-off of a debt are set out in the regulations. As I said, they include cases where maintenance calculations have ceased and no payments have been made in the previous three months. In addition, the Child Support Act 1991 provides that, in order for write-off powers to be exercised, we need to be satisfied that it would be unfair or otherwise inappropriate to enforce liability in respect of the debt.
I believe both these measures to be proportionate common-sense changes that will further improve the Child Maintenance Service. The changes are good for parents, good for the taxpayer and, more important still, good for children. I hope that colleagues will join me in supporting these draft regulations and I commend them to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his overview of the whole system. He eventually got to the regulations in front of us, but he gave us a good idea of the various things that the Government are attempting to do; I thank him for that.
I come to the regulations themselves. The Minister will, I am sure, be pleased to know that I and my party agree with the removal of the £20 application fee; it has been my party’s policy in the past couple of manifestos. We would, however, make an additional change: in addition to removing the £20 charge, it is Liberal Democrat party policy to remove the 4% charge for receiving parents using the collect and pay service. I would appreciate his view on the possibility of this.
The Minister pointed out that the Government are trying to be pragmatic in dealing with the rest of the instrument. I welcome the suggestion that up to £7 of arrears could be written off but I hope that the Minister can clarify whether that would be a one-off £7 at the end—with which we would have no problem—or could apply to more than one item of £7. Is this meant to be a generous action or is it to save administration costs, or a bit of both? He did say that it was pragmatic. Who gains and loses on this £7? I read the provision through and was not quite sure—perhaps it is just me—whether the receiving parents loses £7 or that the Child Maintenance Service in some way writes it off internally. I am not calling for it to be increased but does the Minister have any information as to whether an increase in the write-off—let us say it was £10; I am just dealing with the theory of it—would have any administrative effect? Would we save money? If it is meant to save on administration, is £7 an appropriate cut-off? I think that it is, but it is worth asking.
I will move on in dealing with this £7 write-off. My reading of the statutory instrument is that time arrears will be written off in only these limited circumstances: maintenance arrangements have come to an end because the payee parent has requested it; the paying parent has died; the child has died; the child is no longer a child; the parents have been cohabiting for more than six months; a new arrangement has been put in place; or the parent has failed to pay anything for the final three months. Presumably, there would be only one £7 sum of arrears rather than a series of £7 sums that could be written off unless a new arrangement were later put in place—for instance, if the couple got back together, then broke up or the payee parent requested that a new arrangement be put in place—but subsequently ended again. However, that would be some months or years down the track and would not happen too often, I hope. It may seem fairly obvious to the Minister but I have read the SI and it really is not that specific. The ambiguity is such that I would appreciate, for the purposes of Hansard, it being set out.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, for his careful questioning on the £7 matter; I shall leave that entirely to him and commend him on getting into the weeds in which I normally pride myself on lurking with these sorts of regulations. I very much welcome him to this space.
I was surprised and delighted to find a Keeling schedule in the Explanatory Memorandum. Can the Minister convey my appreciation of that to those responsible? It is often quite hard to track back the way in which regulations apply, so I am grateful for that.
As we have heard, these regulations do two things: they remove the £20 upfront fee payable to all those who are not exempt; and they waive arrears below £7 in certain circumstances, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer. The Government introduced both this upfront fee and the ongoing fees after they reformed the child support system in 2012. The ongoing fees are to be retained, but these regulations remove the upfront fee at a cost of roughly between £1 million and £2 million a year. I should say at the outset that we also support these changes. However, I want to ask some questions, particularly about the charging point.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, for their general support for these regulations. Certainly, the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, was fully in agreement with what we are doing with the £20 application fee. I appreciate the noble Baroness’s very complimentary remarks about the regulations. We work hard to get them right and I will certainly pass her remarks on. I thank both Members for their valuable contributions during this short debate.
Providing for our children is a fundamental responsibility. Most people can independently reach agreement about arrangements under the Child Maintenance Service, but there will always be circumstances where this does not happen or is not possible, as I said. Sometimes relationships are complicated and conflicted and, of course, there are reasons due to domestic abuse. That is why the work of the Child Maintenance Service is so vital. To add to what I said in opening, it provides that safe service for parents who specifically face safety concerns, and it ensures that both parents actively play their part to support their children, whether they live with them or not.
I will answer the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, about writing off £7 arrears. This legislation will permit the Child Maintenance Service to write off small volumes of very low-value debt in cases that meet certain criteria and that would otherwise have closed if it were not for that outstanding balance. Writing off low-level debt will be permitted only in cases where it would be unfair or otherwise inappropriate to enforce liability in respect of the arrears. I will explain more in a moment but, broadly speaking, it applies where a maintenance calculation has ceased, under specific provisions of the Child Support Act 1991 and where no payments have been made towards the arrears in the last three months.
We believe that setting the threshold higher, which I think was the gist of the noble Lord’s question, would give the wrong message to paying parents about their obligations. As the flat rate for child maintenance—the minimum amount a parent is expected to pay to meet their statutory duty to maintain their children—is £7 per week, we consider setting the threshold just below that amount the best way to strike that difficult balance. I hope that helps to explain our rationale behind the policy.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, asked why we are removing the application fee, why it was not removed sooner and whether we are doing this for the benefit of the customers. As I set out, the application fee was introduced partly to provide an incentive for separated parents to make collaborative family-based arrangements to facilitate better outcomes for children. In removing the fee, we first needed to allow enough time to properly evaluate the impact of this measure. As part of this evaluation, evidence published by my department has shown that the fee is not a significant factor when making decisions, as mentioned earlier. Most importantly, evidence has also found that families on lower incomes disproportionately experience conflict and are less able to make a family-based arrangement. Therefore, the fee could act as a financial barrier to those families accessing the service. The removal of the fee is expected to lead to a relatively modest loss of income of around £1 million to £2 million per annum. Looking at this, we think that, on balance, this is the right thing to do.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, asked about collection charges. They are applied to all Child Maintenance Service collect and pay cases. Our research suggests that this encourages some parents to use direct pay. The charges are 20%, as he knows, on top of the liability for the paying parent, and—the gist of his question—4% of the maintenance received by the receiving parent. Charges such as the application fee were originally introduced to provide both parents with an incentive to collaborate. Running the collect and pay service incurs costs for the taxpayer, especially where collection and enforcement action is required to secure payments. Therefore, it is reasonable for most parents to contribute towards running such a service. In a survey conducted between 2017 and 2019, 44% of receiving parents said that collect and pay charges influenced their decision to use direct pay. To answer the question directly, the Government continue to keep the other Child Maintenance Service measures, including the 4%, under review. No decision is being made, but we are keeping it under review.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
Can that be changed without it coming back? It cannot, can it? The Government are missing an opportunity. The Minister said £7 per week. Is that what he meant?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
No, I did not mean £7 per week. I should have said £7 arrears. On the £4, I understand that we have to use legislation to take that forward, should we wish. However, it is not on the agenda and we are keeping that under review.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, raised a number of questions. I shall first address the points made about the NAO. The Government also thank the NAO for conducting such a thorough report on the value for money audit of the CMS. The Government’s response partially and fully accepted a number of the NAO’s recommendations, as the noble Baroness probably knows, including investigating why fewer people are taking up the CMS than expected, tackling any inappropriate barriers that prevent families using its services and improving the effectiveness of direct pay and collect and pay arrangements.
Another question the noble Baroness asked was about what evidence the department has relating to the drivers of the fall in usage of the statutory system. Having a maintenance arrangement is not right for all parents. We know that many who do not have one want one. The department is investigating existing research and data to understand why some parents chose not to have a child maintenance arrangement and to improve its knowledge of customers who use its service. This is work in progress and the noble Baroness raised an important question. It is also important to note that, since the conclusion of the value for money audit, we have already seen greater take-up from parents wanting to use the service, so that perhaps helps to answer the question.
The noble Baroness also asked whether there is any more information that we can share with her about what we are doing to improve the effectiveness of the arrangements. Over the past few years, the Child Maintenance Service has developed and delivered significant improvements to its online services. These services make it easier and quicker for parents to engage with the service and the majority of applications are now made online. We are also continuing to work towards implementing the recommendations on improving the effectiveness of direct pay and collect and pay arrangements. Customers on direct pay can now report missed payments via their online account. In addition, the CMS developed an email campaign in 2022 to prompt direct pay customers to get in contact if their direct pay case was not working for them. This capability will be considered for future campaigns to communicate better with parents. For collect and pay cases, the department has set out its fast enforcement plan, which includes specific test and learn campaigns and greater use of risk and intelligence to drive compliance. As part of this regulations package, we will be extending our write-off powers for arrears of less than £7 when, as I said, certain circumstances are met. This aligns with the NAO’s recommendation to review the approach to managing arrears. The Committee will also be aware of our plans to improve and accelerate our enforcement of CMS, as outlined earlier, and our plans to consult more broadly on the service types.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, was also concerned about take-up more broadly. I am sure she will appreciate that these regulations will make it easier for people to access the CMS.
There is a lot more that we could be doing. There is a major programme in my department on using AI and making it effective for not just this service but others within the department. I think the noble Baroness is aware of that from the Question I answered not so long ago. I make the point that human contact is incredibly important. In the various products that we have, we are all the time dealing with some of the most vulnerable customers in the country, as she will be aware.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I do not know whether it is too historic, but I possibly should have drawn the Committee’s attention to the fact that I have a historic pecuniary interest as a former director of the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission; I just want to place that on record.
I am grateful for and appreciate the Minister’s thorough response. He mentioned that the Government are doing more research. Will that be published? He also mentioned an email campaign in relation to direct pay. How is that going?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
On the latter point, which is a good one, I shall certainly need to write to the noble Baroness. On the former one, it is fair to say that we will write as well. Those will be added to a number of other questions that I may have to answer.
Hydrogen Production Revenue Support (Directions, Eligibility and Counterparty) Regulations 2023
(1 year ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
That the Grand Committee do consider the Hydrogen Production Revenue Support (Directions, Eligibility and Counterparty) Regulations 2023.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, these regulations were laid before the House on 8 November this year. On 26 October, the Energy Act 2023 received Royal Assent. The Act provides a legislative framework for hydrogen, including provisions relating to the hydrogen production business model—a funding model to support the production and use of low-carbon hydrogen in the United Kingdom. Delivering this policy will be essential to kick-start the hydrogen economy and move towards the Government’s ambition to have up to 10 gigawatts of low-carbon hydrogen production capacity by 2030, as set out in the British Energy Security Strategy.
Under the business model, projects will be paid a subsidy for the hydrogen produced through a revenue support contract, similar to the highly successful contracts for difference for low-carbon electricity production. The business model, contracts for hydrogen, will be managed by a hydrogen production counterparty. Initial projects are to be selected through allocation rounds run by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. To receive business model support, a project must be an
“eligible low carbon hydrogen producer”.
Where such a project is allocated support, the Secretary of State will issue a direction to the hydrogen production counterparty to offer to contract with that project.
I hope noble Lords noticed that, last week, we announced 11 major new electrolytic hydrogen projects across the UK that will be offered support under the hydrogen production business model. This represents the largest number of commercial-scale green-hydrogen production projects announced at once anywhere in Europe. These new projects, stretching all over the country from the south-west of England and south Wales to the Highlands of Scotland, will invest over £400 million up front over the next three years, in a major boost to the UK’s green economy. In addition, CCUS-enabled hydrogen projects have also been shortlisted through the track 1 phase 2 cluster sequencing process.
I turn now to the detail of the regulations and their important role in all this. Fundamentally, the regulations satisfy the duty in Section 66(4) of the Energy Act 2023 by determining the meaning of “eligible” in relation to a low-carbon hydrogen producer. They tell the world who can be eligible for support.
The regulations set out that only new hydrogen production facilities, or existing hydrogen production facilities adding new production capacity, that can demonstrate that their proposal for the production of hydrogen is capable of complying with the UK low-carbon hydrogen standard, will be considered eligible. This will ensure that eligibility keeps pace with how the Government define low-carbon hydrogen. I recall that a number of amendments tabled during the passage of the Energy Act 2023 sought to ensure that regulations on eligibility made reference to the low-carbon hydrogen standard, so I hope that the Committee will welcome these provisions.
The regulations also set out the process by which the Secretary of State may direct a counterparty to offer to contract with an eligible low-carbon hydrogen producer. This follows a similar approach to contracts for difference, with which industry is very familiar. Similarly, the regulations include requirements for a counterparty to publish the full contracts entered into and establish a public register of key information. As noble Lords would expect, such publication is of course subject to redaction of confidential information and personal data. The regulations also set out various requirements in respect of Secretary of State directions to a counterparty. They include the circumstances in which directions cease to have effect and enable the Secretary of State to revoke a direction before it has been accepted.
Furthermore, the regulations require a counterparty to promptly notify the Secretary of State if it is, or considers it likely to be, unable to carry out its functions. Your Lordships may think such a provision sounds familiar, and indeed it is; it is very similar to the approach taken by the Nuclear Regulated Asset Base Model (Revenue Collection) Regulations 2023, which I am sure the Committee is following very closely.
The department has considered the content of these regulations extremely carefully. We carried out a full public consultation earlier this year, seeking views on the principles enshrined in the regulations and satisfying the statutory requirement to consult, as set out in the Energy Act 2023. We received 28 responses from various organisations and members of the public. We carefully considered all of them, although I am pleased that the majority supported our proposals. Accordingly, in our government response, which we published on 30 October, we set out plans to proceed largely as proposed, albeit with some amendments made in response to the feedback that we received.
This secondary legislation represents an essential step for implementing the hydrogen production business model to ensure that we can support the deployment of low-carbon hydrogen projects to achieve those 2030 ambitions, to improve our energy security and to help achieve net zero. I therefore commend these draft regulations to the Committee.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I very much welcome this statutory instrument and congratulate His Majesty’s Government on bringing it forward so speedily. I just wonder whether my noble friend has any idea of how many potential clients there are in the United Kingdom. That would be interesting in itself.
Regulation 2(4), on page 2, defining an
“eligible low carbon hydrogen producer”,
is very sensible and has thankfully been included. Of course, because of the publicity for the domestic trial in the north-east of England, hydrogen is getting a bit of an unfortunate image. I am not sure whether any incentive can be produced to help the local communities—which I would say are getting difficult, but let us say they are being very careful—to do those trials. If there is not, there is not, but this is a negative reaction and not one I welcome.
Finally, it is usual for most statutory instruments, certainly the ones on which I comment, to have a sunset clause for review. I do not see one, unless I have missed it, but that would have helped.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, as always, I thank the Minister for his excellent explanation of this secondary legislation and welcome how we are now moving forward at some pace on the hydrogen front. I also welcome the Government’s announcement that they are moving ahead with the carbon border adjustment mechanism, even though it is one year after the EU has done so. I do not know what has happened in the middle, as far as SME exports and that side is concerned. Their commitment to energy efficiency after the election perhaps raises some questions, but at least there is some intended movement there.
I also welcome the Government finally giving up on the hydrogen villages in England. This was clearly never going to happen or be real, and I am sure the Minister was at the forefront of those talking sense to his Secretary of State on that area, which is excellent.
As background, I read through the hydrogen standard. As it is Christmas, I was going to ask the Minister to explain the formula in there, because I could not understand it either. There is a training video on how to understand it, which I will watch on Boxing Day rather than before.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My goodness. I was not expecting that announcement and have not been party to that information. I am sorry: I was not clear from the noble Lord’s comments whether he meant the end of this year. Perhaps he has secret information about when this Parliament might come to an end.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
Can I just put on record my appreciation for the incredible contribution that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, has made in this area? I certainly benefited enormously from our working closely on the Energy Bill, and going forward from that.
I also echo the Minister’s comments on the progress that has been made; during the passage of the Bill, there were times when we wondered how we were going to get through it. I assure the Minister that the announcement of the first funding round, with its 11 successful green hydrogen projects, has been noted and is welcome. I certainly look forward to hearing about their progress.
I want to make a few comments on the regulations before us. As we have heard, this statutory instrument is one of the first to follow from the 2023 Act and we know that there are more to come. The regulations cover, in particular, the process whereby the hydrogen low-carbon business plan will be implemented during the initial allocation period of contracts for hydrogen producers; all of this goes towards the target of 10 gigawatts of hydrogen production.
As I understand it, schemes will be identified and quality-assured by the Minister, who will then direct the hydrogen counterparty—it is identical in structure to the low-carbon contracts company—to provide contracts for companies that have been deemed eligible. All of that is absolutely fine and the right thing to do, especially when we consider the initial allocation process.
The Explanatory Memorandum states that the initial allocation will give way to a competitive tender process later on. Some more detail on that would be useful as we go forward; perhaps it will be forthcoming. However, at this moment in time, we are considering the initial allocation process, which is to be informed by the centrepiece of the SI: the low-carbon hydrogen standard, which has been outlined for us today. This refers to a detailed document setting out the greenhouse gas emissions and sustainability criteria that programmes applying for an allocation contract should follow.
I note the stringent qualifying criteria for a project’s eligibility. Of course, they require a project not to exceed a certain level of carbon emissions and to measure fugitive hydrogen—that is, the process whereby hydrogen is produced and all the implications around hydrogen—for its duration. It is a system-wide standard for the low-carbon nature of that hydrogen. For a project to get a direction from the Minister, it must comply with the standard when it receives agreement to proceed.
I just want to pick out that point. As we understand it, the standard will evolve. Indeed, the standard to which the SI refers is version 2 of the UK low-carbon hydrogen standard; that evolved from the initial standard, which was produced immediately after the Act was passed. Version 2 has emerged from consultation with the correction of various elements of the initial standard that could have caused difficulties. It has tightened up several matters that were uncertain, difficult or in need of clarification. It is absolutely clear in the documentation and the Explanatory Memorandum that it is intended that the standard will evolve; this means that the department envisages that it will produce further iterations of the standard in future. The low-carbon hydrogen standard as it currently stands is therefore likely to change. Does the Minister think that this will present some difficulties for those companies that have had their contracts approved? Clearly, although they will be signing up under version 2, they may not necessarily comply if we move on to versions 3 or 4—or more. It would be good to get some assurances around what the implications will be for companies in the earlier rounds.
There needs to be a bit of thought about whether those companies could be disadvantaged as we go forward. Will the Minister have some discretion in considering this? Of course, it could go either way, although it is very unlikely that there would be a relaxation of the carbon emission standards, but there is something to pick up there. Is it possible that, with these changes, companies might be put in a place where there are more costs, expense and planning? It would be useful to have more understanding of the methodology that will be used to determine whether companies are continuing to adhere to the standard once it is set in the contract. From the initial comments, I understand that the Minister is satisfied that this will work well. Could he expand on some of the changes that might come along?
During the consultation, some respondents suggested that further information could be published in a contract register, including outturn volumes, CO2 capture rates and CO2 capture quantity. It is obvious that a balance needs to be struck between transparency and what useful information is kept confidential but, as making this information public seems like it would have a positive impact, is it that the impact is not deemed significant enough to lower confidentiality? Alternatively, is it that there are further drawbacks to publishing this information that have led the Government to proceed with the initial approach? A bit more clarification around that decision-making would be welcome. On the other hand, 10 of the 23 respondents disagreed with information that the Government are proceeding with publishing, primarily due to the financial aspects. Could the Minister please elaborate on the decision-making process there?
I welcome the progress that has been made and look forward with interest to see how we can move forward in the area of hydrogen, which seems to be fairly fraught—I note the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Naseby. I am also interested in the response on the review. It is very noticeable that that is missing, because of the process. But, in such a new departure, a review would be useful and welcome.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to the debate. Low-carbon hydrogen will be an essential part of our future energy mix, and the hydrogen production business model seeks to address one of the key barriers to its deployment: the higher cost of low-carbon hydrogen, compared to higher-carbon counterfactual fuels. The Government remain committed to delivering on our hydrogen ambitions—first, those to help support energy security, but also our decarbonisation goals.
The message from the 2023 progress report from the Climate Change Committee was the need to deliver policies to enable deployment at scale of new industries such as hydrogen. I think that sentiment is widely recognised across this House and by industry. Last week’s announcement represents a major step forward in helping producers to deliver a fuel of the future today, backing some of our fantastic businesses here in the UK to go greener. These regulations are vital to enable those contracts to be awarded, so that projects can take the investment decisions that will kick-start the deployment of low-carbon production in all parts of the United Kingdom. But we are not stopping there. A new second round of funding is already available for producers to apply for, so that they can develop the next round of projects and then subsequent ones that help to build on that success. I will deal with some of this in more detail as I go through the questions raised by noble Lords.
Lord Callanan (Con)
Damned by faint praise. We have always had an excellent relationship and I am sure we can look forward to many exchanges from the Back Benches when he has left the Front Bench of Liberal Democrat politics and joined the real world of politics that the rest of us take part in. I am joking—it has been a pleasure to work with him. On so many issues we generally agree and see eye to eye. It has been fun working with him, and I am sure we will have lots of contact in the future. I thank him for all the work that he has done contributing to these discussions and many of the legislative discussions we have had in the Chamber. With that, I commend these regulations to the Committee.
Trade Union (Deduction of Union Subscriptions from Wages in the Public Sector) Regulations 2023
(1 year ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
That the Grand Committee do consider the Trade Union (Deduction of Union Subscriptions from Wages in the Public Sector) Regulations 2023.
Relevant document: 3rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)
My Lords, the regulations are known as the check-off regulations and stem from Section 15 of the Trade Union Act 2016. This is the last secondary legislation to be brought into force as part of that Act; each aimed at modernising industrial relations in the UK. I am pleased to take this final piece of legislation through, as I had the honour of taking the Act through the House some years ago.
The regulations define a relevant public sector employer for the purposes of Section 15 of the Trade Union Act. That provision requires relevant public sector employers, which allow employees to pay union subscriptions directly through payroll, to charge trade unions a cost substantially equivalent to the cost that they incur for providing the service. In addition, public sector employers must be satisfied that there is an alternative way of union members paying their subscriptions aside from check-off, such as through direct debit.
Should employers not be able to secure payment substantially equivalent to the costs of providing check-off, or should there not be an alternative payment available to employees, employers must cease to provide check-off. The Government believe that this will ensure that check-off services are provided by public sector employers only where there is no cost burden to the taxpayer and to guarantee members have choices about subscription payment methods.
The regulations will not come into force until a reasonable transition period has taken place to allow everyone adequate time to make arrangements to comply with the regulations. To this end, they will come into force on 9 May 2024, six months after laying. This is a generous transition period, considering that the regulations were previously due to be laid in 2017. Therefore, employers have had a significant awareness of the impending changes.
The Government have also provided to the House the Explanatory Memorandum and a full impact assessment, and we will publish guidance on GOV.UK to be issued to public sector employers to help them to familiarise themselves and comply with the regulations.
I will remind noble Lords why the Act’s reforms to check-off in the public sector are significant. The Government are committed to the responsible and transparent use of taxpayers’ money and so believe that the administration of payment of union subscriptions for public sector workers should not be carried out at the expense of the taxpayer.
During the passage of the Trade Union Act 2016, the House debated the original drafting of Section 15 at length. It suggested that check-off services should not be provided by public sector organisations on behalf of their unions, owing to the cost burden on the taxpayer. However, through the legislative scrutiny and amendments made in this House, Section 15 of the Act was revised to no longer require public sector employers to remove check-off services, but rather that the costs associated with doing so should be recharged to trade unions and alternative options should be available to trade union members. The Government were grateful for the scrutiny of the House in refining the provision and continue to believe that this strikes a fair and appropriate balance between providing value for money and fostering good and modern industrial relations in the UK.
The regulations will apply across the public sector to those bodies listed in the Schedule. There was significant engagement in this House on the organisations in scope, resulting in the Government considering the ONS definition of “public authority” too broad. As a result, the Government decided to use the list of bodies from the Freedom of Information Act and its Scottish equivalent as the starting point to define the scope of the regulations, making it clear that the intention was to include only organisations that are funded wholly or mainly from public funds.
Of that list, the Government have removed organisations that do not routinely employ staff, are an advisory body or expert panel, are funded by a levy on a finite or discrete group, or are predominantly commercially focused, to ensure that the scope is proportionate to the aims of the regulations.
The Cabinet Office has also engaged each Secretary of State on the proposed scope, seeking their confirmation that the regulations capture all bodies necessary to deliver the policy aim. In addition, a two-week consultation was undertaken with the Scottish Government to ensure that Scottish bodies were appropriately captured.
The check-off regulations will deliver benefits to the taxpayer. The impact assessment has identified that the intervention will equate to a present benefit saving of approximately £1.5 million per year and just over £12 million over the next 10 years. These benefits arise as the regulations seek to alleviate the burden for public sector employers that offer check-off services but do not yet charge trade unions for the cost of administering them.
I wish to be clear that the regulations we are considering stem from the Trade Union Act 2016, which was introduced, as noble Lords will remember, as a 2015 manifesto commitment. Despite delays owing to other government priorities relevant to the UK’s exit from the European Union and the coronavirus pandemic, this has been a long-term ambition of the Government in our aim to modernise industrial relations in the UK.
The purpose of these regulations is to deliver value for money for the taxpayer and choice for individuals in a balanced way that reflects the discussion in this Committee. They do just that, and I beg to move.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I have seen many Chekhov plays; this is not half as enjoyable an “Enterprise”.
This SI comes here under an Act of 1992, as amended in 2016. The House of Commons briefing on it reminds me that the Conservatives tried it on in 2014 but were blocked by the Liberal Democrats in the coalition. So they brought it back later and it is to come into force in May, a maximum of six months before the next election in the dying days of this dying Government.
The instrument is extraordinary in the sense that it goes through a list of more than 200 bodies, some of which are in any sense autonomous public bodies. I used to work for several universities and I note that they are caught up in the scheme—but, then, so are the Crofting Commission, the Highlands and Islands Enterprise, the Gaelic Media Service, Historic Environment Scotland and even the Scottish Road Works Commissioner. I assume that this must all be compatible with the conventions of the devolution settlement. I note also that, in terms of local government in England, Together for Children—it is based in Sunderland—Slough Children First and the Sandwell Children’s Trust are brought under this umbrella as well. The total amount of public money that this careful enumeration of all these subordinate bodies will save is estimated to be £1.5 million a year.
As I read this SI over the weekend, I thought of the principles that are at stake here: limited government; government that should be as local as possible in order to be as close to the people as possible; and that government should have respect for the importance of autonomous institutions in civil society. These are principles that Liberals and Conservatives used to share, when Harold Macmillan was Prime Minister and Conservatives still read Edmund Burke rather than Ayn Rand and Friedrich von Hayek. This statutory instrument is illiberal and unconservative. Such a degree of detailed centralisation and interference in civil society used to be called socialism. Edmund Burke used to talk about the importance of local communities, little platoons and self-government. This instrument is much more in the style of authoritarian populism, like those right-wing Republicans in the United States who believe that the free market is all that matters rather than a free society.
One of the things that horrified me most as I read the Explanatory Memorandum and the impact assessment were the 40 or 50 references to the TaxPayers’ Alliance as a prime source of evidence for the arguments made. I am sure that the Minister is familiar with the TaxPayers’ Alliance. It was founded by Matthew Elliott after a period in Washington attached to Americans for Tax Reform; that was founded by Grover Norquist, who once famously said:
“I don’t want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub”—
tax cuts at all costs and to hell with the public sector.
The undue influence of American Republicans on the Conservative Party, the flow of funds to right-wing think tanks, in particular those based in 55 Tufton Street such as the TaxPayers’ Alliance, and the links with hard-right think tanks here are part of what seems to many of us to be going wrong with the Conservative Party. I rather suspect that the Minister, whom I offer the compliment of thinking of as a one-nation Conservative, probably quietly shares a view.
The impact assessment does say that the savings to His Majesty’s Government will be at £1.5 million a year, and it estimates the cost to the trade unions at about £13 million a year, thus enforcing significant increases in membership fees. It also says:
“Costs to public sector employers may include some loss of goodwill with employees and trade unions”.
Well, that is much less important, is it not? It seems to me that that matters. After all, the Government’s relationship with civil servants and public sector workers has deteriorated steadily over recent years. We have seen that in the recent strikes and in the loss of a number of first-class civil servants; I know that some of those with whom I most enjoyed working when I was in Government have now left or taken leave. That raises problems about the quality of how we are governed.
The impact assessment also says:
“The policy will engender taxpayer faith that the Government is spending their money responsibly”.
Well, taxpayers’ faith in the Government spending their money responsibly is currently having to cope with the Government’s failures to deal with the Covid effort and to enquire into that, and with the revelation yesterday that the noble Baroness, Lady Mone, admits to having made £60 million in profit from Covid contracts, rather larger than the £1.5 million we have spent here. I suggest this will not engender much additional taxpayer faith.
The Minister herself said that the Government are committed to the transparency of public expenditure. I hope that is true, and that we will see, as we go further into the question of how much government waste there was on Covid contracts, that the Government are actually committed to transparency rather than to a continuing cover-up.
The Minister will note that there have been changes in the nature of trade unions over the last 40 years. There are fewer manual workers and more professionals—public service professionals above all. The majority of trade union members now have degrees. They are civil servants, doctors, nurses, researchers and teachers. They used to be part of the core vote of the Conservative Party, and I suggest to the Minister that they are an important part of that vote, which the Conservatives have lost and will not regain unless they alter their attitude to the public sector.
The bias against public service and the public sector as such, which we have seen on the right wing of the Conservative Party, is one of the most unattractive dimensions of this dying Government, holding down their salaries and wages while allowing private sector pay to soar. Ministerial treatment of civil servants as if they were servants, and the well-evidenced examples of bullying of civil servants by Ministers, have been a problem in which civil servants need unions to defend them and look after their interests. The public sector does need unions to protect them and good civil servants are vital to the quality of British government.
I find very little to like in this SI; if Labour had wished to move a regret Motion, the Liberal Democrats would certainly have supported it. The only good thing to be said for it is that it will take effect only in the last months of this Government, and I suspect that any Government that come in afterwards will quietly stop its implementation.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I just ask the Minister: are the Government still attached to the role that the Conservative Party has traditionally seen for trade unions in maintaining social harmony? Do they see trade unions as an essential component of a harmonious society, by providing a platform for workers to express their concerns and negotiate with employers, thereby contributing to social cohesion and stability?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and my noble friend Lord Davies; they made some very good points that I would have made myself. I will not repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, said in terms of advice to the Conservative Party; I suspect that the Minister will, as he said, have secretly agreed with some of it. It is sad what has happened to the Tory Party. It is sad that the Government have picked what is, in the scheme of things, such a minor issue—for goodness’ sake, what is happening with our public services?—when to pretend that it will somehow restore the faith of the British taxpayer is laughable. Certainly, no one in the Committee this afternoon is buying it. This is a classic case of getting the facts to fit an argument that the Government want to have.
We know that for some reason Conservative Governments tend to want to limit check-off, whereas we on these Benches see it as more of a positive and helpful thing in supporting good industrial relations, as my noble friend Lord Davies said. I would have thought that these things, small scale as they are—although I will go on in a minute to talk about some of the data, or the lack of it, that the Government are choosing to rely on to make their case—ought to be resolved locally. Local managers and trade union officials resolve things all day, every day. That is the norm.
There are occasions that we all know about where the Government have chosen to get themselves involved or to pick a fight. We have seen what has happened in the NHS. Far be it from me to give the Government advice on good industrial relations, but they need to take some advice from somewhere because there are disputes that have been going on for far too long that are having a direct impact, for example, on patient care in the NHS, where the Government have been far from helpful.
It is striking that the Government admit that they do not have reliable information on the extent of the use of check-off by government departments and are relying on estimates, most heavily, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, said, those from the TaxPayers’ Alliance report of 2014. This is interesting because it claims that only 22% of those offering check-off were reimbursed by trade unions. At the moment, as we know, it is already possible to be reimbursed, but when it asked the same question of local councils, the LGA found that 67% were reimbursed. There is no attempt within the report provided by the Government to explain this difference. I think we can all come up with our own explanation of why these two organisations might have come to very different outcomes, but it is extraordinary that a policy change such as this, which could have some negative repercussions, is being based on such wide-ranging estimates. Given that we do not have accurate information about how many people use check-off or how many organisations are already reimbursed, it is impossible to know what the financial impact of the changes that the Government are implementing will be when taken against the potential damage to good will.
A number of questions arise from this. On devolution, which the noble Lord, Lord Wallace referred to, my reading is that these regulations will apply to England, Wales and Scotland. We know that many public services are devolved. I think I am right that industrial relations more widely are a reserved power, but the Minister will correct me. For example, obviously much negotiation goes on between the Senedd and public services in Wales, so why is it that this measure will be mandated from Whitehall? I have not asked the Welsh Government—perhaps I should have done—what their attitude to this is, but I am assuming that the Minister has had conversations with her counterpart in Cardiff. Can she let us know the Senedd’s view on this issue?
The estimated savings are bizarre and do not seem to take account of the diversity of services within the public sector in terms of the rates of trade union membership, the use of check-off and the rate of reimbursement. Big assumptions are being made about the standardisation of involvement in check-off. No justifications for them are provided.
Employers are required to assure themselves that the reimbursement amount is—this is the phrase the Government use—“substantially equivalent”. I am not clear what that means. We accept that a cost of check-off exists. That cost is then calculated, that money is to be reimbursed by the relevant trade union and that amount is to be substantially equivalent. I am interested in that choice of words, as I would have thought the Government’s aim would be better reflected by use of the term “full cost recovery”. I have heard “substantially equivalent” used for medical devices and sometimes in maritime situations, but I do not understand why it and not an alternative phrase has been used here. Perhaps the Minister could explain.
It seems very strange that on page 8 of the impact assessment, in its analysis and evidence, the Government rely on the TaxPayers’ Alliance’s assertion that 90% of public sector bodies use check-off to justify the need to act but later, on page 26 of the same document, when estimating the cost of implementation, the Government repeatedly assert BEIS data that states that 56% of public bodies offer check-off. Can the Minister explain why the document relies on different figures for the same thing to support action? One overestimates the need and the other underestimates the cost. This does not seem a very sensible way of making policy. If there is no accurate information, perhaps the Government should say so or perhaps go out to consultation to get some more accurate data.
It is fascinating to read in the Explanatory Memorandum that the Government did not think that consultation would be helpful because
“the principles of this provision were debated extensively in Parliament … in 2016”.
This is a bit shabby. I follow our proceedings very carefully, as I am sure do the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and my noble friend Lord Davies. To say that because we had an extensive debate in Parliament in 2016 there is now no further need to seek advice, comment or consult more widely is quite extraordinary. It perhaps overemphasises the interest which people outside the House take in our proceedings. There has been no opportunity for the main partners in this endeavour to share their thoughts because, the Government say, they did so seven years ago. That is not good enough.
The guidance to employers is not available, so we are not able to assure ourselves that employers will be given sufficient advice to make calculations about the cost, agree reimbursement and assess this “substantially equivalent” phrase. None of that is available to us for this debate and it would have helped to have sight of it. If we had examined the guidance, it would have helped us to assess how much care—I think that is the right phrase—the Government are taking on this. On the face of it, it appears that Ministers are reaching for this policy for reasons of political positioning or because they are seeking some sort of wedge issue rather than because of genuine concern about the practical impact. They do not know how widespread check-off is, how many individuals are involved or how many public bodies are affected. They therefore cannot possibly know what, if any, impact this will have in savings to the taxpayer.
This is not a good way to carry on. We expect better of the Government when they ask us to agree this sort of thing. I will listen carefully to what the Minister says, but I put on record our dissatisfaction with the way that the impact assessment is written and its reliance on different data sources. This slapdash approach is because the Government are hell-bent on getting this done without considering some of the issues that I raised as carefully as they ought to.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman of Darlington, for their contributions to the debate and the good questions that they have asked. I should perhaps start with the noble Lord’s description of the wide-ranging nature of the list. I agree that it is wide-ranging, and that is necessary. However, I am sorry that in a sense he criticised the impact assessment. I was pleased that there was an impact assessment. He and I and other Members of the House have been proponents of the use of impact assessments because they allow the sort of questions that we are asking today, and they are not always used. Obviously, I point out in relation to the costs of check-off that direct debit is an alternative.
The noble Lord asked a number of technical questions on the estimates, as did the noble Baroness. The easiest thing for me to do is to look at them in Hansard and write to them in answer, but I will make two points. First, I understand that the guidance should be online from tomorrow. I am sorry that it is not available today. The normal course of events—the Commons starting on this first and then us getting it—has perhaps meant that we have not had the benefit of the guidance, but I will write and send the link to it because that would be helpful. I also agree with him about the changing nature of trade union membership. He will remember very well that I worked at Tesco, a trade-unionised company, and spent a lot of time working with the union in growing the company. Personally, I work very well with civil servants and their unions. We need to minimise costs, however, which is one reason behind the changes that we are discussing today.
Perhaps I should pick up the noble Baroness’s point about consultation. As she said, the regulations stem from the 2016 Act, which was consulted on as a whole. During the debates on the then Bill, the current policy position on the check-off regulations was set out, which was to charge trade unions a reasonable cost and to ensure that there was access to an alternative method of paying union subscriptions. That was an agreed compromise instead of requiring public sector employers to remove check-off altogether. It is important to repeat that background.
The Government have upheld the commitments that they made to engage, rather than consult, with affected bodies. That has included four consultations with government departments and the Scottish Government on the schedule of scope. The Cabinet Office has also engaged trade unions’ workforce policy leads and some employers on the impact assessment and for views on the guidance. There is no single source of information of cost of check-off to the taxpayer. That is one reason why the TaxPayers’ Alliance report was used, but we have supplemented it with more recent data from the BEIS management and well-being practices survey. We also conducted consultation with employers in each of the public sector workforces, including the NHS, local government, police forces, maintained schools and academies and the Civil Service. I acknowledge that a lot of this is anecdotal, but it has provided some more recent data as a comparison and means of testing the assumptions made in the two reports. However, as I promised, I will look at the points that the noble Lord made.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
Just to add, the disgust with which we saw the depth of dependence on the TaxPayers’ Alliance relates to the position of this body, which received an E—the bottom range—from Who Funds You? for the opaqueness of its funding. It is clear that some of its funding comes from very right-wing bodies in the United States; it has held public, open conferences with, I believe, the Heritage Foundation. It seems deeply improper for the Government to depend so heavily on such a very partisan think tank. The Tufton Street group in particular is doing its best to pull the Conservative Party very much to the right, against its former traditional conservatism.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I cannot just accept that, I have to say; I believe that views from all different directions can be valuable in debate, and that includes the TaxPayers’ Alliance. I explained why it had done some work in this area. It was used in these estimates—entirely transparently—and we have also taken data from other sources. I nevertheless thank the noble Lord for his comments.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The point is that the TaxPayers’ Alliance is a campaigning organisation. Our concern is not that it is included at all; the Minister is quite right in what she said about a range of sources and perspectives. But given that there is a lack of data, which the Minister has acknowledged, it seems a little odd that it is relied upon quite as much as it is. You do not need to make any assertions about some of the estimates that the TaxPayers’ Alliance is making to pursue the policy. It seems a bit strange that it is included.
My attention was drawn to this by what is on page 23 of the impact assessment. There is a little table that lists probable estimates of savings to the public sector. It just seems strange that—to take the Civil Service, as the first example—the high estimate of savings is £149,000, the low estimate is £1,500, and the most probable estimate is £11,500. Then, however, there are local authorities, for example, with a high estimate of £161,500, a low estimate of £91,000 and a most probable estimate of £161,500. It just is not clear how some of these figures have been reached. Are the Government treating the TaxPayers’ Alliance evidence with equal weight to a survey conducted by the LGA, for example? That would seem a strange thing to do without further inquiry or more critical analysis. Maybe this is a point to make to officials behind the Minister rather than the Minister herself, but it is not really what we would expect in this kind of document.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I commend officials for producing a detailed impact assessment and I will not renege on that. I also think that the TaxPayers’ Alliance is a perfectly respectable source. Obviously, every think tank has different people working for it; some people are excellent at estimates and some are not. I have already said to the noble Baroness that I will go away and look in a little more detail at the estimates. This impact assessment was not written by me personally, of course, but I will take it away and have a look. I commend the use of different sources of data and data standards. The noble Baroness probably knows that that is what I would want, but I will of course take a look.
Perhaps I can move on and just try to answer one or two of the questions about devolution. Matters of industrial relations are clearly reserved and there is no obligation for the UK Government to consult with the devolved Administrations. However, the Scottish Government were consulted on the scope of the regulations to ensure that they capture all public bodies that are wholly or mainly funded by the taxpayer. Wales is not in scope as a result of the Trade Union (Wales) Act 2017. The Government will take action to bring Wales into scope at the earliest possible opportunity.
I should mention that the TUC has been engaging with us on, and had input into, the guidance. I noticed its flash new logo on its writing paper. This also included engagement with employers in the public sector, so I hope that that provides some reassurance.
In conclusion, I am confident that the regulations provide a fair and appropriate intervention and capture an appropriate scope to meet the policy aim. They allow check-off to continue, as was agreed during the passage of the Trade Union Act 2016. They represent a reasonable direction of travel and continue to support productive industrial relations in the UK—which, Members may recall, was my experience during my past career at Tesco. To return to the point that the noble Lord made, of course the trade unions have a role to play in our society, so I am delighted to have this opportunity to be at the Dispatch Box today to put to bed the last of the regulations relating to that Act. I hope that colleagues will join me in agreeing the regulations, which I commend to the Committee.
Higher-Risk Buildings (Keeping and Provision of Information etc.) (England) Regulations 2023
Lord Gascoigne
That the Grand Committee do consider the Higher-Risk Buildings (Keeping and Provision of Information etc.) (England) Regulations 2023.
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
My Lords, the Building Safety Act 2022 established a new regime for building safety, with stronger oversight of higher-risk buildings and stronger legal duties on those responsible for the safety of higher-risk buildings, known as accountable persons. These regulations set out technical requirements for accountable persons for occupied higher-risk buildings, specifying the information they need to keep for their building and the information they need to share with various people. This information is referred to as the “golden thread information”. The regulations also make minor clarifying amendments to regulations made earlier this year.
These regulations should be considered alongside the Building Safety Act and Higher-Risk Buildings (Management of Safety Risks etc) (England) Regulations 2023. Together, these requirements implement the new regulatory regime for occupied higher-risk buildings so that these buildings are managed safely. There will be new legal duties on those responsible for ensuring building safety in higher-risk buildings, with clearer accountability backed by stronger enforcement and sanctions to deter and rectify non-compliance. Together with other regulations made already, these regulations introduce a step change in improving building safety in higher-risk buildings, making sure that residents’ homes in these buildings are places where they are safe and can feel safe.
The golden thread of information is vital to accountable persons fulfilling their duties under the Act. The information, which includes details of the risk assessments and safety measures in place, will help accountable persons have confidence that they are meeting their statutory duties, making sure that they can demonstrate this in their safety case report and, ultimately, keeping residents safe. A full list of the golden thread information that accountable persons must keep is set out in Schedule 1 to the regulations. This includes building plans; the latest assessments of fire and structural risks; details of arrangements in place to manage these risks, including schedules of repairs and maintenance; and the up-to-date resident engagement strategy and safety case report.
The safety case report will be submitted to the building safety regulator for assessment, usually as part of a building assessment certificate application. It will contain an overview of the building, together with details of the accountable persons’ assessments of building safety risks for that building and a demonstration that the measures in place to control and manage those risks are sufficient. The safety case report will serve to provide reassurance that the spread of fire and structural safety risks are being proportionately managed on an ongoing basis, helping to ensure that residents are, and can feel, safe in their homes.
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, I am pleased to speak on this statutory instrument, which is certainly of great importance. We should never lose sight of the fact that all the work that has been done on the Building Safety Act, the Fire Safety Act and the subsequent regulations, which the Minister has sketched in for us, was triggered by the terrible fire at Grenfell Tower, in which 72 people died and many others suffered life-changing injuries and experiences.
I welcome the fact that the Government were so whole-hearted in their acceptance of Dame Judith Hackitt’s report on what should happen. The Liberal Democrats supported both those Acts of Parliament in their passage through Parliament and we shall support this statutory instrument today, but not without some questions on the way. In posing my questions, I understand that the Minister endured, if that is the right word—certainly he took part in—a debate on Thursday that very much overlapped with some of the concerns I am going to raise today.
The first of those concerns is that, in our view, the scope of these regulations and, indeed, the Acts is not sufficiently wide to give the protection that is needed. The limitation of this statutory instrument to high-rise buildings taller than 18 metres is one example of that.
Secondly, it has taken a very long time for this statutory instrument to reach us. It took five and a half years to get the Building Safety Act on to the statute book, and it has taken another 12 months for this particular statutory instrument to come into play. Was that lethargy, complacency or perhaps something else? There seems to be a trend for watering down and neutering some of the building safety regulation regime. Whatever turbulence there may have been in politics in the past 12 months, there has certainly been some turbulence in how the building safety regime has evolved. For six months, there was no building safety regulator after the resignation of the first regulator and a long delay in appointing a replacement.
Of course, the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, now an Act, had to have its Long Title changed by a government amendment so that it could also tinker with the building safety regulatory regime, potentially taking it away from the purview of the Health and Safety Executive, which is the one trusted—or perhaps feared—body that the construction industry takes seriously. It will potentially instead be embedded in a completely new body, the shape of which we do not know, but we do know that we shall not have any parliamentary opportunity to debate, change or modify it.
I have two questions. First, can the Minister explain the 12-month delay, and can he reassure us that it is not part of a slackening of urgency in putting a comprehensive scheme in place? Secondly, is this the last statutory instrument that is needed in order to complete the regime, which is now urgently needed and which many actors in the construction industry are ready to get ahead with but lack the information from the Government to show them what they are supposed to do?
I have some more detailed, and perhaps technical, points about this documentation. I appreciate that the Minister may find that they are beyond the scope of his brief, and, if he wishes to reserve his position and write, that is fine. Nevertheless, they should be addressed by the Minister in considering this statutory instrument. In raising my points, I have made particular use of the evidence base provided by the Government in the impact assessment. I start simply by raising the issue that appears in paragraph 42 of that document, which reminds us that there will be a duty to display a building assessment certificate to the public on or in the building. That is very sensible, and we certainly support that proposition, but what is the method of enforcement of that display?
I have previously asked questions about the parallel requirement that a display energy certificate should be publicly displayed at the entrance of publicly accessible buildings. I asked how many public buildings actually had such a display, because I knew many did not, and I was told that no one had any knowledge at all of who did or did not display those display energy certificates. There is one in Millbank House, where my office is, so I am certainly not accusing the Parliamentary Estate of failing to do that, but if there is no enforcement system, the intention becomes a dead letter. So my third question is: can the Minister supply more information about how the display is to be monitored and enforced?
I now raise a point which comes in the evidence base document at paragraph 45 about the need to store the data electronically. Does the department foresee that being to a common standard, with a common database, or is every one of the 14,000 buildings that have been registered with the building safety regulator free to adopt its own system of storing material? Will that material be available to the building safety regulator, and if so, in what form? It is a technical question, but it seems to me one that the construction industry needs to know the correct answer to very early on. Linked to that is what kind of electronic database will still be supported by its inventor and seller in 60 years’ time, or even in 25 years’ time? What is foreseen as the way to make sure that this material does not simply become inaccessible just by changes in technology? How will all that work?
My next question relates to paragraph 47, which seems somewhat out of place with the statutory instrument. It refers to storing relevant information, and then goes on to say that irrelevant information should not be stored because it
“could undermine the purpose of the golden thread”.
Taken together with the correctly reported view of Dame Judith Hackitt that incomplete information was very often a challenging factor in her inquiry, it seems to me that we should find out more about what the Minister or the department think is irrelevant, as opposed to relevant, information. For instance, to take a historical example, is the fact that a fire compartment was made safe with asbestos relevant or irrelevant information? Of course, the debate last Thursday was about the change in regulations for fire retardants; is that relevant or irrelevant information?
When I looked at the statutory instrument itself, however, I could not see any reference to irrelevant information not being required, so I think that has somehow crept into the explanation but not the text. Maybe the Minister could tell me whether that is a correct or incorrect reading. My point is that it is difficult to know what is irrelevant, and that it can change over time as more knowledge emerges about the risks of particular materials. I would have thought that, if it does appear in the statutory instrument, the Minister might want to see it taken out.
I very much welcome what appears in paragraph 54 about the need to inform residents not only of the building’s safety features, but of the residents’ obligations in relation to using the building in a safe manner. That will obviously include not propping open fire doors, making sure that fire extinguishers are not misused, keeping combustible materials out of public circulation areas and so on. We welcome all that, but does the Minister believe that there is or should be any sanction or enforcement for residents who fail to comply with those requirements? As a former councillor and former MP, I am well aware of the discussions that are had, for instance, between social landlords and some tenants of social accommodation, about the challenge of achieving that.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I draw attention to my interests set out in the register as a serving councillor on a district council and a county council, a vice-president of the LGA and vice-president of the District Councils’ Network. I do not think I have had the opportunity to welcome the Minister to his new role, so I do that now. I thank the DLUHC team—we do not do that enough—for a clear and thorough Explanatory Memorandum, which was extremely helpful in reducing the number of questions that I will ask this afternoon.
We are now more than six years on from the tragedy of the fire and the loss of 72 lives at Grenfell Tower. I am pleased to see that progress is being made at last to address the multitude of issues that arose from it and previous dreadful fires, such that as Lakanal House in Camberwell in 2009. I pay tribute to the determination and commitment of the survivors of Grenfell and the other campaigners, such as the Cladiators, the National Leasehold Campaign, End Our Cladding Scandal and the UK Cladding Action Group. Their powerful voices and front-line witness have enabled the landmark legislation of which this statutory instrument forms the latest step. At last, we are moving to a point where the responsibilities of all concerned—the construction and development industry, freeholders, statutory agencies and the regulator—are becoming clearer. Importantly, we are moving to a point where those responsible for failure can be held accountable for their actions, although we must keep our eye on enforcement processes, as it seems they are not the strongest part of this new regime. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, referred to the well-understood and respected powers of the HSE, so can the Minister say whether the building regulator will have equivalent strength in terms of enforcement powers?
My first concern is that, even with the strongly stated intent of the Government and the Secretary of State—and, I am sure, the Minister—remediation is still not progressing as quickly as it should. This is not just in relation to cladding; other serious and potentially high-risk defects have been identified but not addressed, as we in my local area know only too well from the experience of the beleaguered residents of Vista Tower in Stevenage. The financial and other impacts of this on residents have been truly devastating; many issues relating to insurance, mortgages and so on remain unresolved.
As we go through the process of considering building safety SIs that implement the various steps towards full implementation of the Building Safety Act, can the Minister reassure us that the department is also keeping an eye on the bigger picture, especially in relation to the remediation that was urgent six years ago and in too many cases has still not been done? Like the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, my party is greatly concerned about the situation in relation to buildings up to 11 metres.
I turn to the regulations. As the Minister said, they are about the golden thread of information, the principal accountable person and any other accountable person for what is classified as a high-risk building. It is vital that all leaseholders and residents are given a voice and empowered by this new regime through that critical information. We have spoken about the previous learning. I have a number of issues to raise in relation to the SI before us.
I start with a serious issue that will be concerning all the action groups and the residents they represent. In a number of places, the SI and the Explanatory Memorandum refer to the significant costs of the administration of this information-sharing regime. Quite understandably, based on the debacle and daylight robbery that some leaseholders have seen in relation to service charges, there are legitimate concerns that this will see considerably more unaccountable costs piled on to the charges that beset all leaseholders at the moment. With the only recourse often being via the complex route of a First-tier Tribunal, what reassurance can the Minister offer residents that there will be some oversight of the passporting of the costs of this regime?
Regulations 7 and 8 set out the role of the accountable person in sharing information with residents and owners of residential units. I appreciate that a great deal has already been done in determining the role of the accountable person but can the Minister outline whether a register of such persons is to be kept and maintained by the regulator, as well as whether that document will be publicly accessible?
This SI rightly focuses on the recommendations in Dame Judith Hackitt’s report that there should be a golden thread of information connecting information held on building safety, and that this should be transparent to residents, leaseholders and homeowners. My concern about Regulations 15 to 18 is that they have the potential to provide a get-out clause from this golden thread for unscrupulous building owners. The regulation around the security exemption is fairly straightforward and clear—I was particularly pleased to see that the exemption for MoD buildings will not apply where there is a small number of MoD families living in a building that is not owned or managed by the MoD—but I share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, about why an MoD building should be different from another type of building in this regard.
The exemption that particularly concerned me was the “commercial sensitivity” exemption in Regulation 17—[Interruption.] My apologies: I have been calling the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, by the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. That is my flu brain not working, I am afraid. I know that this exemption was one of a small number of challenges that came up in the consultation process. We have all seen the misuse of commercial sensitivity in other contexts, from viability in planning to classification of documents. One only has to think of all the issues relating to the procurement of the cladding at Grenfell to be concerned that commercial sensitivity should be applied only where it is absolutely necessary. What steps will the regulator take to ensure that this is the case? Will the regulator have powers to intervene if there is a dispute about whether a document can be classified as commercially sensitive? Can the Minister reassure us that it is intended that this exemption be used only in exceptional circumstances and be subject to challenge?
Schedule 1(15) sets out in detail the documents to be retained in relation to the golden thread information; that is helpful, as the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, said. I have one query on this, which relates to the references to “mandatory occurrence reporting”. There is a table in paragraph 208 of the impact assessment that sets out some of the detail of what constitutes a mandatory occurrence. Can the Minister tell us whether that is an exhaustive list? Would the reporting of a mandatory occurrence also contain information about mitigation steps needed to prevent future occurrence?
Schedule 3, on resident engagement, helpfully explains residents’ right of access to documents. Can the Minister clarify whether prospective purchasers will be able to access these documents? We have heard a lot from people in the industry about the concerns that any prospective purchaser has around buying a property in a high-rise building. It seems really important that prospective purchasers, as well as those people already living in the building, can access these records. Lastly, can the Minister explain whether these important issues relating to document access and retention will be subject to periodic review to ensure that they are working as intended?
We are as concerned as the Government to see building safety moving forward with no further delay, so we will not oppose this SI. With more than 4 million people in the UK living in buildings over 11 metres tall, including 1.3 million in buildings over 18 metres—we need to see the 63 consultation responses in the light of those huge numbers, but we all know how tricky consultation can be—we need to ensure that all the outstanding recommendations of the Hackitt report are implemented as quickly as possible. We look forward to considering the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill in your Lordships’ House so that we can propose further ways to tackle some of the inequities of the outdated feudal leasehold system that also have an impact on building safety.
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions. As the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, said—I cannot remember what phrase he used; he may have said “endured”—last week’s discussion, put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, was certainly a thoughtful one. I spoke to the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, earlier and congratulated him on it; it showed the virtue of the House and the contributions that many of your Lordships make to it.
In a similar vein, the comment was made that not many attendees were there. What is important is not the number of attendees but the quality of the debate. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, who have thrown many fine questions at me. I will certainly try to answer them as well as I can, but they have shown that this has been another constructive debate.
I will try to answer now some of the points made. Forgive me, but I may miss a few while I am trying to give answers; I will certainly make sure that we respond in writing to those. There are some points on which I will have to write with further information.
The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, asked about the length of time and the delay. The right thing to say is that, given that these changes are so wide-ranging and systematic, we must ensure that we get this right. That will take time, I am afraid, but I can genuinely assure him that this is not slackening—again, a word that I think he used. It is a necessity to get it right.
The noble Lord also asked whether this could be a broader regime, as well as about height and things like that. The height of 18 metres was agreed following engagement with stakeholders and the definition of “high-risk” after Dame Judith’s report, which originally suggested 10 storeys; that would be around 30 metres. The 18-metre threshold is set in the Building Safety Act and was debated during its passage. The scope covers buildings that present the highest risk, protecting those residents who need it the most.
I was asked when the regulations will come into force. As noble Lords will know, they will go through Parliament and, once they are approved and the related commencement regulations are signed by the Minister, they will come into force alongside the Higher-Risk Buildings (Management of Safety Risks etc) (England) Regulations 2023 and Section 83 of the Building Safety Act 2022.
I was asked whether we will keep the new regime under review. The building safety regulator will do so, and this is in line with its statutory duty under the Building Safety Act. I was also asked about how the electronic database will be handed on and whether it will be kept up to date. The accountable person will need to hand an up-to-date database on to the next accountable person, and it must be transferred electronically, without the data being lost or corrupted. This means that it is, in effect, easily transferable to the next person, but it is the responsibility of the accountable person to ensure that they are keeping the information up to date and able to be transferred.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I made the point that I understand about the personal and the security data, but my concern is that the commercial confidentiality data has the potential to be misused by unscrupulous landlords. What is and what is not subject to that needs to be tightly defined, and there needs to be a mediation process run by the regulator to decide—rather than the poor old leaseholder, who is already besieged, having to go to the First-tier Tribunal to get hold of the information they need.
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
I hope the noble Baroness will forgive me for not addressing her question rightly. I will certainly make sure that that point has been registered; it may already have been, but I will make sure that it has. In that vein, I will write to confirm one way or the other. I will have to write to the noble Baroness on a number of points that she raised around remediation and the mandatory occurrence training—I think she mentioned that there is a table. I will have to write on that. As I say, there are a number of other issues—
Lord Stunell (LD)
I thank the noble Lord; he is being very thorough in his responses. Can he just pick up the point I made about the public display of the building safety certificates, and the parallel I drew with the unsuccessful regime for display energy certificates?
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
I am afraid that I will have to write to the noble Lord on that. I did clock it, but I do not have an answer in front of me. I will certainly ensure that he gets a response. I did write it down; I hope he will forgive me for not having an answer before me.
As I alluded to earlier, this has been a meaningful discussion with some good points. The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, thanked the department; I know that officials will be listening—not just those that are present here, but others who will be watching it and reading Hansard. These debates and discussions do help to improve policy.
To conclude, the golden thread of information is at the core of the safe management of buildings. These draft regulations set out the information that those responsible for managing occupied higher-risk buildings must keep and share with others, including residents. Together, these measures support the creation of a new proportionate building safety regime that protects the safety of residents in high-rise buildings. Once again, I thank both noble Lords for their contributions today and the views they have expressed. I beg to move.
House of Lords
Introduction: Lord Douglas-Miller
Oaths and Affirmations
Royal Assent
Monday 18th December 2023
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate National Insurance Contributions (Reduction in Rates) Act 2023 View all National Insurance Contributions (Reduction in Rates) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 30 November 2023 - (30 Nov 2023)
Refugees: Notice Period for Home Office Accommodation
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of London
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to ensure that refugees are given 28 days’ notice before they are required to leave their Home Office accommodation, having received documentation after being granted asylum or being given leave to enter or remain.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, the current practice is that individuals remain on asylum support and in asylum accommodation for 28 days from the point of the biometric residence permit being issued. This means that individuals have longer than 28 days’ notice after receiving their grant of leave to make onward arrangements.
The Lord Bishop of London
My Lords, last week during the Question from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, the case was well made that the 28-day period is inadequate and should be extended to 56 days to allow universal credit and housing benefit to come through. However, many of those who support refugees are receiving increasing numbers of concerns that refugees are being given as few as seven days’ notice before being evicted, causing widespread homelessness and greater concern. Last week, I, along with 45 faith and belief leaders, wrote to the Minister for Illegal Migration and the Faith Minister about this. What data is the Home Office collecting that demonstrates that the 28-day notice period is being properly implemented? What action will it take to review it, given reported failures to do so?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I will go through the process: all individuals who receive a positive decision on their asylum claim can remain on support and in their accommodation for at least 28 days from when their decision is served. However, as I said in my earlier Answer, current practice is that individuals remain on that support and in accommodation for 28 days from the point of the biometric residence permit being issued. That can be five to seven days after the asylum decision. This means that individuals have longer than the 28 days’ notice after receiving their grant of leave to make onward arrangements. Confirmation of the exact date that an individual’s support and accommodation are due to end will be issued in a notice-to-quit or notice-to-vacate letter from the individual’s accommodation provider. This notice will be issued at least seven days before support and accommodation is due to end. There are at least three opportunities there where the asylum seeker, or the asylum claimant who has received a decision, will be notified. They have plenty of time.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, last week the Minister said that 28 days was “more than enough” and “perfectly generous”. Has he read the research done over the years, which shows the hardship and heartache that that period causes to newly recognised refugees at the point where they should be delighted because they have got their status? If he has not read the research, please will he do so—and will he undertake to meet those organisations on the ground that know what it is like to have to try to find somewhere in 28 days?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, as I have tried to explain, it is more than 28 days. The underlying aspect of this is that we should be moving to 56 days; I am afraid that we simply do not agree. The asylum accommodation estate is under huge strain, as all noble Lords are aware. Increasing the move-on period would exacerbate those pressures. Therefore, there are no current plans to extend the prescribed period, which is long-standing in our legislation; but we engage with the Department for Work and Pensions and DLUHC on ensuring that individuals can move on as smoothly as possible. I have read some of the research—not all of it—and I will continue to do so.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, I add my support to the modest proposal of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. Asylum seekers given the right to remain must be given a realistic timeframe to move out of temporary Home Office accommodation, bearing in mind the trauma that they have suffered and their lack of familiarity with their new surroundings. Sikh teachings on the need to help such people echo Christian sentiment, which pointedly reminds us that Jesus and his family were themselves refugees in Egypt.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I will go through a little bit of what local authorities receive from the department. We work closely with DLUHC and regularly engage with the local authorities to ensure that they are supported. We of course recognise that the number of individuals in the system and the clearance of the asylum backlog is adding pressure to local authorities and their housing allocation capacity because of individuals presenting as homeless. I would also say to the noble Lord that all of the people being cleared in relation to the backlog have been in this country for a long time already.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, the problem that the Minister has just alluded to is that local authorities are under enormous pressure when people arrive on their doorstep with a short period of time in which to find themselves appropriate housing. Given that the number of people reporting after the decision-making is now larger than it was, what extra assistance are the Government giving to local authorities, and to the voluntary sector, which is doing so much to help where it can?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, there are a number of things that we are doing. We have local authority liaison officers who provide a specific point of contact for local authorities, particularly for urgent discontinuation-related inquiries. There are significant improvements in train to ensure that local authorities receive early notification of those who are being granted and leaving Home Office accommodation and supporting those customers through the move-on process following a positive decision. Following notification of a service decision, accommodation providers will notify local authorities within two days. We also share relevant data in the form of heat maps and various other macro data, if you will, to ensure effective planning.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, notwithstanding what the Minister has just told us, the reality for many refugees with newly granted status is that they are required to leave their accommodation, often within seven days from being given a notice to quit. That means they are forced to go to their local authorities and many of them are homeless or on the streets. That is the reality, and it is the result of government policy. All the Minister tells us is that everything is fine, but it is not. It needs sorting out.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The noble Lord is right that they get seven days from the notice to quit, but they get 28 days from the issue of the biometric residence permit, so it is not quite right.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, a little while ago I was talking to an organisation that looks after people who become homeless. It quoted a recent example of a refugee who could not find any accommodation in the time that he had and eventually had to sleep for a week at Euston station—having gone through all the trauma of being a refugee and all that that entailed—before this charity picked him up. That is not good enough.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I certainly regret the individual circumstances described by the noble Lord and, obviously, we would prefer that not to be the case.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I wonder if the Minister would actually answer the question from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. She made the point that sources—I assume they are sources that she respects—inform her that people have seven days in which to find alternative accommodation. Will the Minister look into the examples that she has raised? Surely everything he says means that he at least thinks 28 days is necessary.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Yes, I think 28 days is necessary, and of course I will look into those. As I say, everyone gets 28 days from the issue of the biometric residence permit.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, the Government have made a right mess of this. They inherited a system that worked and have broken it. Is it not wrong for refugees to find themselves out on the streets? Have they not suffered enough? Should the Government not be making sure that no refugee is homeless?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I agree with the noble Lord in as much as no one should find themselves homeless. I also agree that the refugee system is obviously under enormous strain. I therefore look forward to the noble Lord’s enthusiastic support for the Rwanda Bill when it arrives.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, is the Minister confident that these refugees are made aware that the 28 days is commencing when they get their biometric assessment, or do they not realise that until they get the seven-day notice?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The noble Baroness asks me a good question. I am going to look into that, because I do not know. I assume that they are made aware of it, of course, but I have not been present when one of these notices is issued. I will find out.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, the most eloquent contribution to this short debate has been the silence of the Members on the Conservative Benches. Is it not a fact that, as was alluded to in the right reverend Prelate’s question, getting into the system for benefits and the rest of it requires more than the length of time that we are talking about?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I say to the noble Lord that that is not the case. You can start to apply for things like universal credit before you receive the biometric residence permit. I appreciate that that is not perfect, but it is certainly enough time to get into the system.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that part of the problem here is that asylum seekers are restricted in their ability to work until they receive their asylum status? Therefore, when they receive their asylum status, they have no resources that they can use in order to obtain accommodation.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The noble Lord makes an interesting point, and I will take that back to the department.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, I am glad to hear that the Minister will take that point back, but it is entirely salient and, if I may say so, I am surprised that he does not have a slightly more substantive answer. Does he also agree that one of the difficulties that many of these people face is that English is not by any means their first language and sometimes they do not have reasonable fluency in it after several years in this country? Does he accept that these additional challenges make the timeframes extremely difficult for people to manage?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I acknowledge that nothing in this particular space is easy, but there are many organisations that provide support to individuals to arrange their onward support. That includes Migrant Help, accommodation providers, DWP and jobcentres. I made the point earlier that most of the people we are talking about have been in this country for a very long time, and one would hope that they at least had some English.
Homelessness
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Shipley
To ask His Majesty’s Government what is their estimate of the number of people who will be homeless this Christmas; and what plans they have to reduce the number of people who have no home of their own.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Penn) (Con)
My Lords, the latest available statistics are for April to June 2023; data for December 2023 will be available in the spring. We are providing significant investment to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping—more than £2 billion over three years. This includes more than £1 billion to support local authorities to prevent homelessness, with a further £120 million secured at the Autumn Statement for next year to relieve homelessness pressures.
Lord Shipley (LD)
I thank the Minister for her reply. She will be aware that at least 300,000 people will spend this Christmas without a home, including 140,000 children, which is a 14% increase in one year. Is the Minister aware that the number of households trapped in temporary accommodation reached a record high last year, yet only 9,500 social rent homes were delivered? What work are the Government doing to increase the supply of social rent homes to reach the 90,000 required each year to end homelessness?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I acknowledge that those figures are too high. Our focus as a Government has been on preventing people falling into homelessness. That is what a large part of our budget has focused on. The noble Lord is also right that we need to increase forms of affordable housing. We need social rent, yes, but also all forms of affordable housing. That is what we are doing through our affordable housing programme, which is delivering large numbers of additional affordable housing into the system each year.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, there is plenty of time. Can we have the noble Lord, Lord Bird, and then my noble friend Lord Naseby?
Lord Bird (CB)
Are the Government aware that for every person who falls homeless—they are not all out on the streets—the cost of running that homeless family or individual is two or three times higher than if you keep them in their homes? Has the Treasury done any serious work looking at how to keep the costs of homelessness down by keeping people in their homes?
Baroness Penn (Con)
The noble Lord is absolutely right. That is why we passed the Homelessness Reduction Act and why more than half the support we have put directly into tackling homelessness is around prevention. That is funding to local authorities to work with landlords to prevent evictions, for example, before people find themselves in the position of needing to seek out temporary accommodation.
Lord Naseby (Con)
Does my noble friend realise that it is just over 50 years since the last new town was designated: Milton Keynes? Part of the concept of new towns was to relieve inner-city homelessness and to provide decent homes for young and old couples who did not find them in the city. Will my noble friend look again at bringing back a new, modern—possibly garden—city concept so that this major problem can begin to be addressed?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, this Government embrace the building of the right homes in the right places; that includes new towns. It also includes greater densification in parts of our cities that are well connected to transport opportunities and jobs. We need more homes across the board, and that is what we are committed to delivering.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I did not expect to hear the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, promoting Labour Party policy, but well done. On current trends, almost 6,000 households could be threatened with homelessness in the final quarter of 2023, covering this Christmas and New Year period. This is driven by a chronic shortage of decent, secure and affordable housing and accelerated by a storm of rising rents, the cost of living crisis and a refusal to ban no-fault evictions. I urge the Minister to bring forward amendments to the Renters (Reform) Bill to end no-fault evictions so that fewer families will be at risk next year.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the Renters (Reform) Bill contains proposals to do exactly that; it will end no-fault Section 21 evictions. It is part of a suite of housing reforms that this Government have brought in to drive up standards in both the private rented and social rented sectors. We look forward to discussing that Bill when it reaches this House next year.
The Lord Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham
My Lords, like many places, Nottingham is suffering from the cost of living crisis, fuel and food poverty, a decline of social housing and a growing shortage of private rented sector properties, which is compounded by the shortfall between the local housing allowance and rents. Framework Housing Association and Emmanuel House do exceptional work, together with the city council, in seeking to help the 10,000 people on the waiting list with an unmet housing need, alongside the street homeless. But the rising demand for social care and increased homelessness have contributed to the council issuing a Section 114 notice. If His Majesty’s Government agree that the charitable and voluntary sector is such a key partner in addressing these needs, can the Minister offer more direct funding to help the homeless in cities such as Nottingham?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the right reverend Prelate mentioned many different factors that go into this problem. One was the affordability of private rented sector accommodation, so I am sure he will welcome the fact that in the Autumn Statement we committed to increasing local housing allowance rates. Charities and other organisations do great work in this sector, and we will also continue to support them in their work.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, more than 300,000 people, including 140,000 children, are homeless in England, one of the wealthiest countries on this planet. Can the Minister tell the House why the Government’s policies continue to fail to reduce the number of homeless people in England?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, this problem requires many different responses. I have talked about the work we are doing to prevent homelessness, for example through working with landlords, and what we are doing to increase local housing allowance rates to make the private rented sector more affordable. Ultimately, we also need to increase the supply of housing. We are doing that through building more houses. We have delivered larger numbers of houses in recent years than in many years before and are delivering the right mix of houses built for rent, for social rent and for affordable ownership, as well as houses in the private sector.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the scheme that Westminster City Council has run for the last few years whereby there is a 24-hour helpline? Anyone who sees a rough sleeper can call that line and an experienced outreach worker will go out, contact that rough sleeper and try to persuade them to come into a hostel and help rebuild their life. Should not this sort of scheme be replicated throughout the country if the Government are to hit their target of ending rough sleeping by the end of next year?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I am aware of the scheme. In fact, I have been out with some of the charities that respond to those reports and go and seek out people the next day and offer them further help and support. I think it is a very effective scheme, and I am sure we would want to look at what can be done to see it spread further if it is not available in different forms across the country.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)
My Lords, the District Councils’ Network is reporting that some councils are now spending between 20% and 50% of their total budgets on meeting their statutory obligations to provide temporary accommodation but that the subsidy given to them to do so has not increased since 2011. Is this something the Government will look at?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, there are currently no plans to change that amount but we are looking to help local authorities with these pressures in a number of different ways. I have mentioned the change to the local housing allowance rate. Something else that the Government have invested substantially in is the local authority housing fund, which allows local authorities to increase their supply of good-quality temporary accommodation to relieve some of the pressures on them. We announced in the Autumn Statement that there would be an extra £450 million going into that fund over the next two years.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is participating remotely.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
Does this Question not take us right back to the price of land for affordable housing? In Nijmegen in Holland, the Waalsprong urban extension of 11,000 homes is being built on 3,000 acres of land acquired at agricultural prices. Similar is happening at Hammarby, near Stockholm in Sweden. Why do we insist on paying landowners inflated land compensation prices when the country needs to house our growing population? We need new thinking on land for affordable housing—it is quite simple.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the issue of land ownership and transparency is one that we have debated before. One measure that the Government have taken forward in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act is greater transparency over not just land ownership but the contractual controls over land that allow councils, developers and other people seeking to build more affordable housing to have a better idea of what land is available and in whose control it is, so that they can take forward their plans and be more effective.
Road Safety Strategy
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Lord Jordan
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they are planning to issue a new road safety strategy and, if so, when.
Lord Jordan (Lab)
I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and declare an interest as life president of RoSPA.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, the Department for Transport constantly looks at how road safety can be improved. We have already intervened to update the Highway Code to protect the most vulnerable road users, invested in improvements for high-risk roads through the safer roads fund and changed the law to strengthen sentences for the most dangerous motoring offences. This demonstrates the importance of road safety to this Government.
Lord Jordan (Lab)
My Lords, England’s previous road safety strategy elapsed in 2019, meaning that we are now the only country in mainland Britain and G7 not to have a published road safety strategy. England, once a global beacon for road safety, has seen countries such as Finland and Sweden overtaking us. The Government’s failure to act meant that in Britain last year almost 30,000 people were killed or seriously injured on our roads, and the overwhelming majority of them were in England. This is unacceptable. Will the Government commit to publishing a new road safety strategy and national casualty reduction targets now and, having published them, act on them?
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, priorities change. Road safety is not just about strategy documents—it is about making continuing improvements. Our recent 2022 statistics show a 2% reduction in fatalities compared with 2019, with traffic levels returning to pre-pandemic levels. This is why the Government are proud of ranking Britain fifth out of 38 countries with available data for the lowest number of road fatalities per million population.
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
My Lords, is not it the case that the poor standard of road safety in some of our areas is caused by the large number of potholes in the roads, which need to be fixed and are very numerous? What can be done?
Lord Roborough (Con)
We are investing more than £5 billion from 2020-21 to 2024-25 to maintain local roads, with an extra £200 million announced in the Budget in March 2023. This funding is enabling councils up and down the country to fill millions of potholes, repair dozens of bridges and resurface roads. In Network North, we announced £8.3 billion of new funding to fix the blight of potholes over a 10-year period, using funding released from HS2.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a president of RoSPA. Would the Minister confirm who was consulted on making this decision on the road safety strategy and when the Government intend to implement the strategy?
Lord Roborough (Con)
I am afraid that I have not been briefed on that and I shall have to write to the noble Baroness.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, one night last week at a complex five-road junction in south London, I encountered e-bikers coming at me from every single direction, all without helmets, some on the pavement and many without lights. Many were running red lights, and many were travelling well in excess of the 15.5 miles per hour limit. E-bikers are turning our city streets into high-risk environments for pedestrians. Is not it time to bring them under a tighter legal framework?
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I think we all share the noble Lord’s concern over e-bikes, but the law is clear that electrically assisted pedal cycles are legal up to 15.5 miles per hour. Beyond that speed, they become motorcycles and are governed as such. It is up to the police to enforce these laws.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, to his position on the Front Bench and hope he survives his first ordeal of Question Time. He says that road safety is an evolving process. One of the things that is unfortunately evolving is a very big increase in the number of rural road deaths, which I think now account for some 59% of all road deaths. Will the Minister commit that, in the department’s thinking, a greater emphasis will be put on rural road safety? Can he explain now to the House what steps the department is taking in this direction?
Lord Roborough (Con)
I think it is well known that rural roads are the most dangerous in the UK highway network. On 6 April 2023, the Government announced an additional £48 million investment in safer roads, on top of £100 million that had already been provided. There are now 83 roads funded, and it is expected that the safer roads fund will save 2,210 lives over the next 20 years.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, when I was Defence Minister, I had the privilege in March this year of launching the defence road safety strategy. Our imperative to do that was because we discovered that more Armed Forces personnel were being killed on the roads than were being killed on operational deployments. Would it be helpful to my noble friend, because I imagine that the principles of the strategy are pretty similar, whether it is the MoD or the Department of Transport, to engage with the MoD, which I am sure would be prepared, as ever, to assist?
Lord Roborough (Con)
The short answer is yes. The Department for Transport conducts many calls for evidence and consultations with interested parties and would always welcome input that improves road safety. I thank my noble friend for highlighting the defence road safety strategy and the opportunities to learn from it.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, has the Minister noticed that those areas where the 20 miles per hour speed limit makes the least sense—for example, multi-lane main thoroughfares—are where motorists are most likely to receive fines for speeding; whereas in areas where the limit makes most sense, for example narrow residential streets with parked cars and children, enforcement is almost non-existent? Is there some logic behind this bizarre situation?
Lord Roborough (Con)
The noble and gallant Lord makes an excellent point. The power to impose 20 miles per hour speed limits rests with the local traffic authority and I emphasise that the Government support 20 miles per hour limits in the right places. However, the Government do not support 20 miles per hour limits being set indiscriminately on all roads, without due regard to the safety case and local support.
Lord McLoughlin (Con)
My Lords, I did not quite recognise the figures given by the noble Lord, Lord Jordan. The fact is that I believe the United Kingdom has a fairly good road safety record when compared with countries with similar industrial bases. But will my noble friend look at the practice, which I think has grown quite substantially, of undertaking on motorways? This is something that I always thought was against the Highway Code, but I am told that it is actually not. I think that the growth in undertaking has led to a number of accidents on motorways.
Lord Roborough (Con)
I thank my noble friend for the question. I believe that in certain circumstances, it is an offence, and as such, it is up to the police to enforce.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister to his post, but he will need, in his brief, to learn from history. The 1990s Conservative Government, with Peter Bottomley as Road Safety Minister, produced a road safety strategy, and they cut deaths by 40% during that period. The first Blair Government had a Road Safety Minister—whom modesty forbids me to mention—and we also had a 10-year road strategy, and again cut deaths by 40%. Progress since then has slowed. We need to integrate road design, vehicle design, driver behaviour and many other aspects in a clear strategy that is pursued for a length of time. Will the Minister please take that back and ask his officials to again draw up such a strategy?
Lord Roborough (Con)
I will of course take the noble Lord’s comments back to the department, but the Government continue to invest in safety on the roads and to improve enforcement of motoring offence by, for example, closing loopholes around driving while using a mobile phone, increasing maximum custodial sentences for causing death by dangerous driving, and creating a new offence of causing serious injury by careless or inconsiderate driving.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)
My Lords, has the Minister seen the research from RoSPA which shows that pedestrian safety is measurably worse in areas of deprivation? It holds true for all age groups, but particularly for children. Would he not agree that this demonstrates the need for the sort of approach just outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty?
Lord Roborough (Con)
I am afraid I have not seen that research. The Government continue to improve to Highway Code, for example improving road safety for people walking, cycling and riding horses. Changes aim to initiate a positive shift in road-user behaviour by making road users aware of their responsibility to use roads safely and to reduce the danger they may pose to others.
Pakistan: Afghans Eligible for Resettlement in UK
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Newnham
To ask His Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the number of Afghan nationals eligible under the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy, or the Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme, who are currently in Pakistan and at risk of repatriation to Afghanistan.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Smith of Newnham, and with her permission, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in her name on the Order Paper.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, Afghans in third countries, including Pakistan, who are eligible for resettlement to the UK continue to be supported by the UK Government, and flights from Pakistan to the UK continue to take place. The assessment of the number of individuals currently awaiting resettlement from Afghanistan and other third countries such as Pakistan is not available at this time as it is operational information and changes on a regular basis.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My noble friend has submitted a series of Questions to find out what is happening to the Afghans in Afghanistan, and those who fled to Pakistan, who are eligible to come to the UK. The Answers—and I have looked at them all—have come variously from the Home Office, the MoD and the FCDO, and they are all opaque, as was the Minister’s Answer. Does this not illustrate the challenges these vulnerable people face, as well as those who are seeking to help them? His own Answer to my noble friend spoke of action “over the coming years”. Does that seem sufficiently urgent, given the danger that those who assisted the United Kingdom during our time in Afghanistan now find themselves in?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs in the other place committed to bringing back 2,800 ARAP-eligible people by the end of this year, and we are well on track to achieve that. The Secretary of State for Defence also wrote a letter recently, which has been published, in which he talks about reviewing and improving casework processes and bringing in extra resources. Between January and November this year, we issued decisions on more than 75,000 applications, clearing virtually the entire backlog. There is plenty of work going on and there are very few open cases left. These people are being repatriated as fast as we can.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, has the Minister read today’s Daily Telegraph, in which the Pakistan Prime Minister cites the British-Rwandan scheme as an example of why they feel it is justified to have already deported some 450,000 people back to Afghanistan? Can he tell the House what JACS assessment has been made of the plight of minorities such as the Hazara, and what is happening about the 200 Armed Forces personnel who were trained and funded by the UK, and about whom General Sir Richard Barrons said, in that same article, that the failure to relocate them is
“a disgrace, because it reflects that either we’re duplicitous as a nation or incompetent”?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I have not read that article. My right honourable friend James Heappey noted in the other place that it would have been more difficult to bring these people back to the UK had it not been for the support of the Government of Pakistan. We continue to co-operate closely in our efforts to bring out many thousands more, and no one with UK sponsorship has been deported. I am obviously not qualified to comment on other deportations, and I do not recognise the general’s remarks, but I will look into them.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a member of the UK Armed Forces who served in Afghanistan. I recognise my noble friend’s efforts—he understands the challenge. The moral case for why we should support those who supported the UK Armed Forces in Afghanistan is clear to all noble Lords but, like others, I am concerned about the speed with which we are acting. It is urgent that we act faster. Aside from our moral obligation to these people, there is also a practical consideration: every time the UK Armed Forces serve overseas, we absolutely rely on the co-operation of national armed forces and civilians. If we are not seen as a trusted partner, that will make this very difficult in future.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I entirely agree with my noble friend that we have a moral obligation to deliver for these people. As he will be aware, this situation is about making sure that there are flights and accommodation available, and so on. As I said in an earlier answer, we are working at pace; flights arrived last week and will arrive this week. Things are happening fast.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
Does the Minister accept that, by definition, these people are eligible because they have served our country and would be vulnerable if they were forced to return to the mercies of the Taliban? Many will come with eloquent references from our military, which served there at the time. How many people in this category have already been repatriated to Afghanistan and, as the Minister mentioned accommodation, to what extent is the failure to provide housing in this country a factor in the long delays?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The noble Lord asserts that all are eligible, but that is not necessarily the case. The eligibility criteria are published on GOV.UK; they are reasonably precise and, in the case of ARAP, are administered by the MoD. I can go into more detail if noble Lords wish. There is not a lack of accommodation; it is about matching families and individuals to appropriate accommodation. I believe that 700 service family accommodation units have been made available and are being filled.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, how many visas have been issued to eligible Afghans in Pakistan since the Government’s recent withdrawal of their policy to identify suitable housing here before they were allowed to travel? I understood that its withdrawal was meant to remove one of the obstacles to swifter relocation.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The noble Baroness is right that that policy has been suspended for the time being. I do not have the number of visas issued but, as of the end of September 2023, the total number of arrivals from Afghanistan or a third country was around 24,600. A lot have arrived in the last few weeks, so I do not know the final numbers, which are still provisional.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I think the Minister said that the Government do not give a running commentary on the figures. However, the Minister for the Armed Forces said in the other place:
“There are around 2,000 people in Afghanistan who we need to move out and around 1,800 left in Pakistan who we need to bring in”.—[Official Report, 11/12/23; col. 635.]
Can the Minister comment on those figures? Will the schemes we are discussing deal with those 3,800 people? As the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, said, they need urgently to be brought back to this country because they served with us.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The noble Lord is quite right. I did not say that we do not give a running commentary; I said that the information is operational and changes on a regular basis. The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs stated that we aimed to relocate 2,800 ARAP-eligible Afghans before the end of 2023; I am pleased to be able to say that we are on course to achieve that.
Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB)
To be absolutely clear, has the eligibility of the two Afghan special forces units under ARAP now been substantiated in principle? If not, how will this Government sustain their pretension to moral authority in their international affairs?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
As the noble and gallant Lord will be aware, ARAP is intended to relocate and support those who worked for and alongside UK Armed Forces. No applicant is ruled in automatically based on job description. The units in question were set up by the UK but were an Afghan-led component of the Afghan National Security Forces, reporting to the Afghan Ministry of Interior Affairs. Each ARAP application is decided and scrutinised on its own merits against each criterion outlined in the ARAP policy and the Immigration Rules, which are published online. Eligibility decisions are taken on a case-by-case basis. People will be eligible only if they individually meet these criteria.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister spoke about eligibility. Can he state unequivocally to the House that a wife and young son of an interpreter who served our Armed Forces would meet the definition of someone’s immediate family who deserve to come to the UK?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I cannot say that unequivocally, no. As I have just said, it is on a case-by-case basis. In principle, of course that is the case, but with the caveat that it depends on the case under discussion.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
The Minister is a little short on numbers on the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme. When the scheme was introduced two years ago, the promise was that it would bring in 20,000 people a year. We know that thousands are lurking in hotels in Peshawar, Islamabad and Lahore, now with their permission to stay likely to be withdrawn. We know too that thousands of them have been accepted for resettlement here but are not allowed to travel because the accommodation has not been provided. They are supposed to arrange, from Peshawar, accommodation for their families in this country, which is absurd. Does the Minister accept that this may be one cause of Afghans being by far the largest group by nationality—8,600 last year—coming in small boats across the channel at grave risk to themselves? Does he not think that is a disgrace?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, the fact is that if people are not eligible under ARAP, they should not be coming on small boats and claiming asylum. Why would you forgo a legal and safe route to support a criminal gang’s activities? That rather eludes me. I do, however, understand why people are desperate to get out of Afghanistan in particular, but I go back to what I said earlier: the Government of Pakistan have co-operated, largely, with the UK, high-level negotiations are ongoing and as yet no one has been deported.
Automated Vehicles Bill [HL]
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True
That the order of commitment of 28 November committing the Bill to a Grand Committee be discharged and the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House; and that the instruction to the Grand Committee of 28 November shall also be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise to the Lord Speaker and to our new noble Lord, Lord Douglas-Miller, for my phone going off earlier. I have never been so embarrassed in my life. I am sincerely sorry.
Do the Government regret putting back the purchase of electric vehicles and automated vehicles to 2035, now that the market has almost completely collapsed, putting at risk the investments, plants and jobs that the Government themselves are invested in?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord has asked a question about policy. With great respect, this is not the House of Commons. There are plenty of opportunities in this House to discuss policy during the progress of a Bill. Today, I am announcing—with agreement in the usual channels—that this Bill should be discussed in the whole House. That will give the noble Lord and others the opportunity to make their points at the appropriate time.
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) (Revision of Codes A, B, C, D and H and New Code I) Order 2023
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
That the draft Orders laid before the House on 16 and 19 October be approved.
Relevant document: 5th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument). Considered in Grand Committee on 12 December.
Legal Services Act 2007 (Approved Regulator) Order 2023
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bellamy
That the draft Order and Regulations laid before the House on 23 October be approved.
Relevant document: 1st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 12 December.
York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority Order 2023
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Penn
That the draft Order laid before the House on 7 November be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 13 December.
Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Financial Promotion) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2023
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That the draft Order and Regulations laid before the House on 7 November be approved.
Relevant document: 3rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 13 December.
Victims and Prisoners Bill
Monday 18th December 2023
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 View all Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 4 December 2023 - large font accessible version - (4 Dec 2023)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, in opening this important debate, I first express the Government’s warm thanks to all those who have contributed to this Bill’s engender, notably the many organisations and individuals who have responded to consultations or made representations, successive Lord Chancellors—not least the right honourable Sir Robert Buckland KC MP and the right honourable Dominic Raab MP—and many honourable Members on both sides in the other place who have worked to improve this Bill in its passage through Parliament.
I venture to suggest that most of the issues before us are not in essence party political. I trust and hope that the general direction of this Bill, which aims to enhance and protect the position of victims in the justice system in its widest sense, will command broad support across the House. We will, I anticipate, be mainly considering the means rather than the ends. I would like to say at the outset that my door is always open to any noble Lord who would like to discuss these issues in more detail as our debates proceed. In anticipating a full and constructive debate, I particularly congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, on her re-appointment as the Victims’ Commissioner, and much look forward to her contribution to our work.
I turn then to substance and will take the main highlights of the Bill in sequence. Part 1 further enhances the positions of victims of criminal conduct—widely defined under Clause 1—in two main respects. One is the victims’ code and the other is victim support services. First, there are important improvements to the effectiveness of the existing victims’ code, which sets out what victims are entitled to expect from the criminal justice system, as last updated and improved by this Government in 2021. The principles underlying the victims’ code are now set in statute for the first time—that is in Clause 2. Clause 6 requires the police, the CPS and other criminal justice bodies to promote awareness of the code and to keep under review how victims’ services are provided. Clause 7 requires police and crime commissioners to oversee those victims’ services and to report their findings to the Secretary of State, who in turn must publish compliance information, so that all may see how their local area is performing. This combination of enhanced statutory duties on the one hand and significantly increased transparency on the other hand will secure that victims are aware of their rights and that the victims’ code is even more effective.
Secondly, on the important question of victims’ support services, Clauses 12 and 13 require the local police, local integrated care boards—namely, the National Health Service—and local authorities to collaborate to prepare and publish a strategy for delivering victims’ support services in their area as regards criminal conduct consisting of domestic abuse, sexual conduct or serious violence. They must assess the needs of their area and indicate whether they are met. Again, those strategies must be published.
In essence, this is an anti-silo provision. Experience shows that a number of agencies operating locally do not always join up sufficiently, and they certainly do not, on the whole, develop joint strategies. The provisions are designed to break down silos and to foster join-up and transparency. They should lead to better planning, better provision of vital services and the identifying and filling of any gaps.
On a related point, victims are sometimes discouraged from coming forward for fear of intrusive investigation of their personal lives. Clauses 24 and 25 now limit requests by the police to obtain information about victims from other authorities—for example, information relating to the victim’s health, notes of therapies, et cetera—which might be used to discredit the victim in court. Those requests must now be limited to what is necessary and proportionate. This aims to curtail what has sometimes been an intrusive investigative overreach in the past.
The measures on victims in general in Part 1 are underpinned by the enhanced role of the Victims’ Commissioner, whose reports must be laid before Parliament and whose recommendations relevant authorities must publicly respond to. Further powers of joint inspection by His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary, Chief Inspector of the CPS and Chief Inspector of Probation will further ensure that these measures take effect. In addition, there is the right of victims to go directly to the parliamentary ombudsman, rather than through their MP, as is the case at present.
All that reinforces what I hope your Lordships will see as a comprehensive effort to improve the position of victims, which is entirely in line with, and takes forward, this Government’s related work in recent years. That includes the Domestic Abuse Act 2021; the creation of the office of the domestic abuse commissioner, who, in the respected person of Nicole Jacobs, is already making a substantial mark; measures such as allowing pre-recorded cross-examinations so that the victim does not have to face the offender in court; the introduction of independent domestic violence and sexual violence advisers, about which the Bill provides further guidance in Clause 15; an increase in the money for victims’ support, which is now £140 million by 2024-25; and several other measures. No one who watched the dignified statements made by the family of Sarah Everard can be in any doubt of the importance of placing victims at the heart of our justice system.
That in essence covers Part 1 on victims. Taking the Bill in sequence, I move to a very specific victim situation: where one parent has killed the other. In response to calls for what has been called Jade’s law, Clauses 16 and 17 broadly provide that, where one parent is convicted of the murder of the other, the criminal court must, in most circumstances, make a prohibited steps order removing parental responsibility from the surviving, offending parent. The local authority, in whose area the child resides, must apply within 14 days to the family court to review that order. In other words, the last word will lie with the family court, which is bound to consider the welfare of the child as the paramount consideration.
I have spoken so far of provisions that typically affect a single victim or a small number of victims. Part 2 of the Bill moves to the situation where we have multiple victims, where there has been a major incident, and noble Lords will of course have well in mind Manchester Arena, Grenfell, Hillsborough and similar cases. Part 2 creates what has become known as an independent public advocate, or IPA, appointed where groups, very often large groups, of victims are affected by a major incident. It has become only too apparent that in the aftermath of such incidents, victims have nowhere to turn, no one to give them information and no one to deal with their needs or answer their questions. These provisions fill that gap.
Following government amendments during the passage of the Bill, the Government will appoint a standing advocate to advise the Secretary of State on the interests of victims of major incidents and their treatment by public authorities and submit and publish annual reports. These functions include advising the Secretary of State on what sort of inquiry should be held. Where there is a major incident, the Secretary of State may further appoint the standing advocate or another appointed advocate to carry out the functions indicated in Clause 33, which are: to support victims in the aftermath of that incident, in particular in relation to any subsequent inquest or inquiry; to help them understand the actions of the public authorities; to ensure victims’ views may be taken into account; and to provide support or advice to them, communicate with public authorities on their behalf, and assist them to obtain access to documents.
The broad idea is that the advocate will not themselves carry on a legal activity but can help and guide victims as to their immediate needs, how to get advice and/or legal aid and what sort of processes to expect. They can answer their questions and help them get answers to their questions from the relevant public authority, as well as advise as to what questions need to be addressed or raised before any inquest or inquiry.
An important aspect of this is that in advising the Secretary of State on the treatment of victims by public authorities, the standing advocate will be able to hold public authorities to account in relation to the Hillsborough charter, which, as your Lordships know, was signed by the Government on 6 December as part of the Government’s response to Bishop Jones’ Hillsborough report. On that day, the Lord Chancellor made a Statement in the other place setting out the Government’s response, which I repeated in this House that evening. The charter sets out in detail how public authorities are to behave, in particular putting the public interest ahead of the interests of their own organisation. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Wills, and many others in pressing for this reform—in particular, of course, the Hillsborough families, who have endured so much and whom I trust we all salute.
I come to Part 3 and Clause 40, inserted in the other place on Report, which provides for the setting up of a public body to administer compensation to yet another group of victims: those affected by the infected blood scandal. I understand that a Statement is being made in the other place at this very moment by my right honourable friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster-General, and I further understand that that Statement will be repeated in this House tomorrow by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. I think that in those circumstances, I should leave that matter there for the moment. I am sure we will return to it in Committee. I am also glad to tell the House that my noble friend Lord Howe will be assisting us on this aspect of the Bill.
I turn finally to the “prisoners” part of the Bill, Part 4, although I suggest respectfully that this part of the Bill is as much about victims as it is about prisoners. We should approach this part of the Bill from a victim’s perspective. This part has the following aspects. First, there is the public protection test, to be applied where the Parole Board is considering the release of a prisoner eligible to be released on licence. Under the existing law, which is in the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, the Parole Board must be satisfied that
“it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the prisoner should be confined”.
Clauses 41 and 42 of this Bill strengthen that principle by providing that the public protection test is met only if there is
“no more than a minimal risk”
that, if released,
“the prisoner would commit a further offence … which would cause serious harm”.
Serious harm is defined as the commission of one of the serious offences listed in Schedule 18B to the Criminal Justice Act 2003. This approach effectively tightens up the public protection test to be applied both to recognise public concern and, as importantly, to protect future victims.
Secondly, Clause 44 introduces a new procedure for the release by the Parole Board of prisoners convicted of murder, unlawful child death, terrorism, rape or rape of a child. If the Parole Board directs the release of such a prisoner, and the Secretary of State considers that such a release
“would be likely to undermine public confidence”
and that the Upper Tribunal might consider that the release test was not satisfied, the Secretary of State may refer the case to the Upper Tribunal for a further judicial consideration of whether the release test is, in fact, met. We saw only three days ago that a double murderer, Lawrence Bierton, was released again and then killed for a third time, having been released on licence. This new mechanism is aimed at that kind of case to protect victims—notably future victims—and ensure public confidence in the system.
Other provisions affecting the Parole Board include the inclusion of persons with law enforcement experience on Parole Board panels and provisions that the chair of the Parole Board should not sit on individual decisions and that the latter is removable by the Secretary of State in the event of a loss of public confidence.
I turn now to IPP prisoners, dealt with in Clause 48. Noble Lords will know of the difficulties arising from those imprisoned under IPP sentences, which were abolished in December 2012. They were described by the present Lord Chancellor as
“a stain on the justice system”.
At the same time, this issue poses an acute conflict between, on the one hand, the situation of the individual prisoner and, on the other hand, the protection of the public.
Any Government have to focus on the risk to public safety and the risk to future victims. In broad terms, the total number of IPP sentences ever imposed was just over 8,000. The present situation is that approximately 1,270 prisoners have never been released, and almost all have now served their original tariff. The only reason they have not been released is that the Parole Board has determined, often on several occasions, that they are not safe to be released. However, if an IPP prisoner is released on licence, under the existing law 10 years must elapse before they can apply to the Parole Board to determine that licence. There are about 3,100 prisoners on licence in the community and a further 2,920 have been recalled to prison. Sadly, there are 23 prisoners in secure hospitals.
The effect of Clause 48 is fourfold. First, the period before which an offender may be considered for licence termination is reduced from 10 years to three years from first release. Secondly, that three-year period does not reset in the event of a recall, so even if recalled a prisoner may, as it were, bank those three years from the date of first release. Thirdly, after those three years there is a presumption that the licence should be terminated. Fourthly, even if the Parole Board rebuts that presumption and maintains the licence, it automatically terminates after a further two-year period if the offender can do a further two years in the community without being recalled.
I know that this sounds rather complex but, in broad terms, the result is expected to be that over the next couple of years or so, the licences of the majority of those who are currently in the community will terminate. Many will terminate as soon as this Bill becomes law. For many if not most of the recalled population, when they are next released by the Parole Board, their licence will terminate after two years if there is no intervening recall. For those still in prison who have never been released—admittedly, a most difficult group but one that includes many violent and sexual offenders—there is now a detailed action plan by HMPPS that is much more specific to each prisoner, overseen by a specific IPP progression board and involving an external challenge group. The latter consists of representatives of the families, some of whom I have met together with the right honourable Damian Hinds, the Prisons Minister at the time. The relevant prison authorities will work on a bespoke sentence plan for each remaining prisoner as well as supporting those on licence in the community. I hope that your Lordships will see this twin-track approach—additional support for the unreleased and a substantial relaxation of the licence arrangements for those in the community—as marked progress in this difficult area.
Finally on prisoners, Clauses 55 and 56 prevent whole-life prisoners marrying or entering into a civil partnership unless exceptional circumstances exist. This is in response to a recent case in which surviving families of the victim of a most serious murder were openly mocked by the convicted offender, who trumpeted his right to marry, causing distress to many.
In conclusion, I hope your Lordships will accept that this is a balanced Bill that substantially enhances the position of victims in our system. After all, any one of us may have been, or may one day be, a victim. I commend this Bill to your Lordships, and I beg to move.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Ponsonby and I have not mixed up the order in which we are speaking, even if the speakers’ list has. I thank the Minister for introducing the Bill today with such clarity. That greatly helps the House. I also thank the many organisations that have sent briefings, particularly the Library. I look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carter.
The level of interest in this Bill suggests that there is no doubt that many people recognise the importance of the Bill and the opportunity it presents. I will focus on victims. Notwithstanding the words of the Minister, as with many matters associated with this Government, we are worried that the lack of grasping the opportunity that the Bill presents is the challenge we face and why so many organisations are so interested and want to make recommendations about how it might be improved. I think we would all agree that the challenge for this Bill is to redress a terrible and historic imbalance. In an adversarial system in which the state investigates and prosecutes the defendant, the judge ensures that he or she has a fair trial and the jury decides their guilt, it is easy for all the agencies to look in the defendant’s direction while the victim, even if a witness, comes and goes as what the academic Professor Paul Rock has called fodder for the system.
It may not be what anyone intends, but it is what happens—and worse, victims’ experience may be callous, careless and deeply scarring. We are currently failing victims, as I think we all agree, and they in turn may increasingly be abandoning the criminal justice system. So this is our long-awaited chance to bring about change.
The recent Victims’ Commissioner, the right honourable Dame Vera Baird KC, summed it up very well in her submission to the victims Bill’s consultation process in June last year, when she said:
“We emphasise that a profound cultural change will be needed from the criminal justice agencies to achieve the expectations and the Government’s aims”.
We can put this right if we focus on what victims have told us they want as a minimum, and ensure that it is delivered and can be done without impacting in the slightest on the fair trial rights of the defendant. So, despite the positive words of the Minister and after all the years waiting for this moment, we think the final product needs to be better than this, and it is our job to make it so. This was in the Conservative manifesto in 2015, so we know that we have been a long time waiting.
We need to improve support for victims who are leaving the justice system through its lack of regard for them and endless delay. People cannot move on with their lives while locked into the 65,000-long case backlog in the Crown Court—a backlog higher than at the end of the pandemic. The latest survey from the Office of the Victims’ Commissioner is a disheartening read—71% of victims were dissatisfied with the police response to their crime and only 28% believed it had been taken seriously. A tiny 6% agreed that victims were fully supported by the Crown Prosecution Service and only 8% that they were fully supported by the courts. Even more worrying, a full third—34%—of victims said they would not even report a crime to the police after their previous experience
The thing is that victims are not asking for much. Like all of us, they want a competent, speedy justice system. Vital to them are the delivery of simple procedural justice; being given a voice about what happened to them; and sensitivity to their interests and needs. Victims’ needs and interests are well-identified in the victims’ code of practice, which sets out the minimum standards of service required from criminal justice agencies and was introduced by the Labour Government in the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act of 2004. The code has been updated since then; the problem is that it is simply not implemented.
There are plenty of instances we will all hear about in this debate of where things have gone wrong and victims have found themselves put into terrible positions, both before and in our courts. The Office of the Victims’ Commissioner’s most recent survey shows that only 29% of victims had ever heard of the victims’ code, despite their journey through the very agencies required to deliver on it—that is an identical figure to the one in 2021.
We agree with the Justice Select Committee that, while putting the code on a statutory basis, which the Bill does, is important, it will not, of itself, make it effective. That PCCs will have to collect data on compliance is welcome, although accurate compatible data has proved difficult to find and PCCs have no means to enforce collaboration. If we give somebody a right, in this case the victims, we must give them a means of enforcing it and a remedy for its breach. Local victims’ champions in PCC offices might play a key role in prioritising the right in the currency of the case and dealing with complaints in default. The Government frequently say that they are increasing sentences of one kind or another to put victims at the heart of the criminal justice system, but these simple rights will not actually help the victims if the victims’ code is not enacted.
This is what the Justice Select Committee said:
“The Government has committed to enshrining the rights of victims in law. We find that the draft Bill does not appear to do any more to achieve this than is already provided for in existing legislation. The draft Bill includes overarching principles that are weaker than those consulted on and which, as currently drafted, will do little to improve agencies’ compliance with the victims’ code”.
So one of our main jobs is to ensure enactment and implementation of the victims’ code.
There are other issues that we will look for and raise during the course of the Bill’s passage which we hope will strengthen it. We want to look at free legal advocates for rape victims—a statutory right to free legal representation for the protection of the rights of rape victims. Protection for third-party material of rape complainants is proposed. That would mirror the PCSC Act for the contents of phones.
We need to test excluding pre-trial therapy notes being used in a sex case at all unless a judge, after a fully contested application, agrees to their relevance. It is a major deterrent to women taking a case forward when they are told that what they have said to their therapist may have to be revealed. The Minister is aware of this matter. I think we will have some useful discussions in Committee about that.
We wish to include victims of anti-social behaviour in the definition of “victims”. We want to consider the commissioning of specialist women’s community-based domestic abuse and sexual violence support services. We agree with Barnardo’s and the NSPCC about putting children at the heart of our considerations, particularly on the inclusion of child criminal exploitation and supporting children throughout any of these proceedings.
We think it is important to enshrine a duty to co-operate with the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses. We want that to be included in the Bill.
Finally, there is the issue of migrant domestic abuse victims with no recourse to public funds and without a firewall against immigration controls. They are entitled to criminal justice support if they are victims and should not be treated as suspects; that seems an important matter of injustice that we have to address.
I very much look forward to working with my noble friend Lord Ponsonby on this important Bill, with the Minister and other noble Lords, and I very much look forward to the rest of today’s debate.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, and his officials for the helpful meetings and discussions that we have had so far. I look forward to further discussions as the Bill progresses. I also thank the very many organisations that have sent us briefings. I also look forward to hearing the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carter.
My victims of crime Private Member’s Bill was introduced in July 2017 because, despite promises in the 2015 general election, the Conservative Government had done nothing up to that point to deliver it. So it is something of a relief that the Government have finally produced this Bill, which has come from another place—although, as I will outline later, it falls short of what is needed for victims. A year ago, the proposed Bill was only about victims, and it is helpful that there was pre-legislative scrutiny in May 2022, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, outlined. But the Bill published in March this year had two new substantive parts, one on victims of major incidents and one on prisoners and the parole system. Neither of those was subject to pre-legislative scrutiny, which is to be regretted.
It is also to be regretted that, despite arguing that this Bill is a priority repeatedly in public, it has taken months for it to be given time to be debated in both Houses. We on these Benches have repeatedly asked the Government to take action, but I am afraid that there has been dither and delay, with many more victims of crime lacking the statutory support that they need after their lives have been affected by some of the worst attacks, whether physical or psychological, and with no changes to a criminal justice system that is patchy in its support at best and downright dangerous and damaging for victims at worst. As we heard in a recent survey, 71% of victims are deeply unsatisfied.
There is one key and fundamental failing in Part 1, which echoes the failing in the current victims’ code. There is no statutory duty on those agencies that come into contact with victims to deliver the principles outlined in the Bill. It is absolutely no good saying to victims that they are entitled to a series of rights but then not placing a duty on service providers and agencies to deliver those rights to them. There are a number of uses of “should” in this Bill that we wish to see changed into “must”. Without that, there is no liability for failing to deliver the support and the code.
The reason for that is evident from the many briefing we have received, with horror story after horror story of how victims are traumatised twice: first by the crime and, secondly, by the system that fails to support them properly. The problem is that the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 has not proved enforceable, as I discovered in 2008 when my stalker and harasser was finally caught. I wish that I could say that things have improved in the intervening 15 years, but they have not.
At the heart of the problems is inconsistency in application, whether in police forces, courts—criminal, civil and family—judgments, or all ancillary support mechanisms, often including local government. There are pockets of excellent practice, yes, but far too often for victims it is a complete lottery. This Bill is the perfect opportunity to remedy that. Training is needed throughout the criminal justice system, not just for specialist teams. I have been laying that training amendment for nearly 10 years now. Let us hope that we get some progress in the Bill on that.
When victims of rape have a first encounter with the police, it should be supportive, knowledgeable and understanding, rather than accusing them of “asking for it”, or—in the case of victims of spiked drinks—telling them it was their fault because they were drunk. This still happens. Independent legal advice and access to free transcripts of Crown Court hearings are also very necessary for victims of crime.
I echo the compliments about the role of the Victims’ Commissioner nationally and in London. Vera Baird, the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, and Claire Waxman have done an amazing job, which none of us could have foreseen they would do with the few resources they have been given. It is working well. I wonder whether we now need to consider local victims’ commissioners, perhaps covering the same areas as police and crime commissioners; but it cannot be done by PCCs—it is a very different role.
Not all victims of stalking and harassment are domestic. The progress of legislation relating to victims of domestic abuse, welcome though it is, has left a legal hole for victims of serious crimes that are not considered domestic. Stalking is the key issue there.
While the definition of a “victim” in the Bill is helpful, there remain gaps for family members or third-party victims of crimes such as sexual abuse, sexual violence and other serious crimes, including domestic abuse, which is omitted. Only where a murder or death has happened are family members included. Family lives are often shattered by these crimes.
We also need an immigration firewall to ensure that the details of those who are victims and also migrants do not end up being used against them in any action in the migration system. The exploitation of children and vulnerable adults, whether in modern slavery or other forms, also needs to be dealt with in this Bill.
The approach to violence against and abuse of children specifically needs to be strengthened. We have long argued from these Benches for mandatory reporting of child sex abuse, as has happened successfully in Australia, Canada and many other countries. This was a recommendation of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, but the Government have done nothing to implement it yet. The Children’s Commissioner makes a strong argument for separate identification of the needs of child victims, seeking an advocate for every child victim of the most serious crimes. This will give children agency when involved in the criminal justice system, and a victims’ code that is designed with and for children, because their needs are very different from those of adults.
Part 2, on supporting “victims of major incidents”, needs to include the Bishop of Liverpool’s recommendations on public authority accountability—the “Hillsborough law”. There also needs to be careful scrutiny of the role of the standing advocate for victims of major incidents. The charter proposed by the Government, and amendments in the Commons, are all helpful, but there needs to be further strengthening and, above all, a commitment to fund the office of the independent public advocate. We on these Benches remain concerned that the powers of the Secretary of State over the independent public advocate might jeopardise their independence.
It is good to see a new Part 3 providing some legal status for the victims of the infected blood scheme. However, the new Clause 40 is only the first step. There are concerns that the Government are already slowing down on the issue of interim payments. Like other noble Lords, I look forward with interest to the statement that is happening today.
I agree that most of the issues in the Bill are not partisan, and there is cross-party support for the truly transformative processing and treatment of victims, evident in the debates in the Commons and in your Lordships’ House. However, in Part 4, on prisoners and parole, we remain particularly concerned about the Henry VIII powers, the independence of the Parole Board and the Human Rights Act.
Lastly, there is real concern that the first three parts of the Bill all demand more of our public services, creating new and important roles, but do not provide support for them—unlike Part 4, which I understand is receiving around £500 million. The Autumn Statement Green Book notes on page 83 that there will be £10 million extra for domestic abuse for the financial year 2024-25 but the figure is zero in future years, and there is no mention of extra support for victims. Can the Minister explain why the victim elements of the Bill are funded only to a derisory level for one year and why victims once again appear abandoned after that?
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I too welcome the Bill, and I thank the Minister for the concise way in which he outlined its provisions. However, there are some changes that need to be made. I shall look at three topics. The first is victims, including the position of victims in Wales; secondly, I shall say something about the Parole Board; and, thirdly, I will deal with sentences of imprisonment for public protection.
I support the aim of the Bill to improve the position of victims. Over 20 years ago it was said that the victim should be put at the heart of the criminal justice system; that was a well-known phrase used by the Blair Government. Why is that not the case? When the Minister referred to the means being the subject of debate, I am not sure that he meant “means” in the broadest sense. There are two means that I think are critical: one is culture and the other is money, because we do not improve the position of victims simply by enacting legislation and codes.
I looked at this matter when I had the privilege of chairing the Commission on Justice in Wales, which reported some four years ago. There were four particular complaints about victims. First, they did not have sufficient advice and support, particularly the old and the disabled. The figures given by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for people who said they would never touch the criminal justice system again, we found, were reflected.
Secondly, there was not enough information on the right to challenge the decisions of the police and the CPS, but there the law has been changed, largely due to the actions of Sir Keir Starmer when he was DPP. Again, I suspect that if that is a complaint, there is not enough change in culture.
Thirdly, regular updates should be provided. This is something I have come across when looking at the position of victims across Europe. The best system was then the Dutch one, but the Dutch expended huge sums of money on ensuring that sufficient information was constantly made available.
The fourth area about which there was concern was sentencing. We have a sentencing code that is about an inch thick. Our position is immensely complicated, and it is important that we first explain to victims the range of options before the sentence. If they want to attend the hearing, give them support, but explain it afterwards. That is a big job, and it all costs money and involves cultural change. In Wales we recommended that that issue be addressed collaboratively, taking advantage of the small size of Wales and the fact that people know each other well and—by and large—get on. I think I can safely say that, despite some observations.
Much has been done since our report was published four years ago. I very much welcome the Government’s approach in Clauses 12 to 14, which is confined to England and therefore allows the Government of Wales to carry on the good work they are doing under the various provisions of Welsh legislation providing for duties and strategies. That is all I wanted to say about victims at this stage, but there may be more to say in detail later.
I turn to the Parole Board. First, on Clause 44, if serious cases are to be referred by the Secretary of State, then they must be referred to a body with great experience. Presently, the Upper Tribunal deals essentially with civil cases. I could understand the logic of this if the Parole Board was to be given its proper status as a tribunal, which would solve all these problems. Why is it going to the Upper Tribunal? I look forward to the Minister explaining this. Is a new chamber going to be created? Would it not be better to look at an existing body that could give guidance in cases that go wrong, such as the Court of Appeal Criminal Division?
Turning to Clause 54, the Parole Board is a judicial body. It seems to me that enabling the Secretary of State to remove the chairman is a fundamental contradiction to judicial independence. I simply do not understand the provision. It appears that the Bill seeks to deal with this issue by providing that the chair is not to be involved in judicial work; there is an express provision to that effect. However, I think the drafters of the Bill have overlooked one critical fact. As I understand the rules of the Parole Board, the selection of panel members is still within the compass and duties of the chairman of the Parole Board. Selecting members of a tribunal is a wholly judicial function. In some countries they go so far as to provide for random selection. You cannot have a chairman who is capable of being removed by the Secretary of State responsible for selection.
I cannot understand why this provision is there, because the chairman is not responsible for individual decisions which might cause a loss of confidence. I could have possibly understood why persons other than the present Lord Chancellor might have suggested this; I simply do not understand why it is there. I would suggest that the ability to remove is deleted from the Bill and that the board should be led by someone who is engaged in judicial decision-making so that they bring their experience to bear. It would be wholly intolerable if a senior judicial post was held by, for example, someone who did not sit in criminal work. You have to know what is going on. This bit of the Bill is a relic of something or other—I cannot speculate on what—but it is flawed and should be removed.
Finally on this part, on Clauses 49 to 52, I cannot understand how the clauses disapplying the Human Rights Act are compatible with the certificate given by the Minister. More importantly, it seems to me that if anyone needs protection of their human rights, it is prisoners.
Finally, I will say a word about IPPs. I leave all the detail to a speech I agree with in advance: that to be given by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. However, I want to make one very short point; when we come to look at this, we must look at the responsibility of the state. To my mind, it is not right or just to transfer the risk of the commission of further offences to the offender and not accept that there is a strong view, supported I think by some evidence, that the reason so many of these people are dangerous is because the state has failed them—first, by the imposition of this sentence, which is accepted to be wrong in principle and, secondly, by for years doing nothing about it. We as a state ought to bear some of the responsibility. That is why re-sentencing is the only just cause.
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle
My Lords, it is a privilege to speak today, to follow the noble and learned Lord, and to be in the company of those to follow. This is an important piece of legislation. We all know that the work of delivering justice for victims does not end with this legislation. Ultimately, we all want safer communities, so it is vital that we consider what really helps to rehabilitate people in prison so that they do not offend again on release. The work of reconciliation and restoration, challenging as it is, invites us to consider deeper issues. Root and branch reform of the criminal justice system is long overdue.
There are unresolved issues with the Bill, some of which I hope will be considered in this House. I will mention four very briefly, which my right reverend friend the Bishop of Gloucester will be interested in as the Bill progresses.
We know that many people in the criminal justice system are both victims and offenders. In the case of women, almost 60% of those supervised in the community or in custody have experienced domestic abuse, although many believe the true figure to be higher. Research has shown that women’s offending is often directly linked to their own experience of domestic abuse, so we are unfairly criminalising victims. This Bill brings an opportunity to consider making the defence of self-defence more accessible for victims of domestic abuse who use force against their abuser and to provide a defence where victims of domestic abuse are coerced into offending. This is welcomed.
We must also guard against unintended consequences of some welcome aspects of this Bill in regard to parental access to children when a domestic homicide is committed. The welfare of traumatised children is critical, and the family courts are better placed than criminal courts to consider the individual needs of such vulnerable children. We also need to better understand just how many children in the country have a primary carer who is in prison for whatever kind of offence. We know those children are likely to suffer lifelong consequences, and we must do more to think about criminal justice reform in generational terms.
Like others, I am concerned that the issue of imprisonment for public protection has not fully been resolved, although the proposed changes are commendable and I thank the noble and learned Lord the Minister for his comments in his opening speech. I add my voice to those of others that this Bill might still afford an opportunity to finally put right that injustice. Might the Minister look again at the principal recommendation of the Justice Committee on re-sentencing?
This Bill should seek to help all victims. Migrant women who face abuse and violence in the United Kingdom need access to a permanent, long-term welfare safety net, including refuge spaces and support services. We know that migrant victims of crime fear data sharing between the police and the Home Office; a firewall would enable victims of domestic abuse to come forward to seek help in confidence without fear of immigration enforcement. This was mentioned just now by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. Firewall amendments were tabled during the course of the Domestic Abuse and Illegal Migration Bills, and my right reverend friend the Bishop of London hopes to support this measure during this Bill as well. No one should feel unsafe in reporting a crime committed against them or one that they have witnessed.
I conclude by commending the Government for this Bill and many of its proposals to improve the experience of victims of crime, and I look forward to working with colleagues as it progresses through your Lordships’ House.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, with your Lordships’ permission, I will use the minutes available to me to speak principally about the clauses that relate to prisoners detained indefinitely for public protection. Before I do so, I congratulate in advance the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, on his impending maiden speech.
We have had a great discussion of human rights in various contexts over the last few weeks and months, and noble Lords no doubt do not need reminding of the scandal of a sentence that was actually abolished because of a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights but is still being served 10 years on by those caught up in it. My noble and learned friend the Minister provided some figures to the House about the current situation, and I will just highlight a few of them, with none of which I am disagreeing. There are nearly 3,000 people in jail serving this sentence and, of those, 57% are on recall and 43% have never been released. Nearly all those people who have not been released have served their minimum tariff; only 20 have not and all the rest are over tariff and more than half of those have been held for 10 years or more over their original tariff. I will finish with a figure that my noble and learned friend did not mention, but I shall: there were 78 people serving an IPP sentence who have taken their own lives while in prison.
The truth is that this sentence is a form of mental torture: to have no notion of when you might be released and to have only vague ideas of the hoops that you have to go through and steps that you have to take—hoops that are very often withdrawn because of administrative failings or because of a move in prison, and steps that you cannot take and so you are knocked back again, and “knocked back” is the term that is used. If you eventually get to a Parole Board, you find that, unlike any other prisoner, you have to demonstrate that you are safe before you can be taken out—and, at the same time, to do this in a context where your mental health is very likely deteriorating.
More and more people are aware of this situation. The fact that the existing Lord Chancellor has actually described it as a stain is an extremely welcome acknowledgement on his part of the scandal. A video is going round, circulated by the Campaign for Social Justice, which claims recently to have achieved 7 million views. The public are aware of this issue, and they are sympathetic to the plight of these prisoners, as I suggest we should be. The Justice Committee in the other place did a very thorough, serious and sympathetic report earlier this year. Its principal recommendation was a re-sentencing exercise. The Government have rejected that; no doubt, it is something that we will return to in your Lordships’ House. But there are also many other ways in which we could help those in prison.
The Government are to be commended on certain things—and I know the personal efforts of my noble and learned friend the Minister. Since earlier this year, we have an action plan that contains discernible actions and appears to be getting attention from the civil servants at the Ministry of Justice, which is very welcome. I also welcome the amendments made to the Bill by the Government in the other place, which addressed issues to do with IPP prisoners. However, all the amendments inserted in the other place relate to prisoners who are out on licence. As I say, I think they are the best you could hope for—they are very good amendments—but they do nothing for those serving a sentence of imprisonment in jail. There is a range of ways in which we could help those people. Some of them are perhaps at the more radical end, but there are others that are very gentle, which I hope my noble and learned friend would find it possible to accept easily in Committee, when we shall table amendments relating to them.
Finally, I echo what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, said about the responsibility of the state and the necessity of recognising our moral responsibility in relation to prisoners suffering mental health issues, very often because of the way we have treated them—a way which we acknowledge is not compatible with their human rights. My noble and learned friend the Minister made a great deal of the principle of public protection, but those are not the words over the door when he goes into his office; the words over the door say, “Ministry of Justice”. When it comes to Committee, I very much hope that noble Lords will be supportive of those amendments put forward that would perhaps put that balance right and re-emphasise the responsibility of the state to administer justice to people who have been neglected too long.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, it is an absolute privilege to follow that outstanding speech from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. I hope he will forgive me for associating myself with every single word of it. I declare my non-pecuniary interest as a council member of both Justice and the Howard League for Penal Reform.
I am also grateful for the opportunity to speak in advance of the forthcoming maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, who I had the pleasure of working for as a government lawyer in the late 1990s. He may not forgive me for saying it—and please, do not hold it against him—but I learned so much from him in those days, as a young lawyer, about law, good government and policy-making. I found him to be almost the personification of qualities in the subsequently much maligned Civil Service: independence, integrity, intellect and humanity. In a year when we have lost the noble and learned Lords, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood and Lord Judge, I think the arrival of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, on the Cross Benches must be particularly welcomed.
I now come to the Victims and Prisoners Bill, and I welcome the way that this debate has been opened by all the major groups in your Lordships’ House. In a December that will feel not quite like Christmas for too many struggling families, including those blighted by crime in this country, the Government bring us a not quite Christmas tree Bill. While I welcome its much delayed arrival, and the much delayed arrival of any Bill supposedly aimed at enhancing victims’ rights, I query, like the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, whether it would not have benefited from a tighter focus in some places, or at least some pre-legislative scrutiny.
However, my greatest concern, perhaps, lies in the way the contradictions at the heart of the Bill represent those at the heart of the Government. I have no doubt that the Bill has been much improved by the arrival of the new Lord Chancellor—rightly, one of the more liberal and more pro rule of law members of the Cabinet. We see that reflected in the removal of what would have been a Secretary of State’s direct veto over Parole Board release decisions. I am very glad to see that that has been removed. Similarly, there has been some movement, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, in relation to some IPP prisoners, but not all. On the IPP point, I look forward to listening to the noble Lord’s partner in crime, if I may call him that, my noble friend Lord Blunkett.
However, one need not be the greatest Kremlinologist to divine that, just days before the publication of the Rwanda Bill, the Lord Chancellor appears to have lost a battle with No. 10 over the disapplication of Section 3 of the Human Rights Act—which of course requires legislation to be read compatibly with rights and freedoms, so far as is possible—from the parole provisions of the Bill. I am very sad about that. I am also sad about the proposals mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, that would allow the Secretary of State to interfere with the independence and the composition of the Parole Board. I think that will be another provision that will require noble Lords’ attention in due course.
In the always affable and open spirit in which the noble and learned Lord the Minister opens these debates, I ask him to explain why this disapplication of Section 3 of the Human Rights Act was thought necessary in the case of this Bill. I ask him how it squares with his Section 19 statement—it is not quite a certificate; it is a statement of compatibility. Is it not just political signalling that if the Human Rights Act is not immediately to be repealed wholesale, it will instead suffer death by a thousand cuts, as a sop to those so-called “five families” who want their party to leave the European convention and, accordingly, the Council of Europe at next year’s general election? A little explanation of the thinking for the disapplication of human rights would be incredibly welcome.
In my experience, the convention on human rights has done more for victims’ rights in this country than, with respect, the common law ever did, and indeed more than party politics probably every did. One only needs to look at the case law to see that borne out, particularly in relation to the rights for the most vulnerable victims, including children and women, and victims of sexual crime. By contrast, the victims’ rights in this Bill, while well intended, are, to a large extent, toothless. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, about that. They are too much a dead letter in a sealed book, without the means to make them real or enforce them. I look forward to hearing from the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, about whether she thinks the Bill goes far enough, because I would like to see the victims’ code in the Bill and very clear methods of accessible enforcement. Otherwise, we are in danger of letting down victims yet again, by suggesting a promised land that just is not coming. That would be a terrible mistake after the lengthy wait for this kind of legislation.
Similarly, victims of major incidents are too narrowly defined and their protections are too weak. They should have more ready access to independent advice and representation. I have seen that in other inquiries and compensation schemes, not least Windrush and Leveson—on which I served—and so on.
There seems to be a lot of common ground between different groups in this House and a very receptive Minister, so I hope that we can all work together to improve the Bill in Committee and beyond.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the Bill’s provision to bring the victims’ code into primary legislation and want to flag up a few points relating to the first principle listed in the code, which is the victim’s right to understand and be understood, with access where necessary to interpretation and translation services. I declare my interests as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Modern Languages and vice-president of the Chartered Institute of Linguists.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, may remember that he was kind enough to meet me during the Brexit process, when I wanted to make sure that the Government retained the right to interpreting and translation for people suspected or accused of an offence, which was established by an EU directive in 2010 and subsequently transposed into domestic law. Happily, I was reassured. Since then, the MoJ has launched an independent review of the qualifications and experience required by court interpreters, which I hope will soon be published. The Bill provides another much-needed piece of the criminal justice jigsaw as far as language services go.
A victims’ code already exists, but as we know only too well from other areas of public services, non-statutory codes or guidance do not always guarantee the type or quality of service needed or intended—or even if they do, we do not necessarily know whether they do. For example, I asked a Written Question recently to try to find out who was responsible for monitoring compliance with the NHS England guidance on interpreting and translation services in primary healthcare. The answer was “No one—we do not monitor compliance”. It is a very welcome step forward that, in this Bill, not only will the code be statutory but there will be a duty on relevant bodies to promote awareness of it and a compliance monitoring framework.
However, it is not enough just to declare a right of access to language services if needed. As specified in the original EU directive, they must be of an appropriate professional quality. In other words, public service interpreters, or PSIs, must be qualified and experienced. They are specialist professionals and not a casual nice-to-have. There is little point engaging someone with a tip-top level 6 diploma in public service interpreting for a complex court case if they have never set foot in a court before and are unfamiliar with procedure or terminology. There is a well-known case from many years ago, which I am sure the Minister will recognise, that provides a good example of such danger. A woman was wrongly convicted of murder because it emerged on appeal that the so-called interpreter, who was inexperienced, had not known the difference between murder and manslaughter. It is also self-evident that an interpreter with the right languages should be engaged—and not someone turning up with fluent Latvian when Lithuanian is needed, or Punjabi instead of Gujarati. I am not making these examples up—they have all happened.
There will also be situations where the victim needs an interpreter whose professionalism and qualifications are combined with empathy and sensitivity. This might be provided only by someone of the same sex, given the intimacy of what that victim needs to describe in cases of sexual violence or exploitation. A requirement that interpreters should be on the National Register of Public Service Interpreters is also worth considering as a guarantee of standards. There must be no more situations in which a neighbour, friend, teenage child or court usher is asked to play the interpreter in lieu of a properly qualified and suitable professional.
I hope the Minister will say a little more about the compliance monitoring framework. Flexibility for bodies to choose how they meet the duty to promote awareness could easily result in unacceptable discrepancies from one area to another. I would prefer to see minimum standards and expectations clearly spelled out and specific reference to interpreting and translation services in the Bill.
An excellent precedent for setting standards and consistency is the police approved interpreters and translators scheme, or PAIT, launched in 2020. Instead of a hotchpotch of different police forces operating different systems, now most police regions in the UK mandate the same terms and conditions, and external provider agencies are monitored and regulated. I was therefore concerned to find out that the national manager for the PAIT scheme has not been involved in or consulted on the development of this Bill. I strongly urge the Minister to ensure that this happens. We must avoid a situation where different parts of the criminal justice system deal with language services in different ways and with different standards, criteria and guidance.
We will need better data collection, and swift updating and strengthening of the code and all the accompanying detailed regulations. All promotional materials, as well as the code, must be produced in a variety of languages. This would be an excellent topic for the joint thematic inspections envisaged under the Bill; I ask the Minister to consider that as soon as possible. If the Bill and the current review of courts and tribunals are to have the desired effect and lead to more consistent and effective language services, the MoJ will need urgently to put energy and resources into a serious campaign to improve the supply chain of public service interpreters, or this victims’ right will be nothing more than an empty shell.
Thousands of PSIs have left the profession because of poor levels of pay and conditions. Added to this, the post-Brexit Immigration Rules, especially with the new salary threshold, act as a major barrier to the PSI pipeline, most of whose practitioners are freelance. Will the Minister speak to his colleagues in the Home Office about this specific group of professionals? I look forward to his comments on all the issues I have raised.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I share the view that victims deserve a Bill to themselves. Extending the Bill to prisoners reflects how our system treats victims, whom I prefer to think of as survivors: necessary for a trial but, in many ways, peripheral. It is largely due to those working in the sector that I clocked this. I thank all the stakeholders and organisations for their briefings; they are so valuable, and not referring to them in a debate such as this does not mean that they have not been read.
I will spend several of my few minutes on Part 4 of the Bill, but that is not because I am not concerned to make the rest of the Bill as good as it can be. I welcome that the Government have brought forward Part 1, and I hope the Minister can see calls to make the victims’ code enforceable and make the duty to collaborate effective, for instance, as supportive.
I found it shocking to discover that a victim has to pay for a transcript of a trial—something that my honourable friend Sarah Olney has been pursuing—and at such cost. Is that open justice? Surely technology should make transcripts much cheaper to produce. Even if you are relaxed, it is not easy to take in everything when you are listening, and I am often quite surprised when I read Hansard after a debate. Stress makes that harder. I understand that the Government are to undertake a one-year pilot on the production of a transcript, but only for limited categories of offences. Will this be for those offences in all courts? On what criteria will the pilot be evaluated? Will victims be consulted throughout the process?
I will be surprised if I am the first to ask what news there may be on getting offenders to hear—one cannot make people listen—the sentences and sentencing remarks. I accept that this is not a straightforward matter at all.
It is also shocking that victims are deterred from counselling because of defendants’ access to counselling records and how they may be used. Confidentiality is essential for counselling to be effective. If an assault left a victim with a broken leg, you would regard immediate treatment as essential.
Another issue of confidentiality—which has been mentioned several times—is the need for a firewall regarding immigration information. On these Benches we did all we could to remove the immigration exemption from what became the Data Protection Act 2018. The practical implications of the issue can be immense when the police automatically and, it seems to me, quite casually pass information to the immigration authorities. That enables the perpetrator to threaten the victim with disclosure—if that is not misusing the term. We should protect victims by protecting their data. I do not imagine the Minister is in a position to comment on last week’s judgment from the Court of Appeal on the application by the organisation the3million and the Open Rights Group, but I hope he will be able to do so when we get to an amendment—and an amendment there will be—on a firewall.
We have plenty to consider when we come to the provisions about major incidents and the role and powers of advocates—which in some cases read to me as assisting the Secretary of State rather than the victims. I do not pretend to have a full understanding of the requirements of those caught up in an incident—which is such a small word—but dealing with the media, which can play an important part, is not always easy. That is an issue for discussion, along with legal representation at any inquest.
For people trapped in the nightmare of IPPs, we cannot restore what they have lost—as we have been reminded, what they have lost is hope—but let us put things right to the extent that we can.
I find it difficult to read Part 4 as being as much about victims as it is about prisoners, but I am willing to learn. I do not think it is being soft, woke or whatever term is current to say that prisoners have rights. The penalty for their offence is the loss of liberty, not the loss of rights. It must have taken some brass neck on the part of the original signatory of the statement that the Bill is compatible with the convention rights when it actually disapplies some of them in terms. The affable and thoughtful noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, was put in a rather difficult position on this, I suspect.
As somebody has already said, there is more messaging and more nibbling away at human rights to appease those who say they are not British. The numbers of people affected may be low, but that does not mean the rights are not significant. The court is to
“give the greatest possible weight to the importance of reducing the risk to the public from persons who have committed offences”.
That seems to me to pitch incarceration against rehabilitation. I wish I thought that the latter was intended.
There is no right for whole-life prisoners to marry or form civil partnerships. What is the evidence that their having the right undermines public confidence? We are told that there is evidence, and one instance has been cited. Should we go on the basis of one example? What about the partners and children of those prisoners? The numbers may be vanishingly small, in the jargon, but for each individual the issue can be far from the vanishing point.
As for parole, how can I put this? The current Lord Chancellor is clearly treading a line between loyalty to his Government, and therefore his predecessor, and his own instincts—but the Bill still too much follows the design of his predecessor. The figures in the Explanatory Notes give the context of about 26,000 cases reviewed by the Parole Board each year, with fewer than one in four prisoners reviewed judged to meet the statutory test for release, and less than 0.5% of those released convicted of a serious offence within three years. The implication that is being read into the need to have people with a law enforcement background sitting on the Parole Board is that the board is too soft.
On the power of the Secretary of State to remove the chair to maintain public confidence, my own confidence comes from confidence in the chair’s independence and confidence in colleagues—if I can call them that—such as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, and their views on this subject. When the Justice and Home Affairs Committee met the Lord Chancellor in October, he was asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, to confirm that the statutory power to remove the chair is under consideration. He said that it is something that he continues
“to have an interest in”.
I hope I have not stolen a line from her speech. Indeed, he said:
“There are all sorts of aspects of this legislation that are under consideration”.
I look forward to hearing more over the course of the debates on the Bill, and very much look forward to hearing the next speaker.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
My Lords—no pressure for me now. Nearly 13 years ago I stood, with some trepidation, as I made my maiden speech to your Lordships in this House. In that speech, I called for victims to be treated with respect and to be helped to participate in the criminal justice system. I informed the House that if victims do not have confidence in the justice system, and if witnesses walk away, we all suffer.
In 2007, I learned that courage was not the absence of fear; I hid it behind a mask of boldness. Today, sadly, I am a little older but, I hope, a little wiser—and, yes, maybe there are a few grey hairs. After losing Garry 16 years ago, I have, with every year that has gone by, faced barriers, the waiting and the silence. There have been many appeals and many paroles; I have sat through every application. Nevertheless, my determination and passion to see all victims of crime being treated with respect and, furthermore, given all the support they need in their criminal justice journey is just as strong today.
This Bill has been a very long time coming, but, with the upmost respect to all noble Lords across the Chamber, I have heard too many things about prisoners. That is why I was disappointed, when the Bill was announced in the other place, that we now have the Victims and Prisoners Bill. For many prisoners, there is lots of legislation; for victims, it was paramount that they were foremost at the top of the tree. I should know, because I have been calling, along with many others in this sector, for a Bill on victims’ law for close to a decade—yet we are sharing the platform with prisoners once again. Therefore, this Bill must be a once-in-a-generation opportunity to transform victims’ experiences of our criminal justice system.
Justice should always treat victims with decency and respect. It should listen to victims, instead of talking at them. It should share information willingly and with sensitivity. It should give victims a voice and make them feel like a participant and not an onlooker. A justice system that does all of the above only then will help heal some of the victims’ wounds. It can bring catharsis, regardless of the outcome. It can also give other victims the confidence to come forward and report crimes committed against them. On the other hand, a justice system that does none of these things will only add to the trauma of the crime and create disillusionment, with victims and witnesses simply walking away and saying, “Never again”.
I applaud the Government for making the time for this important Bill. However, in the middle of the Christmas period, it feels very fast-forward, so I look forward to working hard in Committee. I say that with no disrespect to my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy, who I am very glad is still here after the reshuffle. I also thank the officials for their hard work in putting the Bill together. None the less, I have to say that I do believe the Bill needs strengthening if it is to deliver the change that has been promised for so long—and we are look forward to getting that. When I say “all”, I mean all. I believe that the ambition cuts across all party lines; it is shared by noble Lords on all sides of the House. I know from the work on the then Domestic Abuse Bill and the then Online Safety Bill that this House is at its finest when it comes together, cross-party, to scrutinise a Bill.
Since my reappointment as the Victims’ Commissioner in October, I have made it a priority to reach out and engage with as many victims’ groups as possible. I have written many letters to Ministers—so they have lots of homework, just like me. The consensus is clear: they welcome the Bill, but they tell me that it does not go far enough. Let me explain why. The victims’ code sets out the rights that victims should expect to receive, from the moment they report a crime to the end of their trial. As I have been told previously in my journeys as the Victims’ Commissioner and as a victim, surely that is just persuasive guidance. Rights under the code therefore include help to understand the process, updates on their case, respectful treatment, procedural justice and support as and when it is needed. However, time and again, victims tell me that their treatment falls below this standard. According to my Victim Survey—I thank other noble Lords for mentioning it in the House—less than a third have even heard of the victims’ code. I repeat: they have not heard of the victims’ code.
I am sure that, for some, criminal justice agencies are well intentioned when dealing with victims, but all too often the culture is more “Let’s do what we can”, rather than “Supporting victims goes to the heart of what we’re all about”. My response to these good intentions is, “Thank you very much, but victims want more than just favours”. They need proper statutory rights. They want their rights to be made fully known to them and to be enforceable, properly monitored and delivered with respect and sensitivity. On this point, I am just not convinced that the Bill as it stands can deliver that. The Government promised they would be putting the victims’ code on a statutory footing, giving victims enhanced rights. Yet the Bill as drafted falls short of doing this. This needs to be addressed.
Then there is the issue of compliance. Rights are meaningless unless they are upheld, and there needs to be a robust system in place to make sure they are being upheld. The Bill makes a good attempt at achieving this and has much that I applaud, but compliance monitoring needs to be more transparent. Importantly, it also requires independent scrutiny to avoid the impression of the Government marking their own homework. The Bill needs to go further on this issue. In fact, I believe effective oversight and scrutiny of compliance is fundamental to the Bill’s success.
As well as better compliance, I am also keen to see the Bill reaching out to those groups of victims who are currently left in the cold. Persistent and targeted anti-social behaviour is a crime that is not low-level. It causes high levels of harm, as I know only too well. Yet there is no mention in the Bill of how these victims can be guaranteed to receive the support they often so desperately need. We must remedy this. Victims of some of the worst crimes have fewer rights in cases where the perpetrator is detained under the Mental Health Act, yet the impact of the crime is no less than on any other victim. I want this Bill to deliver parity of treatment for those victims.
Finally, we all know that victims of sexual violence face huge hurdles in getting justice. Too often, they face unwarranted invasions of their privacy. If we are to help them receive true justice, the Bill needs to do so much more to give them the protections they deserve. Again, I see this Bill as a vehicle to deliver these protections.
In conclusion, I welcome the Government’s commitment to deliver for victims, but I truly believe we must be more ambitious if we are to achieve the transformation that victims rightly deserve, because a law without justice for victims is a wound without a cure.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, it is a genuine privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove. I was privileged to work with her as the Home Secretary who brought in what was then the original Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill. I am painfully aware of how little progress we have been able to make and how important this legislation is today. I would also like to commend the noble Lord, Lord Carter, on his forthcoming maiden speech and to reconnect with him—I am sure he will make an enormous contribution—and share with my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti the sadness that we are not joined this afternoon by the late and much-lamented Igor Judge and Simon Brown, whom I personally miss greatly.
I will say just a word in following up what the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, said. If there is a sense of commitment and duty, it is embodied in her decision to come back to take on this role. I share what she just said about the issues relating to mental health and what amounts to considerable and persistent anti-social behaviour and abuse by people who, of course, need treatment and support, but we also need to support those who are the victims of it. I have received many letters over the years—and still do—from people who have found their lives as neighbours simply made a misery. So I hope we can find a way of including persistent anti-social behaviour in this legislation.
I also hope—and perhaps the Minister might reflect on this—that we might help those who do not get support from the police; the victims of offences who contest the police’s failure to act and get caught up in internal reviews for which there is no appeal. The reviews by some forces in this country are excellent, and people are informed clearly as to why action has not been taken. But I will give just one example this afternoon: that of the Warwickshire Police force, which, frankly, in my view is an absolute disgrace, and the chief constable cannot even be bothered to write personally to a former Home Secretary. I will take that up another day.
I move now to Clause 48. I welcome very strongly the decision taken by the current Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary, and commend the Minister in this House. It is really nice to have people who are prepared to listen and, even close to an election, take decisive decisions. The reduction in the licence period for IPPs is very welcome indeed. I commend everything that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, said on this, and I am very glad that he has taken up the cudgel and is leading on these matters.
It surely must be possible to be able to distinguish IPPs from DPPs, and the young people who were sentenced under that particular clause when they were juveniles, as opposed to those who were sentenced as adults, even if the Government are not prepared to take up the challenge of the sentencing. It surely must be possible to provide mentoring and advocates on behalf of those who are caught up in this, as has been described this afternoon. It surely must be possible to pick up the excellent thematic inspection report of His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation. I spent the weekend reading it—Christmas is coming late in the Blunkett household this year. The 11 recommendations and its conclusions are excellent, but they need implementation. It is incumbent on all of us to press the Government to make the action plan statutory; to include the recommendations in any iterations of the probation action plan; to take up the challenge, which has already been mentioned this afternoon, of what happens when prisoners are preparing for their appeal to the Parole Board and for release, where the inspection report indicates that there is a woeful lack of support and help for those who are preparing. There is a complete disconnect with offender managers, both inside the service and when people are on licence, partly because of the massive turnover and strange management practices within the service. I commend those to the Minister, and hope that he will be able to respond positively later this evening on those matters.
Finally, it is crucial we understand that, if we are to prevent victims of the future, we need to ensure that the rehabilitation of those who have committed offences is taken as seriously as it is in the debate this afternoon. In seven minutes, I have not really been able to cover the field. There is so much to be done and so much to come together, but in the spirit of what the current Lord Chancellor and the Minister in this House are doing, we might just be able, in the months ahead, to get this right. I sincerely hope so.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. Unfortunately, the House will hear two Sheffield accents within a short time, so I apologise that we always end our sentences on a down note. I will do my best.
I support this Bill. It is time that victims receive statutory support for their rights in a way that suspects have for quite a long time. To get a balancing Bill is a good thing. Despite that, I still have some questions, mainly because I wonder whether all that the Bill intends to achieve will be achieved by some of the remedies that are suggested. I am not sure that they are all entirely effective, and they may, at times, have a counterproductive effect.
First, it seems to me that providing some rights for the victim within the criminal justice system is a good idea, because it is often run for the benefit of the suspect. This is done for good reason: obviously anyone who is charged with an offence might reasonably expect that their defence is provided as a priority. However, at times it seems to result in the victim and the witnesses having to wait two to three years for a case to come to trial so that the defence can prepare their case. That is not a fair balance. There seems to be some balancing weight within the criminal justice system that says that the victim and the witnesses can expect to get to court reasonably quickly, and two to three years—which is not entirely down to the pandemic but is down to a backlog—is surely a condemnation of what the system should be doing.
The second benefit described in the Bill is that there will be cross-inspectorate inspections. This is a good thing. They already happen, to some extent, but this time they will be done from the perspective of the victim, not that of all the people who populate the system. My concern is that inspections take a long time. Reports are published a long time after the event and the victim is still waiting for their issue to be resolved—which I am afraid that the inspectorate reports do not do. The inspectorate publishes recommendations which, if you are lucky, might make a difference in two to three years. They are essential in a way, but I am afraid they do not always achieve what this Bill intends to achieve.
The criminal justice departments in our police services are well populated. There are probably around 10,000 people whose role is to make sure that, from charge through to court, the system goes smoothly. However, what the system actually does is ensure an exchange of documents between the prosecution and the defence. The victims and the witnesses are kept informed, but often not well enough, and often their needs are not considered. It is not about resources but about what priority is given. Again, where is the remedy? As the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, said, how do you get something to change within the police service, the CPS and the courts when you have a complaint? I am not sure that the remedies are in place.
In its conclusion, the Bill talks about the costs that might be included in implementing this as an Act. I think it is a gross undercount of what might be needed. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, mentioned earlier that we will need to invest in this area. However, the numbers involved are very small—£2.5 million for the tribunal process beyond probation, and less than £1 million for each element of the policing, CPS and court settlements. That is quite a big underestimate. If you put this Bill into each of those services, it will be deprioritised. Asking people to do more with the same resources is always a difficult task.
I had hoped that the Bill would say more about what some people have referred to as simplifying sentencing. I still think it is a great dishonesty in sentencing that, when the court announces that someone will spend five years in prison, what they mean is that they will spend three years in prison unless they misbehave or the Parole Board finds that they will misbehave when they leave. Why can we not just say that they will spend three years in prison unless they misbehave? That way, we are not being dishonest with the victim. They do not understand the criminal justice system, and why should they? Some of them will be professionals who understand it well, but it is far better to be open and transparent that this is the process, and then people will not be disappointed. We set their expectations. I am surprised that this Bill has not done something about that. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, said, even the judges struggle to understand the complexity of the sentences that are passed down and the rules that surround them. Surely the public deserve a better or simpler system.
I support the higher test for top-tier offenders being considered by the Minister of State and then a referral to the Upper Tribunal. There have been cases where we have been surprised by the release of people who appeared to be dangerous. It is probably best that at least those cases are reviewed. I take this to be the case; it is applying the same test but by a different set of people. That seems a wise thing.
There is one part of the Bill I wonder about, in its breadth. The description of a victim includes those who are harmed or who have
“seen, heard, or otherwise directly experienced the crime”
in live time. Harm is defined quite extensively in the Bill—so I will not read it out—and does not have to be verified by a third party. I wonder about cases such as bombings and those involving roving terrorist gunmen. Should the Bill leave such a wide scope? The Government may want to consider some kind of conditionality being placed upon that, when you have mass events where there are large numbers of victims. My point is not that victims should not be helped but that, to ensure that you can help them, it is critical that you have defined them in a proper way. I think this is drawn rather widely.
I fully support the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, about interpreters. The police have made some progress in this area but, again, it is an area of cost. Particularly in cities such as London, where over 40% of the population often speak a second language and sometimes a first language that is not English, either victims or suspects—usually about 38% are foreign national offenders—will, on arrest, require some kind of translation. This is either by phone or in person, but it is expensive. Those costs have grown over time—for good reason, because the quality of interpreting has improved, but it imposes more costs on the system and I am not sure that has been considered, either in the Act or in general.
I said that I thought the Bill, well intended as it is—and I think it will make some good progress—might have to answer some acid tests from the public at the end. One or two people have mentioned things they think the system does not currently help with. These are my four or five things that I do not think the system does. Will the Bill make a difference?
Will the victim have a right for the police to attend the scene of a crime when the police say, “We’re not coming”? A shoplifter, for example, or a car theft, or all the other things we keep hearing about where the police do not seem to want to go to the scene of the crime. I find that confusing, and the victim certainly does. Whether you are a vulnerable victim or not, you ought to be able to expect the police to at least come, talk to you about it, have a look at the scene and see whether there is a chance of investigating it. On the telephone is convenient for the police, but I would argue it is not convenient for the victim.
The second area is about economic crime, for which most people seem to have no chance of having any investigation at all. Is this going to make a change in that area? I disagree with the present CPS rule which means there must be a 51% chance of success before it will take a case to court. The victim gets confused by that as well. Why can it not just be a prima facie case? That is one of the biggest disappointments they have. Another area is the time it takes to get to court.
Finally, we still have a very low success rate in terms of sexual offenders. When 70% of victims are vulnerable either through age, infirmity, alcohol, drugs or some other reason, they make not ideal witnesses for a system that demands perfection—they are not always consistent. How do we allow the law to support those victims, when the system itself does not seem very fair to them or their families?
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, my interest in the Bill lies in how families and children affected by crime are supported. I will also highlight that victims and prisoners are often overlapping categories.
The duty to collaborate, in Clause 12, reinforces recommendations I made in my 2019 Ministry of Justice review on female offenders. Early intervention in the community requires addressing women’s vulnerabilities that can lead to offending. These include them being victims of crime—for example, as we heard from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle, 57% of women in prison have themselves endured domestic abuse.
Joining up services, peer support and voluntary sector activity is vital for addressing the multiple drivers of women’s offending. I recommended establishing local accountabilities to make sure this join-up happens, so I welcome this duty. I also emphasised the need to include family and relationship work in diversion and out of court disposal programmes for women, and outlined the importance of family hubs. These are now official government policy and being rolled out in 87 local authority areas. I declare my unremunerated interest as a director and guarantor of the not-for-profit consultancy The Family Hubs Network Ltd.
Many family hubs provide domestic abuse services but want to do far more and are very well placed to help children who have experienced or witnessed domestic abuse. Can the Minister confirm that the duty to collaborate will require the police and others to work with family hubs? They need to be cemented into local support infrastructure wherever possible.
Further, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner highlighted at Commons Committee stage that many bereaved families have a poor experience of the Parole Board in terms of being kept informed, and their feelings considered, ahead of the release of offenders. Ideally, the Bill would drive improvements in family liaison.
I am interested in how the Government would have treated Harriet Harman’s new Clause 36, which was selected for consideration on Report but not debated. It called for annual data collection to establish
“how many prisoners are the primary carers of a child … how many children have a primary carer who is a prisoner, and … the ages of those children”.
This was recommended in her Joint Committee on Human Rights report The Right to Family Life: Children Whose Mothers are in Prison. The Government responded positively to this recommendation, provided an accurate method can be found that protects the rights of vulnerable individuals.
Cambridge criminologists Murray and Farrington referred to children of prisoners as “forgotten victims” of crime and “the Cinderella of penology”. This new clause could fit well into a Bill to make provision about victims of, and others affected by, criminal conduct. Accurate numbers and knowing exactly who is affected are both important to mitigate the deleterious effects of parental imprisonment on children, including the greater likelihood that they will themselves become offenders. Studies by Farrington et al and Dallaire found that over 60% of children of incarcerated parents offend themselves.
Mothers are more likely to be primary carers. However, today’s family complexities make this “primary carer” tag less clearcut. Men increasingly fill this role and many have “shared care” of children after parental separation. So, while I support this data collection, it should not further downplay the importance of fathers in children’s lives. That the Joint Committee felt justified in looking at the right to family life only for children whose mothers are in prison exposes an assumption that needs to be challenged. Can the Minister impart any early insights about the Government’s appetite to make such data collection a statutory requirement?
Where prisoners are concerned, public perceptions of men are very different from those of women. Important male/female differences affect the way each sex experiences incarceration, but there is far less societal acceptance that many convicted men are also victims. Yet for both sexes there is a deep connection between being a victim and ending up in prison—a quarter of prisoners were in local authority care. In The Honest Politician’s Guide to Prisons and Probation, the former Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips, describes how
“‘a vast range of people in our prisons are inadequate in one way or another’, including many young people who suffered ‘horrific social deprivation’ … ‘Youths who stab people; they don’t control their emotions and so they do something horrific. But there is no point locking them up for … 20 years for a two-minute loss of temper’”.
By young people he means young men: less than 1.5% of the child and youth estate is female—the rest are male—and only 4.5% of the adult prison estate is female.
Without in any way excusing their crimes, I say that many young men have been through a range of adverse childhood experiences but often lack the developed emotional intelligence to articulate how they have been affected by them. It is a skill shaped through early nurturing relationships—precisely what many have not had when fathers have been absent. The ensuing vulnerability often comes out in anger, gang involvement and, ultimately, self-destructive acts, which can also devastate others’ lives. Victims of such crimes matter enormously, but courts exist to prevent vigilantism, vengeance and private justice.
Some are concerned—I mention here my noble friend Lady Newlove—that this is no longer just a victims’ Bill. But we must learn from those who speak for female offenders and extend to men and boys the recognition that we cannot neatly divide the world into victims and perpetrators. This is not to excuse—I disagree that women should not be in prison, even if they are parents, let alone men—but to build public understanding that funding for effective rehabilitation is money well spent. So, in ending, I ask the Minister to consider that victim/offender is an overlapping category that could be usefully established in law through this Bill, given its somewhat unique title.
Baroness Gohir (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register, in particular that I am the CEO of Muslim Women Network UK, which is one of the charities that responded to the Government’s consultations on the Bill. I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, for outlining the key points in the Bill. Many gaps remain, but I welcome the Bill and I hope that the gaps can be addressed. I will try to point out a few examples.
The Bill does not adequately protect children. I look forward to hearing what the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, has to say about this later. The definition of “victim” in Clause 1 needs to be expanded further to include children who have been forced or coerced into criminal activity. A statutory definition of “child criminal exploitation” must also be introduced, as recommended by several children’s charities such as the NSPCC, Barnardo’s and the Children’s Society. It would prevent statutory agencies from regarding these children as perpetrators only.
Many child victims of abuse and exploitation go unsupported because they are not able to access specific services to meet their needs in their locality. The Bill must place a duty on commissioners to commission sufficient specialist child-specific support and advocacy services to ensure that all child victims are supported, no matter where they are in the country.
Clause 15, which focuses on creating guidance for independent sexual violence advisers and independent domestic violence advisers for adults must go further and create guidance for child ISVAs and child IDVAs. The guidance does mention service provision for children, but having child ISVAs and child IDVAs would strengthen protection for them. Clause 15 does not mention when the guidance will be reviewed, and it would be helpful to add a timeframe to ensure that the guidance is kept up to date.
I welcome Clause16, which restricts parental responsibility when one parent kills another. However, to further safeguard children, parents who have been convicted of committing serious sexual offences against their children or other children in their households should also automatically lose parental responsibility. The automatic parental right of men who have fathered a child through rape should also be removed. This is especially important, given that anyone born as a result of rape is now being recognised as a victim in their own right in Clause 1 of the Bill. Parents should not have to spend thousands of pounds to protect their children by going through court—and how about those parents who do not have the resources to do that?
How will the needs of children will be incorporated into the victims’ code? Does the Minister agree that the Secretary of State should also be required to provide a victims’ code specifically designed for children, as recommended by the Children’s Commissioner? The code will only be effective if all professionals receive the same level of training, and there is accountability. These issues have already been mentioned in depth by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton.
Clause 6 mentions awareness-raising only for service users and public; it is silent on training for professionals who will be tasked with delivering the code of practice. There is also no punishment for failing to act in accordance with the code. The power to punish non-compliance, even if discretionary, would give victims more trust and confidence in the criminal justice system. I think we would all agree that such trust and confidence is at an all-time low.
The Bill states that the code can be revised from time to time. However, to ensure that this review is not delayed, I recommend that we put in a time frame such as every three to five years. The Bill does not adequately protect adults either. Stalking is poorly understood. Police forces are failing to address stalking even though we have stalking legislation. Independent stalking advocates should therefore also be included in Clause 15; it would help to save lives.
All victims of violence, no matter their background, should have equal access to services. We must therefore have a firewall to stop statutory agencies reporting migrant victims of domestic abuse to Immigration Enforcement when they try to seek support and help. We must expand the destitution domestic violence concession model to ensure that migrant victims of domestic abuse get the financial support they need, regardless of their immigration status. We must have ring-fenced funding for specialist services at both local and national level, and that funding must be accessible. The current funding model means that smaller specialist “by and for” organisations often do not meet the income thresholds that the Government tend to set, which prevents them applying for funding.
The right to contest decisions is a fundamental pillar of justice. Clause 2(3)(d) mentions that victims
“should be able to challenge decisions which have a direct impact on them”.
However, the Bill does not mention anywhere the victims’ right to review. For noble Lords who are not familiar with the victims’ right to review, I will explain its status and the gaps. A victim of crime has the right to seek a review of a CPS decision not to prosecute. That right was established by article 11 of EU directive 2012/29. At present that directive is still law for us because of some of the EU legislation that we have retained.
However, the legislation contains a significant gap for victims who are subjected to crime by multiple perpetrators, such as victims of gang rape or child sexual exploitation. At present the victims’ right to review works only if there is a single perpetrator. In cases in which there are multiple perpetrators but only one or some are charged—say, for rape—and others are not, the victims do not have the right to ask for a review on why other perpetrators have not been prosecuted. That has resulted in many victims dropping cases and perpetrators not being brought to justice. The Bill provides an opportunity to address that gap. Does the Minister agree about the unfairness of the current victims’ right to review? Will he consider strengthening it in the Bill or in the victims’ code of practice?
The Bill presents a significant chance to enhance the safeguarding of victims and guarantee a response that meets their needs. I urge the Government to do all they can to make this a reality and address all the gaps.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, in the main I welcome the measures introduced in Parts 1, 2 and 3 of the Bill, with provisos. While I welcome the enforcement of the victims’ code in law, it needs to have sharper teeth by requiring the measuring and monitoring of service levels—otherwise, how can we know whether agencies are complying?
I heard the Minister’s arguments about transparency in his opening remarks, but the charity Victim Support found that as many as six in 10 victims do not currently receive their rights under the victims’ code. Improving enforcement rates will need adequate funding. What additional resources will be allocated to ensure that the code is enforced?
There is a narrative running through the Bill to empower and protect victims and give them more of a say—but not all victims. The Government are leaving out two or arguably three classes of victim. According to the Centre for Women’s Justice, more than half the women in prison or under community sentences are themselves victims who have been coerced in some way into crime, as so ably described by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle. I expect the Committee stage to involve amendments to ensure a new statutory defence for victims: that the victim was made to or pressured to commit certain offences.
The second group of victims are victims of human trafficking and other migrants who fear to report abuse to the police because, according to research by the Victims’ Commissioner, every single police force in England and Wales had passed on data to Immigration Enforcement. If the Government truly mean it when they say that no victim of domestic violence should be fearful of coming forward, they must erect a firewall, as several Peers have said today—otherwise, the most vulnerable victims will continue to suffer.
There is much more to say about victims, but time does not permit because I want to move on to Part 4 of the Bill, which I do not agree with. The victim protection theme continues, in that public safety is made paramount. Indeed, the thrust of the Bill concerns not prisoners but protecting the public against them and, apparently out of sheer vindictiveness, punishing some of them to the extent of contravening the convention on human rights, which should be for everyone. For example, why rob the whole life tariff prisoner of the right to marry or form a civil partnership? It boils down to the medieval concept of “civic death”, like the fact that we continue to flout the convention by not allowing prisoners to vote. If you have committed a severe crime, been found out and punished with imprisonment, you become a non-person—your stake in society is lost. Taking away the right to marry from whole life tariff prisoners is vindictive, especially, as I learned only today, because it appears to be based on just one case. If the Minister believes it is not vindictive, let him explain why in his concluding remarks or write to me.
The new right for the Secretary of State to refer release decisions for so-called top-tier prisoners to an Upper Tribunal or High Court is better than the Secretary of State, a politician, making that decision, but best of all would be to allow the Parole Board to make all release decisions, as recommended by the Law Society. After all, that is what it is there for. According to the Howard League, referral to another level will bring further delay and uncertainty. Why not just let the Parole Board do its job?
Finally, I want to talk about indeterminate-sentence prisoners, who are arguably victims in their own right since almost all have now been forced to overstay their original tariff and 85% have served more than 10 years over tariff, according to the charity UNGRIPP. While I welcome the measure to introduce a new right for IPPs to be eligible for release from licence after three years, the Bill still fails to deal with the 1,312 IPP prisoners who have never been released, and possibly never will, because they are deemed to be unsafe to the public. Last week the Justice Secretary said at an all-party group meeting that these prisoners are likely never to be released, so that is why the Justice Committee’s recommended re-sentencing programme could not be adopted, but what sentences were given for similar cases before and after the advent of IPP prisoners? Surely that is exactly why they should be re-sentenced. The Crown is holding out the false hope of release for these poor people, year after miserable year. The UN special rapporteur on torture, Dr Alice Jill Edwards, argued that we
“must reject the misleading public safety arguments against reviewing these unfair sentences and review all such sentences. Locking people up—and in effect throwing away the keys—is not a solution legally or morally”.
I do not accept the Government’s argument against re-sentencing, and I never will.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome this Bill. As the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, has said, it is one we have waited quite a long time for. We will therefore want to strengthen it because I suspect there will not be another one coming down the road very quickly.
I will confine my remarks to a very specific area, although I support what others have said about children and other aspects of the Bill. I have spent far too many years working with women who have been abused and who have experienced violence. I really did think that, by this stage in my life, I would not have to be making as many interventions of this nature about this issue. You would have thought that we would be on top of this issue and made sure we had the legislation right. However, the reality is that the perpetrators are quite crafty. They have a persistence and determination to look for new vulnerabilities and new ways of exploiting the most vulnerable.
The 2018 Spicer review was a review of cases in Yorkshire and the north-east involving the grooming of young girls by large numbers of men for sexual purposes and other horrendous crimes. I have been working with an organisation which has renamed itself the STAGE project. It is a group of several organisations working in that region on the issues those young women faced then, and working with those same women and others as they have become adults and continue to be exploited. These young girls were targeted, groomed, raped and sexually exploited across the part of the world that I absolutely love, but the support for them has been very challenging.
The Spicer report acknowledged for the first time that not only children but women over the age of 18 are being groomed and sexually exploited. The problem is that too often this is seen not as a crime but as consensual: they are going with men in cars for sex, and being given drugs—what do they expect us to do about it? They are getting on with it; that is how they are making their money. But we also now hear about young women who cannot get accommodation—we even hear this about students—and are expected to give sexual favours in return for accommodation.
As STAGE says, we need to “change the narrative”. We need to understand what is really happening and make sure that those women are treated as victims and get the appropriate support to make sure they understand that they have had criminal activity perpetrated against them, and that there are routes for them to get support and for the perpetrators to be arrested, charged and punished. I have several copies of Changing the Narrative, and I will make sure the Minister and anyone else who wants one can have one.
I have been working with the organisations working with women who have experienced this level of exploitation. The stories are harrowing, and I am not going to repeat them in the Chamber today. The point I want to establish is that too often, the crime is not recognised. They are therefore not recognised as victims and the ability to change their lives and experiences simply disappears. A lot has been gained by the national definition of child sexual exploitation which came out of this work a few years ago, but we now need one for adult sexual exploitation.
I want the Secretary of State to consult on and develop a statutory definition of adult sexual exploitation and to publish accompanying guidance, and I will push the Government to accept that. Many organisations come up with their own definitions, which means that they vary enormously. Again, many women simply do not have trust in that. I know that Ministers have thought about this, but I want to make sure that this Minister understands where I am coming from and what I think we would gain by having that definition. It would enable everybody who works with victims—the police, probation, anybody in the criminal justice system—to understand what is happening to these women and help us build the right sort of support to tackle it.
There are ways forward. Too many times I have talked to young women whose support fell off a cliff edge when they were 18 because nobody saw it as exploitation any more—they were simply making decisions for themselves. They were far from making decisions for themselves: they were being exploited and are being exploited, and we should do something about it.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to speak in this debate, and I, too, look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere. I first began working with the noble Lord at the Home Office. As we all know, the department is a place of many minefields, but when the noble Lord entered the room, there was always a sigh of relief. You knew that with Harry, you were in safe hands. He is a wise man with a profound intellect and great humanity, and I know this House will benefit greatly from his future contributions. He is also a modest man, so he would probably prefer it if I now turned my attention away from him and to the matter in hand.
Like others, I welcome the Bill and the changes made in the other place. There are some areas on which I agree with the domestic abuse commissioner—in particular, the request for a national assessment of the need for and provision of domestic abuse services across the country. The Government have done so much in the Bill to address this at a local level. It makes sense to provide that cohesion and insight at a national level, not least because we still need to understand whether the duty on accommodation-based services in the Domestic Abuse Act, while done with the best of intentions, has inadvertently created a two-tier system within essential community-based services. I also share the Children’s Commissioner’s concerns about the need better to protect those subjected to child criminal exploitation, which has been mentioned already, and the need for specialist advocates for child victims of the most serious crimes.
I will focus my remarks on the role of the independent public advocate, which, I am afraid, does not go far enough if the position is to achieve what the Government say they want it to achieve. Fundamentally, as the Government have made clear, the IPA is there to ensure that the victims of major disasters do not encounter the difficulties and injustices that others have encountered, such as the Hillsborough families and the bereaved and survivors of the Grenfell Tower fire.
In terms of offering support and signposting through an overwhelming, inevitably complex system, the IPA will do just that. It will help with the difficulties, particularly now that we will have a standing advocate—a change to the original proposal which is to be applauded. However, what it will not be able to help with are the “injustices” mentioned by the Government. The victims of such incidents do not want just hand holding, important as that may be; they want to know the how and the why of what happened to them, and are acutely aware that these answers are not always easy to come by. That is why the IPA must have the powers of a data controller and the ability to compel public authorities to provide information.
The Government have said that if the IPA conducts its own investigations, this could complicate the landscape of other formal proceedings such as potential investigations, statutory inquiries and inquests. I take the point, but the Government have also said that the standing advocate will advise the Government on victims’ treatment by public authorities in response to major incidents and that it could also advise on the most appropriate form of government review following an incident. Is it not therefore sensible for the IPA to have the ability to request the information and evidence necessary to inform that advice, as well as to assuage the concerns of the people the advocate is there to represent?
Having worked with many groups affected by various disasters—I declare my interests as set out in the register—I know that they share a distinct trait: a complete lack of trust in government and those in authority. It is hardly surprising, given the history: the doctored witness statements of Hillsborough, the unanswered safety concerns of Grenfell residents, the sub-postmasters who were told that they were the only ones encountering problems with the Horizon IT system; I could go on. At the heart of every tragedy lies an institution intent on protecting itself, and while the Government are making great strides in the efforts to change this culture, it would be naive to think it does not still exist. Certainly, to those caught up in such scandals, it is their working assumption.
If we are to give people true equality of arms in the form of a standing advocate to represent them and be their voice, that advocate must have the power to truly act on their behalf by having the ability to break down the barriers that people will quite reasonably suspect are being put in their way. You may say that that is the job of a public inquiry or panel—certainly, that is the case in all the instances I have just mentioned—but what about other disasters, perhaps smaller in scale but no less devastating for those involved? What about disasters which merit the involvement of the advocate but do not meet the bar of a statutory inquiry? What happens to those families? How do they get the answers they need?
Moreover—and this is key—the independent public advocate has the potential to play a powerful role not just by providing practical help but by initiating the delicate process of building trust between victims and the state where no such trust exists. It can do this only by having the power to hold public authorities to account. I am afraid that I am going to disagree with my noble and learned friend the Minister: I do not think the Hillsborough charter will be enough in this instance.
I defer to the noble Lord, Lord Wills, who has done so much in this area, but in the light of the conversations I have had, without this power there is a feeling that the lessons have not been learned from the tragedies that have gone before. Instead, there is only the frustration that other people will face the same battles and endure similar injustices, and the independent public advocate will not have the support of the groups the Government say have done so much in helping to inform the parameters of this position. To that end, I hope that my noble and learned friend the Minister will look at this again, or at least provide the flexibility in the Bill for such a power to be added at a later stage, should it become clear that it is necessary—as I think it will—once the IPA has begun its work.
I have one more question—forgive me if this is covered in this afternoon’s statement—regarding the infected blood scandal. The new government amendment is most welcome but, rather proving my point about the lack of trust, campaigners are still concerned about the timing of the new judge-led body to administer the compensation scheme. There is a commitment for it to be established within three months of the passing of the Act, and the amendment includes the need for a small advisory board made up of potentially eligible persons and their representatives. Make no mistake, this is undoubtedly a good thing, but such boards are not always straightforward to set up. Can my noble and learned friend the Minister confirm that the need to begin conversations about this now has been relayed to the Lady Chief Justice, so that no further delays are inadvertently added into the mix?
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, I wish to speak today on a couple of issues to which the Bill gives rise. Noble Lords have said that, on the face of it, this seems an eminently sensible Bill in many respects, and I think there will much support for elements of it across the House. However, it has caused significant concern among organisations and NGOs that operate in fields such as criminal justice and the protection of victims of domestic violence. I am thinking of organisations such as Amnesty, Justice and Inquest and, most recently, some of the families affected by the Hillsborough disaster, the Manchester bombing, the Grenfell Tower fire and the Daniel Morgan case.
In all these cases, those charged with inquiring into what happened experienced delays and even obstruction in getting access to material necessary to establish what had happened. The measures in this Bill and the Criminal Justice Bill do not go far enough in addressing the problems identified by victims during repeated criminal cases and inquiries over the years, not least the disproportionality of resources available to statutory agencies, which may be able to brief several leading counsel, and to victims, who find themselves struggling to afford the costs of one. All these matters increase the stress experienced by victims, and a code and a charter do to not equate to a statutory obligation on agencies. I attended the Minister’s briefing on his Government’s response to the Jones report on the Hillsborough case and the experience of victims, and there was universal sadness and concern about the Government’s response.
The Human Rights Act has been very significant in strengthening the rights of those who, for various reasons such as poverty, homelessness and marginalisation, are unable to engage as fully as they might with the criminal justice system, whether as victims, perpetrators, alleged perpetrators, or even ultimately as prisoners. These tend to be the people for whom life is hardest, very often for reasons outside their control. It has been observed on many occasions that people can end up in prison for less serious offences, while the perpetrators of serious crimes may not even be investigated because of the lack of the resources needed for serious criminal investigations.
It is important that, having reappointed the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, as Victims’ Commissioner—a recognition of her significant contribution in this area—the Government should listen carefully to the observations about the Bill which she expressed in a fine contribution this afternoon. She brings such experience and courage to this role. I particularly ask the noble and learned Lord the Minister to consider enhancing the provisions in the Bill on the care and support of victims of domestic violence.
Clauses 49 to 51 provide for the setting aside of the Human Rights Act, which requires public authorities and judges to interpret and apply legislation in accordance with human rights law in so far as is possible. Clause 52 weights judicial decisions on qualified human rights decisions against prisoners. Matters relating to release issues such as the right to family life, the right to liberty, and the right of access to the courts and a fair hearing, will be impacted by these clauses. Allowing judges to continue to take into account issues which are relevant in the light of Section 3 of the Human Rights Act is not a matter of going soft on prisoners. Reducing that judicial capacity is not justified by the evidence we have to date.
I had the privilege to serve under Lord Justice Sir Peter Gross in the review of the Human Rights Act a year or so ago. Despite taking extensive and varied evidence, we did not identify any grounds for the changes to the application of the Human Rights Act proposed in this Bill. It should be a matter of concern to all of us that we are progressively and incrementally dismantling the provisions of the Human Rights Act that have applied in this country under the ECHR, and now under the Human Rights Act, for the past 70 or so years. We were rightly proud of our contribution as a country to the creation of the convention, which followed the Second World War, with its appalling death toll, its genocide, and the attacks on homosexuals, Christians, the disabled and many others who were regarded as unnecessary or unwanted by the Nazis, and its devastation and destruction of the world.
The convention articulated very basic human rights, and Section 3 is a statement of the need for the judiciary to act in accordance with it, as part of the rule of law now. Over recent times, we have seen legislation which seems simply to ignore these obligations under domestic and European human rights law. I think of the Illegal Migration Act, so roundly condemned in your Lordships’ House. Then there is the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act, currently the subject of multiple judicial review applications challenging its legality—judicial reviews that were anticipated from the very beginning, at the First Reading of that Bill. The world anticipated those judicial reviews, and it is important that we do not get a reputation for setting aside our human rights obligations when they seem to become less than convenient.
Paragraph 100 of the Explanatory Memorandum explains:
“The purpose of this is to avoid courts adopting a strained section 3 interpretation, which ultimately disregards the policy intentions of the release regime. The measures also provide that, where a court is considering a challenge relating to a relevant Convention right, in relation to application of any of the release legislation, the court must give the greatest possible weight to the importance of reducing the risk to the public from the offender”.
There is very little evidence to support the existence of this hypothetical risk. These provisions have the effect of discriminating against one small sector of society by disapplying rights that others have. The parole and release systems have generally worked well. This intervention is not necessary or proportionate, and I urge government to think very carefully about the effects on the UK’s reputation and its global capacity of the way in which this legislation is formulated.
Lord Wills (Lab)
My Lords, this is an important Bill. The Government deserve credit for seeking to address many of the ways that victims of crimes and public disasters have been let down by the state over the years. I pay tribute to the Victims’ Commissioner, as many others have tonight. The noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, deserves credit for the way in which she has campaigned tirelessly on behalf of victims for over a decade.
However, it is disappointing that, in many areas, the Government have not gone as far as they could have done, and should have done, to provide better protection for victims. In his opening remarks, the Minister said that his door was always open, and he has certainly proved that to me personally. I hope that he has taken careful note of the number of speakers who tonight have said that this Bill just does not go far enough.
Why, for example, have the Government not introduced a statutory definition of child criminal exploitation, to ensure that children who have been forced into committing crimes are recognised as victims, not as perpetrators? Why, for example, are victims and survivors of rape who have had the courage to report appalling acts of sexual violence still being denied adequate legislation and guidance to prevent intrusive and inappropriate requests for survivors’ personal records? That forces them often to choose between vitally needed therapy and the pursuit of justice. Furthermore, there is no adequate means of enforcement of the victims’ code.
I want to focus my remarks on Part 2 of the Bill, relating to victims of major incidents. This derives from my two Private Member’s Bills, which endeavoured to set up an independent public advocate to act on behalf of the victims of large-scale public disasters and those bereaved by them. It has been a long journey to get to this stage. I introduced my first Private Member’s Bill nearly a decade ago. Since then, I have campaigned to get it adopted by the Government, as has my colleague and friend in the other place, the right honourable Maria Eagle MP, who has campaigned to get a similar Bill adopted there. The proposal went into the Conservative manifesto in 2017, and into the subsequent Queen’s Speech. And so finally here we are.
Throughout this process, successive Ministers and their officials have been generous with their time in consulting me. I place on record my thanks to all of them, including most recently the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy. I am particularly grateful to the former Prime Minister, the right honourable Theresa May MP, who immediately saw the merits of this proposal when she was Prime Minister and has campaigned for it ever since. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, for her kind remarks about this; she was a very important member of that team that first brought the independent public advocate into seeing a serious possibility of legislation. She also deserves tribute for her part in this long journey to where we are tonight.
The Government have shown themselves willing to listen, and the version of Part 2 that is now before your Lordships’ House is a significant improvement on the original, profoundly flawed draft. However, it still will not deliver what victims of public disasters and those bereaved by such disasters want and need. The extraordinary persistence, dignity and solidarity of the Hillsborough families’ campaign that generated the momentum that led to the development of the concept of the independent public advocate really deserve better.
The challenge—and it is a challenge—is to strike a balance between the impartial discharge of justice and good government on the one hand and protecting the interests and feelings of the bereaved and injured survivors on the other. My Bill sought to establish two fundamental pillars of a new system, based around the institution of an independent public advocate, both of which this Bill fails to deliver.
The first pillar was transparency. Without it, the bereaved will never achieve anything approaching closure, and, without it, it is difficult and often impossible for the public policy lessons to be learned and necessary reforms made. The second pillar—and this is important in everything that we have heard tonight about what the state should be doing better for victims—was ensuring that victims and the bereaved have some agency in the process. No longer must they be left on the sidelines, dealing with unimaginable grief and loss while the state proceeds, apparently on their behalf, but without giving them any agency in the process. The Government’s proposals do not provide any guaranteed mechanism for securing full transparency, such as the Hillsborough independent panel achieved, and they deny victims and the bereaved any effective agency.
The Government’s view appears to be that, as His Majesty’s Government are democratically accountable, they must be able to wield the executive power for which they will be held to account by Parliament and the electorate. This is not an unreasonable approach, but it does not mean that they should deny bereaved families any effective agency at all in these matters, which is the current position, and nor can it justify any failure to maximise transparency. Again, that appears to be the current position of the Government.
As I have suggested before in your Lordship’s House, one way forward might be to specify that the Secretary of State, in proceeding with an independent public advocate, must act with regard to the dues of bereaved families, the benefits of an independent public advocate and/or an inquiry and/or a Hillsborough-type panel, including in relation to cost, timeliness and transparency, and any wider public interest. Crucially, I have suggested that the Secretary of State must—not may—produce a debatable report to Parliament justifying why they have proceeded as they have done and why, if they have not exercised this power, they have not done so, and that this debatable report should be produced as soon as possible after the public disaster. James Jones, the Bishop of Liverpool, in his masterful report, to which the Government have only just responded, points out that any delay allows these public organisations to protect themselves, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, has just said, and produce a false narrative. We saw that demonstrated graphically in the case of the Hillsborough disaster.
As the Bill progresses though your Lordships’ House, I will bring forward amendments to try to achieve greater transparency and greater agency for the families. I hope the Government are really listening and will find it in themselves to adopt them—I cannot see any reason why they should not.
Finally, I take this opportunity to urge the Government to reconsider their long-delayed and half-hearted response to Bishop James Jones’s report on the Hillsborough disaster, aptly titled The Patronising Disposition of Unaccountable Power, and to use the legislative opportunity of the Criminal Justice Bill, or indeed this Bill, to introduce a statutory duty of candour for those operating across public services, such as policing, health, social care and housing. By requiring openness and transparency, a statutory duty of candour would assist in creating much-needed cultural change in how state bodies approach inquests and inquiries. It would give confidence to individual members of those organisations who want to assist such inquiries and investigations but may be experiencing quite intolerable pressure, in many circumstances, not to do so. We must see an end to these sorts of evasive and obstructive practices by state bodies following deaths in these circumstances. We have seen, all too often, the damage that this causes, not least following the Hillsborough disaster. A statutory duty of candour would help end this.
The families bereaved at Hillsborough fought a dignified, indomitable campaign for decades to secure truth and justice for those they lost. By ensuring that those similarly bereaved in future never have to endure what they endured, the institution of the independent public advocate will be a legacy for their struggle and for their loved ones. I ask the Government to make it a meaningful legacy and give all the Hillsborough families hope that the Government will be prepared to amend the Bill in the ways I have described.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I am grateful to His Majesty’s Government for introducing this Bill. I am also grateful that shortly we will hear a maiden speech from the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere. His long experience of the law and the Civil Service will serve your Lordships’ House well. I look forward to his remarks today and on many future occasions.
I also welcome the focus on victims that lies at the heart of the Bill. As we have just heard, it builds on the report of my right reverend friend Bishop James Jones, a former Member of your Lordships’ House, into the Hillsborough tragedy. I was a young member of the clergy called into the stadium to support bereaved families. I will never forget the sight of iron barriers twisted out of shape by the pressure of human bodies being crushed against them. Hence I warmly commend the proposal for independent public advocates in cases such as that and the Manchester Arena attack, to which the Minister referred in his opening remarks—I thank him for doing so. As Bishop of Manchester, it fell to me to help lead my city’s response to the brutal murder of 22 people and the injuring and traumatising of hundreds of others.
How inquiries are set up and resourced is vital to whether they gain the confidence of the public in general and of survivors and bereaved relatives in particular. I hope that as the Bill progresses we can reflect on whether the current draft does enough to ensure that. Specifically, it would be well to widen the cases in which an advocate would be appointed to include all incidents where there is a deep public interest in ensuring a thorough investigation. If the advocate is to be truly independent, as the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Sanderson of Welton, have reminded us, they need their own data controller powers and for the powers of the Secretary of State in relation to their appointment and functioning to be the minimum. All that is achievable through amendments to the Bill, which I hope to support later.
I also welcome placing IDVAs and ISVAs on a statutory footing, but the word “independent” matters and I hope that we can clarify, in the Bill or in statutory guidance, that they are fully independent from both the police and the criminal justice system. Many victims find community-based services, especially those led by people with lived experience of the issues they themselves face, to be the most accessible and most useful means of support. However, the vast majority of such services struggle financially—around 90%, according to a recent report—with inadequate, short-term, unreliable funding; that threatens their continuance. Hence, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and others, I agree with the suggestion from the domestic abuse commissioner of a clause placing a duty to collaborate on PCCs, local authorities and ICBs in the commissioning of appropriate local services. Alongside this, we need to think more widely, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, indicated, about how we fund the community-based services that are the bedrock of so much support across Britain.
With one or two notable exceptions, it is some time since most of us were children. Hence we need to scrutinise legislation with particular care to ensure that children’s needs are properly included. I am glad that so many speeches this afternoon and evening have referred to that. I support the call from many of our major children’s charities that every child in England and Wales affected by abuse and exploitation must have access to specialist advocacy support. The Bill should establish the role of independent child sexual violence advisers, independent child domestic violence advisers and independent child trafficking guardians as a support offering for children and young victims. It must also provide central funding for their employment.
Beyond this, I hope we can also explore, as others have said, the establishment of a statutory definition of child criminal exploitation, perhaps along the lines proposed by Barnardo’s and the Children’s Society, which define it as when
“another person or persons manipulate, deceive, coerce or control the person to undertake activity which constitutes a criminal offence where the person is under the age of 18”.
If we can get to a better definition over the next few weeks, well and good, but let us not miss this opportunity to have some definition in the Bill.
As the noble Baronesses, Lady Chakrabarti and Lady Hamwee, have reminded us, at present the Bill contains measures to disapply Section 3 of the Human Rights Act. While I understand that reducing risk to the public must be a high priority, I hope we will scrutinise this very carefully. Human rights are not something we earn through good behaviour, and nor should they lightly be taken from us. We rightly accept that such rights may be qualified when they conflict with other human rights but, like the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, a few minutes ago, I urge that we be very restrained in enacting wider restrictions.
Finally, I am aware that my native northern bluntness can on occasion lead me to what some may perceive as an over-acerbity of comment, but today I wish to be entirely kind to the Bill and to the Government for bringing it before us. I believe that with some non-partisan working and a little careful amendment in your Lordships’ House, it can become a stronger and better Bill. To that end, I and my colleagues on these Benches look forward to engaging with it in detail in the new year. Our society will then be better for it being added to our statute book.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, the Bill covers a lot of ground, and I agree that in some respects it has benefited from the extra time allowed, having been carried over from the previous parliamentary Session. I also agree that there is more to be done.
The valuable definition of victims at the start of the Bill is clearly the product of careful thought and is welcome. That definition helps to dispel the notion of victimless crime. It focuses on the impact of harm, including the effects of domestic abuse on children. When dealing with such cases in the family court, it is still surprising to realise how people do not recognise or grasp the misery and insecurity caused to children in environments where abuse occurs and where children have to accept it as the norm. That is not just distressing in the short term but damaging in the long term. Domestic violence begets violence and, it is now well understood, creates intergenerational problems when witnessed by children. I support the suggestion that has been made in this debate that there is scope for including reference in Clause 1 to exploited children. I also ask whether there is scope for referring to developmental harm caused to unborn children by domestic violence inflicted during pregnancy.
The intention of Clause 15 is welcome, providing for guidance to independent domestic and sexual violence advisers. In the family court, there is already specific provision for such people to accompany parents into court, and the judiciary and practitioners have become aware of, and value, the practical and emotional support provided, particularly by IDVAs, in cases in which abuse is a feature. If nothing else, such advisers can manage expectations. However, I suspect that the availability of such advisers is patchy and I assume that the hope is that guidance will provide some consistency. It would be helpful if the Government could clarify the expected nature and benefits of such guidance. It is also, as other noble Lords have suggested, a real opportunity to consider whether there should be a role for such specialist independent advisers specifically focusing on children affected by abuse.
I also wish to welcome the introduction of Clause 16, otherwise known as Jade’s law, which will require the Crown Court to restrict the exercise of parental responsibility by a parent who has been convicted of the murder or manslaughter of the other parent. There are few more difficult and sensitive cases for the family court to deal with than when one parent has killed the other. A range of immediate practical, legal and emotional problems arises for the surviving family, and for the children most affected. In such circumstances, it is inconceivable that a perpetrator without parental responsibility would then be granted it. Accordingly, if that perpetrator does already hold parental responsibility, typically by being named on the birth certificate, it is surely right that his status should be curtailed. In effect, the bereaved child has suddenly lost both parents, and will be traumatised, confused and in need of immediate expert support.
If the child is fortunate, there are capable grandparents or step-parents who come in, or the local authority will have taken responsibility under established guidance in case law. However, if the child is less fortunate, the surviving relatives may lack insight into how best to meet the needs of that child, and they may compete for control. Such disputes are utterly wretched. Clause 16 should at least ensure that arrangements and decisions that have to be made for the child, or children, cannot be impeded or complicated by the perpetrator. In principle, the surviving relatives should not have to deal with the perpetrator when making such arrangements and decisions, whether important or less so. Clause 16 should relieve them of that possibility.
My initial thoughts about the scope of this new power, and how it would work in practice, related to whether it could be extended, perhaps in discretionary form, to other situations which I and others have come across—for example, when one parent has caused the death of the other by dangerous driving in a car in which both were travelling, or where there was a conviction for a very serious assault which did not result in death. However, on reflection, I do not think that the Crown Court should be expected, as part of a sentencing exercise, to make automatic prohibited steps orders in these less extreme cases. The Crown Court will not have, and cannot be expected to have, a full appreciation of the family’s structure and dynamics, and of the circumstances of the children concerned, and will not have input from Cafcass.
That said, there was a worrying report on the Radio 4 “Today” programme on 20 November about the very costly struggle a mother had in respect of the so-called parental rights of her former partner, who was in prison as a convicted paedophile. I would ask if the Government have taken note of that case and have considered whether in future any steps can be taken, by way of legal aid or otherwise, to assist a mother who might find herself in that position.
Having heard earlier contributions, I can see there is a potential argument for extending this to the removal of parental responsibility from fathers whose child is a product of a rape. However, of course, he is unlikely to have parental responsibility because he is unlikely to be named on the birth certificate—but it may arise in cases of marital rape after a conviction. Subject to that, the balance is well struck and the new Clause 16 is limited to extreme cases.
Finally, the impetus for the provision to prohibit serving whole-life prisoners from forming a marriage is well understood and may be justified in some cases. It is subject to the possibility of permission from the Secretary of State in exceptional circumstances. That is no doubt to reduce human rights problems and may manage to do so. Following what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, can the Minister indicate the type of situations in which permission might be granted? There may be a case for allowing marriage in cases of terminal illness, but I am afraid I cannot think of many others and I look forward to hearing a response on that point.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I look forward to hearing the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, whom I am sure will bring much to this House. I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Moylan on his powerful speech on IPP prisoners, a subject which I shall not be addressing. My focus today is simply on Part 1, on victims. I am particularly grateful for the briefing which I received from Claire Waxman OBE, who is London’s Victims’ Commissioner.
I welcome this Bill, but I believe it could, and should, be strengthened in significant ways to assist the victims of crime. Bills like this do not come along every year. We have waited a long time for it and we really must take the opportunity we have; it may be another 20 years before we get another one. As other noble Lords have said, it can and should be strengthened to make it clear that agencies are under a statutory obligation to deliver certain core rights for victims. A bland entitlement that victims should receive certain rights, with no adequate machinery for enforcement, is not enough. The Bill must make it clear that victims’ rights must be identified. These must be unequivocal and must be enforceable in the event that agencies default—so the drafting of the code will be very important.
It must be premised on the basis that victims are entitled to, and must have, the benefit of certain treatment, and that there must be an enforceable obligation on the agencies so to provide. That will require measures to ensure positive compliance. Such measures will require minimum threshold levels and sanctions or, at the very least, inspections of agencies that do not meet those requirements. There must, of course, in addition be obligations on the agencies to collect and publish data on compliance, and those must be enforced. I say that because, as Claire Waxman has helpfully explained in her briefing, Clause 5 of the Bill replicates the non-compliance provisions of the Domestic Violence, Crimes and Victims Act 2004. Her coalface experience is that these have proved insufficient in practice, and we should learn from that.
My next point is to turn to Jade’s law, which of course we all applaud and are pleased that it is introduced. I heard with interest what the noble Lord, Lord Meston, had to say, and he has great experience, having sat as a family judge for many years. We appeared against each other in the family courts many years ago, so I bow to his experience, but I think we can and should do something, at the very least on an optional basis, to protect children who have been abused by their parents.
So, while I welcome the provisions that will ensure that parents who kill a partner, or former partner, by whom they have had children, will upon sentencing have their parental responsibility automatically suspended, I favour also giving the Crown Court an optional power: in other words, to expand Clause 16 to go further, to include among those whose parental rights may be suspended by the Crown Court parents convicted of committing serious sexual offences, such as rape, against their children or other children in the household, and other serious offences such as grievous bodily harm with intent, contrary to Section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act.
This should be only for really serious cases. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Meston, about the issues that can arise in complicated family situations, but there will be clear cases where to make a decision on sentencing at the end of the trial will be of enormous benefit to the family, so the court should have discretion. I am persuaded of this by the story of Sammy Woodhouse, a victim of the Rotherham child sexual abuse scandal. According to a report in the Times, the man, Hussain, was sentenced to 35 years’ imprisonment for offences including rape, abduction and indecent assault—but not murder. He was then allowed to participate in family court proceedings when the child, the progeny of the rape, became the subject of voluntary care proceedings. By definition, he was the rapist of the mother. That should have been the end of that. It must be possible to extend the scope of Clause 16 to protect children and mothers who are the actual victims of such sexual offences, but I agree that it must be discretionary and not on a mandatory basis.
Finally, continuing with victims, I draw attention to the witness preparation programme developed over the last 35 years in the province of Quebec in Canada. It uses crime victims assistance centres and carefully trained workers to prepare adult victims who will give evidence at a trial in ways that ensure that the specifics of the case are not discussed and that there is no adverse impact on the evidence presented by a victim at trial—no coaching, in other words. This is important because, very often, in practice a vulnerable witness does not meet Crown counsel until the morning of the trial and knows little of the reality of what lies ahead in the Crown Court.
As John Riley of the Criminal Bar Association told the Commons Justice Committee inquiry into sexual offences evidence, defence counsel may have had one or more conferences with the defendant and discussed the evidence in detail with them. The defendant knows what is coming, as is right and proper, but too many victims have no practical grasp of either the process or what they may be confronted with. Time does not permit me to go into the detail of the Quebec process, but Ms Waxman has produced a short report of her visit this May and I will provide a copy to the Minister.
In short, I commend this Bill but it could do even more.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, a recurrent theme so far today, in the Commons and in briefings, including from the children’s and domestic abuse commissioners, has been that the long-overdue victims part of this Bill represents a real and welcome opportunity but that it will be a missed opportunity if it does not strengthen the rights of children and domestic abuse victims and survivors. The Children’s Commissioner and the children’s coalition have spelled out a number of measures that are needed, in the commissioner’s words,
“to truly transform the response to child victims”.
These would, among other things, give due recognition to children’s agency, needs and rights and ensure specific appropriate support for children affected by violence, abuse and exploitation, including specialist advocacy.
Children are all too often the forgotten victims of domestic abuse. A number of reforms are needed for domestic abuse victims more generally if, in the words of the domestic abuse commissioner, DAC, the Bill is fully
“to realise the change needed to meet the needs of victims and survivors”.
There has been widespread welcome for the Bill’s introduction of a duty to collaborate and related duties, but the DAC, the Justice Committee in its pre-legislative scrutiny and domestic abuse organisations, including Women’s Aid and Refuge, have all raised concerns about the provision of heavily used specialist community-based services and, in particular, the precarious situation of “by and for” services, which are crucial to the adequate support of members of minoritised communities.
They have also emphasised the need for adequate and sustainable funding for these services. The Justice Committee observed:
“Additional funding is required to enable services to meet demand and allow the Victims Bill to live up to its ambitions”.
The DAC has recommended a duty on national government to
“meet the needs of minoritised victims and survivors through funding special ‘by and for’ services directly”,
which her mapping exercise has showed are
“by any measure, the most effective services for victims”.—[Official Report, Commons, Victims and Prisoners Bill Committee, 20/6/23; col. 7.]
Surviving Economic Abuse, SEA, with which I worked closely on the Domestic Abuse Bill, argues that this Bill
“can do more to recognise economic abuse, support economic abuse victim-survivors to ensure those who seek a criminal justice response are supported through the system and ensure all economic abuse survivors, whether they seek a criminal justice response or not, are supported to establish their economic safety and rebuild lives”.
Its research underlines the devastating impact that economic abuse can have. I hope that we can take forward some of its specific proposals in Committee, including the need for mandatory training of members of criminal justice agencies, as emphasised by Women’s Aid, London’s Victims’ Commissioner and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton.
SEA observes that migrant victim survivors can be particularly vulnerable to economic abuse and supports proposals from others, including the DAC, designed to protect migrant domestic abuse victims. This was a gaping hole in the Domestic Abuse Act that the Government refused to fill despite the best efforts of your Lordships’ House. As we have heard, there are two main issues here: the impact of the no recourse to public funds rule and the need for a firewall between Immigration Enforcement and statutory services for domestic abuse victims. The Government’s negative response to attempts to address these issues in the Commons by my honourable friend Sarah Champion, to whom I pay tribute, was disappointing.
I also pay tribute to Southall Black Sisters, the Latin American Women’s Rights Service and other organisations with which they collaborate for their tireless efforts on behalf of migrant victims and survivors. SBS is delivering the official support for the migrant victims pilot scheme to support women with no recourse to public funds facing domestic abuse. This pilot was supposed to provide the information the Government said they needed before deciding on a longer-term solution, even though all involved were adamant that sufficient evidence already existed. Yet here we are, nearly three years on and with the benefit of two independent evaluation reports—one of which was funded by the Home Office—which made clear what was needed in the longer term, but instead of a long-term solution to the problems highlighted by the pilot, we have a further extension to 2025. Can the Minister explain why?
The pre-legislative scrutiny report called for an immediate end to data sharing between the police and the Home Office for immigration enforcement purposes and the introduction of a complete firewall. I have been struck by the range of organisations supporting the strong and persistent call for a firewall from the DAC. For example, Victim Support argues that, without it, victims with insecure immigration status
“will be denied access to safety, support and justice”.
I also seek clarification on the intention behind Clause 2(6), which allows for the exclusion of certain groups from the protection of the victims’ code. Researchers into forced migrant survivors of sexual and gender-based violence at Birmingham University have raised fears that this might be used to exclude such victims, deemed “illegal” migrants under the Illegal Migration Act. I hope that is not the case.
When introducing the Bill’s Report stage in the Commons, the Minister said that the Government wanted
“to draw the definition of those entitled to support under the victims code as widely as possible” —[Official Report, Commons, 4/12/23; col. 91.]
in the interests of the Bill being “inclusive”. Yet so long as it excludes migrant women from the protections it provides, it cannot claim to be inclusive. No doubt the Minister will repeat the Government mantra that they see migrant domestic abuse survivors first and foremost as victims. However, unless they accept amendments that would explicitly include migrant women under the Bill’s protections, they cannot claim to be putting “safety before status”, as called for by the domestic abuse commissioner.
Finally, like other noble Lords, I was dismayed to see the clauses in Part 4 which will, like the Rwanda Bill, undermine the universality of human rights by excluding from the full protection of the Human Rights Act a politically unpopular group—in this case prisoners. What possible justification can there be for including this regressive step—of grave concern to many bodies from Amnesty, Liberty and the Howard League for Penal Reform to the Law Society, the EHRC and the Joint Committee on Human Rights—in what was originally a Bill purely about progressing the rights of victims? The Minister asked us to look at this section through the lens of victims. In what way will this help victims?
Nevertheless, thank goodness we have a Minister who engages with noble Lords. I look forward to answers to our questions.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, for me, there were echoes of the arrival of the Online Safety Bill in your Lordships’ House earlier this year when this Bill arrived. The similarities they have are years in gestation, promises repeatedly made, and undertakings and apparent commitments made, particularly to victims, but the feeling upon arrival is slightly underwhelming. Rather like the school reports which my despairing parents had to read year after year when I was put in various penal establishments which purported to be educational establishments, which would say, “Could do better if he tried”, in this case, as the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, said, it is, “Could do better if His Majesty’s Government tried”.
As the Minister said at the beginning of his speech, we need to avoid the needless politicisation of the Bill. When the Minister was kindly giving us a briefing last week, I said that the duty of most of us in this House is to try to drain the politics from the Bill. That is certainly what I intend to do. Yes, we are apparently going to be in an election year quite soon, but in no way, shape or form should victims become political footballs.
The huge imbalance in the resources that are going to be applied to different parts of the Bill mirrors rather accurately the differing focus on priorities. Are victims really at the centre of the Bill? The estimated costs of Part 1 are £30.4 million. The estimated costs of Part 3 are £530 million. Part 1 is 18% of that total; that does not feel like a particularly strong focus on victims. To add insult to injury, Part 3 is part of a continuing effort by His Majesty’s Government to repair a parole system which was comprehensively blown up by an earlier iteration of this Government, almost exactly nine years ago. However, we are where we are.
I will be focusing primarily on Part 1 of the Bill as it goes through Committee and Report. The victims’ code must be made flesh. It must not just be an aspiration, or a nudge to authorities to do the right thing. We tried that approach over many years and it does not work. If at first you do not succeed, you emphatically should not try repeatedly to do what has been proven to fail.
I would never be so rash as to deem to speak on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, but I always listen to what she says with great attention. I suspect her patience and hopes of delivering a marked improvement to the unacceptably varied experiences which victims are undergoing is being sorely tested by what is currently going on. If she, the domestic abuse commissioner, the victims’ commissioner for London—to whom the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, referred—and the Children’s Commissioner are collectively or individually unhappy with parts of the Bill, I think the Government can expect significant pushback from a great many of us.
As I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, said very forcibly earlier on, unless you have two things in tandem, this is not going to work. You need a serious fundamental culture change and you also need resources. It is a painful word for the current Government: money.
There are many examples of where we could do better but I will mention only a couple. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, mentioned, stalking is one of the most common and prevalent crimes which creates victims. However, looking at the Bill it is very hard to see an acknowledgment that this is the most prevalent type of crime and that it has the most impact on the largest number of victims, particularly women. We can and we should do better there. The lack of funding to support community-based services, where 70% of domestic abuse victims receive their support, should certainly be looked at.
Other noble Lords have mentioned having a proper statutory definition of child criminal exploitation to ensure children who have been forced into committing crimes are recognised as victims and not as perpetrators. The Children’s Commissioner has come up with five very clear asks, which I am sure have been forwarded to the Minister, and I support all of those.
Lastly, on needs, I will mention a friend of mine. She is a lady called Stella Creasy, and one of the bravest Members of Parliament I know. Some of you may have read what she went through in the press. As your Lordships probably know, she is somebody who is not afraid to call out misogyny in its many forms. Some men do not like this. A particular man put in a complaint to Leicestershire Police, basically saying that, given her views on men, she should no longer be in charge of her children. Leicestershire Police, in its wisdom, made a formal complaint to Waltham Forest Council. This eventually went to court and was completely and comprehensively thrown out. The response of Leicestershire Police was that this had been referred to its professional standards department and some “advice and reflective learning” was provided to officers. What she has gone through is pretty shocking. She is a brave and a tough lady. I saw her the other day and it had really shaken her. Out of sheer spite, somebody had tried to take her away from her children. That is totally and utterly unacceptable.
Working with other noble Lords, I am trying to elicit from the police and other victim services what they want from the Bill. We are talking about an awful lot of push today—what we would like and what is not working properly. Those that are charged with doing something to help victims know they are not doing a good job and they want to do better. I am trying to encourage them to come forward to say what would be most helpful and useful for them in the Bill. But in such a devolved and disjointed landscape, with 43 police forces and the same number of police and crime commissioners, how do you get best practice? Each change in leadership results in a change of focus and prioritisation. The victim ends up being a powerless bystander in this transient postcode lottery. That is not good enough.
We have to avoid in this Bill the temptation to say, “My victim is more important than your victim”. They are all equally important. We have much to do. Let us try to do it in a co-operative spirit, focusing on the victims. If it is not working for the victims, let us not insult their feelings by trying to justify the unjustifiable.
Lastly, let me I say how sympathetic I am to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, who is about to give his maiden speech. Normally in your Lordships’ House, a maiden speech happens about a quarter of the way through. He has been made to suffer a cruel and unusual punishment by waiting so long, and I wish him all the best.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I too welcome the Second Reading of the Victims and Prisoners Bill, as it offers a vital opportunity to ensure that victims and witnesses are given better protection and support. However, it does not go far enough in protecting child victims, including those who have suffered the most serious crimes. This is also the view of the children’s coalition that is working on this Bill, which includes the NSPCC, Barnardo’s, the Children’s Society and other like-minded organisations. I declare an interest as the vice-president of Barnardo’s.
Would it not be great if we had a Cabinet-level Minister for children to ensure that we do not have this type of omission? Children constitute a high proportion of victims of the most serious crimes, and, unfortunately, children experiencing abuse and exploitation is so frequent in our society that we no longer see these instances as rare. It can happen to any child, in any family, in any place. Shockingly, 500,000 children in England and Wales are sexually abused every year, according to the Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse. One child is being abused right now, as we speak. Women’s Aid estimates that 16,000 children in England are currently living in households where domestic abuse is taking place. Research shows that the impact of growing up with domestic abuse is the same as living in a war zone for child victims. Barnardo’s has found that up to 50,000 children and young people could be at risk of criminal exploitation. This number is likely to grow, according to Barnardo’s’ Invisible Children report, which found that the cost of living crisis is putting even more children at risk of criminal and sexual exploitation.
Child criminal exploitation is not defined in legislation, despite affecting the lives of thousands of children, young people and their families and communities each year. Without this statutory definition, children are going unidentified, unsupported and even blamed and criminalised for the abuse they receive. Organised criminal gangs prey on the vulnerabilities of these children, knowing that they will take the fall if the police catch them. I urge the Government to include a statutory definition of child criminal exploitation in the Bill. Without one, these children, who have faced physical, sexual and emotional abuse, will continue to be overlooked and invisible. There is little cost to doing this, but the signal it would send to the statutory agencies could make a huge difference by igniting new insight into this horrendous crime, the impacts of which are complex and far-ranging, affecting children’s physical and mental health behaviours, relationships, education and future work prospects. For many, these impacts can stay with them for the rest of their lives, and the lives of those closest to them, as well as society as a whole.
Despite the unimaginable damage and trauma that being a victim of these most serious crimes causes, children are not able to access the child-specific specialist support that is so crucially needed, and this Bill does nothing to address these gaps. Child-specific support and services provide a safe place for children to start to come to terms with their abuse and exploitation, and to be understood as victims. These services support children’s recovery through empathetic listening, emotional regulation, positive psychology and personal goal-setting. Specialist practitioners also work alongside parents and carers to support the child to recovery. This can reduce future harms and risk too, including by reducing alcohol and drug abuse, the risk of going missing from home, and interaction with the criminal justice system in the future.
But these services are few and far between, and children are facing a postcode lottery in accessing them. A freedom of information request made by Barnardo’s earlier this year showed that more than two thirds of local authorities had not commissioned any child sexual abuse/exploitation or child criminal exploitation services in the previous 12 months. Research by the domestic abuse commissioner found that only 29% of adult victims and survivors who wanted support for their children were able to access it, because these vital services are not available to all child victims. Child-specific support services, including child independent domestic violence advisers, child independent sexual violence advisers and independent child trafficking guardians, play a vital role in supporting child victims. They support children through the practical challenges and emotional trauma following abuse and exploitation, signposting support services, providing help, navigating the criminal justice system and giving emotional and well-being support. The Victims and Prisoners Bill must address this.
How can we leave children who have experienced the most hideous crimes unsupported and unprotected? It is imperative that the Victims and Prisoners Bill place a duty on commissioners to commission enough child-specific specialist support and services for child victims. This should be centrally funded, so that commissioners, including local authorities and police and crime commissioners, are able properly to support child victims.
I welcome the Bill placing independent sexual violence advisers and independent domestic violence advisers on a statutory footing with the creation of statutory guidance for these roles. However, these roles mainly support adults; there is no equivalent for children. Will the Government please create similar statutory guidance for children and ensure that the Bill places a duty on the Secretary of State to issue statutory guidance for them? This will play a vital role in supporting child victims of sexual abuse and exploitation, and domestic violence, which is not recognised or invested in by the state.
We cannot afford to lose the opportunity to provide support for child victims. I urge the Government to get this right and to ensure that children are prioritised in this Bill, because as I always say, childhood lasts a lifetime. I look forward to hearing the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carter.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is a great honour and privilege to have taken my seat and to be giving my maiden speech today—not without a certain amount of trepidation, I should add.
I must say at the outset how touched I was by the very kind, but without doubt overly generous, comments of the noble Baronesses, Lady Chakrabarti and Lady Sanderson. It is typical of them to be so kind.
I thank everyone here, especially the doorkeepers and attendants, who have been so helpful in explaining the inner mysteries of the House. Everyone here has made me so welcome, and that has been very evident this evening. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, and the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for supporting me at my introduction. I apologise for the delay which occurred between my Writ of Summons being issued and taking my seat. This was because of the conflict of interest which would have arisen if I had participated in your Lordships’ House while finishing my career as a Crown Servant.
My path to your Lordships’ door has been slightly unusual, as I have been a government lawyer for the last 34 or so years. I joined the legal advisers’ branch of the Home Office in the 1980s, which was then led by the late Sir Anthony Hammond. I will always be grateful to him for taking me on—that cannot have been a straightforward decision. Since then, as a government lawyer, I have been able to advise across the full range of public law issues affecting successive Governments and to work with talented politicians and civil servants in formulating policies, steering Bills through Parliament and defending litigation. It is creative, intellectually challenging and endlessly varied work, and I would heartily recommend it to any young lawyers wondering what career path to choose. It has enabled me to work in areas as diverse as: prisons and sentencing; the prevention of terrorism, especially in the aftermath of 9/11; Northern Ireland affairs, where I had the privilege of working with the incomparable Mo Mowlam on the Belfast agreement; immigration law, a rite of passage for any Home Office lawyer, of course; extradition; modern slavery; and many more.
For the last seven years, I have been general counsel in No. 10 to four successive Prime Ministers, which has enabled me to see close up the inner machinery of government, with all its ups and downs. Very often, I have sat in the—it has to be said—slightly cramped officials’ Box over there, advising Ministers on what to say, or what not to say, in response to your Lordships’ probing questions. In fact, it feels slightly odd to be standing here rather than being over there; I dare say I will get used to that.
I have always hugely admired the depth of insight, expertise, experience and sheer wisdom of your Lordships’ House. I just hope that my experience will be able to contribute, even in a small way, to your Lordships’ debates on improving the quality of legislation and in addressing some of the injustices we see across the nation. The noble Lord, Lord Farmer, said, in a speech last year on crime, reoffending and the rehabilitation of prisoners, that service in this House is
“a service for the common good”—[Official Report, 30/6/22; col. 803.]
and not for personal ambition. I intend to approach it in very much that spirit.
Turning to the subject of today’s debate, I should declare my interests as having recently become a trustee of the Prison Reform Trust and as having given some advice as a government lawyer on the infected blood inquiry and on some early thinking and drafts of Part 4 of the Bill relating to prisoners. Looking at the Bill as a whole, I welcome it. I strongly support the strength and rights for victims in Part 1 and the appointment of an independent standing public advocate provided for in Part 2. These are long-overdue reforms and I look forward to seeing them strengthened as the Bill progresses. I also obviously welcome the requirement that Part 3 will impose on the Government to set up a scheme for compensating victims of the infected blood scandal.
I have two slightly more substantive comments on Part 4 on prisoners, the first of which concerns IPP prisoners. I met one of these prisoners just a couple of weeks or so ago in a London prison. Coming face to face with him brought home to me the injustice which he and many others in his position have faced, serving a sentence for so many years that was described as indefensible and unfair by government Ministers at the time it was abolished in 2012. It is disappointing and surprising that no transitional provision was made at that time to deal with existing IPP prisoners. We are where we are and, while I support the earlier expiry of IPP licences, I personally would have preferred to see a re-sentencing exercise as proposed by the Justice Committee. While that would not necessarily have resulted in the earlier release of prisoners who were obviously dangerous to the public, it would have put right a historic wrong; it would have given these prisoners a sense that justice had finally been served, albeit 11 years too late. It might also have provided a little more hope, which is a much-needed commodity in our prisons.
My second point concerns the power of the Secretary of State to refer to the Upper Tribunal, on public confidence grounds, serious offenders who have previously been directed for release. The Bill is silent on how public confidence will be assessed. The Lord Chancellor at Second Reading in the other place referred to the cases of Worboys and Pitchfork—two truly awful cases, but not typical of the vast majority of Parole Board decisions, which correctly assess risk. We all know that hard cases make bad law, so can the Minister say how public confidence will be assessed in each case and whether it can be done in a principled and quasi-judicial way?
Looking at the Clock, I am reminded that I had the great privilege last year of meeting the much-missed Igor Judge. He advised me to keep my maiden speech short. If he were here now, he would have started to look at the Clock and would be giving me a gentle but knowing look—so I will stop there. I thank noble Lords so much for bearing with me and for all their kindness this evening.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, I will begin with the routine: reminding the House of my entry in the register of interests, including my practice at the Bar, which covers cases that have to do with the general subject matter of the Bill.
I now move to a unique, but none the less welcome, aspect of today’s proceedings. We have just heard the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere—and it was, if I may say so, worth waiting for. As the noble Lord explained, his peerage was gazetted in 2019, but he was introduced into your Lordships’ House only a couple of weeks ago. He also explained why there had to be a hiatus: for the last seven years he has been general counsel to No. 10 Downing Street, giving legal advice to four successive Prime Ministers. I am sure that he provided a much-needed element of stability at that address. Listening to the dangerously quiet advocacy that he was able to deploy just now makes me grateful that there is such a thing as the Government Legal Service and that such intellects as the noble Lord’s are deployed in its service.
It would have been difficult for a government lawyer working at the very heart of the Administration, who was not a law officer, to speak without giving the impression that he was speaking for the Government and, more particularly, the Prime Minister. But now the noble Lord is one of us: free to speak his mind from the Cross Benches and to give us the benefit of his experience and undoubted wisdom acquired over his many years in the Government Legal Service. He has worked on dozens of Bills, taking them through their entire legislative cycle, from policy formation to implementation into law, so we will rely on him to ensure that legislation leaving this House is in better shape than it was when it arrived.
Like the noble Lord, I am a trustee of the Prison Reform Trust and I particularly look forward to his reforming the law on IPPs and other aspects of the criminal justice system, as well as his analysis of Home Office and Ministry of Justice Bills—I am sure that we will not be short of them—and his contributions to our debates on international and treaty law. Today we heard the overture, and it is with eager anticipation that we await the many, I hope, successive acts of the opera. The noble Lord is more than welcome, and we all wish him well as a Member of your Lordships’ House.
I turn to what I believe to be an important omission from the Bill, which otherwise I generally support. For want of time, I will not discuss the vital question of IPPs, but other noble Lords from right across the Chamber have already done so, and I dare say that others may yet do so. My noble friend Lord Moylan and other noble Lords will table amendments in Committee, and I will join them when they do.
The omission I would like to deal with is the absence of support for overseas victims of corruption and fraud. Thanks to the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022, the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 and the Online Safety Act 2023, economic crime, bribery, money laundering and fraud are back in the news and on political agendas—although they have not really been out of the spotlight over the last 20 years.
Multinational companies have been fined more than £1.5 billion over the past decade after investigations by the Serious Fraud Office into corruption abroad, but only 1.4% of those fines, amounting to about £20 million, has been used to compensate victim countries. That is according to research carried out by Mr Sam Tate, a partner of the City of London law firm RPC. This needs to change.
Much of this corruption occurs in African countries that are already suffering terrible economic hardship from food, climate and energy crises, as well as from inflation. They are in dire need of economic support to repair the damage caused by corruption. The British Government have been vocal in their support for compensating foreign state victims of corruption, but the action actually taken to compensate foreign states tells a different story and leaves us, I fear, open to charges of hypocrisy. Most corruption cases brought before the English courts involve foreign jurisdictions. This country steps in as the world’s prosecutor and prosecutes crimes that take place in other countries, but then keeps all the fines for itself.
This is important, because corruption causes insidious damage to the poor and to the not-so-poor, particularly in emerging markets and economies. The United Nations says that it impedes international trade and investment, undermines sustainable development, threatens democracy and deprives citizens of vital public resources. The African Union estimated in 2015 that 25% of the continent’s gross domestic product was lost to corruption. Every company convicted of overseas corruption in this jurisdiction should be ordered to compensate the communities they have harmed. That would be both just and effective. Compensation should come through investment in programmes targeted at decreasing corruption and benefiting local communities by, for example, building and resourcing more schools and hospitals.
At first glance, our law encourages compensation: it is required to take precedence over all other financial sanctions. So far, so good—but, as with many noble ambitions, the problems lurk in the detail. Compensation is ordered in criminal cases only where the loss is straightforward to assess, even though the trial judge is usually a High Court or senior Crown Court judge who will deal routinely with complex issues every day.
Let me refer to two completed cases that are matters of public record. In 2022 Glencore pleaded guilty to widespread corruption in the oil markets of several African states. Although it was ordered to pay £281 million, not a single penny has been ordered to go back to the communities where the corruption happened, largely because it was held that compensation would be too complicated to quantify. The Airbus deferred prosecution agreement tells a similar story: the company was required to pay £991 million to the United Kingdom in fines, but compensation to the numerous Asian companies where the corruption took place formed no part of the deferred prosecution agreement.
The process for compensating overseas state victims needs urgent simplification so that real money can be returned to them. An answer lies in incentivising the corporations that commit these crimes to pay compensation voluntarily on the understanding that it would not increase the total amount, including penalties and costs, that they would have to pay. The company could be further incentivised by receiving a discount on the fine it would still be required to pay to the UK Treasury, or an increase to the fine if it refused or failed to make redress.
The required changes are straightforward and would cost the taxpayer nothing. We could create a standard measure of compensation that would ensure consistency and transparency, as well as avoiding the difficulty of calculating a specific amount of loss or damage in each case. The compensation figure could equal whichever is the higher of the profit made by the company from its corrupt conduct or the amount of bribes it paid to obtain the profits. This already happens when companies are sentenced, save that all the money goes to the British Treasury. The defendant company would pay nothing more, but at least some of the money would benefit the victim state and its citizens.
This could be achieved by requiring the defendant companies to enter into an agreement with the relevant state that would include obligations to comply with UN guidance on the treatment of compensation funds and to identify projects for which the funds could be used. To encourage states to enter into these types of arrangements, corporations could be permitted to donate the compensation funds to the World Bank or the IMF for projects in the region instead—or to pay down the country’s debt if an agreement cannot otherwise be reached.
The benefit of this approach is that unlike at present, where there is no disadvantage in doing nothing, it puts the onus on the corporates to take restorative action. It also addresses the difficulties in quantifying loss by creating a simple approach that gives companies early sight of the amount they will have to pay.
I am not so naive as to think that compensation paid to some foreign Governments by, for example, British corporate defendants found guilty of overseas bribery in our courts, will necessarily be spent on good causes in that state. I accept that such a scheme might encourage corruption by permitting foreign government officials to benefit from the corruption and then to benefit from the compensation, but the time has come for us to design a scheme to increase dramatically the percentage of recovered money that repairs the damage caused by corporate corruption abroad.
If the Government are serious about placing victims at the heart of the criminal justice system—and I believe they are—that should include an effective, watertight compensation regime that makes a reality of the mantra that corruption is not a victimless crime. Overseas victims of complex financial crime such as corruption are currently finding it far too difficult to be recognised and to receive support and compensation in our courts. Compensation should be returned to those affected by corruption, in line with the principles that the United Kingdom committed to at the Global Forum on Asset Recovery, a continuing by-product of the Anti-Corruption Summit initiated by my noble friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton in 2016.
This Bill would be enhanced if victims of complex financial crime and corruption from other jurisdictions were recognised as victims and compensated appropriately. These reforms would comfortably fit into this Bill, I suggest, but they need the political will to amend the sentencing guidelines on corporate corruption. They will need a carefully designed set of rules to implement the practical aspects of the policy. If we do this, we can hold our heads high and enhance our national reputation in the fight against international corruption.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, on a very wise maiden speech. He will clearly bring to this House a great wealth of experience, and I am very glad to add my welcome to others.
This is clearly a much-needed Bill, and today’s many contributions show how important it is that the Bill achieves its aim of increasing support for victims of crime and strengthening their voice. I think the interest in this Bill also reflects how far it still needs to go to achieve that aim. As has been said, the victims of crime have been waiting a long time for this legislation. We owe it to them to ensure the Bill is able to deliver.
It is also now a very wide-ranging Bill, but I want to focus my remarks on Part 1 and the duty to collaborate, particularly in regard to victim support services. Like other noble Lords, I have received emails and briefings from advocacy groups raising concerns about the Bill, and I am particularly grateful for the briefing from Refuge. As Refuge highlights, the Bill presents a vital opportunity to improve survivors’ access to life-saving community-based domestic abuse services. These specialist services provide practical and emotional support to survivors in a safe and local setting, yet many of these services are desperately underfunded, leading to what the domestic abuse commissioner earlier this year highlighted as a patchwork of provision and a postcode lottery when accessing support.
The Bill before us seeks to improve collaboration between commissioners of victim support services via the “duty to collaborate” and has benefited from amendments requiring duty holders to conduct joint strategic needs assessments. But this duty to collaborate must be supported by adequate, sustainable funding. Without new funding to stop the gaps identified by the JSNAs, the Bill—as Refuge highlights—will
“fail to deliver meaningful change for survivors of domestic abuse”.
Increased funding for victim and witness support services to the tune of £147 million a year to 2024-25 from the Ministry of Justice is not ring-fenced to domestic services, and Refuge tells us that existing commitments are insufficient to meet the demand for specialist domestic abuse services. Can the Minister provide any assurance on a commitment to amending the duty to collaborate Clauses 12 to 14 to introduce adequate, sustainable funding for specialist domestic abuse community-based services? The Women’s Aid Federation England has put this figure as at least £238 million a year.
In 2022, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner found that fewer than half of survivors who want to access community-based services are able to do so. Underfunding of community-based services and inadequate contracts often mean that service providers have to rely on insecure, fundraised income. So can the Minister equally offer any assurances on requiring services commissioned via the duty to be delivered on sustainable contract terms of at least three years?
This Bill is also a vital opportunity to strengthen children’s rights to safety and justice. We must not waste this opportunity. Children are disproportionately victims and survivors of the most serious crimes, yet the criminal justice system is not set up to meet children’s needs. National data tends to report on crime trends for those aged 16 and over, so those younger than this are not reflected in the way services are designed and commissioned. As the Children’s Commissioner highlights in her powerful briefing for this debate, a child in care, a child living in a mental health setting, and a child in custody all have the right to request an advocate; yet this is not extended to child victims of the most serious crimes.
In 2022, only 1% of clients accessing IDVA—independent domestic violence advocate—services were under the age of 18, despite the high prevalence of domestic abuse in this age group. The Children’s Commissioner highlights the lack of investment in, and patchy provision of, child independent domestic violence advisers, or child independent sexual violence advisers. These advisers not only work with children to help them understand the criminal justice process and provide much-needed emotional and well-being support, but serve as a vital point of contact with criminal justice agencies. I am glad that in Part 1, under the duty to collaborate, there will now be an explicit requirement to have regard to the particular needs of certain victims such as children. But the Bill needs to go further. Can the Minister offer any assurance that the Bill will ensure that every child victim of the most serious crimes will be offered a specialist advocate, thereby bringing child victims’ rights into line with their entitlements in other systems?
The Children’s Commissioner estimates that one in 15 children under the age of 17 lives in an abusive household, while nearly half of potential victims of modern slavery referred to the national referral mechanism are under 18. Child criminal exploitation is the most common referral reason.
I believe that all child victims should be represented in this Bill, and children who have been criminally exploited, such as those who have been coerced into county-lines drug dealing—an issue that has previously been raised in this House—are victims of abuse. Yet children victimised through criminal exploitation do not always get the support they need. There is currently no statutory definition of child criminal exploitation, so there is a risk that children who are forced to commit crimes are punished rather than safeguarded as victims. A definition of CCE, with guidance following, would help improve the identification of children at risk and allow for better assessment of need. Does the Minister agree that introducing a statutory definition of child criminal exploitation through this Bill would ensure that we see such children as victims first and foremost?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, as I so often find myself saying in your Lordships’ House, in the Green Party, when we are talking about justice policy, we would not start from here. Green political philosophy puts at its heart restorative justice. That means putting the victim at the centre in aiming to restore—or ideally, improve—their condition comparative to what it was before the crime, and ensuring that the offender’s rehabilitation is built on making amends both to the individual victim and to the community.
Paragraph CJ201 of our Policies for a Sustainable Society sets out, as one of its key objectives:
“To assist the victims of criminal acts as much as possible”.
I note that, when I look at the CPS website, there is a restorative justice page that was updated in February this year. It notes that restorative justice can play a part at any stage of the criminal justice process. It does, however, go on to note that it is most often associated with conditional cautioning. A phrase that particularly caught my attention was,
“where trained personnel are available, it should always be considered”.
My question for the Minister now—or perhaps he could elaborate later in writing—is: where do the Government see restorative justice? I have looked carefully at the Bill and there does not seem to be an obvious way in which that is considered part of it. I would be interested to see whether there is any part of the Bill that is seen to be associated with that and to learn how the Government see restorative justice as part of the overall system.
Of course, if we were approaching the Bill from that perspective, any Bill by definition would involve both victims and offenders—but that, of course, is not where we start with this Bill. So I begin by sharing the disappointment expressed by many that this is now a victims and prisoners Bill. Surely, we would be in a better place if there were now two separate Bills, with a chance for both Houses to fully focus on victims in particular, their care and support, rather than finding ourselves at the same time dealing with some extremely knotty and long-running problems, notably the clear injustice of the IPP—imprisonment for public protection —sentences.
Looking at that focus on victims, we come back to the issue of resources, but also of commitments of resources. I note the excellent briefing from Victim Support, which calls for the Government to commit in the Bill to ensuring that all the rights of the victims’ code are monitored and reported on by criminal justice agencies, not just some of the rights. It says—and I suspect this will find a great deal of support in your Lordships’ House—that this has to be written on the face of the Bill. Victim Support also says—and I have to concur—that the Government should be sharing and publicly consulting on the data proposed for the monitoring of victims’ rights while the Bill is progressing through your Lordships’ House. So often we find ourselves saying very similar things.
In discussing the word “must”, I have to associate myself with the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, about the need to replace many of the “shoulds” in this Bill with “musts”; although we might have to bring in the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, at that point, because she has her own inimitable perspective on those particular debates.
Talking again about resources, the lack of support for community-based services, particularly for victims of domestic abuse, is something that I have been talking about for at least a decade. So many of our community-based services have to rely on a year-by-year, bid-by-bid state of total uncertainty about funding. We have seen some changes and improvements on that in the most recent years, but still we need to ensure that, if we are going to identify needs through the joint strategic needs assessment introduced by the Bill, there is actually the ability to deal with those needs. It is really important, when we look at the independent domestic violence adviser role, that that has to be an absolutely independent role. We have seen from the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, for example, how strong and important such advocates can be right across the functioning of our society.
According to the Local Government Association’s briefing—I declare my interest as a vice-president of the LGA—the Bill states that PCCs, health bodies and local authorities must work together in commissioning support services for the victims of domestic abuse, serious violence and sexual violence. That is a great objective, but we all know just how incredibly stretched local government and all such services are. The recent report by the domestic abuse commissioner noted that insecure and insufficient funding was a key driver of services struggling to meet demand. I have pointed out in a number of different contexts that it is important to acknowledge the needs of victims of crime and bereaved families from abroad, ensuring their right to access support in England and Wales. I have raised in Written Questions the issue of ensuring that people who are British residents but not British citizens, and who were victims of crime abroad, get consular support and support when they return home.
Observant noble Lords may have noticed that I am speaking on issues that more regularly fall within the purview of my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I am sure that she will be picking up on some of these during the progress of the Bill, but there are a couple of issues on which your Lordships’ House may well hear from me again. One is protecting and supporting victims of major incidents and government wrongdoing. The Minister is already aware of my interest, which I raised with him during the Hillsborough Statement repeat, in the “Truth About Zane” campaign, which concerns the tragic death of young Zane Gbangbola. I am pleased to tell the Minister that Zane’s parents are keen to take up the offer to share with the department their experience of having an extreme inequality of arms in Zane’s inquest, with fully lawyered-up public bodies against a grieving family forced to resort to crowdfunding and pro bono support.
I note that the proposed independent public advocate, added after pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill and without consultations with organisations such as Inquest, Justice or any related to Hillsborough, is being instructed at the discretion of the Secretary of State, rather than the circumstances in which it is to be appointed being set out in statute. That surely cannot be right. I also note that there is no equality of treatment between the victims of major incidents and the victims of state wrongdoing and other crimes, nor any government justification for this disparity. In another revisiting of issues—I see a very familiar cast in this area—I particularly associate myself with the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on the importance of services for victims of crime with no recourse to public funds, an issue which many of us addressed during consideration of the Domestic Abuse Bill, and the firewalling of immigration matters from victims of domestic abuse and other crimes.
I see that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, is not in his place, but hopefully he will see in Hansard later that although he and I are perhaps not very often aligned on economic matters, I very much associate myself with his remarks about the victims of economic crime. He focused on corruption and overseas victims of economic crime—I would add victims of economic crime in the UK. To quote UK Finance, we are
“the fraud capital of the world”.
We are not doing enough for fraud and corruption victims around the world. I hope that I can work with the noble and learned Lord on those issues.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, this Bill covers a great deal of ground, and I will restrict my comments to a limited number of issues.
I welcome the intention of the Bill to improve the experience of victims in the criminal justice system, but I agree with other noble Lords that it will need strengthening if it is to achieve that objective. Further, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Russell, the biggest problem for survivors of crime and domestic abuse who need support is the appalling underfunding of support services. I hope that at later stages, we can consider addressing in the Bill the need for adequate funding for such services.
On a very different issue, as president of the Haemophilia Society I turn to Part 3 of the Bill. Our Minister, understandably and rightly, deferred any comments on this part of the Bill until Committee. However, as a Back-Bencher I welcome the requirement for the Secretary of State to create a body to administer the compensation scheme for victims of the infected blood scandal of the 1970s and 1980s. Of course, this should have been done decades ago. Of about 1,400 people infected with HIV and other problems as a result of being injected with infected imported blood products, only about 350 are alive today. Most of those infected with HIV have died from the infections directly caused by the contaminated blood products.
Nevertheless, even at this late stage, I welcome this important initiative. However, in Committee we will need to consider filling the gaps in the compensation plan. An interim compensation payment was made to direct victims and some partners in October 2022. However, no payment was made to parents who lost children as a result of the scandal, or to children who lost parents. We need to clarify in the Bill the total numbers eligible for compensation, to ensure that all those directly or indirectly affected by the contaminated blood products imported for NHS patients in the 1970s and 1980s receive compensation, even at this very late stage.
I welcome Clause 48, which deals with the treatment of those on indeterminate sentences that have been imposed for public protection. Other noble Lords have mentioned this incredibly important issue, and I agree with those who have applauded the more proportionate and effective means in this Bill to review and terminate an IPP licence. The existing 10-year post-release wait before the sentence can even be reviewed is inhumane. The clause introduces a three-year qualifying period, which creates the realistic prospect of an end to the sentence. Also, very importantly, the clause provides that if the licence is not terminated by the Parole Board at the three-year point, it will be automatically terminated two years later. I hope we will consider in Committee the vital role of the state in this area in rehabilitating and providing mental health treatment for people serving an IPP on licence in the community, in order to make a success of their resettlement and to ensure that they cease to be a risk to their community. These people inevitably will be suffering as a result of the state’s imposition of such a cruel sentence.
A deeply concerning proposal in the Bill is that in Clauses 49 to 52, which disapply Section 3 of the Human Rights Act to prisoners as a group. This provision contradicts one of the fundamental principles of the Human Rights Act: universality. Clause 52(4) goes some way to mitigating the consequences of these curbs, but only in relation to prisoner release cases; and it fails to retain the right under Article 3 of prisoners not to be treated in an inhuman or degrading way. The House will surely want to look at those clauses in Committee.
Even after the Commons amendments, the Bill includes limitations on the Parole Board’s independence, which, again, this House may want to consider. For example, the Parole Board is given powers to release very serious offenders. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, mentioned, the Secretary of State can refer a Parole Board decision on such cases to the Upper Tribunal—or, in particularly sensitive cases, to the High Court—if the relevant court may reach a different decision if it believes that the release test has not been met. Also, Clause 54 prohibits the chair from being involved in individual Parole Board cases or from trying to influence the outcome of the board’s decision in such cases. These seem to be extraordinary curbs on the powers and responsibilities of the chair. If we want the Parole Board to attract the best possible people, we should not undermine the independence of the members or the chair.
In conclusion, this Bill includes some valuable reforms but needs strengthening in some areas and very careful consideration by this House in others.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
Any legislation that might improve the position of victims is to be welcomed. As someone who has practised at the English Bar for five decades now, I can say that I have seen huge changes taking place—I see jaws are dropping at the idea of my having practised for so long, but it is true; I was very young when I qualified. When I started, the idea of us considering the position of victims did not exist at all. We have seen incrementally changes being made, but unfortunately the Bill will need some amendment to make it do what we all hope for, which is a serious updating on the rights of victims.
I sit on the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which is a wonderful committee, combining Members of both Houses of this Parliament. We have made notes on a number of issues that still concern us after this matter has gone through the Commons. We are delighted at the introduction of the role of the independent public advocate—something that we really endorse. Bishop Jones of Liverpool and others gave evidence in front of us in relation to the Hillsborough disaster, and they convinced us all of the need for an independent advocate to support victims of major incidents. However, we want that person to be fully independent of government. I emphasise the need for independence and for immediate action in the aftermath of major incidents.
We were concerned also about the Parole Board process and giving the Secretary of State the power to direct the referral of decisions to the Parole Board to himself, and to be retaken. This is again an issue of independence—how will you secure the services of independent-minded people if they feel that their carefully considered opinions are going to be abandoned at the whims of a populist Home Secretary?
The fact that there are 3,000 prisoners still serving sentences of imprisonment for public protection is a matter that has concerned the Joint Committee for quite a long time. Despite our having raised serious concerns about all that, we feel that Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the right not to be subjected to inhumane and degrading treatment, and Article 5, the right in respect of arbitrary detention, and even the right to life, are all interfered with by imprisonment for public protection. We are urging that the amendment that Sir Robert Neill put forward to the Commons might be considered by this House.
We are also concerned about the disapplication of Section 3 of the Human Rights Act in respect of the full legislative framework in England and Wales relating to the release, licences, supervision and recall of indeterminate and determinate sentenced offenders. It is a shocking business that a section of vulnerable people—because they are out of sight and therefore often out of mind—will not have the protections of the Human Rights Act. Again, I urge this House not to listen to the siren voices of those who have never liked the Human Rights Act and to recognise it as a wonderful addition to our legislative framework. I am a big believer in the common-law tradition, but it has been enriched by the Human Rights Act.
In keeping with previous recommendations, we would also like better data collection. A particular matter of concern to all of us, and something I have written about over the years, is the publication of the number of people in prison who have responsibility for the care of a child. Do we take enough care about that? I am not sure that we do, and I would like to have better data collection of the information.
I want to mention Sarah Everard, because my friend the Minister mentioned that that was a pivotal moment. It gave us a sense of something I have written about extensively: the lack of confidence that women and girls have in the justice system around sexual matters, meaning that so many would never turn to the law and feel that they are not listened to and cannot be confident of positive outcomes. To recover—though I do not know whether we ever had it—or secure the confidence of women and girls in our society, we must have reform. I urge that we take positive steps around the whole issue of rape and sexual assault, and perhaps look at the New South Wales model, or the Canadian model that was mentioned by one of the noble Lords on the Government Benches. We should be looking at better ways of supporting those who are victims.
There should also be the protection of survivors’ counselling and therapy records. I have seen it myself: there was a time when women were encouraged not to take counselling or see a therapist after they had been sexually violated because it would in some way call into question the credibility of what they were telling a court because they had talked about it too much and might have had ideas introduced into their heads. Now they are allowed to see counsellors, but misuse is often made of the records. Where women have said that they feel a sense of shame, that is used to question why they would feel shame if they were the victim. This has got to stop. I urge that we provide proper protections of women around the misuse of their records and that they have legal advice, funded by the state, around what is going to be involved in a trial.
When the then Domestic Abuse Bill came before this House, I made the argument for there being changes to the law in relation to the current defences that exist in certain areas of crime. Many of the women who are in prison—and they are a tiny part of the prison population—almost invariably are themselves people who have been victimised. Something like 78% of women in prison have themselves been abused, either as children or as adults, at the hands of partners and husbands. Many of the offences that women are in prison for have been committed at the behest of men—they have been coerced by men to commit them. What I am calling for—I will again raise the issues that I raised and had support for during the passage of the Domestic Abuse Bill in this House—is that there should be statutory defences for women who commit crimes, such as handling stolen goods or carrying drugs, for their coercive partner because they know that not to do it will bring down serious punishment and they have become so coerced and controlled that the ability to say no or go to the authorities is out of their reach. There has to be something better in the way of defences for women who are forced into crime and end up imprisoned for those reasons. For women who end up killing their abusers after years of abuse, there has to be a proper way of considering defences that might be available. Many of those currently available are failing women because of the way they are constructed.
I have always argued, and have written books on the subject, that law was historically created by men, and it has been only in the process of women being involved in our parliamentary processes and on our senior judiciary that law has been changed. We have to change the law so that it delivers for women too. I will be putting amendments to this Bill that I hope this House will accept and return to the Commons to improve it for women and girls who continue to be abused.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, and I congratulate my noble friend Lord Carter of Haslemere on his excellent maiden speech. I shall treat it as a template for how to make a speech from now on. It was also an honour to listen to the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, and I congratulate her on her reappointment as Victims’ Commissioner.
This is a welcome Bill and I agree that it is overdue, but, as I was reading it, something was nagging at me. It was not until I went to the Children’s Commissioner’s very useful briefing that I realised what it was: children are hardly mentioned at all, and nor as the victims of crime, as the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Gohir and Lady Benjamin, so aptly described. At this point, as ever, I declare my interest as a state secondary school teacher in Hackney. It is true that Clause 16 is entirely about the relationship between a parent and a child, but even that relationship is seen from an adult standpoint. As far as I can see, the issues of children then cease to be considered in the rest of the Bill, as several noble Lords have noted.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, said most powerfully, the children’s coalition suggests introducing a statutory definition of child criminal exploitation in Clause 1 so that a victim can be described as a victim of child criminal exploitation and the crime itself is defined. This seems an opportunity to protect children and ensure that children who have been forced into committing crimes are recognised as victims, not perpetrators. I, among others, would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on that.
As my noble friend Lord Meston said, when a child is the victim of a crime they should be treated very differently from an adult. Clause 15 talks about independent domestic violence advisers and independent sexual violence advisers, but again, there is no mention of a child victim adviser. We all know that it can be extraordinarily bewildering and challenging for a child to go through the justice system, whether as a victim or witness. According to data from Safelives, already cited by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, only 1% of clients accessing independent domestic violence adviser services were under the age of 18, despite the high prevalence of domestic abuse in this age group.
The solution is that we need a specialist for every child victim. The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, quoted the Children’s Commissioner as saying:
“The Victims and Prisoners Bill should mandate that every child victim of the most serious crimes be offered a specialist advocate … This advocate must have the training and qualifications needed to work with vulnerable children. As well as specialism in the specific harm children have experienced, these advocates should also have the skillset of a Registered Intermediary, to ensure language and communication is appropriate to the child’s development level”,
as my noble friend Lady Coussins admirably described. As the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Gohir, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, have all quoted, Claire Waxman, the London Victims’ Commissioner, agrees:
“Clause 15 provides guidance about ISVAs and IDVAs, but does not recognise other victim advocates—including Stalking Advocates and Child Domestic Violence Advocates—who operate in the justice system and are crucial to victims. The Suzy Lamplugh Trust, for example, has shown that victims NOT supported by an Independent Stalking Advocate had a one-in-1,000 chance of their perpetrator being convicted, compared with one in four if they HAD this advocate”.
Surely this alone would make the idea worth while and repay any further investment tenfold. It would also fulfil the Government’s wish to avoid silos. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on this.
Another issue that has been flagged is that the Bill treats all under-18s as children. There is obviously a risk of adultifying them, but as the Children’s Commissioner also states, we need to deal with young people on a case-by-case basis to ensure that the criminal justice process is not disempowering for them.
We have to increase the profile of children and young people in this Bill. I will leave your Lordships with a quote from a 15 year-old rape victim: “I think if I could do it again, I wouldn’t report it, because I’d get over it much faster”.
Baroness Prashar (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a former executive chairman of the Parole Board of England and Wales. Although that was some 25 years ago, I have continued to take a keen interest in this work.
I too have received several excellent briefings from organisations concerned about victims of crime and abuse. I share their concerns with regard to victims and agree with the points that a number of noble Lords have made about the weaknesses and gaps in this Bill. I agree that it falls short of its original aim of strengthening and securing the rights of victims. Contrary to the Minister’s comment in his introduction, the changes proposed with regard to parole and prisoners, as Claire Waxman, the London Victims’ Commissioner has said, will have a negative impact on victims by causing delays. This will be a lost opportunity if we do not take the time to improve the Bill in this House.
However, I will confine my comments to the provisions in Part 4 concerning prisoners and parole. Despite the amendments in the other place giving powers to the Secretary of State to refer certain prisoners’ release decisions where sensitive material may be relevant for reconsideration to a higher court, these provisions undermine the independence of the Parole Board. They are also unworkable, unclear and unnecessary. They will add unnecessary complexity and delay to an already burdened system, not least the Upper Tribunal’s capacity and expertise.
It is not clear what problems these provisions attempt to solve. The Parole Board’s record speaks for itself. There is very little evidence that its decision-making falls short when it comes to public safety. The Bill’s Explanatory Notes state:
“Less than 0.5% of prisoners released by the Parole Board are convicted of a serious further offence within three years of the release decision having been made”.
Perhaps the Minister can tell the House what is broken which this Bill is trying to mend.
It is also inappropriate to introduce a public confidence test as a filter for deciding which cases should be referred to a higher court. As we know, a similar criterion was introduced by the previous Secretary of State in seeking to reduce the number of indeterminate prisoners being moved from closed to open conditions. This was reversed by the current Secretary of State as it was deemed highly subjective and difficult to apply. It was also criticised by the High Court, which stated that this policy criterion adds nothing.
It is dangerous if we use public opinion as the basis for ministerial interference in an independent process. Clauses 53 and 54, which give the Secretary of State the authority to remove the chair of the Parole Board in the interest of public confidence and enable executive interference in the composition of particular board members, are quite alarming. Given the sensitive nature of the role of the chairman of the Parole Board, he or she requires more protection, not less. Such interference will, in effect, undermine the Parole Board’s independence. In a recent judgment, the High Court said that it is
“well established that, when exercising powers in relation to the Board, the Secretary of State must not do anything that undermines or would be perceived as undermining the independence of the Board or that encroaches upon or interferes with the exercise by the Board of its judicial responsibilities”.
As we know, this also risks being incompatible with Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Perhaps the Minister can tell the House why this is necessary when there is already an established process for removing the Parole Board chair from office.
This new power to specifically remove the chairman on the grounds of public confidence can be interpreted only as responding to media outcry or political pressure following an unpopular parole decision. This will damage the Parole Board and undermine its ability to undertake effective risk assessments.
Clause 54 also prohibits the chairman from being involved in individual parole cases and from trying to influence the outcome of the Parole Board’s decision in such cases. The question of whether the chairman is involved in individual cases should be a matter for the board and not a statutory prescription. It is another unnecessary interference. Furthermore, mandating the Secretary of State to make rules to require a certain type of person to sit on panels is wholly inappropriate in terms of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights and basic principles of fairness.
It would breach principles of justice and common-law standards for one party to proceedings to have power over the composition of the judicial panel to which they are presenting their case. These measures do not make any logical sense and should be dropped.
Then, as others have said, there are the proposals to disapply fundamental human rights to prisoners. This would set a very dangerous precedent. These specific disapplications of human rights for people given custodial sentences would undermine one of the fundamental principles underlying human rights: universality and application to each and every person on the simple basis of their being human.
Because those in prison are under state control, their human rights are all the more important. They need protection, not erosion, of their fundamental rights. These gradual encroachments into dismantling our human rights framework—as we also saw during the passage of the Illegal Migration Bill—are worrying, dangerous and totally unacceptable. It is a slippery slope. On the one hand, the Bill includes a statement of compatibility with the Human Rights Act; on the other hand, it contains provisions to disapply a critical aspect of the Act. Can the Minister please explain?
Apart from arguments on grounds of principle against these provisions, there is no practical need for these clauses to disapply the Human Rights Act either. The Government’s argument that these measures protect against judges misusing the powers given to them by the HRA rings hollow when the Government’s own Independent Human Rights Act Review, chaired by Lord Justice Sir Peter Gross, found no evidence of this being a problem. This is a very flimsy justification for these measures.
We all care about public safety and public protection, but we also care about the values and principles that should underlie public policy. These measures will weaken, not strengthen, the work of the Parole Board and, of course, erode the well-founded principles that underpin our public policy.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, it is a particular pleasure for me to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, whom I admire hugely and with whose speech I agree 100%. She has seen everything in her very distinguished career, and the Government should take considerable notice of what she had to say about Part 4 of the Bill.
We can see from reading the debates in the other place that this is not particularly a politically controversial Bill, unlike many we have seen recently and, alas, may see again before very long. However, there are important arguments, very well put by the many experts in this House, that, as far as victims are concerned, while improving the position—the Bill does that—this may yet turn out to be a wasted opportunity.
I speak as the only Member of either House—so far, and perhaps not for long—who has served as an elected police and crime commissioner. I have therefore consulted opinion, to some extent at least, regarding the role of the police and crime commissioners, their offices and their responsibilities under the Bill. They are clearly being asked to do more than before. If the House will indulge me, I will briefly explain how they feel about the Bill at this stage. I tend to share their view.
Their general view is to welcome the proposals as they affect police and crime commissioners, but of course there is concern about effective implementation—the real question being: are there the facilities of leverage and resourcing that are needed for them to fulfil their roles? In particular, there is a view that the local criminal justice boards should be on a statutory footing. These are local fora where police and crime commissioners will seek assurances from criminal justice partners around code compliance—one of the responsibilities they are given—and shared accountability. The Home Office review on police and crime commissioners recommended that these local criminal justice boards should be statutory. That is not in the Bill. Have the Government changed their mind about that, or might we see this in the other criminal justice legislation that we will hear of in the months ahead?
Secondly, police and crime commissioners would generally welcome further levers to encourage code compliance, which is a duty imposed on them and others. Will they be given the power to demand and set expectations locally for other agencies? There is a welcome focus on good data and robust metrics, including feedback from victims, of course, and there are two new senior data analysts for each office of a police and crime commissioner. They are welcome too, but why the silence about long-term funding for those rather important posts?
Equally, as to the resourcing of the vital and welcome duty to collaborate, there are many similar duties in recent legislation that have gone through this House. In practice—that is the important point—these place a significant resourcing challenge to the parties involved, which, it is felt, are not always appreciated by the Government. Will the Minister please look at that issue again?
Finally, and more generally, where gaps in local services are found, there is no provision in the Bill for funding services. Will the Government step up to meet unmet victims’ needs?
Those, in short, are the views of police and crime commissioners. I cannot speak for them all, but I hope the Minister will take note of those views.
As for the code itself, I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, on what she had to say about the need to strengthen the code and tighten it up in regard to victims who have English as a second language. It is an important point, and I hope we do that at a later stage of the Bill.
The Minister will not be surprised to hear me ask about legal aid for Part 2 of the Bill. I would like more clarity as to where legal aid will come in and whether it will be means tested. If victims of an appalling incident want—as they may well—to instruct their own lawyers in the circumstances, what will the legal aid position be? Is that yet clear?
Finally, I want to express the widely shared view concerning the Bill’s proposals for the future of the Parole Board. Of course, the change of heart in giving the Lord Chancellor the option to direct the Parole Board and then to refer the case to the Upper Tribunal is to be welcomed, but some questions arise and I would like to put them quickly.
First, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, asked, why was the Upper Tribunal chosen? Secondly, on the point that the Lord Chancellor will send some cases where he thinks the Parole Board has got it wrong up to the Upper Tribunal, but not others, why must he not send them all up to whatever the judicial body is? How will he pick and choose? A less generous Lord Chancellor than we have at the moment may well take a completely different view and not send anything up to the Upper Tribunal, which will of course make the effect of this alteration negligible.
Thirdly—I have some experience of how busy Cabinet Ministers are, from having been a junior Minister in the Ministry of Justice, albeit a very long time ago—will the Lord Chancellor himself decide these issues by reading the papers? Will it be a junior Minister or a senior civil servant, on behalf of the Executive, who will make the decision that will affect the lives of individual prisoners?
In principle, the Executive should have no—or a minimal—part in the area of sentencing and the disposal of individual criminals. That actually breaches the rule of law in a fundamental way. The strength of the Parole Board, as the noble Baroness said, has been its independence, but that independence is being compromised by the proposals in the Bill. Allowing the Executive any greater role needs to be scrutinised with great care and permitted only when the necessity is proven. In my view, that case is not proven here.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I declare my non-remunerated role as chair of the Commission on Alcohol Harm. That is relevant, as up to 70% of prisoners indicate that they had been drinking at the time of committing their offence. Overall, alcohol-related crime costs England alone £11.4 billion each year, consuming 53% of police time. Where a child is killed or maimed, over one-third of cases have antecedents in parental alcohol use. Following my noble friends Lord Meston and Lord Hampton, I shall focus on children overall as victims. I will come later to the cross-border issues relating to the devolved Governments.
Despite the Government’s 119 amendments in the other place, they still have not adequately ensured that the concept of victim recognises that a person of any age and any degree of mental capacity can become a victim. A child can be a victim of many types of events, including domestic abuse, that do not reach the criminal conduct threshold. Child victims need independent support that does not intimidate them and which is appropriate for their level of emotional and intellectual development. It is important to understand that these do not necessarily coincide and may be quite different from the child’s chronological age, particularly where the child has been a victim for some time and their emotional development may have been impacted as a result. The Bill stipulates broad criteria that the victims’ code should meet, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, pointed out, it does not state that it must meet them, giving rise to concern that the flexibility in the Bill is so great about the provision to victims that it may remain as inadequate as it is today.
To state that the Bill requires provision for victims of different descriptions, which by implication covers all ages, is inadequate. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, pointed out, the Bill needs amending to ensure independent children’s advocacy. Such provision must apply up to the age of 18. When a person over 18 has learning difficulties, they will need to be able to access the age-appropriate support that should be built into the Bill for those under 18. Currently in the Bill, a child under 18 appears to forfeit their right to engage directly with their case in certain circumstances, such as when receiving direct support from the independent public advocate.
Wherever a child is interviewed, the process needs monitoring and quality assurance, particularly the communication skills and management of distress, with interviews recorded and independently reviewed. Communication must be child-centric, not speaking over them, to provide the child with a sense of control in a situation that is difficult and traumatic. It is important to remember that a great deal of violence, sexual abuse, emotional abuse and negligence occurs within families, as well as in relationships outside the home. These children may already feel failed by social services’ involvement, and they need completely independent and consistent support. Let us not forget that four in 10 victims of modern slavery are under the age of 18.
In major incidents, children are often secondary victims. When their parent or sibling is killed or injured, even if they were not present at the time, they will be a secondary victim. If a parent is a paedophile or they witness financial abuse in their family, they will feel tainted as secondary victims. The terrible ongoing trauma to children and young people following the major incidents in this country that we have heard about, such as the Manchester bombing and the Grenfell Tower fire, and indeed the infected blood scandal, cannot be underestimated. That was starkly illustrated abroad following the terrorist bomb at Brussels airport in which 32 victims died. Although Shanti De Corte, age 17 at the time, miraculously was not physically injured, she was so psychologically traumatised by witnessing the event that she eventually sought and received euthanasia six years later.
The Bill’s requirement for a victim assessment is not enough. As well as calling for a mandatory multiagency needs assessment for a child victim specified in the code of practice, there must also be a requirement to act on that assessment. If little or no action is taken then the child or young person can feel further exploited by the system itself and further alienated. I hope the Minister will listen to the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, in her new role, which she has taken up again, as Victims’ Commissioner. Sadly, she has a great deal of experience.
I turn to cross-border working. Many aspects of the Bill will involve services that fall within the devolved competencies of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I want to concentrate on Wales because the territorial extent and application of the Bill is far more extensive in relation to Wales than to Scotland or Northern Ireland. However, the Explanatory Notes to the Bill suggest that legislative consent has been sought only on Clause 15, concerning independent domestic violence and sexual violence advisers, and Clauses 28 to 39, concerning major incidents.
So I ask the Minister why no legislative consent has been sought on the other clauses—excepting 12 to 14, as we heard—since the Bill in many cases involves the health services, relevant authorities and so on in the devolved Governments. What discussion has been held with Welsh Ministers in all the relevant departments, particularly health and social care, justice, education and local government? Can the Minister explain how a crime or major incident that occurs in Scotland, with the victims living in Wales, will be dealt with under this Bill? On cross-border issues, who will be responsible for appointing the standard advocate? Turning to the funding for the victims of contaminated blood payments, will all the funding come from the Treasury, because the events all occurred prior to devolution settlements?
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
My Lords, more than 30 years ago, when I was Bishop of Oxford, I was very much heartened by the initiative of the Thames Valley Police force in pioneering restorative justice. Restorative justice enables victim and offender to be brought together, either directly or indirectly, through the mediation of a third party. Since then, it has become an established part of the criminal justice system as a whole. However, much more use could be made of it. I believe that this Bill provides an opportunity to enable it to be more widely taken up. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, pointed out, it does not yet appear in the Bill and, although it is part of the criminal justice system, references to it are often rather tentative and half-hearted.
This Bill is primarily about victims. It should be stressed that the prime concern of restorative justice is with the victim and what might be helpful to them. Hopefully, it also has a significant impact on the offender but, first and foremost, it is the victim whom restorative justice has in mind.
When restorative justice was first introduced, questions were properly asked about its effectiveness. Since then, a fair amount of research has been undertaken to find out. In 2022, the College of Policing published an evidence review on JR. It concluded that restorative justice can be used at all stages of the criminal justice process and that it has been shown to be effective in both reducing reoffending and enhancing victims’ satisfaction with the criminal justice system.
The review quoted the Campbell systematic review of RJ interventions, which showed that
“post-traumatic stress symptoms in victims were reduced, compared to those victims whose cases were only dealt with in court”.
It showed that
“apologies were more important to victims than material restoration … repeat offending was generally reduced in seriousness and frequency … costs from the criminal justice system are reduced through diversion and reduced reoffending”,
and that
“lower recidivism rates were found compared to imprisonment alone, for both youth and adult offenders”.
In addition to this:
“Twelve randomised trials of mainly police-led face-to-face RJ conferencing … found that RJ benefits most victims in terms of a reduction of stress, and benefits most offenders in terms of a reduction in recidivism over the following two years. This research programme found that RJ appears to be more effective for violent crime compared with property crimes—and perhaps for more serious than less serious crime generally—and for high-frequency offenders compared with offenders with medium rates of offending”.
So restorative justice is effective for both victims and offenders, but is it as accessible and available as it ought to be? In its inquiry into access to restorative justice in 2021-22, the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Restorative Justice found that, all too often, inadequate funding for commissioned restorative justice services has led to a postcode lottery for those wishing to participate in restorative justice. Furthermore, disparities in the type of offence considered appropriate for restorative justice presented further barriers to equal access.
The inquiry repeatedly heard that access is also hindered by gatekeepers, where professionals, such as probation staff, victims’ services, police and prison officers made a decision on behalf of either the victim or offender about the suitability of restorative justice. The evidence presented to the inquiry suggested that these decisions are often made by individuals who do not really have the skills, experience and knowledge of restorative justice to make an informed decision about its suitability.
I pay tribute to the APPG on restorative justice, which has commissioned work in this area and, in particular, to its chair, Elliot Colburn, the Member in the other place for Carshalton and Wallington. The APPG argues, as do others involved, that more use could be made of RJ than is presently the case and that a suitable amendment to this Bill would encourage this. I agree, and I hope that, perhaps in co-operation with other noble Lords, we can present an amendment along the lines of the one presented in the other place and which the Government might, in the end, come to support.
What matters is that restorative justice is available and known to be available right across the criminal justice system. I believe that this Bill offers us an opportunity to ensure that this is much more seriously and realistically the case than it is now.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I am grateful to have two minutes in the gap to register my interest, and that of Plaid Cymru, in this Bill. I identify with most of the concerns expressed over the past five hours.
The Bill raises issues which I hope to address in Committee. I certainly concur with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, on IPP sentences. That is an issue on which I campaigned for several years back in Wales. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Carter, on his comments in a splendid maiden speech.
I highlight the uncertainty across party lines in Senedd Cymru in relation to the impact of this Bill on devolved responsibilities. The Welsh Government have complained about a lack of consultation before the Bill was published and suggest that it trespasses on areas of devolved competence. Can the Minister clarify what the latest position is on this?
As mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, a moment ago, there is also a question about who funds the compensation to the victims of the infected blood scandal, which occurred long before the existence of devolved government. Will the UK Government pay those in Wales who have an entitlement or is it expected that the Welsh Government will do?
Welsh Women’s Aid has highlighted the danger of specialist support services such as advocacy, recovery groups and counselling falling outside the scope of the proposed ISVA and IDVA in Clause 15. There needs to be some clarification and perhaps further thought on that matter.
In Clause 12, a “duty to collaborate” is placed on PCCs and local authorities in England only. Will that apply in Wales? If so, does Senedd Cymru have the necessary devolved powers to make it happen or will such powers be transferred to it?
These and other issues are ones which I hope to address in Committee and I am grateful for this brief opportunity to draw them to the attention of the House.
Lord German (LD)
Before I sum up on behalf of these Benches, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, for his wise and thoughtful speech. Now that he is out of that Box, I think we are all going to benefit from his wise words in the future. I must pay absolute tribute to him for a splendid maiden speech in this Chamber.
This Bill is heading on the right track, but there is a substantial number of bumps, deep potholes and curves which will need sorting before it will be best suited to reach its destination. It is sad that this Bill is of two parts—a victims’ part and a prisoners’ part. As many noble Lords have said, it tends to deflect from the importance of one or the other, and probably this would have been better in two separate pieces of legislation. But, while this Bill is on the right track but needs amending, it falls very short. I am going to mix my metaphors a little, because this Bill has been late out of the station, but in this House we have a duty to ensure that it gets to its destination in a fit and proper state.
I will speak largely about Part 4 of the Bill, but I want to pay tribute to my colleagues who have spoken about earlier parts of the Bill and it is important to recall the main issues my noble friends have raised. My noble friends Lady Brinton, Lady Burt, Lady Hamwee and Lady Benjamin all raised the gaps in the definition of victims, including the rights of rape victims, victims of anti-social behaviour, victims who are coerced and, as explained by my noble friends Lady Brinton and Lady Benjamin, children who are subjected to sexual and domestic abuse—crimes of the most heinous kind.
My noble friends Lady Hamwee and Lady Brinton emphasised the need for the victims’ code to have a statutory basis, with a statutory duty for public services to deliver the new rights to these victims. The costs of this provision are strangely absent, as is an impact assessment. I ask the Minister: will we have an impact assessment to cover Part 1 at some stage in this process?
My noble friend Lady Hamwee raised the issue of victims having to pay for transcripts. Can noble Lords imagine the outcry if the public had to pay to download Hansard? I think that would probably shake at the roots of what we try to do in this Chamber.
My noble friends Lady Brinton, Lady Hamwee and Lady Burt spoke of the need for an immigration firewall—we need to protect migrants’ rights to data privacy to ensure that they are free to come forward in the same way as other victims, and my noble friend Lady Burt pointed out quite rightly that currently six in 10 victims do not receive their rights.
This is indeed a catalogue worthy of change, which we on these Benches will pursue during the passage of the Bill. As my noble friend Lady Brinton put it, there are a lot of “shoulds” in this Bill which need to be changed to “musts”.
In Part 4, I want to raise several issues, but the one at the root at some of them is what I call the “public confidence” issue. It is twice used in the Bill, first as the judgment to be used by the Secretary of State to refer a case heard by the Parole Board to the courts and secondly as a judgment test for the Secretary of State to remove the chair of the Parole Board. In other words, it hands power to the politician from the independent board. The problem is that the public confidence test is both undefined in the Bill and subjective. The director general operations of His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service in another context said that using these words
“is highly subjective and, as a result, has been difficult to apply in practice”.
The Howard League for Penal Reform points out, from a High Court judgment this year, that
“this policy criterion … adds nothing”.
The court found that all matters said to be relevant to the issue of public confidence were aspects of the prisoners’ risk, with no factor going to public confidence being distinct from a risk factor. The Howard League further states that public opinion should not influence the independent judicial process. I wonder whether the Minister agrees with that statement.
I turn to the disapplication of Section 3 of the Human Rights Act, mentioned by many noble Lords. It is a growing trend within this Government. First, it conflicts with the statement in the Bill. I know that the Minister has asked for us to understand why it says on the face of the Bill:
“In my view the provisions of the Victims and Prisoners Bill are compatible with the Convention rights”,
when, later on, we are asked to disapply the convention rights. I hope that he can tell us how both those statements are correct. What is the justification for the difference of fact between those two statements in the same Bill?
Secondly, on a more general point, could the Minister tell us what the Government object to in Section 3 of the Human Rights Act? It would be good to know what it is.
Thirdly, as many noble Lords have said, a human right is applied universally. As soon as you carve out that a right does not exist for one group of people, it ceases to become a universal human right. Does the Minister agree that a human right applies to all humans, not just some of them? As my noble friend Lady Hamwee put it, the penalty for crime is the loss of liberty but not the loss of rights.
Many noble Lords have spoken about the problems with the IPP section of this Bill. The changes made by the Government in the Commons are welcome, but they do little or nothing, as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, pointed out, for those still trapped in the system. There are around 1,200 people sentenced under the IPP rule who have never been released, and about 1,600 who were in custody who were released on licence but have since been recalled. This cohort will first need to convince the Parole Board that the risk to community has been reduced enough for them to be released on licence and remain out of prison on licence for a further two years before the provision to cancel their licence will apply. As many noble Lords have said, the Justice Committee in the Commons recommended re-sentencing as the best way in which to bring this dreadful and much-abused sentencing policy to an end. Will the Minister give attention to using the Justice Committee’s approach for this cohort of IPP prisoners?
There are also practical issues with this Bill that need sorting out. The impact assessment, which needs updating, states that a further 640 prison places will be required. The prison estate, as we all know, is already full. The extra cost to the public purse of building additional prison places will be £250 million over the next decade; the cost of running them will be £28.7 million a year. If those figures are no longer correct, because they were put in place and outlined before the changes were made in the House of Commons, perhaps the Minister can tell us whether there will be a new impact assessment that is to alter those figures. If they are to stand, they are somewhat important to our knowledge and understanding of how the Bill might work.
Additionally, can the Minister tell the House whether there will be a disproportionate impact on black and ethnic-minority prisoners as a result of this Bill? There are also questions around the availability and suitability of community support once people are released from prison and, in particular, the need for mental health services.
I turn to the impact the Bill will have on Parliament and the way it can deal with matters relating to it. Clause 59 basically says that if the Government wish to amend primary legislation, to change it in some way or to repeal or revoke it, they can do that by the affirmative measure of a statutory instrument. It further states:
“Any other statutory instrument containing regulations under this Act is subject to”
the negative procedure. I am sure that the Committee of this House will want to look at that very carefully, but certainly I find that a very strange way in which both Houses of Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise major change to the Bill when it comes about. These are all issues that will need exploring as the Bill passes through the House.
Finally, there are the issues relating to the Parole Board which need further examination. My good colleague, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, expressed that in his normal, vigorous, Welsh manner. It is not just because I am Welsh also that I absolutely agree with him and the manner in which he put it. What is the need for the use of the public confidence test for the removal of the Parole Board chair? Does not the existing power for the removal of the chair provide an appropriate safeguard? Besides which, are we prepared to have a politician making decisions, rather than an independent body which has judicial functions? I would be grateful if the Minister, in replying, could also lay out the reasons for excluding the chair from having a role in individual parole cases. If the chair is to be responsible for the operation of the Parole Board, why on earth can the chair not have a part in those deliberations?
The Bill falls short in an important range of areas, and it will need amendment. I look forward to future stages of our work on it to ensure that it can meet its fundamental objective of an effective, efficient and just victims’ rights system, and a just system for rehabilitation of offenders. To return to my earlier metaphor, this train is years late leaving the station, but when it does leave, it must be in the best condition for those victims who, unfortunately, have to travel on it, and for them to have their rights known, available and enforced.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I open by thanking the Minister for the tone in which he introduced the Bill. It has been widely anticipated, we have all received a huge amount of lobbying on it, and I hope that we can consider it in the same tone as we have had this debate here today. The Bill covers a great deal of ground and there has been a fair amount of consensus displayed in today’s debate.
As my noble friend Lady Thornton pointed out, we have been waiting a long time: the Bill was originally in the 2015 Conservative Party manifesto, since when there have been government consultations, reviews and announcements and extensive revision in the other place. Many of the advocacy groups which have contacted me and others see the Bill as an opportunity to better embed victims at the heart of our justice system. In fact, every speech I have read on the Bill, from the original Lords Chancellor’s introduction to those of opposition Members of Parliament and Peers here, shares that ambition, and it is the role of the House to look to introduce further improvements.
I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere. He has huge experience in this matter. Not only do I have no doubt but I do not think anybody who has taken part in this debate will have any doubt that he will make a substantial contribution to the work of this House.
I am taking my structure in dealing with the Bill from the Lords Library Note, which I found to be quite helpful. In that, there are six main provisions, which I will go through, and I will refer to a couple of other matters as well. The first provision in the Library Note is
“placing key victims’ code rights into law and reviewing compliance with the code”.
My noble friend gave the statistics from the latest survey from the office of the Victims’ Commissioner, and those statistics were indeed disheartening. Putting code rights into law is surely the minimum required and we will look at what extra we can do to ensure those minimum requirements are met.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, my noble friend Baroness Chakrabarti, the noble Baronesses, Lady Burt and Lady Coussins, the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Russell, and others, spoke about adding teeth to this element of the Bill, changing the culture and the money available to make the victims’ code and rights of tangible benefit to victims of crime, rather than aspirational. My noble friend Lord Bach, a former police and crime commissioner, went into interesting detail on tangible things that can be included in the Bill to encourage code compliance. He also said that legal justice boards should be put on a statutory footing, which is an issue we might want to examine at a later stage.
The second point in the Lords Library Note refers to changing the requirements for making victim information requests during criminal investigations. All noble Lords have had a lot of lobbying on this matter—for example, about whether rape victims’ therapy notes should be available to the prosecution. The Minister referenced that point in his opening speech, as did my noble friend Lady Thornton. There are many other examples detailing how information is made available to victims.
Victim information requests and victim support surely go to the heart of how the criminal justice system treats victims, while maintaining confidence in the fairness of the trial itself. Clause 15 seeks to standardise of the role of IDVAs and ISVAs. While this is welcome, we had a number of contributions from noble Lords about extending this to children. I and other noble Lords have had a lot of lobbying from children’s advocacy groups, which regard the Bill as excessively adult-focused. They are looking for the Bill to acknowledge that children need particular support when they are victims of or witnesses to crime. The speech by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, was particularly interesting on this matter. I absolutely acknowledge his expertise as a family court judge, and he made some interesting points about how children need to be supported as they go through those difficult processes, in not only the criminal court but the family court. Other noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Gohir, Lady Finlay and Lady Benjamin, my noble friends Lady Lister and Lady Warwick, and the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, all spoke with great authority about beefing up the support for children in the Bill. We have an opportunity, and we should take it.
The third point in the Lords Library Note concerns requiring a compensation body to be established within three months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent, in order to deliver compensation to victims of the infected blood scandal. We welcome the Government’s climbdown on this matter, and particularly that the change was introduced in the other place, which makes it even more likely to become law. I understand that there was a Statement earlier today, which will be repeated tomorrow and handled by the Cabinet Office. The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, urged the House to consider filling the gaps in compensation in the Bill; she may well bring up that issue at later stages. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, spoke about the position of Welsh victims, who, of course, would have been infected before devolution.
The fourth point in the Library Note addresses Part 4 of the Bill, which introduces various parole system reforms, including allowing the Secretary of State to refer prisoner release decisions for top-tier offenders to the Upper Tribunal or High Court. While I welcome the Government’s amendments to the Parole Board provisions in the Bill, I remain baffled as to why the Lord Chancellor would want to retain these powers for himself. Surely the Lord Chancellor’s involvement in Parole Board cases will create delay and uncertainty for victims and offenders, and a political spotlight on any particular case will not help in the reaching of a just decision.
Many noble Lords spoke about the provisions of Part 4. Although all noble Lords spoke with great authority, I will focus on the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, who has particular knowledge of this point. She asked, rhetorically, why the system was broken and needed fixing. She quoted the figures on the extremely low failure rate—when people go on to reoffend—and raised a very fair point. I simply do not understand why a Lord Chancellor would want to be involved in these decisions. It will not help the reaching of just decisions.
My noble friend Lord Bach asked why it would be the Upper Tribunal and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, asked why we do not make the Parole Board a tribunal itself, which is an interesting idea. My noble friend also asked, if the Lord Chancellor is to make these decisions about whether to refer matters, who will actually do the work—will it be him or a civil servant? The Minister should answer that question.
The fifth point in the Library Note is around amending the process for the termination of licences for those serving imprisonment for public protection sentences. A number of noble Lords welcomed this; no doubt, we will hear more from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, at a later stage if he tables amendments, which I would welcome and look at constructively.
The sixth point in the Library Note concerns prohibiting whole-life order prisoners from marrying or forming a civil partnership. While this is perhaps the smallest measure in the Bill in respect of the number of people affected, my personal view is that it is difficult to escape the conclusion that it is a petty measure that will do no good and may do harm. The Minister referred to a particular case in his introduction, but I am not sure that one difficult case is enough to justify changing the law. We are constantly told in debates around sentencing powers and keeping prisoners in custody about the importance of hope and relationships. It is difficult to see how this small measure will enhance the ease with which a prison regime can be managed.
We have heard a number of powerful speeches on independent public advocates, including from my noble friend Lord Wills, who of course has a great background of knowledge on this matter, the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and my noble friends Lady Kennedy and Lord Bach—he also asked about legal aid, which I am sure will be raised in Committee.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, raised restorative justice, which is absent from the Bill. We have had many debates on it in previous criminal justice Bills and it is embedded in the work of the Probation Service and the Youth Justice Board. I would be interested if the Minister could say something about the continuing work of developing restorative justice in our wider Probation Service.
As I turn to Clauses 49 to 52, I can do no better than quote Sir Robert Neill, chair of the Commons Justice Committee:
“Whatever one’s view of the Human Rights Act, there is no evidence that this is a problem in such cases. In fact, the evidence we heard from practitioners, from both sides, is that it can be helpful to have … regard to section 3 in these hearings. These clauses seem to be trying to solve a problem that does not exist, and I wonder whether we really need them. It is perfectly possible to have a robust system that still complies with section 3. This is a needless distraction that sends the wrong signal about a certain desire to pick unnecessary fights, which I know is not the current Secretary of State’s approach”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/5/23; col. 604.]
I think he says it all. Many noble Lords have expressed similar concerns, so I look forward to the Minister’s justification for disapplying parts of the Human Rights Act.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, on his magnificent maiden speech. I hope your Lordships will forgive me but, following a five and half hour debate at a relatively high level, I do not wish to close my door now, having previously said it will remain open, by being too definitive on the various points we have discussed.
I will take briefly three points. First, I will have to come back to the issue of legislative consent, and we will need to explore it further, given the inter-relationship between the various authorities and responsibilities. I acknowledge the existence of that issue. Secondly, on the impact assessment, about which certain comments have been made, I have gathered during the debate that it probably needs to be looked at again and perhaps revised and expanded. That is another task to be completed. Thirdly, I gather that at Report stage in the Commons the Government gave an undertaking that restorative justice would form part of further guidance to the relevant authorities when commissioning various services. At the moment, that is as far as I can take the issue of restorative justice, important though it is.
Having made those preliminary points, I also add a brief word on scope. The Bill does not deal with what could be described as purely operational decisions by the police, such as the failure to make an arrest or not turning up to a domestic burglary or something of that kind. That is for another way of complaint, through the police complaints systems. The Bill does not address the difficult problems victims experience simply because there is a backlog in the criminal justice system. That is for another day. It also does not address—and I do not think it would be in scope to address—certain points made in this debate about sentencing and how we come to sentence offenders.
The first group of points made is about Part 1 and victims, with the essential point being that the Bill does not go far enough. In the Government’s view, the Bill goes a very long way. It is not just a gentle nudge, as has been suggested; it is a tremendous shove in favour of victims. It combines real efforts to change culture, greatly improve transparency and give proper statutory duties to various bodies, including police and crime commissioners and others, to get this organised. It requires cross co-operation and involves further resources.
As I think I said in opening, we have quadrupled the money available to victim services over the last few years. I take entirely the points made by, for example, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, that further clarification and development of these ideas could be very helpful. Others have said that bodies such as the Metropolitan Police, for example, would welcome further guidance, clarity and work on exactly how we can make this structure effective.
I think we all agree that we want to make an effective structure; the question is how to get there. At the moment, at least, to bring in a rather blunt statutory duty—in effect, a law giving victims further rights to sue and to bring in more lawyers, more legal proceedings and so forth—is not the right way to go, in the Government’s view. We do not want more satellite litigation. The real issue is how we effect cultural change.
How do we get there? The Government’s position at the moment is that this structure provides a very positive basis for effecting that much-needed cultural change, not least through the existence of transparency and, for example, the power of the Secretary of State to publish where local areas are on all these things and the powers of local police and crime commissioners to invigorate their local communities in all these respects. In the Government’s view, that is the way to go.
In relation to victims, there have clearly been many—perfectly understandable—references to particular kinds of victims, notably children. I briefly point out that child victims of crime and exploitation are encompassed within the Bill’s definition of a victim, and child criminal exploitation is in fact defined in statutory guidance for front-line practitioners in publications such as Keeping Children Safe in Education and Working Together to Safeguard Children. However, the point that we need to think very hard about is how we protect child victims, and it is certainly a point we should jointly further reflect on and consider.
Indeed, in relation more generally to women and girls in the justice system, victims of domestic violence, stalking, grooming and anti-social behaviour, and persons whose first language is not English, those are all examples of particular victims that we need to make sure are encompassed within our remit. Proper attention should be given to those particular kinds of victims. Those points are well made and, if I may briefly use an Americanism, will be taken under advisement.
In broad outline, that is the victims part of the Bill. As far as the IPA is concerned, the Government’s position is that this is a major advance, particularly the creation of a standing advocate who can advise the Secretary of State and, when appointed on a major incident, “look after” the victims. At the moment the Government do not think that it is useful to give this standing advocate a sort of roving power to conduct their own inquiries or demand their own documents and so forth, because of the risk—among other things—of real duplication in major inquiries such as Manchester Arena, Hillsborough or Grenfell. We already have very effective procedures. Bishop Jones’s inquiry was very effective; it was a non-statutory inquiry set up by the Government, and it got to the bottom of things. The Government are not convinced that we need yet another operator operating in this area.
I think that my noble friend Lady Sanderson asked about smaller incidents. Let us take an incident such as the Shoreham air disaster, where 11 people were killed. Leaving to one side the question of whether that was a major incident, in that example there was the Air Accidents Investigation Branch, a criminal case and an inquest. Do we really need yet another body investigating, demanding documents and imposing more costs on the whole system? The Government are not yet convinced, certainly at this stage, that we should go any further than we have gone in the Bill, which is already a very long way. That is the general position of the Government at the moment.
I listened very carefully to noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Meston, on the issue of parental responsibility and whether we should go further and include other cases. There are already procedures for effectively taking away, or at least hollowing out, parental responsibility that exist in family law in the family courts and the Government do not feel that we should go any further at the moment.
On infected blood, noble Lords will be able to ask questions of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe tomorrow when she updates the House on the Government’s position. I have no doubt that we will come back to that in the fullness of time in Committee.
On IPP prisoners, the present proposals, I hope and trust, will deal quite effectively with prisoners who are currently in the community and who have a prospect of being released—I think they will deal with that. I think that we all recognise that our real problem is the hard core of about 1,200 prisoners who have not been released. It is very important to say that the Government have not given up on those prisoners. In the last two years, 400 prisoners who had not previously been released have been released. There is very detailed work going on in the Prison Service; I am very happy to share with noble Lords more detail about that, if it is of use. It relates to particular sentencing plans for particular prisoners, so that they have an individual sentencing plan for further support in the community when they are released, and for a much more active IPP progression programme. So we are still working towards the release of these prisoners when it is safe to do so. The Government currently see that as a much more sensible and justifiable approach than the alternative of the re-sentencing exercise.
As noble Lords know, the basic problem with the re-sentencing exercise is that you are raising expectations that people will be released. But the people we are dealing with have been found not to be safe to be released, so how are we going to tackle that? Are we going to take the view, “We’ll just release them”? As in the case of Mr Bierton that I mentioned in my opening speech, do we say “We don’t care whether further offences are committed by these highly dangerous people, we’re just going to release them because that is what justice demands”? The Government ask: what about future victims? What risks are you taking; is it worth the risk; can you take the risk? The Government are not prepared to take that risk. But they are prepared to work very hard for these prisoners, to give them at least some hope of an eventual release. That is the Government’s present position on these issues.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, it is with the greatest respect that I intervene on my noble and learned friend. I genuinely congratulate him and welcome his personal and very human engagement with this problem, which I know he has wrestled with the whole time he has been a Minister—I think it is fair to say that it has always been on his agenda. But I add, in fairness, that the Prison Service releases daily people into the community who would be assessed as dangerous if the Government had the option of retaining them in custody. That is because they have reached the end of a definitive sentence.
It is a risk that we have learned to manage. It does indeed occasionally go wrong—of course it does—and there are future victims; the point made by my noble and learned friend is not empty. However, we manage it. The fact is that of these people we are discussing, very few committed crimes that were egregiously heinous or violent, compared to many others who have, before and since, being given determinate sentences that see them released into the community at the end of that sentence, if not earlier.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend makes a perfectly fair debating point—and we are debating, so it is perfectly fair that he makes a debating point—but it is a debating point at the end of the day. The point is: are you prepared to take the risk of 1,200 dangerous people being released from prison? The Government are not prepared to take that risk. We can of course discuss it further, but I am just explaining what the Government’s position is: it is better to work with those prisoners to ensure that they are safe to release eventually.
That probably takes me on to the issue of public protection and related issues. First, perhaps I may clarify what seems to be a muddle that has arisen about the statement in the Bill that it is compatible with convention rights. The Bill is perfectly compatible with convention rights: it does not take away any convention rights at all. Section 3 of the Human Rights Act is a procedural provision only, which gives the court an—to use a neutral word—unusual power to reinterpret what Parliament has said in a manner that may not have been and probably was not Parliament’s original intention so as to render a particular provision compatible with the convention.
On the provision in the Bill disapplying Section 3, which at least one member of Sir Peter Gross’s commission thought we should get rid of, and on other parts of Section 3, Sir Peter himself recommended a rather complicated hierarchy of different ways of applying the section. It has been quite a difficult section to apply. Case law has gone all over the place over the years, although it has settled down more recently. It introduces uncertainty where the Government want to have certainty in this area: that this is the test for public protection for these prisoners, that is what Parliament has said, and that is the end of the matter.
If that was found to be incompatible with the convention in any case, hypothetically, the court would have to make a declaration of inapplicability, and Parliament would have to deal with it. But the underlying issue is the constitutional balance between the courts and Parliament. That is quite an issue, and it has not gone away, but that is how the Government understand this particular point.
As regards the question of the Parole Board and all the various provisions affecting it, it is worth making the point that when these very high-risk offenders are released, they live in the community. Who speaks for the people in the community who have to live with them? Are they represented at all in this system? The only person who can represent the interests of the community with whom released prisoners have to live is the Secretary of State. All we are doing is saying that if there is some doubt about the application of the public protection test, it is wise from the point of view of the system—
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am sure that the noble and learned Lord understands the irony of that statement, set against his statement that victims’ rights should not be put on a statutory, enforceable footing.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I am not sure that I entirely understood the noble Baroness’s point, but it is perfectly true that I am thinking—rather, the Government are thinking; I should not put it in personal terms—about the potential victims of people who have been released and the actual families of those who have suffered at the hands of the offender. We are simply saying that there might be some very high-profile cases where it is sensible for there to be a second judicial look. That is a very much modified position from the position originally in the Bill, but it is, I hope, a sensible one.
I have used up my time, but I hope that I have covered most things. I apologise to noble Lords whose specific points I have not met. Anyone is fully entitled to write to me or ask me questions and I will, of course, answer them. If I may just finish with the words of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, who was kind enough to say he was going to be kind to the Bill. Let us be kind to the Bill and—
Baroness Brinton (LD)
It is very generous of the Minister to say, as he has done with other Bills, that we should write to him with concerns, but given that he said at the start of his response that he was going to take a high-level approach, it might be helpful if he were to write to all of us about the issues we have raised. There might then be a subsequent correspondence. However, if we are thinking about tabling amendments, rather than waiting for us to write and say, I think he has most of our questions.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I warmly thank the noble Baroness for that intervention. I will ask my officials to go through this debate, identify at least the principal questions and see whether we can write to the House on the various points that have been made.
On that note, given the season of the year in which we find ourselves, we may not quite have reached
“Peace on earth, and mercy mild, God and sinners reconciled”,
but I hope we have taken the matter forward. I beg to move.
Lord Bellamy
That the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House, and that it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House that they consider the bill in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 42, The Schedule, Clauses 43 to 62, Title.