House of Commons
(10 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(10 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(10 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mel Stride)
Automatic enrolment has succeeded in transforming pension savings, with more than 11 million employees being automatically enrolled in a workplace pension since 2012 and an additional £29 billion in real terms saved into marketplace pensions in 2022 compared with 2012.
Mrs Drummond
I was very pleased when the Government brought in auto-enrolment for pensions in 2012, as making sure that everyone saves for a pension should prevent pension poverty. What is the rate of take-up of these pensions and what provisions are the Government putting in place to help those on low wages build up a pension pot to help provide a decent income in retirement?
Mel Stride
The increase in take-up since 2012 has been extraordinary, particularly among women, for whom the rate was 40% in 2012 and is now 86% and in line with men. My hon. Friend will know about the 2017 review that we conducted on auto-enrolment. As and when we bring in those changes, that will mean 3 million more people auto-enrolled with £2 billion of additional savings each year.
Craig Tracey
I am chair of the insurance and financial services all-party parliamentary group, and financial inclusion has been one of our key areas of focus, particularly following the pandemic which showed that anybody has the potential to quickly become vulnerable. What are the Government doing to increase the financial resilience of our constituents and make them best placed to cope should such an unforeseen event happen again?
Mel Stride
May I first recognise the fantastic work my hon. Friend does on financial resilience? The Government have, through very difficult times, come forward with £104 billion of cost of living payments between 2022 and 2025. I would point my hon. Friend to one particular scheme: the help to save scheme encourages low-income households to save and we have recently extended that by 18 months, until April 2025.
Mr Speaker
I call James Sunderland. Not here. I call the Chair of the Select Committee.
Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I agree with the Secretary of State about the cross-party success of auto-enrolment, which has doubled the proportion of eligible employees saving for retirement, but we know that the current regular auto-enrolment contribution of 8% of earnings is not enough to deliver the standard of living in retirement that most people hope for. Does the Secretary of State recognise that that minimum level of contribution will need to be increased?
Mel Stride
The contribution rates of the employer and employee are a very important matter, and we keep both under review.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
When I was 16, my mother took me to Danske bank—or Northern bank as it was then—and opened an account for me. When I was 18, my mother phoned up the pension man in Ballywalter and told him I needed a pension. My mother has been a big guide in my life. What would the Secretary of State say to encourage the young people of today to take their mother’s advice on opening bank and pension accounts and planning for the future?
Mel Stride
I think the response to that is, always take your mother’s advice. I always did—and look where it got me. At the age of 16, I would have thought the hon. Gentleman would have been saving into a piggy bank, putting his little pennies in a porcelain pig. I direct him to the gov.uk website, where there is a plethora of information for young people and those of all ages about saving and what the Government are doing to assist.
Mr Speaker
The good news is that Mrs Shannon is still giving him advice. I call the shadow Minister.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
One of the simplest ways to get people saving for the future is by ensuring that they are enrolled in a pension scheme, but all too many are currently excluded from auto-enrolment, particularly women, who are twice as likely to miss out. The Government have known about this problem for years. They first proposed widening the criteria in 2017. Last year, thanks to a private Member’s Bill, the Minister was given the power to do just that, but still we have seen no update on when this will be implemented. Can the Secretary of State shed light on when these vital changes will take place?
Mel Stride
The hon. Lady draws attention to savings for women. I have already stated that 40% of women invested in workplace pensions back in 2012, and that has skyrocketed to 86% today. There are now 2.3 million employers providing pensions through the auto-enrolment route, and there is £29 billion more in workplace pensions in 2024 than was the case in 2012. The hon. Lady refers, I think, to the 2017 review, which I have already referred to. That is currently under review.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Mims Davies)
This Government have a range of initiatives to support disabled people and people with long-term sickness to start, stay and succeed in work. At the autumn statement, we built on that by expanding universal support, launching WorkWell pilots and establishing work on the reform of the fit note.
Alexander Stafford
My hon. Friend will know about the excellent work being done by people such as my Maltby constituent, Ian Birch, and all his colleagues at Reed in Partnership across the whole of Rotherham. They use DWP funding to help those with long-term issues of sickness and illness to get back into work and on their feet. What is her Department doing to make sure that those who go through these programmes stay in work permanently and contribute to the local economy?
Mims Davies
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the value of our local DWP programmes. In Rother Valley, the Reed in Partnership approach has given vital support to his constituents, helping them into work. It is vital to keep supporting them to remain there, and that is where that particular programme helps. Access to Work and our Disability Confident scheme are just some of the initiatives to support disabled people and those with health conditions while in employment.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
Half the women surveyed with endometriosis had to take time off work often or very often because of their condition, and one in six women had to give up work altogether. Will the Minister meet the incredible women from Endometriosis Support Hull and East Yorkshire to discuss the work they are doing with the local trade unions to create a best practice charter for employers in Hull to support women with endometriosis in the workplace?
Mims Davies
I was in Aberdeen on Thursday meeting women with health conditions and hearing about how we can better support women who are having debilitating impacts from the menopause. That was in the oil and gas sector, where it takes a long time to build up to a senior career. I would be interested to hear about the work that the hon. Lady’s local team are doing. Through the wider women’s health strategy, we are supporting women to have a thriving career all the way through. I am keen to hear from her and those women, and to support the women to stay in work.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Paul Maynard)
The Government are dedicated to ensuring that parents meet their obligations to children, and we take robust enforcement action against those who do not. Parents who paid some maintenance on the collect and pay service increased from 64% to 69% over the 12 months from September 2022.
Helen Morgan
My constituent’s daughter is a young lady who has missed out for more than a year on child maintenance payments, because her father changed jobs and the Child Maintenance Service lost track of him. My team have been involved, and despite lots of faffing, she still has not received a payment. She is one of around half of children in separated families who are not receiving the maintenance payments they deserve. Will the Minister explain what his Department is doing to ensure that the employers of these missing parents are properly chased up?
Paul Maynard
Where parents have certain categories of taxable income not being captured by the standard child maintenance calculation, they can make a request to the CMS to have the calculation varied. We have consulted on proposals to include more types of taxable income held by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs in the standard maintenance calculation.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
The Department has a number of ways to try to get paying parents to cough up, and we must remember that this is cash for the children. In July 2022, the Government consulted on child maintenance and improving our enforcement powers through the commencement of curfew orders, and we still have not had a response to that consultation. I would be grateful to hear from the Government when they plan to respond, and I remind them of the other powers in place, such as depriving people of the ability to drive or of their passport. This is a simple thing, where people have the money and will not cough up the cash. I think we need to get on with curfew orders.
Paul Maynard
My right hon. Friend is quite right that the Government have consulted on the use of curfews, which are complex and interact with numerous Government services. Several enforcement initiatives aimed at improving compliance are currently in train, and we need to get those in place and assess their effects before we can best see how curfews might fit with them. I note her enthusiasm for curfews and might well put her in touch with Viscount Younger of Leckie, the Minister in the Lords, whose policy brief this is, so that he can update her on our latest thinking.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mel Stride)
Welfare is there to help those who need assistance, including many of the most vulnerable, which is why we increased most benefits by 6.7% for 2024-25. That was on top of an increase of 10.1%, including the benefit cap, in 2023-24.
Peter Grant
That is all very well, but the rate of inflation for low-paid families has been significantly higher than the headline rate of inflation for some time. That means that those families who were struggling badly last year are struggling even worse this year. Citizens Advice has shown that families on low incomes have less disposable income this year than they had last year. Does the Secretary of State accept that it is time to introduce an essentials guarantee so that nobody on universal credit or another income-based benefit can ever be allowed to fall below a level where they cannot afford the basic essentials of life?
Mel Stride
As the hon. Gentleman will know, we keep all benefits under review. I point him to various things that we have done to ensure that we look after those lower-income families, including increasing the national living wage by about 10% in both of the last two years; the increase in the local housing allowance to the 30th percentile announced at the last fiscal event, which will be worth about £800 a year for about 1.6 million people; and, of course, the tax cuts that the Chancellor was able to bring forward, which for an average earner are worth £450 a year.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
Rather than deal with the known policy failures within the benefits system, the Government seem to be more focused on penalising people through, for example, the two-child cap. Last week, the Labour party joined the Conservatives in prioritising lifting the cap on bankers’ bonuses rather than the two-child cap on working women. Does the Secretary of State take comfort in the fact that his cruel legacy will be protected by the Labour party?
Mel Stride
I am not going to get involved in the crossfire between the Scottish National party and the Labour party, other than to say—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I do not need a continuing argument and disagreement. I am sure that when the questions come to an end, you can speak outside.
Mel Stride
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The two-child cap is there for good reason: so that families in those circumstances are taking the same kind of decisions that others—the taxpayers funding benefits—have to take.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
The Minister for Employment (Jo Churchill)
In the latest statistics, there were 400,000 fewer children in absolute poverty after housing costs than there were in 2009-10. In this financial year, we will spend about £124 billion on welfare supporting working-age families. We are also providing £104 billion between 2022 and 2025 to help families with cost of living pressures. However, the Government’s focus is firmly on reducing the risk of child poverty by supporting parents into work in every way we can.
Yasmin Qureshi
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation recently found that 42% of children in Bolton live below the poverty line. After 14 years of Tory cuts and general incompetence, Britain now has the worst rise in child poverty among the major countries. What would the Minister say to a young family in Bolton who told me, “One day we eat and one day we don’t”?
Jo Churchill
Nobody on either side of the House wants to see families struggling. However, I repeat that children living in workless households are about five times more likely to be in absolute poverty after housing costs than those in households where all adults work. The Government are supporting the whole family through our childcare support, which we have increased by almost 50% to £951 a month for one child or £1,630 for two; the increase in the national living wage to £11.44 from April; our cost of living offers; and so on.
Deidre Brock
The recent Joseph Rowntree Foundation report highlighted Scotland’s much lower child poverty rate compared with England and Wales, and said that that was partly due to the Scottish Government’s child payment. Further progress is constrained by the UK’s inadequate social security system. The Trussell Trust’s “guarantee our essentials” campaign shows that 90% of low-income households on universal credit in the UK cannot afford everyday essentials. Does the Minister accept that raising the universal credit basic rate is critical to tackling child poverty?
Jo Churchill
The welfare system is there to be a strong safety net. It is not about a singular issue, because no households are the same. It is about wraparound care and dealing with people on an individual basis. It is about making sure that where children need support—for example, with free school meals—we provide it.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
Further to the Minister’s response, the Prime Minister has been asked similar questions about child poverty in recent Prime Minister’s questions. He usually responds that since 2010, the Conservatives have lifted 1.7 million people out of absolute poverty, which, as you know Mr Speaker, tracks living standards from a fixed point in time. Can the Minister tell me how many more people, on average, Labour lifted out of absolute poverty annually, compared with the 1.7 million since 2010 that the Prime Minister regularly claims?
Jo Churchill
Rather than trade numbers, I would say that this is about giving people the dignity of a job. Since 2009-10, 1.7 million fewer people are in absolute poverty after housing costs, including 400,000 fewer children and 1 million fewer working-age adults. I know the hon. Lady said that work was not the Labour party’s priority, but it is very much our priority.
Alison McGovern
If the Minister can point to an occasion when I have said that work was not the Labour party’s priority, she ought to say when that was, or she should withdraw that remark.
The answer to my question is that, on average, more than 350,000 more people left poverty in each year of the Labour Government. The Prime Minister’s claim is pathetic. Which of the following does the Minister think had the biggest impact on those poverty numbers? Was it when the Conservatives repealed the Child Poverty Act 2010, was it when they shut down the child poverty unit, was it the collapse in the value of child benefit, or was it the financial chaos caused by a Conservative Prime Minister in September 2022, which put all families’ finances at risk?
Jo Churchill
No, it is the fact that over 1 million more people are in work and youth employment is up by around 40%. Ensuring that people have the dignity of work and that, when they are not in work, there is a strong welfare system around them, is what this country needs.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
The Minister for Employment (Jo Churchill)
The Government take food security very seriously and are committed to understanding and addressing food poverty. The reasons that people use food banks are complex and varied. Food banks are independent charitable organisations and the Government have no role in their operation. As such, data on trends are not currently available.
Helen Hayes
The staff and volunteers at the Norwood and Brixton food bank in my constituency work tirelessly all year round to support local people who simply cannot make ends meet. They are responding to the highest level of need they have ever seen. Why does the Minister think that, despite this being one of the richest countries in the world, food bank reliance is continuing to rise so much on this Government’s watch? Can she tell the House what the Government are doing to end the need for food banks in the UK?
Jo Churchill
As I said, the reasons that people use food banks are complex and varied, as all the research indicates. We offer support through cost of living payments and the household support fund, running to hundreds of millions of pounds. The rise in the national living wage, the reduction in national insurance and the local housing allowance further help 1.6 million low-income households. We have a whole of suite of ways to help the very poorest in our society.
Rachel Hopkins
Food banks such as the excellent Luton Foodbank have been pushed to breaking point this winter, as more and more people need emergency food due to the Conservatives’ cost of living crisis. It is shameful that we now have more food banks than police stations. What conversations has the Minister had with colleagues in the Treasury about introducing measures in next month’s Budget to support low-income working people facing hardship and to reduce the dependence on food banks?
Jo Churchill
I point the hon. Lady to the further cost of living payments that will be going out this week to eligible households. We do not comment on future fiscal announcements.
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Mims Davies)
This is a particular area of interest for me as a former carer and as part of a caring family. It is important that we get the right balance. The flat weekly rate for the carer’s allowance has never been linked to the number of people being cared for. The weekly rate will increase to £81.90 from April, which is almost an extra £1,500 a year since 2010.
Sir Mark Hendrick
The hundreds of thousands of carers up and down the country are the unsung heroes of our society, who do a fantastic job. Whether it is caring for elderly parents with dementia or sacrificing full-time work to care for a disabled child, carers play a critical role, easing the burden on health services. For most carers, care is a 24/7 job, and they cannot take full-time work because of it. When will the Government realise that £76, and now even £81.90, is measly and does not scratch the surface of what carers have to put up with and pay for, particularly when many carers are caring for more than one person?
Mims Davies
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point, which I appreciate as I have been in that situation of caring for two people. The primary purpose of the carer’s allowance is to provide a measure of financial support and recognition for people unable to work full time because of their caring responsibilities. I know there are very strong views on this. I am looking forward to meeting with Carers UK just after recess—I am afraid I cannot do so before, due to a funeral—and hearing the varying views and how we can continue to support our carers, who in every constituency and community do an amazing job.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Mims Davies)
We have reduced clearance times from the peak of 79 days in 2021 to 36 days in October 2023 by improving processes and increasing decision-making capacity. We will continue to improve efficiency while ensuring effective decision making for all reconsiderations.
Jessica Morden
In July last year, a constituent was not able to correctly fill out their PIP review form, which led to their payments being stopped. It took until last Thursday—six months from the mandatory reconsideration going in—for the payments to finally be restored. Because of the delay, my constituent fell into debt and became suicidal. Why are the Government not eliminating the delays that are letting down the most vulnerable constituents?
Mims Davies
I am very sorry to hear about the hon. Lady’s constituent. Our aim is always to make the right decision as early as possible in the claim journey, and I would be keen to see the full details of that particular situation. On decisions, it is important to consider the context: 2.9 million initial decisions following an assessment have been made between June 2018 and July 2023; 5% have resulted in a completed tribunal hearing, with 3% overturned. I would be very keen to see what has happened in the case that the hon. Lady mentions.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
As my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) has just highlighted, the Department is in chaos and that is having a huge impact on claimants’ lives. As of October, there were 294,000 new personal independence payment claims waiting to be processed, with a further 445,000 claimants awaiting an award review. As of November, 24,339 people were awaiting Access to Work decisions. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of disabled people left in financial limbo, with tens of thousands waiting to start work. What message does the Minister think these huge backlogs send to disabled people, and how does she finally plan to get a grip of them?
Mims Davies
I thank the hon. Lady for making the important point about the numbers. I agree that behind each of those is somebody we should be concerned about, and I am absolutely looking at this point. We are continuing to learn from decisions overturned by appeal, and we will continue to make improvements to our decision-making processes to help people to get the correct decision earlier in their claim journey, and to be able to work and have the support where it is needed. Not everybody on PIP is out of work, so we need to be listening to the needs of the people in those queues. I am conscious that every one of them is not a statistic but a person who needs our support.
Andrew Western (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mel Stride)
There are, of course, significant costs related to an increase in long-term sickness and illness rates in work. That is why we have our £2.5 billion back to work plan, to help 600,000 disabled people and people with health conditions start and stay in work. That approach, along with others, has seen economic inactivity reduce by 330,000 since its peak during the pandemic.
Andrew Western
NHS waiting lists are currently at 7.8 million, with more than 177,000 people on waiting lists in my own NHS trust area. When it is this difficult to access medical treatment, it is no surprise that we have a record 2.8 million people out of work due to ill health. Does the Minister accept that this Government’s failure on the NHS is stymying economic growth, denying people the dignity of work and costing taxpayers billions of pounds?
Mel Stride
On NHS waiting lists, there has been progress, in that the two-year waiting lists have almost been entirely dispensed with and those of 18 months have been very substantially reduced. Our Department recognises that work is part of the solution to improving people’s health, which is why we are putting forward the WorkWell service, bringing together medical input and work coach input; fit note reform to help at an earlier stage of the journey; and the reforms to the work coach assessment. All those things are moving towards getting more people into work, which is good for their health.
Simon Fell
In Barrow and Furness, an estimated 4,000 people who could be contributing to the labour market are not doing so. I am incredibly grateful to my right hon. Friend and his team, in the Barrow jobcentre and centrally, who, alongside Team Barrow, have worked with local employers and skills providers to help get those people back into our incredibly tight labour market. Will he pass my thanks on to those teams? May I also encourage him to visit to see their good work?
Mel Stride
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting all the good work that has gone on in his constituency. I believe he opened a jobcentre only as recently as 30 January in his constituency. He is a doughty campaigner for and supporter of employment in his patch. He asks whether I will visit his constituency. I would certainly like to consider that, but my hon. Friend the Employment Minister might also visit, because she just said she was particularly keen to do so.
Antony Higginbotham
Burnley and Padiham has so much going for it—with the rest of Lancashire, our area is the manufacturing powerhouse of the United Kingdom—but still has stubborn levels of economic inactivity among people who could be contributing to economic growth and having financial security, which we all want them to have. What more can we do to help those people? In particular, can my right hon. Friend do more to join up with other Departments so that areas such as Burnley, which might have structural problems, get more intensive support?
Mel Stride
My hon. Friend asks what approach we can take to resolve the issues that he has raised. We have announced a doubling of universal support, a scheme with which he will be familiar; WorkWell, to which I just referred, bringing together medical support and work coaches; and reform of the fit note system so that we get involved earlier in the journey that many people experience when they fall out of the workforce into longer-term sickness and disability benefits. Overall, the evidence is clear: economic inactivity is down by 268,000 on the year, and by more than a third of a million since its peak during the pandemic—a 52% reduction.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mel Stride)
The Office for National Statistics estimates that 36,000 jobs were provided by employers in Witham in 2022.
Priti Patel
As it is Apprenticeship Week, will the Secretary of State join me in thanking businesses in Witham for everything that they are doing to employ youngsters and put them on that apprenticeship pathway? Those businesses, however, are crying out for a labour market strategy that will help them to harness the skills and the upskilling that they need in certain sectors. Would the Secretary of State be prepared to advance that, and push it, across other Departments?
Mel Stride
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the extraordinary work that she does locally to promote apprenticeships. I believe she was involved in a jobs fair on 24 January, hosted by Reed, which was highly successful. The employment rate in her constituency is 81%, well above the national average, which I put down almost entirely to the work that she is doing. She asked how we would proceed. We already have swaps, bootcamps and returnerships, but I am indeed looking at specific areas of the labour market, particularly in the context of migration changes, where we may be able to do more on a strategic basis.
Mr Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Ind)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Paul Maynard)
According to the latest estimate, based on data from March 2022, uprating the state pension where we do not currently do so would cost about £0.9 billion a year if all UK state pensions in payment were increased to current UK levels.
Mr Roberts
Following our withdrawal from the EU, we are rightly able to move closer to our partners in the Commonwealth. One way in which we could do that would be to confirm that all British citizens who live in the Commonwealth should be entitled to the appropriate uprating of their state pensions as if they were still in the UK. That would seem to be a matter of simple fairness. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the practicalities of making it happen, and restoring some much-needed common sense to a needlessly complicated situation?
Paul Maynard
The UK Government continue to uprate state pensions when there is a legal requirement for that to be done, and have no plans to change their long-standing policy or enter into new reciprocal social security agreements.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Mims Davies)
Understandably, such a health diagnosis can be a shock for individuals, their families and, indeed, their finances—and I am conscious of saying this just after World Cancer Day. It is important to ensure that people have the right support as soon as possible, and as part of our reforms we will simplify the system to reduce the assessment burden and improve people’s experiences of assessments.
Kerry McCarthy
I thank the Minister for her response, but those changes cannot come too soon for my constituent Emily, who was diagnosed with breast cancer in November, is too ill to work, and is finding the benefits system impossible to navigate. DWP officials have pushed her from pillar to post, unable to decide whether she is eligible for employment and support allowance and universal credit. She has been forced to fill in countless forms, and was even required to attend a jobcentre appointment over Christmas, despite being seriously unwell. Does the Minister agree this is simply not good enough, and that we need to put those changes in place so that people like Emily do not have to go through this?
Mims Davies
I am sorry to hear about Emily’s situation. I would remind others in her situation that there is a help to claim service available through Citizens Advice and also a benefits calculator on gov.uk, but I would also be extremely keen to see the details of what has happened. I would be happy to meet the hon. Lady or to look at the details, whatever she would prefer.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
The Minister for Employment (Jo Churchill)
Across the country our fantastic work coaches are supporting people to secure and progress in work. In Kendal, Cheadle and Darlington, jobcentres are working with local and national employers to match jobseekers with vacancies through job fairs, sector-based work academy programmes and apprenticeships. As it is National Apprenticeship Week, this is a great time for employers to promote the opportunities available, and I urge all colleagues who have not yet done so to visit their jobcentre if it has an apprenticeship fair on. The hon. Gentleman’s was last week, wasn’t it?
Tim Farron
I do indeed celebrate the work of the Kendal jobcentre. It does a fantastic job but one problem is that it has too small a workforce. This week we mourn the loss of yet another Lake District business, this time a bistro in Coniston, due in part to the loss of affordable homes and to restrictive visa rules, both of which are shrinking our local workforce. Will the Minister meet me and local Cumbrian business leaders to develop a plan to tackle Cumbria’s workforce crisis?
Jo Churchill
I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman, but I also gently say that this is about other Government Departments as well. I will certainly work with him as far as employers go, under my remit.
Mary Robinson
Speaking to Stockport jobcentre last week, I heard about the success of the movement to work scheme, which places young people with employers, including in the civil service. However, the lengthy civil service application process is delaying placements. Will my hon. Friend look into how the process could be streamlined and accelerated, and join me on a visit to Stockport jobcentre?
Jo Churchill
I know that senior civil servants are engaged in piloting an initiative that will help to speed this up, because we need to place those candidates more quickly and ensure that we get them into work swiftly. I would love to visit Stockport and add its jobcentre to the growing list that I have visited.
Peter Gibson
I put on record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) for his work to establish the Jobcentre Plus Facebook pages, of which Darlington’s was the first. Will my hon. Friend the Minister outline how successful that page has been and what further plans she has to develop accessible social media job advertising?
Jo Churchill
We know that social media helps, and that 40 to 50-year-olds in particular enjoy engaging with a digital platform when they are looking for work. We have had instances in the past of people thanking us when they have been given interviews online. It is important that posts are accessible and we are working to ensure that this is the case. I would point customers of any age to the JobHelp website, which has a host of useful information. I am keen to see if we can roll out such progress further.
Mr Speaker
I do find that a strange grouping, but not to worry, Minister. Well dealt with! How you got from Cumbria across the country like that is amazing.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mel Stride)
Autistic people have a huge amount to offer in the workforce, which is why we set up the Buckland review in April 2023, led by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland), to look at the barriers to autistic people gaining employment and to ensure that we have a more inclusive workforce for them.
Mr Sheerman
May I push the Minister on what progress has been made by the Buckland review? Will he also remind jobcentres up and down the country that people on the autism spectrum have great talents and often need only slight workplace modifications of simple things such as lighting or noise levels? This could open up a source of real talent for our country.
Mel Stride
The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. Small changes can often make a big difference, not just for autistic people but for the businesses they go on to serve and work in. He will have to be a little more patient about the Buckland review report coming out, but it will not be long. I also point him to the Access to Work and Disability Confident approaches, which both do exactly what he suggests.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
The Minister for Employment (Jo Churchill)
The Department has not made a specific assessment for the Stoke-on-Trent North constituency, but I refer my hon. Friend to the evidence I presented to the Work and Pensions Committee last week. I look forward to meeting him this week to discuss this in more detail.
Jonathan Gullis
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her answer. I am proud to have joined a campaign, together with my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) and the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), to reform statutory sick pay. That campaign, led by the Centre for Progressive Change, was referenced in today’s Times Health Commission report. Ahead of the spring Budget, will the Department join us in lobbying the Treasury to make these important changes, so that we have a healthier workforce that contributes more to our economy and, more importantly, so that we make sure that work pays fairly?
Jo Churchill
I refer my hon. Friend to the answers I gave to the Work and Pensions Committee. Statutory sick pay is considerably more complex than he makes out, but it is nice to see all this cross-party collaboration.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mel Stride)
The Department has been busy supporting the most vulnerable, with the third instalment of the £900 cost of living payments starting to reach the bank accounts of 8 million low-income households tomorrow. We are also on the verge of publishing our disability action plan. We have seen economic inactivity decrease by 330,000 since its peak during the pandemic.
I have made it a priority for my Department to engage across Parliament. As Secretary of State, I appeared before the Work and Pensions Committee in December. The pensions Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), appeared before the Committee on 10 January; the Minister for Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), appeared before the Committee on 31 January; and I believe the Minister for Disabled People, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies), and Viscount Younger, our Lords Minister, will appear before it next month. There will be a statement on the disability action plan this afternoon.
Helen Hayes
Lambeth Council and Southwark Council have worked hard over the past few years to deliver targeted cost of living support through the household support fund. Many local people continue to face serious hardship as a consequence of this Government’s political decisions, but local authorities do not know what, if any, funding they will receive after 31 March. When does the Secretary of State expect to confirm the future of the household support fund, so that local authorities can plan ahead?
Mel Stride
I am pleased that the hon. Lady recognises the importance and value of our various interventions. Ten million payments have been made through the HSF since its inception, and £1 billion has been put into the fund in the last year. She will know that her question is a matter for the Chancellor, and the matter will quite possibly—I really do not know—be dealt with at a future fiscal event. There is no news on that at this stage.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
Mel Stride
I thank my hon. Friend for her question, because autism is an issue of great importance to the House and to her personally. I know about the work that she is doing with Ryan Gibbs, Becca Pierce and Shelly Rankin Jones. She will know that the Buckland review was instigated in April 2023 and will conclude relatively shortly, with a report being published online. I look forward to visiting her disability jobs fair in Holyhead at the end of this week.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
This morning the Office for National Statistics published the long-awaited updated figures from the labour market survey. Can the Secretary of State now confirm that our employment rate is even lower than previously thought, and that there are at least 200,000 more people out of work due to long-term sickness? We thought that the cost of health-related inactivity was an additional £15 billion a year since the pandemic, but given these new figures, can he tell the House how much more his Government’s failure is costing taxpayers every single year?
Mr Speaker
Order. I remind Front Benchers that this is topical questions, which are meant to be short and punchy, and they should stick to the rules. Do we understand each other?
Mel Stride
The hon. Lady refers to the latest weighted numbers just released by the Office for National Statistics, which show that unemployment as a percentage is lower than originally forecast. She cannot get away from the fact that there are 330,000 fewer people in economic inactivity since the peak. As a result of our work capability assessment reforms, the Office for Budget Responsibility has scored us as having 371,000 fewer people on long-term sickness benefits than would otherwise have been the case.
Liz Kendall
The former health Minister Lord Bethell says that he is “gobsmacked” by the figures, and that
“the economic hit will be hard”.
The Minister would do well to listen to his words. Yesterday, the Education Secretary said that the Government cannot guarantee that their promises will be met on childcare, which parents need in order to work. Today, their Prime Minister admitted that he has failed on NHS waiting lists, which the long-term sick need dealt with if they are to get back to work. Why does the Secretary of State not do the decent thing and admit that he has failed too, and adopt Labour’s plan to cut waits, roll out breakfast clubs, overhaul jobcentres and get Britain working again?
Mel Stride
We are getting Britain working, unlike the Opposition, under whose last Administration unemployment increased, youth unemployment went up by 40%, some 25% more women were unemployed and 1 million people or thereabouts were stuck on long-term benefits for almost a decade. That was a disgrace.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
The Minister for Employment (Jo Churchill)
Like my hon. Friend, I am excited about the jobs and opportunities at Sizewell. Local jobcentres have been engaged with Sizewell C, and I understand that a local partnership manager will be designated to promote opportunities, and to find people for 1,500 apprenticeships and thousands of jobs. We will invest in local skills through sector-based work programmes and the like.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
Last month, a report by the pension provider Royal London showed that women lose, on average, £92,000 as a result of juggling part-time work and childcare. What are the Government going to do about that?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Paul Maynard)
As the hon. Gentleman will have heard earlier, the proportion of women saving for their pensions has gone from 40% 10 years ago to 89% now.
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
Mel Stride
I congratulate Philippa’s son on the very good work that he does. We have disability employment advisers in our jobcentres. I am visiting my hon. Friend’s constituency later this week; I know that he has been involved in the Denbighshire project, including the We Mind the Gap programme for young people, and I will be interested to discuss that and other matters.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
Paul Maynard
I can confirm to the hon. Gentleman that the Child Maintenance Service has a domestic abuse plan to ensure that parents are not placed in danger as a consequence of any suggestion of domestic violence; for example, it has a centralised sort code to limit the risk of parental involvement.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
I wish to place on record my thanks to the Secretary of State for helping to guide my private Member’s Bill through Parliament. It lowers the pension auto-enrolment age from 22 to 18, and abolishes the lower earnings threshold. Briefly, has the Secretary of State received reassurances from the Chancellor that the necessary forms will be implemented in the spring Budget?
Mel Stride
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. Those matters are under active consideration.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Mel Stride
The specifics of my negotiations with the Treasury remain between me and the Treasury. As I have said, the any of those decisions on the HSF are matters for the Treasury.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
Paul Maynard
The Department is co-operating with the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman investigation, which is ongoing, and it would not be appropriate to comment on it or the outcome.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Jo Churchill
The way that universal credit works means that work coaches can use their flexibility, but if a payment is short one month, the appropriate thing to do is to sort it the next.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Mel Stride
Cost of living payments can be affected by when people are paid, and therefore by whether they are on universal credit and qualify at precisely that point. I do not have the figure to hand that the hon. Lady requests, but I will of course get back to her with it.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
This morning’s report by the Academy of Medical Sciences revealed that our appalling child health and infant mortality rates are worse than those of 60% of similar countries and is the key driver of child poverty. What assessment has the Secretary of State undertaken to make on the impact that stopping the household support fund in April will have on relative child poverty and, subsequently, infant mortality?
Mel Stride
As the hon. Lady will know, the number of those in child poverty has decreased by 400,000 since 2010. We do not yet have a decision on the household support fund, to which she refers, but I point her to the very significant uplift in the local housing allowance, which will give 1.6 million people £800 a year more on average, thereby taking many of them out of poverty.
Alistair Strathern (Mid Bedfordshire) (Lab)
From unanswered emails to unreturned calls, it has been heartbreaking to hear from so many vulnerable constituents who are in a state of limbo and distress, and trying to chase up personal independence payments. When will Ministers ensure that people can get the support that they need in a timely and straightforward manner?
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Mims Davies)
If the hon. Gentleman has specific examples, I would be keen to hear from him and to look into them.
Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State point out to the Chancellor that many councils have used the household support fund to pay £3 per day per child during the school holidays to families entitled to free school meals, and that if the fund closes at the end of March, those families will be straight into hardship in the Easter school holidays?
Mel Stride
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his representation, and indeed would be grateful for any others that he is minded to make to me as we conduct our ongoing review on where we go with the household support fund.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
When will the Minister wake up to the fact that working as an apprentice in engineering is a fabulous career choice, and well paid? Will she come up to Huddersfield to look at Cummins, whose apprentice system is first rate?
Jo Churchill
I would be delighted to do so on my tour of England. I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. My father is an engineer. It is a fantastic profession, and the more we can encourage apprenticeships right across the board, the better. Nearly 6 million people have now taken them up. I would be delighted to come.
Situation in the Red Sea
(10 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Grant Shapps)
With permission, I will make a statement on the recent response to Houthi aggression in the Red sea.
Freedom of navigation has been a cornerstone of civilisation since time immemorial. It underpins our prosperity and security, and is a founding principle of the international rules-based system. Since 19 October, the Houthis, supplied and aided by Iran, have been infringing on those fundamental freedoms by attacking international commercial vessels in the Red sea and in the Gulf of Aden. On 19 November, they illegally seized the merchant vessel Galaxy Leader using a helicopter-borne assault crew, and since then they have conducted around 40 attacks against commercial and military vessels. Despite repeated warnings, their attacks have continued.
The UK has always stood up for the rules-based international order, and since the Houthis began their illegal attacks we have been at the forefront of the international response, whether helping to defend vessels in the vicinity, as one of the first members to join the US-led taskforce Operation Prosperity Guardian, or working in tandem with the US and other allies to tackle the Houthis, always in response to specific threats and always in line with international law and the principle of self-defence.
On two previous occasions we have been required to use force, and those attacks have had a significant effect in degrading Houthi capabilities, but the Houthis’ intent to continue disrupting the Red sea has not been fully diminished. Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister came to the House to make it clear, as I did the following day, that unless the Houthis desisted from their inflammatory actions, we would not hesitate to act again. Yet instead of ceasing their activities, they have chosen to persist, accompanying their increasingly incendiary rhetoric with further missiles and drones targeted at shipping and at the Royal Navy.
Most recently, the Houthis set the vessel Marlin Luanda on fire and targeted HMS Diamond directly in the Red sea. Such behaviour is simply intolerable. It breaks international law, and is already having consequences that are damaging to the economies of the world. Insurance premiums have rocketed tenfold since the start of December, the number of cargo ships transiting Bab al-Mandab has fallen, and the cost of containers has rocketed, all of which could send food inflation spiralling, and will certainly hit those countries with the greatest poverty levels the hardest.
The Houthis believe that they are the region’s Robin Hood, but as I discussed with the Yemeni Defence Minister just yesterday when I saw him in Saudi, the only people they are robbing are innocent Yeminis whose food and aid arrives via the Red sea. That is why at the weekend the Prime Minister and I again authorised the use of force, in strict accordance with international law and in self-defence. On Saturday, Royal Air Force Typhoons, supported by two Voyager tankers, joined the US forces to conduct further precision strikes against Houthi locations in Yemen. The Typhoons employed Paveway IV precision-guided munitions against three military facilities, hitting 11 separate targets, which were identified after careful intelligence analysis at those three locations and approved by me.
At As-Salif, due west of Sana’a on the Red sea coast, our aircraft targeted a ground control station inside a defensive position. The station has been used to control Houthi attack and reconnaissance drones launched from further inland and operating over the Red sea, targeted at international shipping. A second drone ground control station was confirmed to be Al-Munirah on the same stretch of coastline. As with As-Salif, the station provided direct control of reconnaissance and attack drones targeting shipping in the Red sea, its position on the coast allowing it to maintain the line of sight data links used to target innocent shipping with accuracy.
Our Typhoons also attacked a significant number of targets at Bani. The House may recall that an initial group of facilities at Bani were successfully struck by the RAF on the night of 11 January this year. Since then, a further set of buildings at the site had been positively confirmed to be involved in the Houthi operations and were, as a result, targeted on this occasion. As is standard practice for operations by the RAF, the strikes were very carefully planned to ensure minimal risk of civilian casualties. Dropping munitions at night further reduces such risks and we do not believe there were any civilian casualties on Saturday night.
Military action can only be one element in our efforts to confront these global challenges, and military action is indeed the very last resort. It would be far better if the Houthis stopped their attacks. Our approach is therefore founded on four pillars. First, we are increasing diplomatic engagement. The Foreign Secretary travelled to the region and met his Iranian counterpart last month to make it clear that Iran must cease supplying the Houthis with weapons and intelligence and use its influence to stop the Houthi attacks. The Prime Minister spoke to President Biden recently to discuss our joint approach and I met my counterparts in the region this weekend, returning this morning from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, where I discussed regional security.
Secondly, we must end the illegal flow of arms to the Houthis. Britain and the US have previously intercepted weapons shipments in the region, including the same kind of components that we have seen used in recent strikes. Thirdly, we must cut off the Houthis’ financial resources. We have already—we did so last month—sanctioned four key figures within the Houthi regime, including the commander of the Houthi naval forces and the Houthi Defence Minister.
Fourthly, we continue to help the people of Yemen, delivering humanitarian aid and supporting a negotiated peace. The UK has committed £88 million in humanitarian support so far this year, feeding 100,000 Yemenis every month with aid arriving through the very sea routes which, ironically, the Houthis are targeting.
Let me be absolutely clear: we would much rather the Houthis simply stopped attacking international shipping, stopped damaging global trade and stopped harming the prospects of their own people. At the same time, appeasing the Houthis today will not lead to a more stable Red sea or indeed a more stable region. We are not seeking confrontation and we urge the Houthis, and all those who enable them, to stop these illegal and unacceptable attacks. However, if necessary, the UK will not hesitate to respond again in self-defence.
Placating the sponsors of terror does not benefit our international order in the long run, or bring peace to the middle east or elsewhere in Europe or the world. The truth is that we cannot ignore the importance of these great waterways for shipping. That is the reason the world backs the United Nations convention on the law of the sea. It is the reason New Zealand has joined the UK, the US, Australia, Canada, Bahrain, Denmark and the Netherlands in providing support to this weekend’s air strikes. As an island nation, we have always appreciated freedom of navigation and the fact that it is intrinsic to our way of life. If we do not deal with these threats, every nation will be poorer. I commend this statement to the House.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
I thank the Defence Secretary for the advance copy of his statement.
We back the UK-US airstrikes that took place at the weekend to protect shipping in the Red sea. We know that the strikes were carried out against Houthi command centres and weapons stores. We accept that they were limited, necessary and targeted to minimise the risk of civilian casualties. The Houthis are attacking the ships of many nations, threatening maritime security and international trade, and putting civilian and military lives in serious danger. That is why the UN Security Council passed last month a resolution condemning Houthi actions in the strongest possible terms and demanding that their attacks stop.
We accept that the strikes we justified, but will the Defence Secretary confirm that they were also effective? Were the targets selected the targets hit? Was the purpose of destroying the drone control centres at As-Salif and Al-Munirah fully achieved? Ministers have said that the aims of the strikes are, first, to deter Houthi attacks, and secondly, to degrade their capabilities. The first aim has not yet succeeded, as Houthi attacks continue, but is the fact that those attacks are now less sophisticated and more sporadic a sign that the second aim may be succeeding? This is the third UK-US strike in the past three weeks. At what stage do three one-off strikes become a sustained campaign? If this does develop into continuing military action, at what stage will the Government give Parliament a say?
Before I turn to the wider role of UK forces in the Red sea, let me make this point: it is the Prime Minister who should be making this statement to the House, just as he did after the two previous UK strikes on Houthi targets. It is the Prime Minister’s responsibility to authorise such UK military action in the name of the Cabinet, advised by others, of course, including and especially the Defence Secretary. The Government risk downgrading respect for the convention that, having given the go-ahead for such action, it is the Prime Minister who then reports directly to this House.
We also back the leading role of the Royal Navy in the continuing defence of shipping from all nations in the Red sea. What action are the Government taking to persuade other countries to join the Prosperity Guardian protection force? How long does the Defence Secretary expect Operation Prosperity Guardian to be needed? How will the EU’s new maritime mission to the Red sea co-ordinate operations with Prosperity Guardian? Two weeks ago, I asked the Defence Secretary if a UK carrier was ready to deploy to the Red sea. We now know that HMS Queen Elizabeth has serious problems, so does the UK still have the option of sending a carrier to the Red sea if required, and if so, when? Military action on its own cannot solve the problems in the region. What is the Government’s diplomatic action to pressure the Houthis to cease their attacks and settle the civil war in Yemen, and to pressure Iran to stop supplying weapons and intelligence to the Houthis?
Finally, like the Defence Secretary, I totally reject the Houthi claims that firing missiles and drones at ships from around the world is somehow linked to the conflict in Gaza. They have been attacking oil tankers and seizing ships for at least five years—not just for the 121 days since 7 October. Those attacks do absolutely nothing for the Palestinian people, whose agonies are now extreme. We want the Gaza fighting to stop now with a humanitarian truce that can build into a sustainable ceasefire, to stop the killing of innocent civilians, get all the remaining hostages out and get much more aid into Gaza. The UK aid efforts must be accelerated. Have any more RAF flights taken off since the Defence Secretary was last in this Chamber, and if not, why not?
Finally, for long-term peace, there has to be a political process that can turn the rhetoric around two states living side by side in peace into reality. The House is united in that UK vision, and I give this commitment from our side: if elected to form the next Government, Labour will lead this new push for peace.
Grant Shapps
First, I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s support for this action. He asked a series of questions, which I will rattle through. Were the actions effective? Yes, they hit the targets. Were all the targets hit? Again, yes. We are still carrying out surveillance to find out the exact impact, but I think we can be very confident that all the relevant objectives were reached. We combined very closely with our US colleagues, and sometimes interchanged some of those targets with them. The right hon. Gentleman will have noted that, on this occasion, we were involved in dropping munitions on more targets than previously, so we carried a slightly greater weight than before.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the action was successful, and rightly pointed out that what we are seeing is rather more sporadic: the attacks, including on HMS Diamond and on merchant shipping, have continued, but in a much more ad hoc fashion. It is perhaps relevant that there has been no attack using multiple different weapons at the same time, which we saw, for example, on 11 January. The degrading will have had some impact on that. I will come back to the right hon. Gentleman’s comments about the Prime Minister at the end—I want to set the record straight.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about Operation Prosperity Guardian. The simple answer, of course, is that none of us knows how long it will need to continue for, but we want it to come to a conclusion as quickly as possible.
We utterly reject any notion that these continued attacks by the Houthis are anything to do with the situation in Gaza. The Houthis are opportunist pirates who are using a situation to their benefit: a few years ago, they did not even support Hamas, but suddenly they want to be their greatest champions. They are over 2,000 kilometres away from Gaza; they are simply using the situation to their advantage, and it is wise for the House to not over-link the two. None the less, the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to about the need to see a humanitarian truce and a sustainable ceasefire—that is the Government’s policy. We are working extremely hard to try to achieve that, including through discussions that the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and myself are having. Just yesterday, I was having those discussions in the middle east.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about RAF flights. The issue is not getting the aid to location—I have been working very closely with the Cypriot Government, for example, on how we can increase the amount of aid. The single biggest problem remains getting the aid into the country. We had some success with getting Kerem Shalom open, but what we really need to see is Ashdod open, in order to route that aid to Kerem Shalom and straight into Gaza. The Government and I will continue to push for that route, but the problem is not the flights taking off; it is the aid getting in.
Finally, turning to the fact that it is myself as Defence Secretary standing at the Dispatch Box, rather than the Prime Minister, the first thing to say is that it is the Secretary of State for Defence who actually has legal responsibility for these actions—who signs off the targets and, indeed, the legal authority. Technically, it is me who should be standing here, other than for the first couple of rounds, where the Prime Minister was dealing with something new and it was therefore very appropriate for him to be at the Dispatch Box.
The wider point that I would gently make to the right hon. Gentleman, though, is that the Prime Minister is in Northern Ireland today, doing incredibly important work—[Interruption.] I hear from a sedentary position the suggestion that we should have been recalled yesterday, but I unsure whether that would have been entirely practical. It is entirely appropriate that the Prime Minister is in Northern Ireland. I would have thought that the House would welcome the fact that that historic breakthrough has been marked by the Prime Minister, and it is very appropriate that I am here today to explain the activity of Saturday night to the House.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Do the Government accept that it is difficult to deter terrorist fanatics, and that one mainly has to contain the effectiveness of what they do until they are ultimately destroyed, preferably by our regional allies? Does the Secretary of State feel that there is in fact a link to a separate conflict, and that is the conflict in Ukraine? Is it not more than a coincidence that the proxies of Russia’s ally in the middle east have been so much more active while Russia is so desperate for us to turn our attention away from supporting Ukraine?
Grant Shapps
As ever, my right hon. Friend has absolutely hit the nail on the head. Russia and Iran are working together. Actually, the same kind of drones—sometimes the Shahed drones—that are being fired in Ukraine by the Russians, courtesy of Iran, are also being fired by the Houthis. He makes an excellent linkage point, and he is absolutely right.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
The people of Scotland and elsewhere on these islands deserve to know what the plan is for this crisis in the Red sea—not the timings, the detail of missions, the tactical ambition or the resources behind these, but the broad strategy being pursued with lethal force in our name and in the absence of parliamentary approval. We have already made it clear from the SNP Benches that we support the Government and international partners in direct action to uphold freedom of navigation and the law of the sea, but this should never have been taken for granted and it remains subject to a realistic interpretation of both self-defence and imminence.
We see the toll that Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine has taken on our constituents and businesses over energy costs, so we cannot allow this to be compounded further by interrupting global supply chains, nor can we ever tolerate or stand idly by while seafarers are put at risk, whatever the supposed aims of the Houthis or their backers may be.
Will this be a sustained engagement? I do not know, and neither does the rest of Parliament. One way or another, an allied seaborne strike capability will be engaged, so with one of the two aircraft carriers in the Royal Navy out of commission again, the Type 23 frigate fleet on its knees, and the Type 43 destroyer fleet still going through PIP—the power improvement project—who in the Government has a grip of the Royal Navy’s resources? Fundamentally, what is the UK Government’s plan to ensure that this campaign is not escalatory, and what is the thinking behind any assessment that they have made?
In closing, this is not about supporting Gazans, or people dying or fleeing persecution in Gaza, but about the Houthis pursuing their own aims. However, I would be interested to know what the Government’s assessment is of the uptick in temperature in the middle east—in Gaza, in Yemen and with NATO ally personnel being killed.
Grant Shapps
Listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman, I detect that he supports the action that has been taken. As I have said, it cannot be right that international shipping is prevented from its own freedom of navigation. Again, respecting the will of the House and listening very carefully, it is quite clear that the official Opposition support this action, as do the Government and, as I now learn, do those on his own Benches, and I remember the Liberal Democrats saying it previously. So I think it is quite clear that there is a strong support in this House. It is also important that there is sufficient freedom of action to ensure the safety and security of our airmen and women when they undertake these actions, rather than flagging them substantially in advance.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned—and so did the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey)—the aircraft carrier, and I should just address this point. It is the case that, actually through an abundance of caution on a final inspection, the decision was taken for the aircraft carrier not to sail. I have spoken to the First Sea Lord, who has made it clear to me that, if there had been an emergency situation—the House will recall that it was going to join Exercise Steadfast Defender—it quite probably would have sailed. The fact is that we have another one, and that will sail to the exercise.
On the frigates and the destroyers, I just disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I have been out to visit those on HMS Diamond in the Red sea, and they are absolutely prepared and ready to go.
Grant Shapps
As the hon. Gentleman says, that is one, but today that ship has been replaced by HMS Richmond, which now takes on that mantle. We have 16 ships under construction or on order. I wonder how many we would get from the SNP, with its approach to defence.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his in-depth statement, but there is concern about stretching the Royal Navy. It is a leading, world-class Navy, but it is suffering from personnel issues in crewing the ships, and responsibility for that lies back at the Treasury providing the revenue streams needed to make sure the capital equipment we have got can be used most effectively. What representations is my right hon. Friend making to ensure that the growth in maritime concerns around the world will be met by a commitment from the Treasury?
Grant Shapps
On a wider armed forces and MOD note, we have £288.6 billion for equipment over the next 10 years. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that that has to be matched with the sailors, the airmen and women and the Army able to resource that equipment, and I have some good news for him. Since we have been talking very actively about these issues, we have seen an eight-year high in applications to the Royal Navy, a six-year high in applications to the Army and a 42% increase between this January and last January in applications to join the Royal Air Force. I predict we are making progress.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
I wonder whether the Secretary of State has seen the front page of the Financial Times today because it outlines how Iran has been using Lloyds and Santander accounts to evade sanctions. The US is accusing front companies of funding the IRGC with hundreds of millions of dollars and working with Russian intelligence to raise money for Iranian proxies. I am sure all in this House would be appalled to know that money laundered here in our capital is being used against our own troops by the Houthis, so what assessment have the Government made of those allegations by our ally? Does that not yet again show that we must proscribe the IRGC now?
Grant Shapps
This issue is repeatedly raised in the House and the hon. Lady will know, as she will have heard the responses many times before, that we do not routinely comment on proscription. It is the case however that we do sanction, and we have sanctioned the entirety of the IRGC already, as well as taken a number of different actions. She will appreciate that this matter does not come directly within the Defence portfolio, but I know that she will have the opportunity to press Foreign Office and Home Office Ministers at a future time, and we do keep this matter under constant review.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I agree with the Secretary of State and the Government that we do not want to see an escalation in the region and that we want to be proportionate in our response and calibrate our response not to provoke and antagonise, but is it not the case that we might actually be hitting the wrong target—that we are hitting proxies of Iran and, while I believe in peace and diplomacy, the malevolent factor in the region, in all of this, is Iran? It might be the case that, while we have the best of diplomatic intentions and we do not want to provoke Iran to a major conflict with NATO, the US or the UK, putting off that decision now will cost more lives in the future. Iran and the regime—not the Iranian people but the regime in Iran—are behind all this. They are the ones destabilising Israel, the Abraham accords and so on. I hope the Secretary of State will take a strategic view and make hard choices on Iran, because, whether we like it or not, it is coming.
Grant Shapps
My right hon. Friend makes the excellent point that Iran is behind all this. Iran is behind Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis and the IRGC-aligned militia that we have seen attack not just American troops—I often hear it is American personnel have been attacked 160 separate times in Syria and Iraq, but in fact about a third of those occasions involved British troops as well. On every occasion, Iran is behind all of this. I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend and we are working hard to pressurise Iran into realising that its current approach can do no good at all and will destabilise the region, which it claims it does not want to do.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Let me first make the point that a direct attack on Iran would be insanity; the region would be provoked and others would be dragged into it. I understand why the Government are saying that it is wise “to not over-link” Houthis strikes with Gaza, but the reality is that the middle east region is on the edge of conflagration as a result of the war that is going on and the attacks on Gaza. The priority must therefore be to secure peace in Gaza. We have a limited role in that, but we know that Netanyahu would secure peace if pressurised to do so by the American Government, because realistically they are the only power that can influence him and Israeli strategy. What further talks have taken place with the Biden Government to ensure that they exercise the maximum pressure on Netanyahu to get to that peace negotiating table?
Grant Shapps
The right hon. Gentleman will be aware, I hope, that the UK and the US work very closely on this. I was in the States last week. I met Blinken, Lloyd Austin and others to discuss exactly the points that the right hon. Gentleman raises about how we bring together a solution that not only provides, ultimately, the Palestinian state for the Palestinian people, but security guarantees for Israel. It is also important to realise that we are working closely in a number of different spheres, including on the Lebanese border, where we are working hard to try to prevent a further conflict there. We should remember that 125,000 Israelis have had to move from that border because of the activity of Lebanese Hezbollah. We are working with the Lebanese Government. I saw the Yemeni Defence Minister yesterday, and we discussed how to prevent that conflict from becoming part of this, too. The Government are pulling every single possible diplomatic lever in what is clearly a very complex position.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
The Defence Secretary is right that this mission must continue to stand up and defend international laws in the Red sea, but the mission to remove the Houthi threat and keep the Red sea safe could last months, and it is not sustainable to continue tasking Typhoons from Cyprus for each mission or subsequent future threats. Will the Defence Secretary therefore agree that there is a case for an urgent operational requirement to upgrade the Type-45 destroyers, given the continued inability of their vertical launch systems to strike targets at range inland?
Grant Shapps
I know that my right hon. Friend takes a huge interest in this matter, and he will be interested to hear that on Friday I was on HMS Somerset in Devonport, where they are fitting a surface-to-surface system, which may or may not be appropriate in this particular type of conflict. I want to take issue with one thing. We are in a coalition here, working with the US and others. As we have demonstrated repeatedly, there is no issue with Typhoons flying a long distance. Indeed, when America carried out their unrelated attacks for Tower 22, they flew all the way from the United States. Flying a long distance is no sign that the capability is not there in itself.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State please have another go at giving a better answer to the question from the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) about the extremely serious report in today’s Financial Times that two of Britain’s main banks are indirectly helping to fund the Houthis, with whom we are now in some sort of conflict?
Grant Shapps
The right hon. Gentleman will have heard my answer a moment ago. I know that he wants me to go into further detail, but I am unable to do that at the Dispatch Box right now. We have noted both the question and the article of this morning. We are also intensely engaged in finding the best way to ensure that Iranian influence, whether through the UK or in the region, is limited. I do not think I can go further at this moment.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
The Houthi rebels are violent extremist antisemites, and it is right that we take action to combat their aggression in the Red sea. It seems that there is success in degrading their capabilities. Is the Secretary of State confident that we will get to the point where we can stop the attacks altogether?
Grant Shapps
I think the clock is running down for the Houthis, in as much as their ability is being degraded, as my right hon. Friend points out—they do not have the eyes and ears from the radar stations; they are more reliant still on Iran, and only the UK and the US have done interdictions of their weapons. There is a limitation to this. None the less, we still think that would continue, if they choose to, even at that lower level, but it is important that they cease and stop this. We are putting pressure on, as I have described, through every possible means, including very extensive talks that I had yesterday in Saudi Arabia with various different people, including not just the Saudis but the Yemenis themselves.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State confirm what the long-term strategy is and how it relates to the ongoing precarious situation in Yemen? Do the Government plan to commit to sustained military action? If so, surely it is only right for Parliament to have its say in the appropriate way.
Grant Shapps
This is the third time that we have come to Parliament and made a statement—I know that the hon. Lady has made other contributions to the debate—so we do feel that Parliament is being fully engaged in the process. We are not looking to make this a sustained, long-term military action. Indeed, I can guarantee for the House that if the Houthis stop, we will have absolutely no requirement again to drop munitions on them. But it is a fact that they are the ones interrupting international maritime activity, and we cannot stand by and allow that to happen.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
The Defence Secretary cannot comment specifically on target acquisition, but will he please confirm to the House that our intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance is focused on those Houthi capabilities directly engaged in the attacks on international shipping? Is it reasonable to assume that further degradation of those capabilities will result in increased security in the Red sea?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend asks a good question that has not yet been asked. The answer is yes. We are looking carefully, and the locations chosen on this occasion were indeed from a combination of US and UK intelligence.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The Government are right to have this strong response for what may seem to many to be a faraway war or incident, but which could impact so much on people’s lives here in the United Kingdom, through food shortages, supply chain disruption and inflation. Given the reports about shortages of Royal Navy personnel, the difficulty with munitions, the difficulties with some ships and now the increased demands on the Navy because of tensions with China and Russia—maybe even Argentina in future—will the Secretary of State assure us that we have the capability to play our part in keeping supply chains open? What discussions has he had with other allies to get them involved in the task of supporting us in this job?
Grant Shapps
The right hon. Gentleman is right about the importance of trade. Some 90% of our goods come to this country via the sea, so it really matters to the United Kingdom, but it matters to the whole world. He mentions personnel, munitions and so on, as have one or two other Members. In my time as Defence Secretary, I have not been unable to deploy exactly where I have needed to, for example at the request of NATO when we deployed to Kosovo—they have returned home now—or for this conflict in the middle east, where we have needed to carry out the actions that we are discussing. On each occasion, those have been available. I previously mentioned a £288 billion 10-year programme on equipment and the success in recruiting more personnel. I encourage other countries to match our defence budget, which is comfortably above 2% of GDP and heading up to 2.5%—the sooner they do that, the better.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
I fully support the Government’s action in the Red sea. The irony of the Iranian regime accusing us of destabilising the region through our actions will not be lost on reasonable people. Does the Secretary of State agree that those demonstrators on the streets of London applauding what the Houthi rebels have been doing are at best useful idiots and at worst truly the enemy within?
Grant Shapps
I use my own language, but it is disgraceful to see people go out and support those who are indiscriminately firing at merchant ships—that is absolutely appalling. I will not repeat my hon. Friend’s language; I will put that support down to ignorance rather than anything else.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
The Secretary of State is rightly clear about breaches of international law by the Houthis in the Red sea. Can he be equally clear about breaches of international law by all sides in Gaza? Does he think it will help reduce hostilities across the middle east if the Government can build a broader international coalition in support of their diplomatic and military aims?
Grant Shapps
The United Kingdom Government always want international humanitarian law to be adhered to, and we make that point repeatedly to every side in this conflict. I think the hon. Gentleman is driving at Israel. To answer his question directly, Israel is included. Hamas could end the conflict very quickly if they release the hostages that they have kidnapped and cease firing on Israel. On the wider coalitions, I described how New Zealand is now on board with the military action, but I should mention that 20-plus countries are involved in Operation Prosperity Guardian, and the EU has formed an additional operation, which we welcome.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt), as well as open support for the Houthis this weekend on the streets of central London, some protestors in the pro-Palestinian marches again called for an intifada and held up deeply racist antisemitic signs, one of which included informing Israelis—we presume Jewish Israelis—that they were indigenous to nowhere other than hell. I am not sure that it is just ignorance; I think something more sinister is at play among some of the protestors. We should call it what it is: pure and simple Jew hate. Will the Secretary of State inform the House whether he has spoken to anyone else across Government about more action to deal with some of the hate on our streets?
Grant Shapps
The Home Secretary continuously keeps this matter under review, and meets police chiefs to ensure that they have the powers to combat what my hon. Friend rightly describes as absolutely disgusting behaviour, which has no place at all on our streets. I am sure that the whole House needs no reminding, but perhaps the people who go out campaigning do: the Houthis’ slogan is “Death to America, death to Israel, death to the Jews no matter where they are.” There is no place for that on the streets of Britain.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
It is an extraordinary situation where the Secretary of State comes here, makes a matter-of-fact statement about the launch of missiles against a number of targets and countries, gives no indication of the long-term war aim by the UK at present, and says absolutely nothing about the crying, desperate need for a ceasefire to protect the people of Gaza from further death and destruction. Does he not realise that the extension of the conflict by Britain and the United States to at least four other countries risks a huge conflagration across the whole region? I would have been much happier had he come here and said that Britain was determined to try to deal with the injustices in the region and to bring about a peace process rather than further militarisation of the seaways around all those countries. Surely peace is something to aim for, rather than the continuation of yet more wars.
Grant Shapps
Never have I disagreed so much with the right hon. Gentleman—and that is saying something, given that he wants to scrap Trident and pull us out of NATO. The statement is on the Red sea. I am surprised that he is not more appreciative of the geography. The attacks in the Red sea are a very long way from Gaza. He misunderstands why I have come to this House: to talk about munitions on a single country, not three countries, as he said. I spoke to the Yemeni Government yesterday, who thank us for our work. It is a shame that he cannot do the same.
Sir Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
I commend the Defence Secretary for his excellent work. He talked about Yemen. Its Foreign Minister, Ahmad Awad bin Mubarak, said on Thursday that there is no doubt that Iran’s Quds Force operatives have been deployed to his own coastline. What assessment has my right hon. Friend made of the extent of Iran’s aggressive military adventurism and its destabilising effect on international peace and security?
Grant Shapps
Quite simply, Iran is a malign influence not just on Yemen but on the entire region. My right hon. and learned Friend is right to point out the manner in which it has helped to create instability in the Red sea. I am afraid that the only language that the Iranians understand is the approach that we have been taking: to show them that there is a red line and they have crossed it.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I completely understand and agree with the need to protect international shipping and maritime security and to ensure the safety of civilians and seafarers in the Red sea. However, some of us are also concerned about a wider escalation in this already volatile region. Will the Defence Secretary outline what steps the Government are taking, diplomatic or otherwise, to stop us being sucked into an escalating regional conflict?
Grant Shapps
The actions we are discussing are very specific and targeted, as the hon. Gentleman will recognise. They are not open to being repeated unless the attacks on us continue, so they can actually be stopped immediately. In terms of wider diplomacy, which I have gone into in some detail, I have met with Sullivan, Blinken and Lloyd Austin in the States, while the Foreign Secretary has been doing the same with his opposite numbers. As I have just described, I was in the region until this morning, where I was having extensive discussions on how to bring this situation to a conclusion. I am afraid it is not always possible to provide a line-by-line explanation of every single element of those talks, which I appreciate is frustrating for the House, but we are making broad and strenuous efforts to achieve exactly what the hon. Gentleman is looking for.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
The Defence Secretary has said the Government are looking at a comprehensive strategy with a four-pronged approach to degrade the Houthis. We have classified the actions of the Houthis as terrorist and said that they pose a significant threat to British interests. I then look at the “Proscribed Terrorist Organisations” document from the House of Commons Library, which lists non-state actors Ansar Al Islam, Al Ittihad Al Islamia and Hezbollah, all of which meet the criteria for proscription, yet the Houthis are not proscribed as a terrorist organisation. The Secretary of State says that we have sanctioned some high-level individuals. The US has proscribed them; we have not.
My question to the Defence Secretary is this: will the UK set up a contact group to deal with non-state actors in the long term? This threat is not going to go away. The Houthis will splinter into other terrorist organisations in the region.
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend rightly points out that the US has taken some action, although it is not quite the same as our proscription—what it has done in this case with the Houthis is sort of an in-between version. Of course, we have made sure that a number of individuals, whom I named in my comments, have effectively been dealt with. The wider question is getting the balance right between ensuring that food aid can still reach Yemen—that was the discussion I was having with the Yemeni Government yesterday—and full proscription. We need to make sure we get that balance right, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is working very closely on that. Whether one would call that a contact group or something else, I can assure my hon. Friend that the work is being done.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
Like others, I commend the Government’s diplomatic efforts to resolve the broader conflict—and this one, in fact. If diplomatic means fail to resolve this particular conflict in the Red sea, is the Secretary of State determined to pursue the military option to the very end?
Grant Shapps
As I have described in answer to other Members, we see this action as being very specific and one that does not need to continue. What I do not see as being short term and specific is the diplomatic process that the hon. Gentleman refers to, which now needs to do what the world has been unable to do for decades: form a wider peace in the middle east. The pieces may be there, with potential normalisation between countries such as Saudi Arabia and Israel. Hamas’s intent, and Iran’s intent, is to disrupt all of that. We understand that, which is why we have to work all the harder to overcome their approach to creating instability in the region.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
We cannot overestimate the value of freedom of navigation in the region, so it is not surprising that New Zealand has joined the UK, the US, Australia, Canada, Bahrain, Denmark and the Netherlands in providing support over the weekend. What concerns me is Egypt, which faces both economic and social disadvantage. The Suez canal provides $9.4 billion of trade to the Egyptian economy, and the last thing we want is for that to be disrupted. Can the Secretary of State advise what he will do to help to counter the destabilising activity of the Houthi pirates in the region?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that this is devastating for the Egyptian economy. I was in Egypt a couple of weeks ago, where I met my opposite number, the Egyptian Defence Minister, and we discussed exactly this point. Clearly, ships are avoiding the area and taking a much longer route around at the moment, so it is in everybody’s interests, and those of the Suez canal in particular, to see this resolved as quickly as possible.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
It was reported last night that only the UK and US were involved actively in the military action over the weekend, with that being attributed to the different risk assessments that the UK and US had compared with other international partners. Is that the case? If so, will the Secretary of State discuss what the particular concerns were in the different risk assessments in respect of escalation of the conflict?
Grant Shapps
It is difficult for me to answer on why different countries would take part or not. A much wider group of countries take part in Operation Prosperity Guardian—the freedom of navigation part of this. A number of the other countries have actively provided assistance, including intelligence officers and the like. The truth of the matter is that only relatively few countries have the capability—the capacity—to carry out this action, and it should be a matter of pride that when push comes to shove, it is the UK that is able to step up and carry out some of this difficult work.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Given the continuing attacks by Iranian-backed Houthis, will the Government, as well as pursuing diplomacy and trying to stop the illegal flow of weapons and finance, be prepared to intensify military action with our allies, in self-defence, to degrade the ability to make further attacks on commercial shipping?
Grant Shapps
I should be absolutely clear: we will only act within international law. That law is about self-defence, so we respond to the attacks in turn. We are not looking to increase the implications of this, as I have described carefully, because we want to bring it to a close. However, this remains open-ended and we will have to go back if the attacks do not stop.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)
It is not simply the Houthis who say that this issue is inextricably linked to Gaza; the embassy of Yemen has made that clear in paragraph 4 of its letter to all MPs, and Brigadier Deverell, the former British military attaché in Yemen and Saudi Arabia, has said that it is linked. He has gone on to add that these strikes will fail and will not resolve the situation. So rather than lurching towards world war three, and rather than an escalation of the conflict, widening it beyond countries and this limited territory, is it not time to ensure that Israel is called to heel, that its genocide ceases and that we get an immediate ceasefire? [Interruption.]
Grant Shapps
I think the hon. Gentleman will detect that the House has not followed the logic of his argument. There is a difference between this absolutely not being inextricably linked to Gaza, apart from when Opposition Members might try to link it, and the Houthis claiming that it is somehow linked as a badge of convenience—as a way of trying to muscle in on that action. I am very, very sorry that the hon. Gentleman chooses to repeat their propaganda.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
In addition to the IRGC deployment on the coastline of Yemen that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton North (Sir Michael Ellis) referenced, Tehran has deployed its Alborz warship to the Red sea. We also know that two US Navy SEALs have died after attempting to seize Iranian weapons bound for the Houthis, yet Iran continues to evade any meaningful deterrence. Does the Secretary of State agree that Iran must not be allowed to outsource the responsibility for its regional escalation to its proxies and must be deterred directly?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about the link between the Iranian ships that loiter in the region and the items that are shipped to the Houthis, which we know come from Iran, because of the interdictions that we have made previously. It is probably wise if I do not go into too much detail, but to say that we are aware of this is absolutely correct, and the whole world needs to carry on piling the pressure on Iran to cease and desist from this behaviour.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Defence Secretary was right to highlight the risk to humanitarian aid in the region, not least given the catastrophic situation in Gaza. What steps has he deployed over the last four months, through air capability as well as sea capability, to establish routes for aid to reach Gaza by sea or by air?
Grant Shapps
I would link that with the action we have been taking to degrade the Houthis’ ability to prevent aid from reaching people. As I said in my statement, the Yemenis obtain almost all their food via the Red sea, so I would class all the action that we have taken, in three rounds of strikes, as very much part of getting that food into the country. As I mentioned, we provide significant amounts of aid, we feed about 100,000 Yemenis a month on the back of it, and it is the Houthis who are trying to prevent that from happening.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
We support the right for shipping to pass freely. Having talked to businesses, I understand that they are already feeling the effects on their supply chains. If one of the purposes of the strikes is to deter the Houthis, it seems that they have not got the message yet, and it is not clear whether they ever will. I fear there is a risk that we are going to escalate action in the region. The Secretary of State has mentioned a number of activities that he has undertaken on a non-military basis to try to reduce tensions, but is there anything he can do that he has not done already to help end this conflict?
Grant Shapps
Although it is clear that the Houthi attacks have not ended, as the shadow Defence Secretary said, there does appear to have been a difference in the cadence. The mass attacks that we saw on 11 January, for example, have not been repeated, partly because the Houthis’ ability has been degraded. However, we are always looking at other means, including routes via the United Nations, and at the wider picture of, for instance, the peace treaty between Saudi Arabia and Yemen. All those elements fit into the way in which we are applying pressure to try to bring the situation to a close.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and for his strong and robust determination to stop the attacks on international shipping. I say, “Well done, Secretary of State,” and let me also say that we in the House, or certainly most of us, support the line that he is taking.
Does the Secretary of State agree that the fact that pro-Hamas Houthi sites are celebrating the effect that the strikes in the Red sea are having on food and other supply chains sends a signal that the words spoken and actions taken by this country—our Government—and our allies are not yet having the desired effect? What steps will the Secretary of State and our allies take not simply to prevent trade route difficulties from escalating already eye-watering prices, but to send the clear message that we in the United Kingdom are not afraid to use our strength and our intelligence to respond adequately and, if necessary, even more strongly?
Grant Shapps
The hon. Gentleman has made a very worthwhile point. It is clear that the Houthis, while perhaps no longer able to act as they once did, are not fully degraded. There must surely come a time when they understand that this is no longer in their interests, because we are working actively to intercept new supplies as far as possible and they will continue to be degraded if they continue to act as they have in respect of commercial shipping and, of course, the Royal Navy. There will eventually be a conclusion to that, but I do not want to mislead the House by saying that this is over, because I simply cannot guarantee that for one moment, so let me make it clear again from this Dispatch Box that we will always have to keep the option open if it is not over.
Disability Action Plan
(10 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Mims Davies)
Today, and in British Sign Language for those watching on Parliament Live, I am delighted to deliver on the Government’s commitment to transform the everyday lives of disabled people across the country for the better. We as a Government are working to make this country the most accessible place in the world for disabled people to live, work and thrive, and today I am proud to announce another important milestone: the publication of the disability action plan, which will actively make a difference to disabled people’s daily lives.
In December 2022 my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove), announced the intention to develop a new disability action plan to set out the practical, immediate actions that Ministers across Government will take to improve disabled people’s daily lives. Following that, my Department and the Disability Unit did a huge amount of work, and I thank everyone involved. Since coming into the role I have spent time listening, engaging and continuing to ensure that the voices of disabled people are properly heard, as that is an important priority for the Government. That is why in July 2023 we consulted on the draft disability action plan, setting out a range of proposals where we felt we could take immediate action or lay the foundations for longer-term change. We rightly wanted to give everyone, and most importantly disabled people, disabled people’s organisations and other key charities and stakeholders, the chance to have their say on the draft plan.
The consultation ran for 12 weeks and I am immensely grateful to every single person who took the time to respond. In the consultation we set out 12 areas for action. Each area proposed how the Disability Unit, together with my Department, other Government Departments and partners, would take action to drive improvements in those areas. Since the consultation closed in October, we have been carefully working through more than 1,300 responses, which pleasingly showed broad support for almost all our proposals. We have used these responses, along with feedback from a series of events and discussions during the consultation period, to finalise the proposals, adding a number of new measures to respond specifically to these consultation findings. An independent analysis of the consultation findings will be published on gov.uk today alongside the final plan when I conclude my statement.
The disability action plan we are publishing today sets out 32 practical actions, which I will lead across Government to take forward over the next 12 months with disabled people, disabled people’s organisations, other Government Departments and public service providers to improve the everyday lives of disabled people. These actions sit across 14 different areas, aiming to: better support disabled people who want to be elected to public office; include disabled people’s needs more effectively in emergency and resilience planning; include disabled people’s needs in climate-related policies; improve information and outcomes for families in which someone is or becomes disabled; make playgrounds more accessible for everybody; help our businesses of all sizes and sectors to understand the needs of, and deliver improvements for, disabled people; explore if the UK could host the Special Olympics world summer games in 2031; improve support for people who have guide or assistance dogs; help the Government to measure how effective their policies and services are for disabled people; research issues facing disabled people in the future so the that Government can be more proactive in addressing them; make Government publications and communications more accessible; improve understanding of the cost of living for disabled people; promote better understanding across Government of the United Nations convention on the rights of persons with disabilities; and monitor and report progress of the disability action plan. I can confirm that we will provide Parliament with updates on our progress in delivering against these actions in the plan in both six and 12 months’ time.
The disability action plan will be taken forward in parallel with the national disability strategy. Published in 2021, this wider strategy sets out the long-term vision to transform disabled people’s lives for the better. A written ministerial statement to Parliament on 18 September 2023 provided an update on progress on those commitments. Taken together, the disability action plan and the national disability strategy demonstrate this Government’s clear focus on improving disabled people’s daily lives in the here and now, and in the years to come.
As well as the disability action plan and the national disability strategy, the Government are already delivering significant work in areas that disabled people have told us are a priority, including reforms to employment and welfare through “Transforming Support”, the health and disability White Paper, and the back to work plan, and improving health and social care through the “People at the Heart of Care” White Paper. Further ongoing work by Departments includes cost of living support through Help for Households, as well as the SEND and alternative provision improvement plan.
Today’s new disability action plan is another vital pillar in improving disabled people’s everyday lives. Working with disabled people and their representative organisations, and with my colleagues across Government in my roles as lead for the disability unit and chair of the cross-Government ministerial disability champions, we will take immediate action now and in the coming months to achieve real, tangible improvements for disabled people, to help to deliver on their needs and to change disabled people’s daily lives for the better.
I commend this statement to the House.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement.
The Government have had consultation after consultation, and they have published different strategies, but it sadly remains the case that we have had nothing that actually delivers a better life for disabled people. The Conservative party’s 2019 manifesto promised to deliver
“a National Strategy for Disabled People before the end of 2020.”
It claimed this would be an ambitious strategy to support disabled people in all aspects and phases of their life.
What have we actually seen? The Government finally launched their disability survey in January 2021, and it closed in April 2021, at the start of the pandemic. Disabled people were disproportionately affected by covid, accounting for six in 10 deaths. They struggled to access food, personal protective equipment and social care, and many were shielding. The question we must ask is why a national strategy for disabled people was not published until 28 July 2021, in the summer recess, with no chance for parliamentary scrutiny. I am grateful to have the opportunity to respond to the Minister today.
The disability action plan contains some positives. It attempts to address some of the well-known barriers that disabled people continue to face, through measures such as tackling guide dog refusals, raising the profile of assistive technology and increasing support for disabled people to take part in politics. There is also a commitment to British Sign Language interpretation at all No. 10 press conferences, which many will remember that I have argued for on numerous occasions. It is about time.
I do not think any Member would argue that those are not important issues that the Government can and should look at, but there is one glaringly obvious issue that the action plan fails to address. The top concern for disabled people now is the cost of living crisis—not my assumption but what disabled people are telling me and what charities are finding on the ground. A survey carried out by Sense found that 85% of people with complex disabilities are worried about the rising cost of living. The Royal National Institute of Blind People noted in its initial analysis of the plan that
“it’s disappointing there’s no mention of any…support measures to address the rising cost of living.”
Scope, the disability equality charity, has calculated that, on average, disabled households face extra costs of £975 per month to have the same standard of living as non-disabled households. Energy bills, for example, remain high, which makes day-to-day living very expensive for those who rely on specialist medical equipment or need to heat their homes more than the average household.
The Government have made two disability cost of living payments of £150, but many disabled people have told me those barely touched the sides, with many losing their warm home discount at the same time. The situation is exacerbated by the fact that our current social security system puts disabled people through multiple upsetting and dehumanising assessments. They are denied their legal entitlements far too often, unless they have the strength and support to go through the appeals process.
The Government’s White Paper, published last year, caused a huge amount of concern by proposing to scrap the work capability assessment, leaving disabled people reliant on the flawed personal independence payment assessment. The disability action plan does nothing to improve the assessment process. Without addressing those fundamental problems, the actions outlined in the plan feel like little more than tinkering around the edges. Disabled people need proper action that deals with all the societal barriers that make their lives challenging. May I say that the Government could have started by reinstating the Minister for Disabled People role to Minister of State level?
Mims Davies
I thank the hon. Lady for what, I think, was a warm welcome in there somewhere—
Mims Davies
Not so much, she says, so there we go. I reiterate that the disability action plan is not just another consultation, but real, tangible action to change people’s daily lives, with 13 practical actions across 14 different areas. It is about building a society that works for everyone.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) is right to point out that day-to-day life is too difficult for disabled people and their families; I agree with her. That is why we have taken the opportunities we can take in this round, alongside the wider national disabilities strategy. I would love to boil the ocean and to have fixed everything in the month or so I have been in the role, but I assure hon. Members that irrespective of the perceived level of the role, I have the convening power and support across Government. I am delighted that the hon. Lady keeps pushing for my elevation, but under the previous Labour Administration the Minister for Disabled People was an Under-Secretary of State. I am extremely proud to be an Under-Secretary of State—
Mims Davies
Thank you, I will take that. Under our Government, the role has been mixed, which does not mean that we do not take it seriously. I take it extremely seriously.
I have come to the role with my own personal experience of living with my father, who became disabled and lived under the Court of Protection. When I was growing up, my mum worked with disabled adults, getting them into work. She was an early part of the Riding for the Disabled Association and the Special Olympics movement. No matter what rank I have in the Government, I bring that experience and interest to the role. I say to people watching that the pay cheque or the rank simply do not matter—I am in this for them.
The Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Amanda Solloway), and I have met to discuss the point made by the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford about the cost of energy. My hon. Friend is a disability champion across Government, as am I, so we will continue to engage. I reiterate that the cost of living payments will start again tomorrow. Some 6.4 million people across the UK have been able to claim an extra £150 in addition to their disability benefits, as the hon. Lady mentioned.
It is, of course, a challenging time for everybody. We put in place the furlough scheme and the other support for businesses and communities across the country to try to keep people on their feet. Between 2022 and 2025, we provided £104 billion to help people with the cost of living. To anybody who has a disability, a health condition or any other need, I say: please look at the benefits calculator on gov.uk. They should look at the household support fund, which runs for a full year—a whole six months longer than the previous one. There is a huge amount of interest in it, so I urge people to contact their local authority about it. I am delighted that many people with caring responsibilities and those looking after disabled people have been helped in this way.
Finally, the help-to-claim service is there as well, provided by the DWP working with Citizens Advice, to make sure that those in need do not have to worry, because the Government, both locally and nationally, are there for them.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
I call the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
I am sure that as an ambassador for the Special Olympics, my constituent the great Lawrie McMenemy will welcome the announcement that my hon. Friend has just made. Specifically, she has announced 32 practical actions across 14 separate areas. That gives an idea of the scale of the challenge when it comes to co-ordination and accountability. There are disability champions across every Government Department, and of course there is the disability unit in the Cabinet Office. How will she make sure that the challenge of co-ordination is successfully met, so that my constituents and each Member in this House will know who to turn to, and who to hold accountable, if those 32 practical actions are not delivered?
Mims Davies
I thank my right hon. Friend for her point about the Special Olympics. When I was Sports Minister, I had the honour of meeting her constituent. I share his passion for a very important movement. It is potentially life changing, which is why I am delighted that it is in this plan.
My right hon. Friend asks about the evidence and data around the disability action plan. The plan is there to improve the quality of Government health data, and to increase insight into the needs and barriers that affect disabled people’s daily lives. Ultimately, we will evaluate the impact of these policies and services, and we will use data, when they are available, to monitor and assess the outcomes of the plan. We will start work on developing more comprehensive evaluation. I know that, through her role as the Chair of the Select Committee, she will absolutely measure me and my role in this. I assure her, the House and all those watching that the plan is absolutely about learning, and delivering on this challenge.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
I thank the Minister for prior sight of her statement. This disability action plan is not a plan; it is a mishmash of short-term policies. Some of the proposals are welcome and should have been sorted out long ago. Others are unclear and simply do not address the most pressing concerns of disabled people.
In my submission to the DAP consultation, I listed key areas that had been overlooked. Cost of living and welfare support are still missing, even though these areas were consistently raised by disability organisations and individuals. The Minister says that the Government will improve understanding of the cost of living for disabled people. What better understanding do they need? For the past two years, disabled people have been crying out for more targeted financial support to assist with their additional cost of living needs.
The Minister said that the Government will promote better understanding of the United Nations convention on the rights of persons with disabilities across Government. What does that actually mean? In 2016, the UK Government were found to have systematically failed disabled people. That is still happening. The work capability assessment reforms will subject more disabled people to the cruel, punitive, and ineffective sanctions regime. Why? If the Government are serious about improving the lives of those with disabilities, they should start by scrapping the proposals ahead of the 6 March Budget. How much of this plan will actually be enacted before the general election?
In contrast, the Scottish Government are acting within budgetary constraints to improve the lives of disabled people through the adult disability payment and child disability payment. The independent living fund, with an initial investment of up to £9 million, will enable people with disabilities to improve their life. Finally, no offence, but the downgrading of the role of Minister for disabilities indicates this Government’s disregard for people with disabilities.
Mims Davies
I thank the hon. Lady for her response; I am glad that advanced sight of the statement was welcome, at least. I reiterate to those watching that this plan is one pillar of the work that we are doing across all Government Departments to help disabled people to succeed, and to make this the most accessible place to live, work and thrive.
The work capability assessment will be changed. My engagement so far has been very much about what disabled people feel. I was in Aberdeen on Thursday, chatting to some of our claimants and those working with a local charity. Many of those disabled people were so frustrated that they cannot get a chance to work, and to try things. The action plan is not about punitive sanctions; it is about giving disabled people the opportunity to take part in wider daily life, which we all take for granted. I point her to the cost of living support, and the around £200 million in Barnett consequentials for her Government. I have consistently asked where the money is going and how they are spending it. I would love to have pointed that out to those I met on Thursday.
This issue is not about party-political barneying in this Chamber; the hon. Lady and I share the view that it is about supporting disabled people in their daily life. I strongly believe that these measures will change their daily life. We will report in six months—if she knows more than me, and the next election is before that, then it will not be me doing so—and in 12 months. Of course, she and I will continue to discuss these matters until the election. I am sure that where we can work together, we will.
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, in respect of a charity to do with deaf people and cancer. I welcome my hon. Friend to her post. I know from many years of working with her that she is a very capable Minister who will take the job extremely seriously and give it her all. Disabled people have told me very clearly that they need a senior, serious voice in Government. Will she say a little more about how she will be that voice, and how she will listen to disabled people and reflect their needs inside Government? Also, to echo my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, I press the Minister to say a little more about how she will ensure that disabled people’s issues of accessibility are not an afterthought in Government but are put first, so that inclusion is by design, and important aims are all achieved.
Mims Davies
I thank my right hon. Friend for her kind words, and for her incredible, impeccable support; she took the British Sign Language Act 2022 through Parliament, and I thank her for the work that she has done in my Department, and her continuing interest in these matters. Fundamentally, the disability action plan is about disabled people’s daily lives, and their needs not being an afterthought in any part of Government.
I will be honest: coming into this role, I found getting messages out extremely challenging. I will take that forward by promoting accessible communications, monitoring standards and training, and ensuring full inclusion. The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) mentioned the No. 10 Downing Street briefings. It is so important that everybody knows the central messages; everyone needs to be included. That is why one of the actions comes down to local resilience forums, and having the right engagement at a local level in times of needs. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) will welcome that, too.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
I call the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee.
Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
The Select Committee called for a review of the underperforming Disability Confident scheme. That review was delayed by the pandemic, but in October we were told that officials were refining the recommendations. Can the Minister tell us what the plan says about Disability Confident, and does it hold out the prospect of shorter waiting times for Access to Work?
Mims Davies
It was remiss of me not to reply just now to the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) about the strong voice across Government. That is, of course, the Secretary of State, who sits in the Cabinet and works alongside me to represent disabled people’s voices.
To respond to the Chair of the Select Committee, Access to Work grants, which helping with extra costs beyond standard reasonable adjustments, are important for my Department as we smash the employment goal and try to do more on disability employment. He is right to ask about that and to challenge Disability Confident. It is not just a nice thing that companies put on their website; it needs to deliver change for disabled people in the workplace. We will look at the disability employment goal; I am looking at Access to Work, and I will look at Disability Confident, just as the Select Committee has done. I urge him to watch this space.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
I welcome these proposals, and I thank the fantastic disability unit team, and the stakeholders who have helped to shape them—in particular, the proposals on accessible play parks. I have been working with organisations such as Benjamin’s Smile and Mums on a Mission, both in my constituency. Swindon is leading by example when it comes to making sure that children’s play parks are accessible to all, and hopefully we can make that a given across the whole country. One of the key points of the national disability strategy was that there would be an annual review, so that we could be held to account on what we achieved and where we needed to work harder. It would also allow us to set out the next range of ambitious targets, co-ordinated by the Minister through the departmental disability champions. Can I have assurance that, good as these proposals are, we will review them on an annual basis, as well as having a new, fresh set? I also join the calls to see my hon. Friend made a Minister of State, because if she is to co-ordinate efforts across Government, in areas beyond her direct influence, she needs to have that gravitas in that room, so that she can demand what is needed to remove barriers for disabled people.
Mims Davies
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his experience and insight. I have met the ministerial disability champions already to ensure: that disability inclusion is a priority and is ultimately delivered in their Departments’ work; that they continue to be accountable for their contribution to the development and delivery of the national disability strategy and the disability action plan; and that they continue to show their commitment to disabled people by creating opportunities, protecting their rights and ensuring action on everything that we have spoken about today, in terms of contributions to society.
On making playgrounds more accessible and my hon. Friend’s impeccable work in his constituency, there is a lot of information on disability inclusion in organised sport, physical activity and exercise, but information on making playgrounds accessible is unfortunately not easily available. We want to make it available, work with the partners he mentioned and achieve best practice among local authorities. That will be part of this plan, and we will measure its delivery in six months and 12 months.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I have huge regard for the Minister, but I gently say to her that we must recognise the context of this disability action plan. Between 2011 and 2020, the equivalent of £20 billion was cut from working-age people, predominantly disabled people. Individually, they lost thousands of pounds every year, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) pointed out. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s “UK Poverty 2024” report identified that disabled people have been disproportionately impacted by that, and are likely to suffer deep poverty and destitution. On the Government’s commitment, I hope that the Minister can reassure me: it is approaching two years since the Equality and Human Rights Commission found that the Department was discriminating against disabled people and issued a section 23 notice, and we still have heard nothing from the Department on that. Could the Minister reassure us that it will publish something on that in the next few weeks, and certainly before the second anniversary of that notice?
Mims Davies
I thank the hon. Lady for her points. I know that she has long been pushing for a response, and I will write to her further on that matter. As I said to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft), there has been substantial cost of living support, but I understand the point about disability costs that has been made today. Again, I point people towards the household support fund, which is there for exactly those additional costs. In fact, we are doing research and evaluation on where that support is going, and it is making a difference to people’s daily lives. I want those people to know that, beyond the cost of living payments, which start again tomorrow, further support is available through their local authorities or from devolved moneys.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
I welcome the disability action plan. It follows the British Sign Language Act 2022 and the Down Syndrome Act 2022, which have supported 2 million more disabled people into work, as well as the cost of living disability payments, which begin tomorrow. I will be holding a disability forum in my home county of Rutland on 28 June, where I will bring together people living with disabilities, and their families and carers, so that we can create a plan for our county. Will my hon. Friend, who has brought such strength and passion to her role, share what support might be available to help roll out such action plans at a local level?
Mims Davies
I thank my hon. Friend for making that important point. Something announced here in Westminster might sound great, but what does it mean in Rutland and beyond? That is an important part of the next steps. Of course, we have support in our jobcentres, with further work coach support and disability employment advisers offering advice and expertise, and I have mentioned Access to Work, Disability Confident and our future employment goal. If she sent me an invite, I would be delighted to listen in on what her constituents and those advocating would like to hear and understand.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I note that the Minister mentioned in her statement the aim to
“promote better understanding across Government of the United Nations convention on the rights of persons with disabilities”,
which is very welcome. How exactly will she do that with each Department, both in their roles as employers of a large number of people around the country, and in the policies that they promote, such as disability benefits—including those relating to mental health—and the provision of housing for people with disabilities? If she finds that the Departments are not coming up to the mark in achieving what she wants of them, how will she ensure that they are forced to carry out her policy, to ensure that there is real equality for people with disabilities in our society?
Mims Davies
The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point about cross-Government working and delivering on the action plan. I stress to him and to those watching that the plan is one pillar of the work that we are doing. We will, for example, work to increase disability-inclusive approaches to emergency and resilience planning and climate adaptions, through working strategically with teams on that. We will always work with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to ensure that disability inclusion is increased. As I have said, it is increasingly vital that ministerial champions deliver and are accountable in their Departments—that is what I will be doing. It will mean that disabled people can benefit from everything that Government and community do, and can rightly contribute to every aspect of our society.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
I welcome my hon. Friend’s statement. I am particularly pleased about the aim to
“help our businesses of all sizes and sectors to understand the needs of, and deliver improvements for, disabled people”.
One group of people who feel that they should be recognised in disability plans are those with advanced endometriosis. In a debate that I led on endometriosis in the workplace, we heard that some of the issues that women face at that advanced stage are really disabilities, but because they are not listed as such, many women lose their jobs owing to poor attendance through sick days and so on. I very much welcome the strategy, but will my hon. Friend consider expanding it to those women’s health issues that are totally disabling?
Mims Davies
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. Research shows that disabled people are more likely to experience difficulties and barriers in accessing products and services, which results in a lack of confidence —whether that is on the high street, in going to work, or elsewhere. The consultation proposes a voluntary accreditation scheme for businesses to train their staff in disability awareness. The benefits to business are absolutely clear: Purple says that the spending power of disabled households is £284 billion a year.
As my right hon. Friend knows, I lead on women’s health and on the wider issue of keeping women in the workforce within the Department for Work and Pensions. The debilitating impact of the menopause and the wider impact of menstruation in the oil and gas sector, for example, were issues raised in Aberdeen just last week, which links into our women’s health strategy. This is the second time that endometriosis has been mentioned in the Chamber recently. I would be happy to meet my right hon. Friend and others to discuss how we link it into our understanding.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
There is much to welcome in the plan, but there are also a few things that are missing. One specific thing that the Minister has included in her 14 areas for action is helping businesses of all sizes and sectors to understand the needs of, and deliver improvements for, disabled people. One of my constituents came to me recently because, as a user of an electric wheelchair, she has found it almost impossible to know what businesses—specifically hotels—mean by “accessible”. It means something different to every business: wheelchair users can find themselves going into a business and then being unable to move around. If they are in a hotel, they can get to their hotel room, but cannot move around within that room. Can the Minister tell us whether the Government are going to take action to set out exactly what is needed if a business is going to use the term “accessible”?
Mims Davies
I thank the hon. Lady for making that point, which also applies to businesses’ recruitment: they talk about recruiting differently, and they want to do so, but then they regress. That tends to be due to a lack of understanding. The Disability Unit will work to better define what businesses need to do, building on the main issues raised in the consultation responses. That work will also look at evidence gaps; at where existing schemes are already doing things and there may be duplication; and, as the hon. Lady said and as I described earlier, at where people think they are doing the right thing but it does not match the reality of the experience for disabled people using a service or having a day out or a night away. That is part of the work covered by actions 18 and 19 in the plan, and I would be delighted to hear from the hon. Lady what that means to her constituents.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I welcome the disability action plan. The Minister mentioned the cost of living; I wondered what more could be done to speed up the transition to personal independence payments for those living on disability living allowance. One of my constituents has just waited over a year for that transition to take place.
I welcome the fact that access to playgrounds is in the action plan, but following on from the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) and the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), what more can be done to ensure that these points are delivered, both at a local government level—perhaps by making it a statutory responsibility for local councils to provide at least a minimum level of disability access for some play areas and playgrounds—and at a national level? What cross-departmental committees or working is the Minister already involved with?
Mims Davies
I thank my right hon. Friend for making some really pertinent points. In regard to his point about playgrounds, that is why there will be a portal and some best practice. Some local authorities are already delivering; others will be able to learn from those interventions, so that families can enjoy playing together in the way that everybody else would take for granted. That should be available in every community.
My right hon. Friend also mentioned the wider structural changes. I am happy to look at the specific case he raised. If he would kindly send me the details, I would be very grateful. This plan is part of the wider national disability strategy, including changes to the work capability assessment. The engagement I have had with disabled people and their organisations has made clear that there are some very vulnerable people who are very keen to be protected and supported, and there are other groups who are very keen to get the opportunities and chances they need. This Government are determined to get the approach right for everybody and every community.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
According to the charity Sense, 85% of people with complex disabilities are worried about the rising cost of living. The Minister’s predecessor said that the disability action plan would outline the “immediate” action this Government would take to make the lives of disabled people better, so why does the disability action plan do so little to address the cost of living crisis now?
Mims Davies
I would point the hon. Gentleman to the next stage of the cost of living payments, which start tomorrow, and again to the household support fund, which we see, evidentially, is supporting carers and those with disabilities at a really difficult time. We have ensured the energy price guarantee remains in place as an additional safety net until March this year. It will hold bills down, and I hope, as energy prices fall, it will help low-paid workers or disabled people, as he describes. The Government are providing millions of households with further cost of living payments, as I say, and there is a £104 billion package to support households until 2025. I am engaged with the other disability champion, the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Amanda Solloway), on this matter. That is wider than this specific plan, but the hon. Gentleman can be assured that we continue to engage on this matter.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
May I say llongyfarchiadau—congratulations—to the Minister on the launch of the disability action plan? I visited Ysgol Llanfawr in Morawelon, Holyhead, where teacher Ceri Wyn Jones’s year 6 class excitedly shared with me how important playgrounds are to them and their families, and they would love a splash park. Can the Minister reassure students such as Phoebe Owen and Alecia Hughes that she will work with her devolved partners to ensure that playgrounds across Ynys Môn are made more accessible for everyone?
Mims Davies
Diolch yn fawr—and iechyd da! That is a fantastic opportunity for those local children to have a really inclusive and positive playground. This afternoon, I wrote to my counterparts in the Welsh Government to tell them about the plan, and to thank them for their engagement. We want to support action in all playgrounds to make sure disabled children and their families have that sense of belonging and that experience, and there is no greater sense of belonging than when it comes to Ynys Môn. We want to make sure that learning comes from play, which is why, when that splash pad is being designed, the portal and the best practice could make it more inclusive than anyone could have dreamed of before today.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Will the action plan address the specific issue raised by the excellent John Pring of the Disability News Service, which is the 14-year pattern of the DWP dismissing the concerns expressed by coroners over the deaths of disabled claimants?
Mims Davies
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the point he makes. Of course, we in our Department deal with some very vulnerable people in very difficult situations, but this is a time of 30-plus actions and some changes that are extremely positive. We have made sure that we have put safeguarding at the heart of what we do, and I will write to him specifically about that matter.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
The Botley Road in Oxford has been closed for nearly a year, with another six months to go. While that is an inconvenience for residents, for our disabled residents it has been an absolute blight on their lives. The one thing that was put in place for them has been reduced to just one hour in the day, and they have felt completely left out, while some have not even left their homes. Will this plan include provisions for local residents affected by infrastructure projects—in this case, run by Network Rail, which is making the decisions—because I cannot see where that is included in the plan?
Mims Davies
If the hon. Lady send me the details, I would be happy to have a look at the specific issue and that particular group. In this disability action plan, the Government truly believe that considering disabled people’s needs in policy making makes for better and more inclusive outcomes for everyone. That is why reaching net zero by 2050 is engaged in actions 7 to 11. There is also our work on clean air zones and ultra low emission zones, including making sure that disabled people’s access needs are fully balanced when creating such schemes. When it comes to access—whether it is about road closures, or rail—that is exactly what this plan is about, and I am keen to look at the details she mentioned.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
A constituent of mine who has been hospitalised multiple times over the past 20 years as a result of a serious bipolar disorder was deemed ineligible for PIP. He received absolutely no help navigating the complex PIP process and had to go through a lengthy tribunal until he was finally deemed eligible. How will this plan bring about any meaningful change when the Government have repeatedly failed to get to grips with the long-standing failures in the disability benefits system?
Mims Davies
That sounds like a very concerning case. This action plan is part of a wider structural reform on health and disability. We know from our research that one in five people with a disability or health condition is not expected to engage in work preparation, but they might want to work. The hon. Lady’s constituent is seemingly very vulnerable, and this is a difficult process to navigate. We have our help to claim service and other support for vulnerable claimants, and I am happy to look at this issue for the hon. Lady. The White Paper transformations include a new potential passporting to UC health element through PIP, but I am conscious that every PIP delay or PIP challenge involves a person and a situation and is very concerning, and I am making that a priority in this role.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I want to follow up on the earlier questions about accessible play areas, which I am pleased are a part of the disability action plan. I do not think having a website will go far enough in delivering what we all want to see, which is far more accessible play areas. There needs to be a strategy backed with resources underneath this website to deliver on the aspiration that we all share. The Minister will know that local authorities are on their knees in terms of funding, so will the Department put in any money to make sure that all our children are able to access play areas?
Mims Davies
Sport England is undertaking work on best practice and that is precisely about opening up that portal and making this a reality for youngsters. We know that all children’s wellbeing is absolutely about their social activities and opportunities to learn through play, and this plan should not and will not be a talking shop resulting in no change. I will keenly make sure that this information on accessible playgrounds makes a difference, and that will be part of the reports we do at six and 12 months.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for her statement; it was most helpful. Several of my disabled constituents have raised an issue that I am sure is replicated in every constituency across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and which is not clear in the action plan: help to insulate homes to aid with energy costs for those who need health-related upgrades or ongoing help with energy costs rather than a one-off bonus payment. What consideration have the Government given to the issue of warm homes for our disabled constituents—something that they do not necessarily have?
Mims Davies
I wrote to counterparts in Northern Ireland again today, as I did to all devolved groups, and the hon. Gentleman is right about the challenges we have heard in the Chamber today, and I am happy to look at the extra support available for his community. As usual, he makes a pertinent point about ensuring that everybody has that warm home and that support. This is of course devolved in a slightly different way in his community, but I am happy to share the details with him.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
The truth is that disabled people have been at the sharp end of this Government’s cruel policies: their austerity and their attacks on social security and public services. Disabled people are also among the hardest hit by the cost of living crisis, but this disability action plan fails to introduce the emergency measures demanded by disabled people to directly address the crisis, never mind the decade of attacks they have faced; isn’t that the case?
Mims Davies
I do not appreciate the characterisation—[Interruption.] Excuse me, the hon. Gentleman seems to be distracted. As I was saying, I do not understand his characterisation. There are 32 actions over the next 12 months in 14 different areas where we have listened and engaged with disabled people. We have heard what they want, and those actions are in parallel with our national disability strategy. His is exactly the kind of rhetoric—“The Government are against you and not supporting you”—that makes disabled people feel more isolated and concerned for their welfare. I want to say squarely to people listening today that we have an absolute focus on what we can do to make sure that disabled people’s daily lives are better and that there is support and help there for them. This is one of the pillars of support that this Government are absolutely committed to. When he reads the full plan, he will see that it will make disabled people’s daily lives better, and that is what this Government are determined to deliver.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
I thank the Minister and those on the Opposition Front Bench for their presence.
Point of Order
(10 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, it is reported today that the Prime Minister and Piers Morgan have made a bet—surely a contest in which it is a shame there has to be a winner—about the Government’s ability to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda before a general election. Can you confirm for the House, Mr Deputy Speaker, that a £1,000 direct pecuniary personal interest is one that should be registered and declared with the House authorities? Can you confirm that in accordance with the custom and practice of this House, the Prime Minister should be referring to it in any future contribution in relation to this matter?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
I am not a betting man myself, but I suspect that if every Member of Parliament who placed a bet on anything was required to enter it in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, the book might be rather full. The right hon. Gentleman will understand that that was a nice try, but not a matter for the Chair.
Finance Bill (Ways and Means)
Monday 5th February 2024
(10 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Finance Act 2024 View all Finance Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 5 February 2024 - (5 Feb 2024)
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
I rise to speak about the procedure being used here. This motion is very odd and worryingly symptomatic of a Government avoiding their responsibilities to this House, given that they could have tabled an amendment of the law resolution, which would have allowed them to add their new clause to the debate today, without this unique use of Standing Orders. This resolution has prevented Members from tabling any new clauses or amendments relating to the subject, because there is no time between the end of the debate and the beginning of the next one to table any relevant motions, as I would have liked to have done, for example, on the highland energy rebate for people living among generating equipment, both planned and existing. I sincerely hope that this unique use of Standing Orders does not become standard, as any future legislation based on a Ways and Means resolution can be unilaterally changed with almost no notice and no opportunity for this House to table related amendments.
Question put and agreed to.
Finance Bill
Monday 5th February 2024
(10 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Finance Act 2024 View all Finance Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 5 February 2024 - (5 Feb 2024)
18:36 - The House divided: - Ayes: 185 / Noes: 285 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:50 - The House divided: - Ayes: 182 / Noes: 289 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:26 - The House divided: - Ayes: 283 / Noes: 39 - Question accordingly agreed to.
“qualifying new generating plant | section 311A”.” |
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Nigel Huddleston)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 1—Review of effectiveness of section 31 measures in preventing fraud involving taxpayers’ money—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within three months of this Act being passed, conduct a review of the effectiveness of the provisions of section 31 in preventing fraud involving taxpayers’ money.
(2) The review must evaluate the effectiveness of the provisions of section 31 in preventing fraud involving taxpayers’ money through comparison with the effectiveness of—
(a) other measures that seek to prevent fraud involving taxpayers’ money, and
(b) the approach taken in other countries.”
This new clause would require the Chancellor to review the effectiveness of measures in this Act to prevent fraud involving taxpayers’ money, and to compare them with other measures that seek to prevent fraud involving taxpayers’ money and the approach taken in other countries.
New clause 2—Review of reliefs for research and development—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within three months of this Act being passed, publish a review of the implementation costs of the measures in section 2 incurred by—
(a) HMRC, and
(b) businesses.
(2) The review under subsection (1) must include details of the implementation costs of all measures related to credit or relief for research and development that have been introduced since December 2019.”
This new clause would require the Chancellor to publish a review setting out the total implementation costs of all changes to research and development reliefs in the current Parliament.
New clause 3—Review of measures to tackle evasion and avoidance—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within three months of this Act being passed, publish a review of the measures in sections 31 to 33 to tackle evasion and avoidance.
(2) The review under subsection (1) must include details of—
(a) the average sentence handed down in each of the last five years for the offences listed in section 31;
(b) the range of sentences handed down in each of the last five years for the offences listed in section 31;
(c) the number of stop notices issued in each of the last five years to which the measures in section 33 would apply; an
(d) the estimated impact on revenue collected in each of the next five financial years resulting from the introduction of the measures in sections 31 to 33.”
This new clause would require the Chancellor to publish details of the sentences given and stop notices issued in each of the last five years to tackle evasion and avoidance, as well as the revenue expected to be generated from the measures to tackle evasion and avoidance in this Act in each of the next five years.
New clause 4—Review of public health, inequality and poverty effects of Act—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the public health, inequality and poverty effects of the provisions of this Act and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.
(2) The review must consider—
((a) the effects of the provisions of this Act on the levels of relative and absolute poverty across the UK including devolved nations and regions,
((b) the effects of the provisions of this Act on socioeconomic inequalities, and on population groups with protected characteristics as defined by the 2010 Equality Act, across the UK including devolved nations and regions,
((c) the effects of the provisions of this Act on life expectancy and healthy life expectancy across the UK including devolved nations and regions, and
(d) the implications for the public finances of the public health and NHS effects of the provisions of this Act.”
New clause 6—Assessment of the impact of permanent full expensing—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of this Act being passed, publish an assessment of the impact of the measures in clause 1 of this Act on—
(a) business investment, and
(b) economic growth.
(2) The review under subsection (1) must—
((a) assess the impact of full expensing being made permanent, and
(b) consider what other policies would support the effectiveness of the measures in clause 1 of this Act.”
This new clause would require the Chancellor to publish an assessment of the impact on investment and growth of the measures in this Act to make full expensing permanent, and to consider what other policies could support the effectiveness of permanent full expensing.
New clause 7—Review of multipliers used to calculate higher rates of air passenger duty—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, at the next fiscal event, publish a review of the multipliers used to calculate higher rates of air passenger duty for each destination band.
(2) This review must propose options for introducing a multiplier to link the higher rate and the reduced rate within the domestic band.
(3) The Chancellor must, at the next fiscal event, make clear what changes, if any, he will implement as a result of this review.”
This new clause would require the Chancellor to publish a review of the multipliers used to calculate the higher rates of air passenger duty, and to propose options for introducing a multiplier to link the higher rate and the reduced rate within the domestic band.
Government amendments 1 to 6.
Nigel Huddleston
The Government’s aim is to grow the economy for the good of everyone, and our tax system is a key part of that. For households, higher taxes mean less financial freedom and less choice in how they spend their money. For businesses, they can mean less growth and investment, and that means fewer jobs for workers. That is why we need to grow our economy to create jobs and give ourselves the financial headroom to reduce taxes and remove the barriers to private sector investment. We must have a tax system that is supportive of business.
At spring Budget 2023, the Chancellor set out his approach for a highly competitive business tax regime. By announcing generous tax incentives combined with a rate of corporation tax that remains the lowest in the G7, the Government ensured that the UK is one of the best places in the world for businesses to grow and invest, but we should not be satisfied with simply being one of the best. This Bill therefore marks our next step in making the UK the best place in the world to do business.
We are taking huge, ambitious steps to make that a reality in the autumn statement and in the Bill. For example, no other major economy has made full expensing permanent. That is a major step in encouraging more investment by giving a huge tax relief to those who invest. Alongside that, we have introduced a generous new regime for research and development carried out by companies. We are now going further to encourage even more investment by introducing new clause 5, which will exempt receipts from new electricity generating projects from the electricity generator levy.
I will address each amendment in turn, looking first at the details of new clause 5. The electricity generator levy was introduced following the energy crisis to ensure that energy companies with extraordinary returns contribute more towards vital public services and support for households. However, we must balance that against ensuring that the UK remains a brilliant place to invest in renewables. The new clause makes changes to the EGL that will exempt receipts from new electricity generating projects from the levy. It will ensure that all generators in scope of the levy will benefit from the exemption if they choose to proceed with investments in new generation capacity and make a substantive decision to go ahead with a project on or after 22 November 2023—the date of the autumn statement. That will help support continued investment in the UK’s renewable generation capacity by removing new investments from the tax and providing businesses with the confidence to make such new investments.
I turn to Government amendments 1 to 3. To ensure that the research and development tax relief clauses in the Bill work as intended, the Government are proposing technical amendments to the R&D clauses. The Bill introduces a new enhanced support for R&D-intensive small and medium-sized enterprises, such as those in our vital life sciences sector. From April 2024, the R&D intensity threshold will be reduced from 40% to 30%.
Amendments 1 and 2 make changes to ensure that R&D-intensive companies get the relief as intended. Amendment 1 removes two situations where a company would appear less R&D-intensive than it actually is. These issues were raised with us by an industry stakeholder, for which I am grateful. To avoid abuse and to protect the scheme for genuinely R&D-intensive companies, the ratio is worked out at a group level. Currently in the legislation, companies within groups that charge each other for services could have costs double counted and therefore reduce their R&D intensity. The amendment will fix that. The Government do not want to exclude companies from relief because of legitimate commercial arrangements that do not affect the underlying true R&D intensity of the business.
On top of providing more support for R&D-intensive companies, the Bill will simplify and improve our R&D reliefs by merging the R&D SMEs scheme with the R&D expenditure credit. To ensure that those clauses work as intended, the Government propose technical amendments to the R&D clauses. Companies and accountants wanted the merged scheme to be implemented on an accountancy period basis as that makes claims simpler and delays the merged scheme for the majority of current R&D expenditure credit claimants. It therefore gives them a bit more time to prepare.
The new rules for contracted-out R&D will ensure that the company making the decision to do the R&D and bearing the risk is the one that gets the relief. However, that means that, as currently drafted, there could be temporary situations when two companies are in a contractual relationship and one moves into the new R&D tax credit system ahead of the other. For a limited period of time, that could result in situations where both parties could claim on the same R&D or neither could claim, as was raised by stakeholders. Amendment 3 ensures that the legislation works as intended. For temporary double claims, the R&D credit will go to the claimant in the old system until both have started new accounting periods. To avoid a temporary gap where no company can claim, the legislation will be amended to ensure that subcontractors can claim where their customer is still in the old system.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
In speaking to new clause 6, which relates to permanent full expensing, I remind the House of the context in which this Finance Bill was published. It followed the Chancellor’s statement on 22 November last year, in which he claimed that he was delivering an “autumn statement for growth”. Members will remember, however, that the same day, the Office for Budget Responsibility confirmed that growth forecasts had been cut by more than half for the coming year, cut again for the year after that, and cut yet again for the year after that. Independent analysts confirmed that even after all the changes that the Government had announced, personal taxes would still rise. They are set to rise by £1,200 per household by 2028-29, with the tax burden on track to be the highest since the second world war.
That was the context in which this Bill was published: flatlining wages, higher taxes, higher mortgage payments and worsening public services—all the product of 14 years of Conservative economic failure. Our country needs change. A critical part of making that change will be to get our country’s growth rate up. We need a plan for growth, to make people across Britain better off, and to ensure sustainable funding for our public services. Labour has been developing our plan for growth by working hand in hand with businesses across the country and across the economy.
We know how highly businesses that are considering investing in the UK rate stability, predictability and a long-term plan. For that reason, we welcome the fact that, as our new clause 6 highlights, the Bill makes full expensing permanent. Permanent full expensing is something we have long called for, as a policy that can support greater business investment and economic growth. Because Labour knows how important stability and predictability are to businesses, the shadow Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), announced last week that Labour is committed to maintaining permanent full expensing in the UK tax system, as well as the annual investment allowance, if we win the next general election. The shadow Chancellor has made this commitment to offer businesses certainty for the years ahead. Businesses considering plant and machinery investment across Britain can be confident that the tax treatment of that investment would not change with a Labour Government.
Of course, there is still a general election to face, so I use this opportunity to invite the Minister to put on the record whether the Conservatives will follow our lead by confirming that should they win the general election, they will maintain permanent full expensing. I am sure many businesses would welcome the certainty that would come from knowing both the main parties are going into the election fully committed to keeping permanent full expensing. I urge the Minister, when he responds, to confirm whether that will be his party’s policy going into the general election.
After all the chopping and changing we have seen in capital allowances in recent years, the Minister needs to make the commitment explicit. As I mentioned during earlier stages of the Bill, the annual investment allowance had been temporarily raised to £1 million when this Parliament began; that temporary basis was extended by the Finance Act 2021, again by the Finance Act 2022, and then made permanent by the Finance (No. 2) Act 2023. Meanwhile, over the course of this Parliament, the super-deduction came and went. Last year, full expensing for expenditure on plant and machinery was introduced on a temporary basis for three years. In this Bill, the Government are finally making it permanent. After so much instability, a commitment from Treasury Ministers at the Dispatch Box that the Conservatives, like Labour, will commit to maintaining permanent full expensing feels like the least they can do.
Our new clause 6 would require the Chancellor to publish not only an assessment of the impact of permanent full expensing, but a consideration of what other policies would support its effectiveness. We believe this is important to ensure that business investment is supported as much as possible. The Opposition have begun to set out what some of our policies would be if we won the next general election. As the shadow Chancellor has set out, if we were in government, we would consider the outcome of technical consultations on whether leased assets can be included in full expensing and on simplifying the UK’s capital allowance regime. I would be grateful if the Minister updated us on the progress of those consultations.
Last week, the shadow Chancellor also made clear the commitment that if Labour wins the next general election, we will ask HMRC to produce simple and comprehensive guidance making clear which assets are eligible for each type of capital allowance. That guidance would give businesses clarity over how their investments will be treated, and businesses will be able to use it as a single point of reference when making investment decisions. Will the Minister confirm whether the Government have considered taking such steps, or making such a commitment?
To give further certainty, the Shadow Chancellor has also said that in government, Labour would explore the greater use of rulings and clearances. Under such an approach, businesses would be able to get a written ruling from HMRC about the tax treatment of potential investments, making clear, for instance, whether they qualify for full expensing or other capital allowances. We know that businesses benefit from other countries’ tax administrators being able to provide such rulings and clearances. As certainty is crucial to encourage investment in Britain, I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed whether the Treasury has asked HMRC to consider the greater use of rulings and clearances for investment, and, if so, what its conclusion has been.
Of course, any policies on expensing or other capital allowances sit under the headline rate of corporation tax. It is hard to conclude anything other than that the Conservative party is rather unclear and confused about its approach to corporation tax rates in the UK. For evidence of that, we need look no further than the current Chancellor: in July 2022, during his leadership bid, he pledged to cut the headline rate of corporation tax from 19% to 15%, yet when he became Chancellor just three months later, one of his first acts was to promise to raise the tax instead from 19% to 25%. It is no wonder that businesses, and indeed Conservative Back Benchers, find it so hard to understand the Conservatives’ policy on corporation tax rates.
Let me be clear about the certainty we would offer if we won the next general election. As the shadow Chancellor has set out, we believe the current rate of 25% strikes the right balance between what our public finances need and, as the lowest rate in the G7, keeping our corporation tax competitive in the global economy. That is why we are pledging to cap the headline rate of corporation tax at its current rate of 25% for the whole of the next Parliament. We would take action if tax changes in other advanced economies threaten to undermine UK competitiveness. That choice provides predictability and has a clear rationale. That is the pro-business choice and the pro-growth choice. The promise to cap corporation tax at 25% is clear from us. Again, to offer businesses as much certainty as possible, will the Conservatives follow our lead and also pledge, today, to cap corporation tax at 25% for the next Parliament?
These commitments—to cap corporation tax, to maintain permanent full expensing and to keep the annual investment allowance—will all form part of the road map that we would publish in the first six months of a Labour Government, setting out our tax plans for businesses for the whole of that Parliament. That would put stability, predictability and a long-term plan at the heart of our approach. To give businesses as much certainty as possible, I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed whether a corporation tax cap at 25% and keeping full expensing in place will be in the Conservative party manifesto too.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
I was interested in what the shadow Minister was saying about what would happen if other countries changed their corporation tax. As he will know, Mr Trump, the former President, has said that he would cut US corporation tax, potentially from 21% to 15%. Given such examples, does the hon. Gentleman anticipate that a Labour Government would look to cut the headline rate of corporation tax, as we would be looking at a significant tax cut by the world’s largest economy?
James Murray
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. As we have made clear, we would take action if tax changes in other advanced economies threatened to undermine UK competitiveness, but the headline commitment from us is to cap corporation tax at 25% for the duration of the next Parliament. I recall that in earlier consideration in this debate, he and I had an exchange about permanent full expensing, so I hope he will welcome our commitment to maintaining permanent full expensing if we are in government. Perhaps he will put pressure on his Front-Bench colleagues to join us today in making that a cross-party commitment from the House.
New clause 7 focuses on the multipliers used to calculate higher rates of air passenger duty. As we have discussed at earlier stages of the consideration of this Bill, clause 24 makes no changes to band A rates, while in band B, the reduced, standard and higher rates will increase by £1, £3 and £7 respectively. In band C, the reduced, standard and higher rates will rise by £1, £2 and £6 respectively. In each of those three bands, which cover international travel to a range of destinations, a simple principle is followed: if the duty for passengers on economy flights goes up, the duty for those flying business class and by private jet goes up too. In the domestic band, however, which covers flights within the UK, that simple principle of fairness does not apply. Instead, under the Bill, for domestic UK flights, the reduced rate of APD rises by 50p and the standard rate rises by £1, yet the higher rate is unchanged. Let me be clear what this means in plain English: from 1 April, passengers flying economy and business class within the UK will see their taxes rise, whereas passengers taking exactly the same flights by private jet will enjoy a tax freeze. Although the changes kick in on 1 April, this is no April fools’ day joke, although the Prime Minister may be laughing; it is the result of a hidden loophole that that the Conservatives have introduced. We discussed this matter in Committee, when the Exchequer Secretary tried to provide an explanation for this unfairness. He said that APD rates are
“uprated by a forecast of RPI and those rates are then rounded to the nearest pound.”
As for the different rates I highlighted in Committee, he said:
“It largely depends on how they”—
the rates—
are rounded to the nearest pound; the actual rate is determined by whether the figure is rounded down or up.”––[Official Report, Finance Public Bill Committee, 16 January 2024; c. 34-35.]
I know that the Exchequer Secretary always tries to give me a straight answer—let me put it on the record that I genuinely appreciate his efforts to do so—but I fear that his explanation in Committee may have been unintentionally misleading or, at the very least, only partial. Since that Committee stage, the House of Commons Library has given me information confirming that it does not tell the full picture to say that the duty rates are, as the Minister claimed,
“uprated by a forecast of RPI and those rates are then rounded to the nearest pound.”––[Official Report, Finance Public Bill Committee, 16 January 2024; c. 34.]
In fact, my understanding is that the Minister’s statement applied only to the reduced rates of air passenger duty. Those are indeed adjusted each year in line with forecast RPI and rounded to the nearest pound. However, the standard and higher rates are not calculated by separate reference to RPI; rather, they are generally set as multipliers of their respective reduced rates. For instance, the standard and higher rates in band B are set as 2.2 and 6.6 times the band B reduced rate respectively, rounded in both cases to the nearest pound.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I have declared my business interests in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I rise to support the Government’s new clause 5. I think it is good that they are considering what more they can do to promote investment in the United Kingdom’s generating capacity. We import far too much power already, especially when the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow, and on the basis of the Government’s ambitious forecasts and targets for much more of our energy to be delivered by electricity, I think that the position will get a lot worse quite quickly. Anything that the Government can do to encourage that additional investment in generating plant will be very welcome.
We will, of course, need a similar positive approach to grid and cable, because the more we electrify, the more we will need to convey that power from the rather remote locations where much of it comes from to the parts of the country that will need it. So my only worry about new clause 5 is that I am not sure it goes far enough. I think it is helpful in this limited number of cases, but I trust that the Chancellor, when it comes to the Budget—quite soon, on 6 March—will consider that the new clause is just a stepping stone and that we need to review again the very large tax impositions on energy of all kinds in this country. We now have double corporation tax in many cases and a range of windfall taxes that are often not really windfall taxes because they do not come off when the prices go down, although they are put on when the prices are going up.
That whole area needs considerable review, because we need to take seriously the fact that we are short of energy overall. We are short of electricity generating capacity and short of the means to route power from generation to use, and it would be an important stimulus for the British economy if we produced more of our own energy and generated more of our own electricity, and if we were thinking about having a surplus to export again instead of all too often being cruelly reliant upon imports of liquid natural gas and electricity, particularly from the continent.
I would also like briefly to refer to new clauses 4 and 6. They are wide-ranging new clauses that invite the Government to make assessments or reviews of features of this legislation, but they also wish to broaden it out to get the Government to review the impact of their general fiscal strategy on equalities, on investment, on the state of the corporate sector and on inequalities in our society. I am quite sure that the Government will be reviewing all those things as a matter of course, as this is often a continuous process. Indeed, many of the items covered in this request for special review are already reported on and form part of the normal process of policy preparation, and rightly so. If the Minister were to tell me that he would be grateful if I did not vote for these new clauses, I would have no problem with that—I am not sure that it would help to embody them in the legislation anyway; I think it would be a bit of an abuse of the legislation—but the Government need to respond to the general thirst for knowledge that these new clauses represent, and to understand that there are some serious issues here that need to be returned to. I trust that the Chancellor will return to them at the Budget.
Looking at the fiscal impact that these new clauses cover, I trust that in the preparation of the Budget we will have analysis in the Treasury of these particular measures, which are still going through from the last time, but I also hope that the Government will review the extraordinary losses of the Bank of England—I think that they have already run up to £34 billion in the current financial year. These are losses that the Treasury, and therefore the taxpayer, have to pay as they are incurred, and that is completely unacceptable. It imposes strains on the public accounts and on the Treasury at a time when we really do not need them and when we need that money for other purposes.
There are two simple measures that the Bank could take to stem the magnitude of those losses. First, it should not be selling bonds at a big loss in the market. The European Central Bank is not doing this, although it has a similar problem with a portfolio of very expensively acquired bonds. There is also the issue of the running losses on these holdings where the Bank of England is paying the full, much enhanced, short-term interest rate following its increases in it. This now greatly exceeds the revenue on the bonds because the Bank paid far too much for the bonds and there is a very low rate of interest on them. Those running losses are a problem. I think the Bank should look at what the European Central Bank is doing, in paying different interest rates on reserves held under this system so that it does not have such a large running loss.
Richard Fuller
Can my right hon. Friend tell me if I have got this right? In the commentary ahead of the Budget, we talk about wiggle room and the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast and about £5 billion or £10 billion here and there, but I think I heard him say that this matter was completely out of the control of the those on the Treasury Bench and this Parliament; that the Governor of the Bank of England could unilaterally decide to crystallise losses on whichever extent of bonds he wished to, and then put that loss into the calculations of the Chancellor of the day; and that the Chancellor would then have to work around that in order to work out what the fiscal expenditure, public expenditure and taxation would be. Is that actually the case? It sounds mightily undemocratic to me.
John Redwood
That is an interesting point of debate, but my understanding of the constitutional position is that it is not as bad as my hon. Friend is suggesting because all the bonds were acquired with the express permission of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Bank of England’s website says that the bond portfolio is held on behalf of the Treasury. Successive Chancellors of the Exchequer—beginning with the Labour Chancellor who first undertook quantitative easing and carried on by successive Conservative Chancellors—all signed an agreement with the Bank to say that they would indemnify against loss. So, given that the Government and this Parliament empowered the purchase of the bonds and now take responsibility for any losses on them, it seems perfectly reasonable for there to be a proper conversation about whether we want to take the losses.
I see nothing wrong with us here challenging the idea that, uniquely among the big quantitative easing programmes, it is the Bank of England that not only insists on selling the bonds at big losses but gets reimbursed. The ECB does not sell them in the market at big losses. The Federal Reserve Board sells them in the market at big losses but gets no money back; it simply puts on its balance sheet that it has lost a lot of money and takes the view that, as it is a central bank, it does not really matter if it loses a lot of money, because central banks create money and it is therefore not like a normal commercial business. So I hope that Ministers will look at this as part of the general assessment that is being invited by these new clauses.
I hope also that Ministers will look at the expenditure items in the overall accounts covered by new clause 4 on the public finances, because there has been a marked decline in public sector productivity in the years 2020 to 2023. It was quite without precedent in my experience of following public finances over the years, and this very sharp decline represents at least a £30 billion loss to our system, in that it now costs at least £30 billion a year more to run the group of public services covered by these figures than it did before the collapse in productivity. On top of that, there has also been the need for much bigger sums to cover inflation. This is not the inflation figure; this is the real loss figure from the productivity.
We are all sympathetic to the difficulties that lockdown and the transition out of lockdown caused, and there was bound to be disruption. Our public services were badly affected by that, as children could not go to school and hospitals were disrupted by covid, but that is now some time behind us and it seems perplexing that we cannot get those public services back to 2019 levels of productivity. I hear comment that maybe artificial intelligence will do it and that there needs to be a big investment in computers. Well, that should be on top. All that I am saying to the Government is that we can surely get back to 2019 productivity levels using techniques from 2019, which was very much pre-artificial intelligence and before the latest round of computerisation. Again, this is a big area that needs to be looked at as part of any review of the public finances.
The third area, which is also very large and very much in the news today, is that even more people in our country do not feel they can go back to work and that they need help at home because they are no longer able to work. The Government are working on some important programmes, through the Department for Work and Pensions, to show people that through a combination of part-time flexible working and working at home with proper support and training, and maybe with additional financial support to help them, they could go back to work for part of the time and make a contribution. We desperately need them, and I think their lives would be more rewarding. They would also be better off because we now have a benefits system that means it is always better to work. This should be a cross-party matter, because it is a problem that our nation as a whole faces. We can enrich those people’s lives, help to reduce the burden on the taxpayer and improve the net income of those concerned. Again, this involves many billions.
My point in making these three simple points apparent to the House is that there are very large sums of money indeed involved in bond losses and productivity, which we need to review because that would help in the formation of the next Budget. It would create more headroom, both for the tax cuts that we need if we are to promote growth, and for improved public service provision in the areas where the shoe is still pinching. I trust that will be part of any review that might emerge from these new clauses, or from the spirit of these new clauses. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is thinking about this, as we will have a Budget hard on the heels of this Finance Bill, which came out of the autumn statement. In these conditions of recovery, and given the need for faster growth, I welcome having more than one Budget a year, and the fact that we may have three fiscal events quite close to each other, if all goes well. They must promote growth and reduce taxes, and this is a good start.
I welcome new clause 5, but can we please have more? Can we please look at the headroom that I think I have helped to identify?
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
I am sure that the people suffering through the rampant cost of living crisis across the nations of the UK hoped that if the Government tabled a new clause today, it would address their struggles in paying their rent, their ever-increasing mortgages, their higher food bills, thanks to Brexit, and their even higher energy bills after the cap was adjusted in January. The Government tabled only new clause 5 and, as I said on the Ways and Means motion, we have no opportunity to amend it.
The electricity generator levy disproportionately impacts Scotland’s renewable sector. The SNP welcomes the fact that new clause 5 will exempt new renewable projects from the EGL, but as noted by the chief executive of Scottish Renewables, though the autumn statement introduced new measures such as the EGL exemption, they are
“not enough on their own. We urgently need consistent policies to provide an environment which will enable businesses to invest at the scale needed right now.”
A pledge to invest £28 billion a year in the green energy transition might be a good thing, but it seems to be off the table not only for the UK Government but—
Mr Speaker
Order. I wish to make a short statement.
I know the whole House will wish to join me in expressing our sympathy with His Majesty the King following this evening’s announcement. Our thoughts are, of course, with His Majesty and his family, and we all send him our very best wishes for his successful treatment and speedy recovery.
Drew Hendry
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Obviously, it is entirely appropriate to have paused for that statement. I was unaware of the news brought to the Chamber, but it is clearly significant. Our thoughts are with the royal family at this time.
As I was saying, we need consistent policies to help the renewables sector, and we are not seeing that either from the Tory Government, who have run out of ideas, or from the Labour party, which makes promises and then ducks responsibility for what is required.
We would have liked new clause 5 to flesh out the Chancellor’s promise, made in the autumn statement, to take up to £1,000 a year for up to 10 years off the electricity bills of people living near new generation equipment. We have not heard that today, so we do not know what schemes are coming up.
As I intimated earlier, I would have liked to table an amendment on this point: if new clause 5 is applicable to people living next to new generation equipment, what about those who already live among generation equipment in, for example, the highlands and islands? We have the coldest climate in the UK. Most people are off the gas grid, so we have higher average bills than the rest of the UK. We pay the highest standing charge for electricity, 40% more than here in London, and because of UK Government policies, we have the highest level of fuel poverty in the UK, yet we export six times more electricity than we use in the highlands. It would have been entirely appropriate for the Minister to agree to introduce a highland energy rebate, to put some of that contribution back into the pockets of people across the highlands and islands who are struggling because of those conditions.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is making a very good point that rings true in my constituency, too. Of course, the problem is made more difficult still because of the other costs faced by people living in our constituencies, such as delivery charges and the cost of other services. Even a tube of toothpaste can cost a little more the further away it is from the big urban centres. That makes the problem a lot worse.
Drew Hendry
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I welcome his support for the campaign I am trying to start in order to get justice for people across the highlands and islands. He mentions other costs; of course, rural properties are often larger and less insulated. That does not mean that people in those properties have more money; it just means that their property was built that way, centuries or decades ago. That brings higher costs. Many of the factors affecting people across the highlands and islands could be mitigated by a highland energy rebate.
New clause 4, tabled by the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), would require the Chancellor to review the public health, inequality and poverty effects of the Bill, and to publish a report within six months of the Bill being passed. It is regrettable that it looks as if the new clause will not be pressed to a Division tonight, but the SNP would have supported it. We believe that a requirement to consider the implications for equality, poverty and health should be included in every Bill for which that would be relevant.
As I said, people are suffering from a cost of living crisis fuelled by decisions made in this Parliament. Mortgages are going up as a direct result of the disastrous mini-Budget, and now food costs are going up. Of course, there is more to come, as the Brexit regulations kick in at the end of April. Not only are prices going up, but they will rise even higher from May as businesses across the UK face more red tape. Of course, we are already seeing our highest energy bills ever. Meanwhile, we are doing what we can with our limited powers in Scotland. We already have lower council tax and, of course, we are introducing a council tax freeze. A poll out today shows that nearly 70% of the public approve of this policy.
New clause 6 would require the Chancellor to publish an assessment of the Bill's impact on investment and growth and of the impact of making full expensing permanent, and to consider what other policies could support the effectiveness of permanent full expensing. Given that full expensing is expected to cost £1 billion to £3 billion a year, after an initial £10 billion a year for the first three years, the policy deserves some scrutiny.
Since full expensing was announced in the autumn statement, the SNP has supported its being made permanent, as this would give business greater certainty and would simplify the tax system. However, it is vital that Members be fully informed, so that this Parliament can assess the effectiveness of this policy and whether it encourages investment in assets such as plant and machinery, as it is designed to do, or whether that is at the expense of other forms of investment. Full expensing is a rare point in the autumn statement on which we agree, but as I have said time and again, the Bill has failed. People are struggling through a cost of living crisis, and they want to know what help they will get now, while they are struggling because their household expenses are going through the roof.
People want investment in clean energy, and a just transition from oil and gas. We will need oil and gas for a period, but that transition should be safeguarded. The United States is providing hundreds of billions of dollars in initial support for new green technologies, such as hydrogen. The European Union has made similar high-level investments, yet the UK Government and the Labour party are dawdling on the issue, wasting the opportunity for us to lead across the world. Like so many Bills, this Bill ignores the needs of the people of Scotland, so it is little wonder that they are on the inevitable path to independence.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. May I take this opportunity to associate myself with Mr Speaker’s remarks? I am sure that all our thoughts are with King Charles and the royal family this evening.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
I associate myself with your remarks, Mr Deputy Speaker, and those of the Speaker, and I wish His Majesty a speedy recovery.
It is interesting to take part in such a debate. It is disappointing to hear Labour describe itself as the pro-business party, given that it is asking businesses to increase wages, recognise unions, accept collective bargaining and restrict labour flexibility, as well as increasing bureaucracy and telling businesses where to invest. To me, that is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Turning to the Bill and the amendments, it is extraordinary to hear the spokespeople on both Opposition Front Benches talk about expensing becoming permanent. That is exactly what the Bill intends to do; the minute we get Royal Assent, expensing will be permanent. On Second Reading, the Minister said it would be permanent and, as soon as the Bill is enacted, that will be in place and on the statute book, which is welcome.
Amendments 1 and 2 make points about full expensing. Those amendments will ensure that the UK’s plant and machinery capital allowances will increase and there will be a tax cut of about £10 billion a year, which will help to drive up growth across the whole United Kingdom, specifically in our manufacturing sectors. From the point of view of those in south Devon, that tax cut is worth having. It will help to drive growth and attract investment and innovation across the country, not just in the industrial heartlands we speak about so often.
There are often international comparisons made on research and development. Amendment 3 offers us the opportunity to drive innovation and economic growth. Merging the research and development expenditure credit scheme and the small and medium enterprise research and development relief scheme achieves that rare thing that we so often fail to do in Government: simplify the tax code and provide greater support for UK firms. We should all welcome that.
It is worth stating the impact of the changes in the Bill that will support loss-making small and medium-sized enterprises by reducing the intensity threshold by 10%, from 40% to 30%. That is expected to help 5,000 further SMEs, and they will receive £27 per £100 of qualifying research and development funding invested. That is an extraordinary amount of support—in the region of £280 million a year by 2028-29—and it will be welcomed by small businesses across the country. The Bill also extends the sunset clauses until April 2035 for two more programmes—the enterprise investment scheme and the venture capital trust—which is welcome.
Clauses 4 and 5 outline support for the creative sector. One of our unsung success stories is how well the UK creative industries have done because of this Government’s extraordinary tax cuts, which have helped TV, film, music and video games thrive in this country. Between 2010 and 2019, that industry has grown by an extraordinary one and a half times, creating thousands of jobs across the country and attracting millions—if not billions—of pounds of investment and spurring on growth. That sets the benchmark.
As a Government, we need to help all industries, not just the creative industries, by reducing the tax burden and ensuring we can find ways to support them. I make a plug for the tourism and hospitality sector, which the Minister knows I often mention. In the future, I hope we will be able to do the same for the tourism and hospitality sector as we have done for the creative industries through a VAT reduction.
I support the Government amendments to the Bill. I welcome the intent of this Finance Bill, which is helping to ensure that work pays, ensuring that the tax burden for businesses is going down, and creating a landscape that will attract the investment and opportunities that we so desperately need in this country.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
On behalf of myself and my Liberal Democrat colleagues, I express our sympathies to the King and his family, and our hope that his treatment will prove to be successful.
I will speak to amendments 1, 2 and 3, in addition to new clause 5. To reiterate, the Liberal Democrats are not supportive of the Bill, which is a deception from the Government after years of cruel tax hikes on hard-working families. The legislation maintains the Government’s unfair tax rises on working families through the freezing of income tax thresholds, fails to invest properly in our public services, such as the NHS, and takes none of the vital steps needed to grow the UK economy. Some of the measures in the Bill have worthy aims, but the context is important from the outset.
Amendments 1, 2 and 3 make further changes to the new R&D regime defined in the Bill. While the changes may be necessary and sensible clarifications, just last week, colleagues in the other place, sitting on the Economic Affairs Committee, reported their concern
“that the number of significant R&D changes made in the last 5 years has led to a perception of instability in the UK’s R&D tax relief regime and undermined the intended incentive effect of the relief.”
What businesses need more than anything is certainty and stability. The Government’s chopping and changing on R&D is indicative of a wider failure to create a stable and settled environment in which business can flourish.
Perhaps the clearest example of that has been the scrapping of the UK’s industrial strategy and the disbanding of the independent body overseeing it. This short-sighted step has robbed businesses of the stability they need to grow. The constant changes to the R&D relief regime are a clear example of how that lack of foresight and stability can undermine the aim of economic growth. Once again, I urge the Government, even at this late stage, to relaunch an industrial strategy. A proper industrial strategy can create the conditions for sustainable growth, including through effective and clear incentives for R&D investment, especially among SMEs, and ensure that the UK’s regulatory, R&D and tax frameworks are geared towards fostering innovation.
New clause 5 introduces an exemption to the energy generator levy for new plant investments. The Liberal Democrats believe that, although this may help to strengthen investment in renewable energy and contribute towards our net zero targets, the Government’s own assessment of the measure notes that it is unlikely to affect the retail price of electricity for households as energy prices remain tied to gas prices.
The Bill, and the autumn statement from which it arose, does nothing to help families with soaring energy prices or to put a proper windfall tax on the oil and gas giants. The Government continue to sit on their hands as businesses and families struggle with energy price inflation. A windfall tax on the super-profits of oil and gas producers could raise significant revenue which could have paid for a targeted package of support for those worst affected by the energy crisis, by doubling the warm home discount and investing in an emergency home insulation scheme. It remains clear that November’s autumn statement and the Finance Bill both represent a missed opportunity to address the crisis in energy prices.
To conclude, while the Liberal Democrats are supportive of certain measures within the Bill, such as the extension of full expensing, we cannot support any legislation that arises from such a deceptive and unjust autumn statement. Ultimately, British households are seeing the biggest fall in living standards since the 1950s, and households across the country are crying out for real support from the Government, for action on the cost of living crisis and investment in our NHS, but all we have heard is more stale announcements from a Conservative Government who are completely out of touch.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I concur with the comments made by others about King Charles, on my behalf and that of the Democratic Unionist party and his loyal subjects in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—especially Northern Ireland. I pray, as I know you do, Mr Deputy Speaker, as well as others in the Chamber, for King Charles and for the royal family. I pray for a speedy recovery to his health. I pray, as we all pray, to the great healer, omnipotent over all, that his family will know the peace of the Lord as they support him at this time.
I thank all those who have contributed to this Bill debate, and I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me the chance to participate. Understandably, much of the Bill focuses on the measures that are needed to deliver the autumn statement. The Minister understands that—I would like to welcome him to his place. As he knows, I hold him in great respect, and look forward to his responses at the end of this debate.
For every public sector pay rise that is rightly awarded, money must be raised, and therefore we all support the principle of this Bill in theory. However, in practice, not many of us want to sign off on a Bill that raises taxes for those who are struggling at present. Obviously, as prices have risen, obligations have gone up correspondingly. Northern Ireland has been seeking a complete removal of the air passenger duty as a way of enhancing our connectivity and our attractiveness to international business investment. As a result, the rise in APD is disappointing. I know what the Minister’s response will be. We are all aware of what the renewal of Stormont means: it means that we can look at this matter ourselves. None the less, the renewal of the Assembly has also highlighted the issue of the allocation of finances. It is clear that an overhaul of the funding formulas for Northern Ireland is necessary to meet the need in the long term.
Before I left the office this morning, I heard the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on the radio saying that he hoped that a new funding formula would be found for Northern Ireland. We on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee have also put forward that view. It is matter that involves all parties. The hon. Members for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) and for North Down (Stephen Farry) join us in wanting the same. That is three of the political parties in Northern Ireland that want that formula. There are also labour Members who support the view, along with a number of Conservatives with some concerns. We are all pushing for a formula similar to the Welsh system. If that comes into place, we in Northern Ireland would benefit, and that is only fair and right. I am highlighting this because if we as a party wished to do something about air passenger duty in the Northern Ireland Assembly, or if a cross-party group were wishing to do the same, we would need to have that formula in place. As I say, we are looking for fair funding for the future.
The £3.3 billion that has been made available now is money that many of my constituents believe has been withheld, and that is welcomed. Ever mindful of the positivity that came out of the debate last week, I say let us be positive in looking forward—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. The hon. Gentleman understands that he has caught my eye and I have caught his. May I gently remind him that we are talking about the Government’s new clauses and amendments at the moment? There is a Third Reading debate ahead in which more measures can be raised if necessary, but, at the moment, will he please concentrate on the matter in hand?
Jim Shannon
I knew when I saw you looking at me, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you were going to tell me to get back on to the subject. I was about to do so. I thank you for that very kind reminder. You spoke to me in a very nice way, which was much appreciated.
I did refer to new clause 7 and air passenger duty, so I will quickly return to that. When I looked at a number of these issues addressed in the Bill, I could see a very clear and obvious theme: air passenger duty to rise in line with the retail price index; plastic packaging to rise in line with the consumer prices index; aggregate levy in line with RPI; tobacco levy in line with RPI plus 2%; and vehicle excise duty for cars, vans and motor bikes in line with RPI. So it continues and, to be honest, that seems to be understandable.
However, what is clear in the Finance Bill is that, although these things rise by RPI or CPI—I understand how the system works—the Government have again chosen to ignore the needs of the working middle class. I wish to make this point. I have done so in every finance debate, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have taken every opportunity I can to bring up this matter. I am seeking the support of the Minister on this. Indeed, I have asked the Minister about this on a number of occasions, so he knows about the issue. It is about the middle-class families who need that extra bit of help. They are paying their tax, but the £40,000 and £50,000 a year threshold is not helpful. If we wish to address the issues of new clause 6 in relation to permanent full expensing and the issue of air passenger duty—the things that people want—then we also have to address the issue of the threshold as well.
I gently say to the Minister that, when it comes to how we help our squeezed middle class—I am not talking about the very wealthy—can he look at changing the threshold? I ask the Minister for a direct response on that. I do not want him to talk about the higher income benefit charge or any other mitigation. I just want him to help us understand why those who pay into the tax system do not get as much as they should when they are struggling in a way that families back in 2013 could not have imagined. The Government know that to be the case—I think the Minister knows it to be the case—so when it comes to legislation that helps us to represent all of the people of this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, let this Bill tonight be one that does just that.
Nigel Huddleston
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I join you, Mr Speaker and the whole House in wishing His Majesty a speedy recovery following the announcement this evening?
I wish to thank right hon. and hon. Members for contributing to this debate. I shall respond to as many of the points as I can, and also talk to the amendments that have been moved. On new clause 1, I agree that we must prevent fraud and ensure that all taxpayers pay their fair share. To help achieve that, the new maximum sentences for the most egregious examples of tax fraud, the new criminal offence on the promoters of tax avoidance, and enhanced director disqualification powers will come into force on Royal Assent of this Bill. That will all help.
At 4.8% of total liabilities, the UK’s tax gap is at the joint lowest rate ever recorded and has remained low and stable. The UK’s tax gap compares favourably with that of our international partners. HMRC has already published performance updates that provide information on its compliance performance every quarter, so we believe that this new clause is not necessary.
New clause 2 is pretty much the same as the new clause 1 rejected in Committee of the whole House. As I have said previously, we believe that the provision is unnecessary, as the information has been published in the tax information and impact notes alongside each policy change. That gives a clear explanation of the policy objective together with details of the implementation costs for both HMRC and businesses.
New clause 3 would require the Government to publish details of sentences given and stop notices issued to tackle evasion and avoidance in the past five years, as well as revenue expected to be generated by measures in this Bill to tackle evasion and avoidance in each of the next five years. However, HMRC publishes information on the number of custodial sentences received for tax compliance offences and the average sentence length in its annual reports and accounts. The 2023-24 annual report and accounts will be published this summer, providing a full overview of HMRC’s performance. The Government also publish a list of tax avoidance schemes subject to a stop notice on gov.uk, with the most recent report published on 7 December. HMRC has issued more than 20 stop notices since issuing the first one in 2022. The Government also published revenue estimates for the next five years of the clauses in this Bill in the tax information and impact notes. Therefore, as the information requested by new clause 3 is publicly available in routine HMRC publications, the publication requested by new clause 3 is unnecessary.
New clause 4 would require the Government to report on the likely impact of the measures in the Bill on public health, inequality and poverty—matters that concern us all and that we discussed in Committee. Existing mechanisms already effectively monitor and assess Government policies in those areas, rendering the amendment redundant. Departments such as the Department of Health and Social Care and its arm’s length bodies diligently evaluate policies to enhance health up and down the country. Through the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities and the National Institute for Health and Care Research, they address health inequalities and provide robust evidence for policy development. Various Government units, such as the Cabinet Office equality hub, contribute to levelling-up opportunities and ensuring fairness. The Government Equalities Office, the Race Disparity Unit, the Disability Unit and the Social Mobility Commission all focus on different equality dimensions to guide and support inclusive policy development across the country. We therefore do not believe that new clause 4 is necessary.
On new clause 6, I agree that it is important to regularly review and evaluate policy, and to be transparent, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) also highlighted. His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has published a tax information and impact note setting out the impact of the measure, including the economic impact, and the Office for Budget Responsibility has already conducted and published extensive analysis on the investment and growth impact of full expensing. That is available in its “Economic and fiscal outlook—November 2023”, which therefore negates the need to publish a separate assessment in six months’ time. The impact of permanent full expensing will be monitored through information collected from tax returns, and through regular communication with businesses and representative bodies.
Jim Shannon
The Minister knows that I am particularly fond of him, but if he has heard my request before, let us now have action.
Nigel Huddleston
We always try to act; I cannot do everything, though. I note the hon. Gentleman’s comments. In a similar vein, my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) raised the importance more broadly of the tourism, hospitality and leisure sector, and of the creative sector. He is absolutely right. Measures in the Bill and elsewhere will support all those sectors. Of course, business rates relief is vital to the tourism, retail, hospitality and leisure sector. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham made a range of comments, some outside of my direct remit. I assure him that I will raise his points, which ranged from bonds to public sector efficiency—a vital area—with colleagues in the Department.
I was somewhat entertained by the comments of the Labour spokesman, the hon. Member for Ealing North, who was effectively asking me to commit to Conservative party policies as enthusiastically as he does, which is quite a turn up for the books. Of course, we welcome Labour’s support for the policies that we have announced, but there is clear blue water between the Labour party and the Conservative party in terms of principles about the size and scale of Government and the level of taxation. We have seen Labour’s flip-flopping over the £28 billion. I am not sure what the policy is today. It was rather rich of him to ask for commitments from me, given the flip-flopping that is so prevalent in every area of Labour policy.
At one point, the Labour party was supportive of Brexit. Now I do not know. Are Labour Members against it? Were they supportive of the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) being Prime Minister, or do they not want him in the party? Are they in favour of nationalisation, or against it? Are they in favour of private sector involvement in the NHS, or against it? In a whole host of policy areas, we have seen persistent, perennial flip-flopping from the Opposition. I literally have goldfish whose commitments I would trust more than those from the Labour Front Bench. On those points, we will have to respectfully agree to disagree.
As I said, new clause 5 and the six amendments that the Government have tabled will help to ensure that the changes in the Bill apply as intended, and deliver a vital policy to protect renewable investment. They will make the tax environment more easily understood by business and protect vital tax revenue used to fund our public services. I therefore urge that they be added to the Bill. The six new clauses tabled by the Opposition seek to get the Government to publish data and information that is already being published through other sources, as I have outlined. I therefore urge the House to reject them.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 5 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 6
Assessment of the impact of permanent full expensing
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of this Act being passed, publish an assessment of the impact of the measures in clause 1 of this Act on—
(a) business investment, and
(b) economic growth.
(2) The review under subsection (1) must—
(a) assess the impact of full expensing being made permanent, and
(b) consider what other policies would support the effectiveness of the measures in clause 1 of this Act.”—(James Murray.)
This new clause would require the Chancellor to publish an assessment of the impact on investment and growth of the measures in this Act to make full expensing permanent, and to consider what other policies could support the effectiveness of permanent full expensing.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Nigel Huddleston
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
This Government are backing British business, supporting employment, and creating a simpler and fairer tax system. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor delivered an autumn statement with the clear intention of strengthening the economy, now and for the future. This Finance Bill, which Members of the House have had the opportunity to scrutinise and debate over the past few months, does exactly that. It takes forward important tax measures to help businesses invest for less; encourages innovation and supports our creative industries by elevating rates and simplifying credits; and improves and simplifies our tax system to ensure it remains fit for purpose.
Mr Deputy Speaker, allow me to remind Members of the Bill’s key aims. Our first aim is to support British industry, so that we can solidify our position as world leaders in key sectors. Making full expensing permanent allows UK businesses to invest for less. We have moved to make the UK’s plant and machinery capital allowances the most generous of any major economy. Permanent full expensing has been called the single most transformational thing we could do for investment, and it was welcomed by more than 200 companies and trade associations.
The Bill also merges two significant Government schemes: the SME scheme and the R&D expenditure scheme. In doing that, we are meeting our aim of simplifying the system while providing greater support to British businesses, so that they can spend less time on administration and more time on innovation. The Bill also introduces greater support for loss-making R&D-intensive SMEs and lowers the intensity threshold required to access that support to 30%, helping around 5,000 extra SMEs. To further support investment in renewable energy, we have introduced a new assets exemption for the electricity generator levy, a measure that will continue to drive growth in both our renewables sector and the wider economy. We also continue to support our world-leading creative industries with tax measures that reform the film, TV and video game tax reliefs, turning them into refundable expenditure credits that are easier for business.
Our second aim is to support employment. We must remove barriers to work and incentives to not work, and most of all, must ensure that hard work and expertise are rewarded. That is why the Bill makes changes to encourage people to stay in work and use their expertise for longer. The Bill will complete the abolition of the lifetime allowance, amending pension tax rules so that employees with valuable, hard-earned expertise are no longer encouraged to reduce their hours or retire early. The Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that this will retain 15,000 workers annually, keeping many high-skilled employees and experienced individuals in our labour market while ensuring that they receive their rightful benefits for working.
Our third aim is to create a simpler, fairer and more modern tax system—an aim that the Bill also supports. Making full expensing permanent is a huge simplification for larger firms, but we are a nation of millions of small businesses. In the Bill, we are expanding the cash basis—a simplified way for over 4 million smaller and growing traders to calculate their profits and pay their income tax. While we remain focused on reducing the tax burden, we cannot overstate the role of tax in supporting public services, so we must all do our part. Everyone must pay their fair share, which is why the Bill introduces a new criminal offence for those who promote tax avoidance schemes and continue to promote them after receiving a stop notice. Alongside this, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will for the first time be able to bring disqualification action against the directors of companies involved in promoting tax avoidance, including those who control or exercise influence over a company. These are vital steps in ensuring that the system is fair for all, and that those who try to undermine it face the consequences.
I thank right hon. and hon. Members from across the House for their helpful and insightful contributions to the debate on the Bill. I also thank the many stakeholders who have provided their views on the issues raised, the Treasury, HMRC officials and House Clerks who have helped the Bill to get to this point. This Bill backs British business, rewards hard work, nurtures innovation, and supports our leading industries while solidifying long-term economic growth. For those reasons, I commend it to the House.
James Murray
I begin by wishing His Majesty the King the very best for a speedy recovery. My colleagues and I are thinking of him and the royal family at this time, and we wish him a swift return to full health.
Throughout consideration of the Bill, the Opposition have made it clear that it contains a number of measures for which we have been calling for some time. For instance, we welcome the Government finally making full expensing permanent after so many years of chopping and changing capital allowances; we have made it clear that we will maintain that policy if we win power this year. We have also made it clear that we will maintain the system of R&D tax credits introduced by the Bill—again, after so many years of this Government chopping and changing the design of the scheme. In both cases, that is because we prize stability and predictability for businesses; they have made it clear to us that they value that greatly.
We know that providing certainty is a critical factor in boosting business investment and economic growth. If Labour won the next general election, we would put that certainty and stability at the heart of our approach in government by publishing a road map in the first six months, setting out our business tax plans for the whole Parliament. We have set out our approach to full expensing and to corporation tax, so I am disappointed that the Minister was not able to give us a clear guarantee that the Conservatives will maintain full permanent expensing and cap corporation tax at 25% for the whole of the next Parliament. Businesses can have confidence, however, that both of those commitments are locked in with Labour.
Of course, there are provisions in the Bill of which we have been critical, not least the fact that it freezes tax for passengers flying around the UK on private jets, while hiking taxes for everyone else who is flying economy or business class. Also, the Government admit that some provisions will need to be returned to and corrected. That is a far from ideal position to be in before a Bill has even become law. We know this is the case because, towards the end of last month, HMRC admitted that the way in which the Government have legislated to remove the lifetime allowance has
“created unintended consequences for members with multiple pension schemes”.
HMRC says that further legislation will be necessary to fix three areas in schedule 9 relating to the abolition of the lifetime allowance. That clearly indicates rushed legislation that runs the risk of creating problems for all involved. The legal firm Wedlake Bell, for instance, has said:
“The proposed new tax regime replacing the LTA at breakneck speed from 6 April 2024 is very risky for all parties including trustees, administrators, members and indeed HMRC itself.”
More widely, our concern with this Bill, as with the autumn statement it followed, is that the Conservatives cannot hide or move on from their 14 years of economic failure. Those 14 years of failure have left economic growth languishing and people across Britain worse off. Last November’s autumn statement for growth was the 11th attempt at an economic growth plan from the Conservatives. The truth is that the Conservatives are incapable of getting our country back on track. We need a general election so that Labour can offer the change and the plan that families and businesses across Britain need.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I call the Chair of the Treasury Committee.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I will not detain the House for long, because I have the feeling that not all my colleagues are here to listen to my remarks. However, I want to make a couple of points.
First, having heard the Opposition complain about the measures in this Finance Bill, one would think that they did not like them, but they are not here this evening, they are not voting against Third Reading, and they have not tabled any solid proposals themselves. The only economic policy anyone has heard from the Opposition is the extra £28 billion that they want to impose in taxes on our businesses and our families.
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is almost as though the Opposition do not have a plan?
Harriett Baldwin
I would agree with my hon. Friend.
I point out that the 110 pro-growth, pro-supply side measures in this Finance Bill have not stoked inflation. Indeed, inflation has fallen from over 11% down to 4%, and according to the Bank of England’s forecast, it is on track to reach 2%, so one has to commend the measures taken in this Bill, and I look forward to voting for that progress shortly.
I add my thanks to the officials from the Treasury and HMRC who have worked so hard on this legislation, only to hear that in a month’s time there will be another Budget and another Finance Bill. One has to recognise the hard work that has gone into this Bill, but I do worry that HMRC is being asked to do more and more. I worry about the fact that various thresholds have been frozen, and in particular, as the Minister knows, that the high-income child benefit charge is affecting more taxpayers up and down the land.
I am worried about one of the 110 measures—one that is within HMRC’s bailiwick. It is the measure allowing people to put fractional shares into their individual savings accounts. That was a very welcome announcement in last year’s autumn statement. I tried to put down an amendment to the Bill about it, but it was found not to be orderly because that change has not been legislated for this time around. In fact, the word is that HMRC will not be able to put that in place until at least the next tax year. Can I ask the Financial Secretary to convey the sense of urgency that I think we all feel about making these pro-growth, pro-investment changes?
There is a wide range of measures in this Finance Bill that I welcome, and I look forward to the Budget on 6 March. I think we can pay tribute to all the hard work that the Financial Secretary, his team, and all the Treasury and HMRC officials have put into this excellent piece of legislation.
Drew Hendry
In this Third Reading debate on the Finance Bill, one thing has been conspicuously absent from both the Tory and the Labour Front Benchers’ speeches—the one thing affecting people most just now: their struggle with the cost of living crisis. People are struggling to pay their bills. They are struggling to pay their mortgages, which have gone up because of this Government’s disastrous mini-Budget. They are struggling to pay their rent. They are struggling to pay their food bills because of these parties’ disastrous Brexit, which is pushing food price inflation even higher. They are struggling to pay their energy bills, because this Government have been asleep at the wheel while prices have been rising, and even allowed the energy price cap to go up in January when bills have never been higher. This is a travesty of a Finance Bill. It has done nothing to help the people of Scotland with their finances, it has done nothing to help people across the rest of the UK, and I will definitely vote against it tonight.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
May I ask colleagues in all parts of the House for some indulgence? Unfortunately, I was missed out on Report, but I very much wanted to speak about new clause 4, which I tabled. It is very close to my heart, and it is the reason why I became an MP. Specifically, it is about asking the Government to make an assessment of the public health effects of the Bill, particularly in terms of regional inequalities, the impacts on protected characteristics and the impact on the NHS.
I would first like to associate myself with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (James Murray) about His Majesty King Charles. I wish him a very speedy recovery, and send best wishes to his family.
I had hoped that I might convince the Minister just a little more than I did in Committee about what a difference the assessment in my new clause would make. I am going to extend the arguments just a little more, if he will bear with me. I appreciate that I cannot do anything about the issue in this Bill, but perhaps he could think about it for the one we will have after the Budget, because I will be returning to this issue again. The proposal is not about changing anything in the Finance Bill; it is about publishing the Government’s evaluation of the impact of their policies, as announced in the autumn statement, on the health of our constituents as mediated through, for example, changes in poverty and socioeconomic inequalities. Ideally, that would have been done during the planning of the autumn statement, but given that that did not happen, my new clause would have provided the opportunity to make decisions based on an evaluation of the impacts on our health, including our children’s health.
Many Members will have heard about and read the report of the Academy of Medical Sciences on child health, which came out earlier today. In it, the UK has been revealed to have a stalling infant mortality rate, which is worse than 60% of that in similar countries. This is after a century during which infant mortality has been decreasing. The academy has put to us, as decision makers, that we need to be doing a lot better. My new clause would have helped the Government in their quest for transparency, fulfilling the Prime Minister’s promise on that, and restoring confidence in the Government and in politics more widely. It would also have allowed the Government to monitor their commitment to levelling up our health across the country and to tackling the appalling north-south divide.
I was director of public health research at the University of Liverpool along with Professor Dame Margaret Whitehead, who in 1987 published her report revealing for the first time the north-south health divide. It came out a few years after the Black report and it showed the causal relationship between poverty and health. Margaret took it a step further, emphasising socioeconomic inequalities, not just poverty, as the key driver of these health inequalities.
We have been building on that evidence base for the past 40 years or so. Many will have read “The Spirit Level” by Professors Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett which showed the universal relationship between socioeconomic inequality and educational attainment, social mobility, trust between communities—where has trust gone within our communities?—reducing crime and much more. The narrower the gap in socioeconomic inequalities, the better almost all societies across the world do on a whole host of measures including health and wellbeing.
Professor Sir Michael Marmot’s 2010 totemic “Fair Society, Healthy Lives” report set out six objectives across our life course of what we as a country need to do to address these socioeconomic inequalities and reduce health inequalities. He warned us in 2017 when we started to see life expectancy in England as a whole flatlining, which was accompanied by declining healthy life expectancy. We heard many questions in today’s Department for Work and Pensions orals about what we can do to get a fit and healthy labour force, and our inequalities are partly why we are in our current position. Professor Marmot also revealed that life expectancy for the poorest women and in the poorest areas was declining, and that we were one of three advanced economies in the world where this had been happening, along with the USA and Iceland. This is not a question of our having reached peak life expectancy; we are falling behind most of our competitors. He also revealed that health inequalities had increased and that there was an even starker north-south health divide.
Then covid hit. The same pattern of infection, ill health and death was seen with covid as was seen before the pandemic with other conditions. The same groups of people and the same areas were affected by covid as were affected by, for example, heart disease.
Last month Michael provided another update in his latest report, “Health Inequalities, Lives Cut Short”. He said in The BMJ a couple of weeks ago something that I asked the Prime Minister about last week:
“if everyone had the good health of the least deprived 10% of the population, there would have been 1 million fewer deaths in England in the period 2012 to 2019. Of these, 148,000 can be linked to austerity. In 2020, the first year of the covid pandemic, there were a further 28,000 excess deaths.”
Today, I see no evidence that policymakers have learned from or even understand this injustice, or its economic consequences. I urge them to watch a short film, “The Unequal Pandemic”, which shows the human cost of this inaction. Our experience of covid and these inequalities is not inevitable.
Today’s Academy of Medical Sciences report estimates that a cost of £16.13 billion a year could have been avoided by early childhood intervention. The relationship between population health and productivity is also well established. In its 2018 “Health for Wealth” report, the Northern Health Science Alliance argued that in order to improve our productivity and growth we must improve our health. It calculated that improving the health of the north to the level of the rest of England would increase productivity by £13.2 billion a year. It is in the economy’s and the Chancellor’s interest to undertake this health assessment of his measures. I appreciate that that is not going to happen in this Bill, but I would be grateful if the Minister would consider it for the next one.
I was grateful in the Finance Bill Committee for the Minister responding with a long list of data that the Government already collect on poverty, and so on. Unfortunately, he did not explain how these data were then analysed to assess the impact of his Government’s measures on, for instance, stricter social security sanctions, and how those would affect the current levels of children living in poverty, deep poverty and destitution, as described in the Joseph Rowntree Foundation “UK Poverty 2024” report. He did not explain if these data had been disaggregated to examine the impacts of these policies on different parts of the country, on disabled people or on people from ethnic minority communities, and he did not explain what scenario-modelling on poverty, deep poverty and destitution had been undertaken to understand whether more children will die before their first birthday because they had been born into a poor or destitute family. For each 1% increase in child poverty, an extra 5.8 babies per 100,000 livebirths will die before their first birthday.
Professor Sir Michael Marmot has asked us to provide hope—hope that we as politicians can recognise and understand that these inequalities must be addressed and that they are not inevitable, and I agree. I urge the Minister to really consider this, if not now, then in the next Finance Bill, and to come back with a set of proposals on how the Government are going to do it.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Business without Debate
(10 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Delegated Legislation
(10 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Tri-service Safety Officers: Devon and Cornwall
(10 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
Before I begin, if I may, I will place on the record a few comments following the announcement from the palace regarding the health of King Charles. I am sure that I speak for everyone in sending my best wishes to him for successful treatment and a speedy recovery. Of course, His Majesty, as our longest ever serving Duke of Cornwall, has a special place in the hearts of those of us from Cornwall. I know he still takes a keen interest and has a lot of affection for the Duchy, so on behalf of the people of Cornwall, I say that our thoughts and prayers are with him and his family at this time.
I am delighted once again to be able to speak in an Adjournment debate about something that Cornwall is leading the way on: our excellent tri-service safety officers. As far as I am aware, Devon and Cornwall is the only police force area that has these officers in place, funded and commissioned in the particular way we do it. Let me begin by quickly explaining what a tri-service officer is. These officers, as the name suggests, work across the three services of the police, fire and NHS. They are police community support officers, on-call firemen attached to a local fire station and NHS first-responders. They are jointly funded by Devon and Cornwall police, Cornwall Council’s fire service and the local NHS, with some funding coming from the South Western Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust and some through the integrated care system.
Tri-service safety officers are embedded in local rural and coastal communities and can be a presence on the ground for all three services, not only providing quick emergency responses when needed but carrying out preventive, wellbeing and information gathering visits. A TSSO’s main duties are wide-ranging and complex. They include responding to 999 calls for fire and rescue and ambulance services, dealing with non-immediate police logs and community safety matters, completing multi-agency home and welfare visits, resolving complex neighbourhood policing issues, working with the local antisocial behaviour team, supporting the neighbourhood policing team, and assisting with neighbourhood inquiries such as non-emergency 101 calls made to the police.
Cornwall first piloted tri-service officers in the west of the duchy 10 years ago and has since been growing and rolling them out across the area. We now have 13 TSSOs in Cornwall, including in Fowey and St Dennis in my constituency, and I am pleased that another one will shortly be in place in Mevagissey, but we are not keeping this to ourselves. Being the generous people we are in Cornwall, we are sharing the service with our neighbours in Devon. I am pleased to say that in April a two-year pilot will commence in Holsworthy in the constituency of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Sir Geoffrey Cox).
The value of TSSOs cannot be overstated. They are hugely welcomed by the communities they serve. A key theme from this extensive list of duties is the focus on prevention, early intervention and reducing vulnerability. Emergency response work takes up less than 10% of their time. Their real value is in providing the three emergency services with a presence in otherwise hard-to-reach communities. When tasked through any of the three services, they look to problem-solve from a multi-agency perspective. That ability to deal with issues is further enhanced by having access to data across all services, with information sharing agreements in place.
To give a basic example of a TSSO’s holistic approach, while attending a police neighbourhood dispute, they may fit a smoke alarm, make a mental health referral, signpost a family to a third sector organisation or explore suitable pathways to Cornwall Council services or other available support services. All the while, tri-service officers ensure the highest levels of safeguarding are in place for the vulnerable members of our communities they lead on. All TSSOs are highly skilled, motivated professionals. A bespoke training package has been developed for them in Cornwall.
The outcomes are clear and very positive indeed. First, having TSSOs reduces the demand and impact on the three emergency services. In a part of the world where, as a result of our geography and ever-growing demand, our emergency services are spread out thinly, tri-service officers have been widely praised for their proactive approach as well as their level of dedication shown to the task at hand while maintaining a people-focused approach. They also reduce the demand on key partners within the public, private and voluntary sectors in their local communities.
Where TSSOs help with emergency response work, they do so with excellence. Figures from 2022-23 show that TSSOs in Cornwall responded to 3,000 incidents. In close to 50 incidents, they administered urgent first aid, including through the use of cardiopulmonary resuscitation or defibrillators. Put simply, they save lives. That year, one officer, TSSO Hart, received a chief superintendent’s commendation for outstanding work dealing with a collapsed male who was having a heart attack.
TSSOs’ performance figures from the past year speak for themselves: there were over 600 police logs attended; nearly 500 ambulance calls attended; nearly 500 domestic premise risk reduction visits conducted; nearly 40 antisocial behaviour incidents addressed; more than 1,200 hours spent providing fire cover; and more than 3,500 hours logged providing safeguarding, community engagement and training for other officers, as well as much else. On top of that, they have been credited with building stronger links between the three services and local communities in Cornwall.
In recent years, TSSOs have linked up with the Cornwall based charity FLEET—the Front Line Emergency Equipment Trust—to deliver 200 Raizer mobile lifting chairs to people who have had a fall, so that those people can be safer at home. All TSSOs now carry a Raizer chair in their vehicle because of the £35,000 funding gained in support of the project. TSSOs have also partnered with schools on junior life skills; across Cornwall, more than 1,500 children have had the chance to engage directly with officers at police and fire stations and learn about their work.
In the long term, that emphasis on prevention of vulnerability and early intervention aims to reduce calls to our 999 service. The communities served by TSSOs have a broad overlap with areas of deprivation, as five tri-service officers are based in the community network areas of the 10 most deprived areas in Cornwall. Those areas have higher health inequalities, higher crime rates and higher vulnerability risk factors. A whole-system, multi-agency approach is key to addressing the challenges that areas of high deprivation face, building safer communities and reducing frontline demand.
The TSSO is uniquely placed not just to bridge the three-pronged gap, but to do so in a cost-effective way, delivering excellent value for the taxpayer. As TSSOs expand into Devon, will the Minister look at the success we have had, and how the model might benefit other parts of the country, and other rural and coastal areas in particular? I understand that Devon and Cornwall police have begun discussions with the Home Office on that; it led to an opportunity to present the TSSO model to officials at a recent event. The response was apparently warm, and a delegation has arranged to visit later this month. I ask the Minister to take an interest in that visit. I invite him to Cornwall to see for himself the invaluable work of our tri-service officers in our communities. We also plan to hold an event in Parliament in the coming months to give colleagues an opportunity to meet those involved in the scheme, and to discuss how it could benefit their area. I will extend an invitation to the event to the Minister.
This role, which crosses over the three emergency services, has become more understood and used over the last 12 months. That is largely down to the proactive work of TSSOs in making sure that their role and duties are well understood. There is now greater understanding across all the local partners, which has led to TSSOs being better used to support and complement services.
I recently had the pleasure of going on patrol with one of our excellent TSSOs, Lewis Rosewell, who is based in the village of St Dennis and serves many of the clay mining villages in the middle of my constituency. Spending time with Lewis was both informative and inspiring, and gave me a real insight into the valuable work and service provided by TSSOs; we did fire safety visits, visited vulnerable residents, did welfare checks, and followed up on a recent antisocial behaviour incident. It was the nearest thing that I have seen to the old-school “bobby on the beat” style of policing, but there is the additional benefit of TSSOs working closely with a whole range of services.
I want to bring funding concerns to the Minister’s attention; they represent the biggest challenge to our fantastic TSSO programme. The TSSO model is based on each of the three services contributing a third. A tri-service officer costs around £48,000 each year, and each of the three services contributes £16,000, which represents excellent value for money given the positive feedback and outcomes in reducing demand and response times. There is a real desire to expand the service across Cornwall, including to some towns, rather than just villages. There is a commitment from the police and the fire service to make this contribution, but the NHS integrated care board has not yet confirmed that it will match the funding for the coming year.
It would be disappointing if the NHS—the highest funded service in Cornwall—was not able to fund its share of the cost of expanding the service. I would not be doing my job representing my constituents if I did not urge the integrated care system to make the funding commitment. Will the Minister use his offices to promote the scheme to the NHS, and encourage it to confirm the funding as soon as possible, so that our TSSOs can work alongside our GP surgeries and community health hubs in providing support? I believe that the scheme will become a key part of the prevention agenda in the coming years. It would be frustrating if it were held back by the NHS’s lack of willingness to play its part.
This project should be encouraged, especially in rural areas of the country. What plans does the Minister have to make sure that other parts of the country are aware of its success in Cornwall, and to assist them in developing similar projects? Finally, let me place on record my great thanks to Inspector Miles Topham and all those who have enabled this project to happen, and our excellent TSSOs. I wish them every success for the year ahead and in future.
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
Let me start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) on securing this evening’s Adjournment debate, which has come slightly earlier than we would normally expect. He has done a very good job of explaining the benefits of tri-service safety officers in Devon and Cornwall, who set an example that, as he said, the rest of the country can follow.
We in the Home Office are keen to see a lot more co-operation between blue light services; that is happening in some other parts of the country as well, but not in such an integrated way. In Humberside, Bedfordshire and the wider eastern region, fire and rescue services already work with the health service on dedicated falls and bariatric teams, helping the ambulance service to deal with incidents. In fact, in the year to September 2023, fire and rescue services in England attended 16,000 medical incidents, in addition to 34,000 incidents affecting entry or exit to premises, so there is some co-operation around the country already.
In our White Paper, we strongly encourage further co-operation between blue light services. As my hon. Friend said, in rural areas, where there is not such density of coverage, it makes a great deal of sense for police, ambulance and fire services to work together to provide a response. The tri-service safety officers in Devon and Cornwall, whom he described, are a shining example of how that can work in practice, benefiting residents the length and breadth of both counties. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work in encouraging and supporting those tri-service safety officers.
I pay tribute to the fantastic police and crime commissioner for Devon and Cornwall, Alison Hernandez, who has worked very hard to make this happen. The work of police and crime commissioners can really make a difference, as hers has. In parts of the country such as Essex and Staffordshire where we have police, fire and crime commissioners, this kind of co-operation between police and fire becomes quite a lot easier. I also pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann), who is sitting next to me. He has campaigned successfully to reopen Bude community police station; it recently reopened, and has a tri-service safety officer based in it, for the benefit of all residents of Bude and the surrounding neighbourhoods.
I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay said about value for money: each of the three services has to contribute only about £16,000 per TSSO, which is a great deal cheaper than funding a position each. I very much hope that the police and fire services in Devon and Cornwall will continue to fund that. I am sure that he is making the case, both to Health Ministers and to the local integrated care board, for that funding to continue. If he wants any assistance from me in lobbying my ministerial colleagues, he has only to ask, and I will be happy to do that, but I am sure that he and his colleagues in Devon and Cornwall are doing that.
I agree with my hon. Friend’s point that other rural forces in England and Wales could learn from what has been happening in Devon and Cornwall. That applies less to large urban areas, where police forces and ambulance services are already very densely concentrated. However, even in urban areas, the fire service tends to be under-used, so there is an opportunity to get the fire service to do more to assist the ambulance service in providing responses. I have been discussing that with my colleagues at the Department of Health and Social Care. However, as he eloquently described and explained, tri-service safety officers could work well in other rural or sparsely populated areas. Cumbria, which now has a police, fire and crime commissioner, springs to mind [Interruption.] I hear support for Cumbria from my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mark Jenkinson). I will happily raise that point with the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the National Fire Chiefs Council, and will commend the model for consideration by rural forces and fire services around the country.
My hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay has set out the good work going on in Devon and Cornwall, and the positive impact of tri-service safety officers. Again, I commend police and crime commissioner Alison Hernandez for making this happen. I will do everything I can to assist colleagues in Devon and Cornwall, and rural forces around the country, in making sure that as many places as possible can benefit from this excellent initiative.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft European Organization for Astronomical Research in the Southern Hemisphere and the European Space Agency (Immunities and Privileges) (Amendment) Order 2023
(10 months, 2 weeks ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Leo Docherty)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft European Organization for Astronomical Research in the Southern Hemisphere and the European Space Agency (Immunities and Privileges) (Amendment) Order 2023.
The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Common-wealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) would have been delighted to have taken part in this debate, but unfortunately he is currently travelling on his ministerial duties, so it is my great pleasure to introduce this important statutory instrument.
The order will allow the European Space Agency’s senior officials to fulfil their roles in the UK by bringing into domestic law the headquarters agreement that the UK signed with the agency in 2013. It will enable the smooth operation of the agency’s facilities at the Harwell science and innovation campus in Oxfordshire. It will also foster closer collaboration between the agency and the UK Government and support the development of the space industry, stimulated by the facility at Harwell.
The order was laid in draft before Parliament on 18 December, in accordance with the International Organisations Act 1968. It is subject to the affirmative procedure and will be made once it is approved by both Houses. Its purpose is to amend the European Space Agency (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1978 through an amendment to the European Organization for Astronomical Research in the Southern Hemisphere and the European Space Agency (Immunities and Privileges) (Amendment) Order 2018, which sought to amend the 1978 order but did so incorrectly.
This order amends the 2018 order in a clear and coherent manner, and in doing so creates in the 1978 order a stand-alone article for the head of the Harwell centre and high-ranking staff. In doing so, it will correctly reflect the privileges and immunities set out in the 2013 headquarters agreement, which provides for the establishment and operation of a facility by the agency at Harwell.
The 2018 order failed to correctly provide the agency’s head of the Harwell centre and up to seven high-ranking staff with immunity from suit and legal privileges and the inviolability of their residences in the UK under the 1968 Act, thus failing to correctly implement the terms of the headquarters agreement into UK domestic law. Because of the errors, neither the headquarters agreement nor the 2018 order were brought into force, so in practice the head of the Harwell centre and the seven senior high-ranking staff were under-protected. Their privileges and immunities were equivalent to the functional immunities provided to European Space Agency staff under article 16 of the 1978 order. Colleagues will be pleased to hear that no negative consequences have been identified as a result.
The order corrects the omissions and affords the head of the Harwell centre and up to seven high-ranking staff members the same privileges and immunities to which a head of a diplomatic mission and diplomatic agents of a diplomatic mission established in the UK are entitled. The change is a prerequisite for the 2013 headquarters agreement to enter into force. Additionally, the 1978 order has been amended to also include an exemption from the legal suit and process immunity in the case of a motor traffic offence or damage caused by a motor vehicle.
The Government consider the privileges and immunities both necessary and appropriate to deliver on the UK’s interests and commitments in respect of the agency. The privileges and immunities conferred enable its head and high-ranking staff to operate effectively in the UK. They are within scope of the 1968 Act and in line with UK precedents. The agency’s other staff are subject only to official act immunities. Making this amendment means that the other provisions of the 2018 order can also be brought into force, covering entry into the UK, customs provisions and immunity from legal process within the scope of official activities. The provisions also cover the inviolability of official documents and correspondence, the inviolability of the agency’s premises, statutory meetings, foreign currency exchange, the functional immunity of staff and an immunity waiver.
To conclude, the support for the agency’s facility in Harwell that will be ensured through this order is a unique opportunity to showcase UK leadership in the space industry on a global stage. Through the agency, the UK can undertake missions that no European nation can deliver alone, facilitating scientific collaborations with international partners that raise the profile of UK science, technology and inspirational achievements in space. The agency’s growth in Harwell is more important than ever when we consider how our reliance on space missions and technology has evolved in recent years. Global telecommunication, cutting-edge technologies and the way that space exploration can inspire young people to study disciplines in science, technology, engineering and maths means we need to foster close relationships with domestic and international space communities. The European Space Agency is key to that work, and the UK remains committed to that organisation as it develops its headquarters here. I therefore commend this order to the Committee.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Fovargue. I thank the Minister for setting out the specifics of this SI in more detail. We will not seek to divide the Committee on this necessary measure.
We regularly discuss how immunities and privileges orders affect international organisations that the UK hosts, and many individuals present in the UK are covered by such immunities and privileges. I hope the Minister can explain how the Government keep those measures under review to ensure people are not abusing those privileges. We know of some cases—including a very tragic case in the past—regarding the immunities and privileges of foreign personnel who were in the UK for very legitimate reasons.
It is right that we put in place the measures to support the presence of key organisations in the UK, including in the space sector. Indeed, we have a proud history in space exploration, research and development; it is an excellent launchpad for future growth and investment into science, technology, engineering and maths sectors, and for inspiring the younger generation to go into those sectors. It provides huge opportunities for our economy, pushes our technological boundaries, and boosts our soft power for developing strategic inter-dependence with our allies, including those across Europe. In that regard, it is very important that the ESA has a robust presence in the UK, and that there are well-defined and open lines of dialogue and co-ordination between the UK space sector and that organisation.
The cluster at Harwell is very significant. A number of key programmes operate there, including the Advanced Research in Telecommunications Systems programme, and those of the European Centre for Space Applications and Telecommunication. There is also key work being done there, including the monitoring of major meteorological events and climate change research, and on making sure that data is shared with other researchers and institutions across the UK.
Harwell is home to a key space cluster that looks at how space technology and research can be applied to business, and at boosting investment in space technology—particularly satellite remote sensing technology. I know that particularly at Harwell they are looking at issues around communications from satellites and remote sensing down to the ground here in the UK. Therefore, it is important that the privileges and immunities, including those in the original order, are suitably updated.
The original order also refers to role of the European Southern Observatory—another a key organisation that we are part of—which has links to many institutions and sectors across the UK. In 2020, the ESO’s research potentially underpinned the discovery of phosphene—one of the key building blocks of life—in the atmosphere of Venus. It was actually a British astronomer, Jane Greaves at Cardiff University, who used the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array telescope—part of the ESO—to try and confirm the detection of that element. That potential discovery is currently being hotly debated by scientists.
The ESO is linked to the facilities at Harwell and the University of Oxford in ensuring the construction of the High Angular Resolution Monolithic Optical and Near-infrared Integral field spectrograph for the Extremely Large Telescope. To do this, the observatory is working with the University of Oxford, the UK Astronomy Technology Centre and the ELT’s MOSAIC programme. There are many different collaborations around those programmes, and it is very important that the diplomatic and legal frameworks are in place to ensure they happen.
Again, we will not oppose the order as it is important that these measures are in place. I hope the Minister will say more in his concluding remarks about how we are seeking to further develop co-operation with our European and transatlantic partners—particularly in North and South America—in the area of space research. As we see an era of extreme geopolitical competition and risk to the United Kingdom, and indeed to our European and transatlantic allies, could the Minister explain why space technology, and ensuring that we have those collaborations, is critical—not only for business, technological and scientific research, but also for our national security?
Leo Docherty (Aldershot) (Con)
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s response. He raises some cogent questions, and he is indeed correct to say that those involved in space exploration are an inspiration to young people, who might study STEM and go into the industry. I remember with great fondness my meeting with the astronaut Tim Peake at the Farnborough air show in my constituency, to which colleagues will no doubt come again this year to see the remarkable contribution that British innovation is making to space research. As the hon. Gentleman points out, it is another domain of our security competition with both allies and competitors around the world. Our international collaboration with NATO partners and beyond in the domain of space is increasingly important for security, in which we are leading the way.
The hon. Gentleman asked a very good question about how we will continue to review the arrangements of immunity with regard to meeting our obligations to host international organisations in the UK. We will always keep them under institutional review. We are keenly aware of our obligations to host international organisations and of our obligations under the Vienna convention, but we are also aware of the local sensitivities that can arise because of those obligations. As an institution, the Foreign Office continues to keep them under review.
I sense that the Committee is convinced of the utility of this order. The Committee knows that, in granting these privileges and immunities, we will be able to bring the headquarters agreement into force. In doing so, we will be better positioned to support the UK space cluster, which was mentioned. We will also better placed to work with and influence the European Space Agency as a result. The future is bright for British space, as will be showcased in my constituency at the Farnborough air show later this year, at which all colleagues will be made very welcome. I am grateful for their time this afternoon, and I trust that all members of the Committee will support this order.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(10 months, 2 weeks ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Cabinet Office
(10 months, 2 weeks ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
John Glen
As I have said, if the House of Commons has indicated its will by the amendment, that piece of legislation moves to the House of Lords and the Government will respond at that point. That is the week after next. That is the process of the House. I have recognised the need to ensure that we get the clinical, legal and care experts in place. They are in place, and they are working on some of the complex issues the hon. Lady alludes to. The psychological support is now in place, but I am doing everything I can in every dimension of this complicated problem to deliver as quickly as I can.
[Official Report, 18 January 2024, Vol. 743, c. 1015.]
Letter of correction from the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General:
An error has been identified in my response to the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) in Topical Questions. The correct response should have been:
John Glen
As I have said, if the House of Commons has indicated its will by the amendment, that piece of legislation moves to the House of Lords and the Government will respond at that point. That is the week after next. That is the process of the House. I have recognised the need to ensure that we get the clinical, legal and care experts in place. They are in place, and they are working on some of the complex issues the hon. Lady alludes to. The psychological support will be in place by summer 2024, but I am doing everything I can in every dimension of this complicated problem to deliver as quickly as I can.
Written Statements
(10 months, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Sports Grounds Safety Authority Licence Fee
(10 months, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lucy Frazer)
I wish to inform the House that the Government have taken the decision to reform the Sports Grounds Safety Authority (SGSA) licence fee structure.
The SGSA is the regulator for spectator safety which includes the 92 designated football grounds in the premier league and English football league, as well as Wembley stadium and the Principality stadium. The SGSA also acts as the UK Government’s adviser on safety at sports grounds and is a world leader in safety.
As part of its regulatory role, the SGSA issues licences to allow grounds to permit spectators to watch matches. The annual licence fee for clubs was set in 1993 at £100, which does not reflect the cost of regulation.
In 2022 the SGSA took part in the Cabinet Office public bodies review programme, which concluded the current funding model is
“inflexible and not fit for purpose, with the licence fee not reflecting the costs of regulation”.
In the Government response, we committed to working closely with the SGSA to consider the implications and practicalities of amending its existing funding model and explore options to enact any changes.
I am pleased to say that we have acted upon the review’s recommendation and that from the 2024-25 season, the SGSA will be implementing a new fee structure for designated football grounds licensed by the SGSA. I have determined that the fee will be based on official average league attendance over the previous two seasons. This decision follows a six-week targeted consultation led by the SGSA with the industry on the proposals to change the licence fee.
This change will ensure that the cost of regulation is met by industry and reduce the burden on the taxpayer. The SGSA will conduct a three-year review of the licence fee, which will include consultation with the sector.
[HCWS238]
Public Health Grant: Local Authority Allocations 2024-25
(10 months, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dame Andrea Leadsom)
Today I am publishing the Public Health Grant allocations to local authorities in England for 2024-25.
Funding for local government’s health responsibilities is an essential element of our commitment to investing in preventing ill health, promoting healthier lives and addressing health disparities, and an important complement to our investment in both health and social care.
In 2024-25, we are increasing funding through the Public Health Grant and the pilot of 100% retained business rate funding for local authorities in Greater Manchester to £3.603 billion.
The allocations I am announcing today are part of a wider package of investment in public health services. From 2024-25 we are investing an additional £70 million per year to support local authority-led stop smoking services—nearly doubling current spend on these services—in support of our commitment to deliver a smoke-free generation. This further supplements targeted DHSC allocations to local authorities over the spending review period of £516 million to improve drug and alcohol addiction treatment and recovery, and £170 million to improve the Start for Life services.
This overall package will deliver a real-terms increase of more than 4% over the two years 2023-24 and 2024-25 in DHSC funding allocated for local authority public health functions over the spending review period, enabling local authorities to invest in the prevention of ill health and in essential frontline services.
The 2024-25 Public Health Grant will continue to be subject to conditions, including a ring-fence requiring local authorities to use the grant exclusively for public health activity.
Full details of the Public Health Grant allocations to local authorities for 2024-25 can be found on www.gov.uk. This information has been communicated to local authorities in a Local Authority Circular.
Attachments can be viewed online at:
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2024-02-05/HCWS239/.
[HCWS239]
Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill: Public Consultation
(10 months, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Tom Tugendhat)
Today the Government have launched a public consultation on the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill. The Bill is also known as ‘Martyn’s Law’ in tribute to Martyn Hett, who was tragically killed alongside 21 others in the Manchester Arena terrorist attack in 2017.
The Government reaffirmed their commitment to introduce this important piece of legislation in the King’s Speech on 7 November 2023. Extensive engagement and support from security partners, business and victims’ groups, including Figen Murray and the Martyn’s Law Campaign Team, has enabled significant progress on the development of Martyn’s Law to date. The Government would like, once again, to pay particular thanks to Figen Murray for her tireless campaigning and the significant personal contribution she has made to progressing this Bill.
Overview
The threat picture is complex, evolving, and enduring, with terrorists choosing to attack a broad range of locations. Since the start of 2017 there have been 14 terror attacks in the UK. Too many have sadly lost their lives.
The Bill will ensure premises in the UK are better prepared for terrorist attacks by requiring them to take necessary but proportionate steps according to their capacity to mitigate the impact of a terrorist attack and reduce harm. Our expert security partners strongly consider that even basic knowledge will help to protect the public in the event of an attack. Through the Bill, those responsible for premises will be better prepared and ready to respond in the event of a terrorist attack, thereby enhancing public safety.
Following an 18-week public consultation on proposals in 2021, the Government confirmed their intention to bring forward the Bill in December 2022. To ensure the measures can meaningfully enhance public safety while remaining proportionate, we requested that the Home Affairs Select Committee (HASC) conduct pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill, which was published in May 2023.
Pre-legislative scrutiny, as well as our extensive engagement programme, provided important feedback from parliamentarians, businesses and other key stake-holders. This feedback particularly focused on the application of the proposals in relation to standard duty premises. These premises—the Standard Tier—are smaller, being largely those with a capacity of 100 to 799 individuals, e.g. many retail stores, bars, restaurants, theatres and village halls.
Next steps
On the strength of that feedback, we have revised the Standard Tier requirements to make them clearer and more proportionate, while ensuring they deliver on their primary objective: to implement simple procedures which could reduce harm and save lives in the event of a suspected attack. The consultation is focused specifically on this revised approach to the Standard Tier.
Consultation
This new approach is considered to be more proportionate, meaningful, effective and transparent than that previously agreed for the following reasons:
The purpose of the primary duty is now outcome-focused, aligns with comparable regimes—i.e. Health and Safety—and removes any previous assumptions around the Standard Tier requirements being too instructive and rigid, i.e. a “tick box” exercise.
It brings greater clarity to costs and expectations, i.e. the Standard Tier holds no legal requirement for premises to consider physical security measures, but focuses on procedures and the actions people working at the premises should take in response to an attack.
It measures all premises in scope against the same standard of “reasonably practicable”. This approach is better suited to the wide range of organisations that will be within scope of the Standard Tier because they will assess and implement procedures that are suitable for their individual circumstances. The “reasonably practicable” test includes what is financially feasible for premises.
We have moved away from a prescribed training requirement—i.e. a one size fits all package for all relevant staff. Instead, those responsible will be required to ensure that their procedures are adequately communicated and practised by relevant staff. Again, in implementing relevant procedures, those responsible will be held to a “reasonably practicable” standard.
The consultation seeks specific feedback on these measures to ensure the updated requirements proposed for Standard Tier premises are appropriate.
It also seeks respondents’ views on how any costs incurred by the Standard Tier requirements should be met and how premises currently meet similar obligations under Health and Safety and Fire Safety legislation.
The consultation will run until 18 March 2024 and is available on www.gov.uk. It is open to the public, and is targeted at organisations, businesses, and local and public authorities, and/or individuals who own or operate premises that the proposed Bill would affect. We particularly welcome views from those responsible for the smaller premises which would fall within the Standard Tier, especially those in the community and voluntary sector.
I am looking forward to concluding the consultation process, which will support the Government in finalising the legislation and ensuring it is robust and delivers on its core aims ahead of a formal introduction to Parliament.
A copy of the consultation will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS240]
Local Government Finance Settlement 2024-25
(10 months, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Michael Gove)
Today, I set out the final local government finance settlement for 2024-25. This makes available up to £64.7 billion for local authorities in England, an increase in core spending power of up to £4.5 billion, or 7.5% in cash terms, an above-inflation increase, on 2023-24.
The final settlement follows the consultation on the provisional settlement, which closed on 15 January. Having considered the responses, listened to councils, and received representations from colleagues, on 24 January I announced additional measures for local authorities worth £600 million. This included £500 million of new funding for councils with responsibility for adult and children’s social care, distributed through the social care grant. By making progress on the Government’s plan to halve inflation, grow the economy and reduce debt, we now can provide this extra funding to councils to continue to deliver vital services for their communities. Further details on the exceptional provision of this funding will be set out at the upcoming Budget.
Today I am laying before the House: the “Local Government Finance Report (England) 2024-25”; the “Referendums Relating to Council Tax Increases (Principles) (England) Report 2024-25”; and the “Referendums Relating to Council Tax Increases (Alternative Notional Amounts) (England) Report 2024-2025”. Together, these form the final local government finance settlement for 2024-25.
We received 267 responses to the provisional 2024-25 local government finance settlement consultation, and I am grateful to everyone who took the time to respond. Following the consultation and engagement process on the provisional settlement, we have made the following changes, which ensures a balanced settlement for the sector.
Social care
I am confirming an additional £500 million for social care services, as announced on 24 January. This will be allocated through the social care grant, which is ringfenced for adult and children’s social care. Together with the additional funding proposed at the provisional settlement, local authorities can therefore make use of a total of £8.7 billion in grant funding for social care through the 2024-25 settlement, including £1.5 billion in additional grant compared to 2023-24. This is made up of:
£5 billion through the social care grant, a £1.2 billion increase on 2023-24, including £500 million additional funding as announced on 24 January;
£1.1 billion through the market sustainability and improvement fund, a £123 million increase on 2023-24;
£500 million through the discharge fund, a £200 million increase to the local authority component on 2023-24; and
£2.1 billion through the improved better care fund.
While being mindful of pressures in adult social care, where possible councils should use the uplift to the social care grant to invest in areas that help place children’s social care services on a sustainable financial footing. This includes investment in expanding family help and targeted early intervention, expanding kinship care, and boosting the number of foster carers. The Government are committed to delivering substantive reform to children’s social care. That is why in 2023 we published our strategy for reform, “Stable Homes, Built on Love”, and over these next two years we will lay the foundations for wide-reaching reform across the whole system. The strategy is backed by £200 million of additional investment in the current spending review period, so that we can begin making progress immediately.
Council tax
The Government are committed to continuing to protect local taxpayers from excessive council tax increases. This settlement confirms our intention for referendum principles of up to 3% for core council tax and up to 2% for the adult social care precept in 2024-25. These provisions are not a cap, nor do they force councils to set taxes at the threshold level. When taking decisions on council tax levels, I expect all councillors, Mayors, police and crime commissioners and local councils to take into consideration the pressures many households are facing and the need to control unnecessary and wasteful expenditure. In Wales, the Welsh Labour Government have refused to introduce any referendum protection for council tax payers, leading to soaring council tax. Indeed, under the last Labour Government in England, council tax bills more than doubled.
The Government’s view continues to be that councils that have taken decisions to get themselves in the most severe financial failure 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, bespoke council tax referendum principles will apply. For Thurrock Council, Slough Borough Council and Woking Borough Council, a council tax referendum principle of 10% will apply—for Thurrock and Slough, this comprises 2% for expenditure on adult social care, and 8% for other expenditure.
Birmingham City Council has requested flexibility to increase council tax bills by an additional 5%. The Government have expressed ongoing concern about the significant financial mismanagement at the council and have launched a five-year intervention to tackle its serious financial and governance problems. It is disappointing that Birmingham City taxpayers are having to foot the bill for the council’s poor governance and decision making. While the Government will not oppose this request given the seriousness of the circumstances, any decision to increase council tax is solely one for Birmingham City Council, which should have taken into account the pressures that people in Birmingham are currently facing on living costs. The Government are of course conscious of the effect on local taxpayers, particularly those on low incomes, of having to foot part of the bill for these councils’ very significant failings. We have been clear to each of the councils that in implementing any additional increases, they should take steps to mitigate the impact on those least able to pay.
Funding guarantee
I am confirming that, having listened to the requests of local government during the consultation period, and in acknowledgment of the pressures facing all tiers of local government, we are increasing the funding guarantee from 3% to 4%. This means every council in England will receive at least 4% more core spending power, in cash terms, than they did last year, before they have taken any local decisions on council tax.
Rural services delivery grant
I am also confirming that, in response to the consultation feedback and in recognition of the specific challenges and difficulties local councils can face serving rural, sparse populations, we are increasing the rural services delivery grant by £15 million in 2024-25. This is an increase of over 15%, making available a total of £110 million next year. This is the largest cash increase in the rural services delivery grant since 2018-19 and the second successive year of above inflation increases.
Services grant and islands
At the provisional settlement, we announced that the services grant would reduce to £77 million in 2024-25. The Government have noted the concerns raised in the consultation about the proposed reduction, and the calls for clarity on how the reduction has been reallocated within the settlement.
As announced on 24 January, the Government have responded with a funding package worth £600 million for local government, including £500 million of additional funding for social care. The Government’s full response to the consultation has been published today and provides more detail on how the reduction in the services grant has been used to uplift other settlement grants. These decisions have been taken to ensure a balanced settlement for all authorities that reflects our assessment of need.
The Government also intend to bring the final total of the services grant to £87 million—£10 million more than the value consulted on at the provisional settlement. This uplift includes an additional £3 million for the Isle of Wight and £0.15 million for the Isles of Scilly in recognition of the circumstances facing island authorities.
Measures outside of the local government finance settlement
Having listened to authorities which continue to face sustained increases to their internal drainage board levies, we are again providing exceptional funding of £3 million in addition to the settlement to support those experiencing the biggest pressures. We will confirm the distribution of this funding in the coming months when data on projected levy spend becomes available. We will work with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to explore options to implement a long-term solution.
Every authority in England also stands to benefit from increased growth in business rates income, which has generated a surplus in the business rates levy account in 2023-24. I can confirm that £100 million will be returned to the sector on a one-off basis, to be distributed based on each local authority’s 2013-14 settlement funding assessment. I am also announcing today that we will compensate local authorities for the green plant and machinery business rates exemption via grant on a continuing basis until the business rates retention system is reset.
On 19 December 2023, my Department launched a consultation seeking views on options relating to capital flexibilities and borrowing. The aim of this exercise was to explore options for allowing councils greater financial flexibilities to make savings and better manage their own budgets overall. We want to ensure every penny of taxpayer money is well spent and we are considering carefully what proportionate safeguards are needed alongside these measures. This consultation closed on 31 January 2024. I am grateful to all those who took the time to provide views. The Government intend to publish a full response to this consultation in the spring.
Efficiency and reform
I would like to emphasise that this additional funding needs to be used by local authorities to deliver the frontline services on which our communities rely. It should not be put aside for later use, nor spent wastefully. We will therefore continue to monitor the level of local authority reserves. The Government note that while 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.
As part of our efforts to return the sector to sustainability in the future, we are also asking local authorities to develop and share productivity plans. These plans will set out how local authorities will improve service performance and reduce wasteful expenditure, for example on consultants or discredited equality, diversity and inclusion programmes. Government will monitor these plans, and funding settlements in future will be informed by performance against these plans.
My Department will work with the local government sector on the approach to producing these plans. The plans should be short and draw on work councils have already done, identifying ways to unlock productivity improvements and setting out the key implementation milestones. Plans should be published by July 2024 before the House rises for the summer recess. They must be agreed by council leaders and members and published on local authority websites, together with updates on progress.
We expect them to cover four main areas:
1) transformation of services to make better use of resources;
2) opportunities to take advantage of advances in technology and make better use of data to inform decision making and service design;
3) ways to reduce wasteful spend within systems, including specific consideration of expenditure on consultants and discredited staff equality, diversity and inclusion programmes—this does not include programmes designed to promote integration and civic pride, and counter extremism; and
4) barriers preventing activity that Government can help to reduce or remove.
Alongside this, we will establish a new productivity review panel, made up of sector experts including the Office for Local Government and the Local Government Association.
The Government are grateful to all those who provided views on the proposal to use levers in local government finance settlements beyond 2024-25 to disincentivise the “four day working week” or equivalent arrangements of part-time work for full-time pay. The Government continue to believe that this reduces the potential capacity to deliver services by up to 20%, and as a result does not deliver value. We will consider responses to this question carefully as part of continuing policy development to deter local government from operating these practices, with any changes at future settlements subject to further consultation.
We are committed to improving the local government finance system beyond this settlement in the next Parliament and the Minister for Local Government—the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare)—will be engaging with the sector over the coming months.
Conclusion
This settlement, and the changes we have made to address concerns raised through the consultation, will provide local authorities with the tools to support their local communities, continue to reform their services for the long-term, and help communities prepare for the future.
This written ministerial statement covers England only. The Barnett formula will apply to this funding in the usual way.
[HCWS241]
Disability Action Plan: Publication
(10 months, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Mims Davies)
Later today I shall make an oral statement on this subject.
[HCWS242]
Grand Committee
(10 months, 2 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(10 months, 2 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
My Lords, I apologise for my extremely croaky voice; there is a bug going round, so I am told. If there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill
Monday 5th February 2024
(10 months, 2 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 View all Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 12-VI Sixth marshalled list for Grand Committee - (5 Feb 2024)
Baroness Morgan of Cotes
“(1A) A commercial practice also meets the specified prohibition condition if the commercial practice targets consumers with marketing material for products intended to be used by that person to take their own life.”
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak here this afternoon. I apologise to the Committee for not being able to speak at Second Reading. I declare my interest as the founder and trustee of a mental health charity in Leicestershire, the Loughborough Wellbeing Centre.
It will not surprise my noble friend the Minister, I suspect, to know that this is a probing amendment. However, given that we are debating in this part of the Bill the enforcement of consumer protection, the matter that I raise relates directly to the greatest harm that a consumer can suffer: their death.
In June 2022, I asked my noble friend Lord Parkinson the following Oral Question: what plans do
“Her Majesty’s Government … have to address online retailers’ algorithmic recommendations for products that can be used for the purposes of suicide”?
At the time, the most obvious Bill to address this matter was the Online Safety Bill, which, as we know, focused on harmful content in particular. In my follow-up question, I said:
“When a particular well-known suicide manual is searched for on Amazon, the site’s algorithmic recommendations then specifically suggest material that can be used, or easily assembled, into a device intended to take one’s own life. If this is not to be regulated as harmful content under the Online Safety Bill, how can this sort of harm be regulated?”—[Official Report, 27/6/22; col. 434.]
This amendment is particularly close to my heart because, sadly, when I was a Member of Parliament, a constituent bought a manual on Amazon then completed suicide. The amendment would amend Clause 149 by expanding the specified prohibition condition definition by adding a commercial practice that
“targets consumers with marketing material for products intended to be used by that person to take their own life.”
I am grateful to the Mental Health Foundation for its support with this amendment.
Even today, Amazon continues to algorithmically recommend products that can be used to take one’s own life to users viewing suicide manuals online. To be specific, users searching for a suicide manual will be recommended specific materials that are touted as being highly effective and painless ways to take one’s own life. Amazon facilitates users purchasing the key items that they need, from instructions to materials, in a few clicks. I would like to think that this is not intentional.
In the overwhelming majority of cases, such automatic recommendation will be harmless and will help consumers to find products that might interest them. However, in this instance, a usually harmless algorithm is functioning to provide people with material that they may use to end their own lives. This risk is not just theoretical. Amazon is recommending products that there have been concerted public health efforts to address in this country and which are known to have caused deaths. So as not to make them better known, I will not name them.
It is particularly important that Amazon ceases to highlight novel suicide methods, as its recommendation algorithm currently does by recommending products to users. There is clear evidence that, when a particular suicide method becomes better known, the effect is not simply that suicidal people switch from one intended method to the novel one but that suicide occurs in people who would not otherwise have taken their own lives. This probing amendment is intended to draw the Government’s attention to this concerning issue. I have spoken about Amazon today given its position in the market and its known bad practice in this area, but the principle of course goes beyond Amazon. New retailers may well emerge in the future and a principle should be established that this type of behaviour is not acceptable.
While I suspect that my noble friend the Minister is going to tell me that the Bill is not the right place for this amendment, I hope that he will agree that a crackdown on these harmful algorithmic recommendations to protect consumers—it was the word “consumers” that meant that it was not suitable for the Online Safety Bill—is needed, in the spirit of consumer protection sought in the Bill. I hope that, at the very least, he will agree to meet me to discuss this further and to help me to raise it with the relevant department, if it is not his. I beg to move Amendment 110.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I have one amendment in this group, Amendment 110A, which will be echoed in subsequent groups as part of a general concern about making sure that trading standards are an effective body in the UK and are able to do what they are supposed to do to look after consumers.
As the Minister will know, because we were part of the same conversation, the CMA is concerned that trading standards may have been reduced to the point where they are not as effective as they ought to be. Looking at some of the local cuts—in Enfield, for instance, four officers have been cut down to one—and listening to various people involved in trading standards, there is a general concern that, as they are set up and funded at the moment, they are not able to perform the role that they should be. Given the importance that enforcers have in the structure that the Government are putting together, I am asking in this amendment that the Government review that effectiveness, take a serious look at the structures that they have created and their capability of performing as they would wish under the Bill and report within a reasonable period.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I entirely support what the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, had to say in her probing amendment. It takes us back to the Online Safety Bill debate. The final question that she asked is crucial: if not here, where? We must have a means of being able to prevent the sale of these products. She has highlighted it and I hope that the Minister has a satisfactory reply, so that, in short order, we can make sure that these products are not for sale in these online marketplaces.
I also entirely support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. It will become clearer and clearer as we move through the groups that adequate resources are required for trading standards. We impose a large number of duties on them, yet we appear not to give them the resources. In fact, their resources have dwindled over the years, as I know that the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, and my noble friend Lady Bakewell would have outlined if they had been present. In respect of their amendments, which I will come on to later, I am the understudy’s understudy, because the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, cannot be here today, I gather, nor can my noble friend Lady Bakewell. It falls to me to make a fist of talking to Amendments 112 all the way through to 127, which I will attempt. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, will be making an even better attempt in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, as I understand. Hopefully, the Minister will take on board what we have to say when the time comes.
Very briefly, I want to speak to Amendments 111 and 122, which relate to increasing the scope of the monetary penalties under the Bill. Amendment 111 applies this to Clause 157 for court enforcement orders when the public designated enforcer, such as the CMA, considers that a person is engaged or is likely to engage in a commercial practice that constitutes a relevant infringement and the court makes such an enforcement order on the public designated enforcer’s application. Amendment 222 applies this to CMA final infringement notices under Clause 181, for when the CMA imposes an infringement notice after an investigation into suspected infringements.
Current drafting limits the penalties to
“£300,000 or, if higher, 10% of the total value of the turnover (if any) of the respondent”.
However, a respondent may have made a huge profit as a result of infringements. Fines of a mere £300,000 are unlikely to incentivise good behaviour. In circumstances where 10% of the total value of the turnover is higher, our legal advice is that the UK would typically follow current EU practice, unless something in UK legislation specifically allowed it not to do so, such as we propose in these amendments. In the EU, the fine has to relate to the turnover of the activity in issue and its duration, which, in practice, makes it a much smaller number. To get to group worldwide turnover requires evidence of head office involvement. It should be made clear that to calculate the penalty amount the CMA and the court are able to take into account the profit made by the respondent.
Penalties are supposed to provide an incentive not to break the law, which raises the real question: why are fines related to turnover at all? To ensure good behaviour, they should strip the lawbreaker of the profits gained from lawbreaking. Where a platform can harm millions and only a few take it to task if it pays off the fee, breaking the law pays back handsomely. Authorities could be given the power to directly award exemplary damages of this type in these circumstances. In practice, fines are a fraction of turnover and profits. The largest fine to date was the €4.3 billion imposed on Google in respect of its Android device restriction, which is a long way ahead of other recent fines, but Google makes something of the order of $70 billion a quarter in turnover.
This amendment would also focus on the abusive practice, not the abuse only in relation to effects in one market. For example, Google changed its algorithm in 2007 to promote its own products at the top of its search results. It does so for news, maps, images, shopping and things such as flight booking. That pushes more relevant and better businesses down the rankings so that they get less business and competition is distorted. The practice is governed by an algorithm called universal search. The EU Commission had the resource only to investigate shopping; the fine was €204 billion. Google carries on discriminating in all areas but shopping. A fine could and should be calculated in relation to the abusive practice, of which shopping is an example; otherwise, breaking the law pays and behaviour does not change. Seeing the fine in relation to the profit gained from the practice would be fair. It would deprive the wrongdoer of the gains from breaking the law and is likely to change behaviour. An account of profits could easily be done.
I turn to Amendments 112 to 120 in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, my noble friend Lady Bakewell and the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley. As I said, unfortunately none of those proposers is able to be present today, but all their amendments relate to widening the scope of how appropriate court action can take place and they all come under the banner of consumer protection and enforcement, especially for a level playing field to operate in the current marketplace.
Amendments 112, 113 and 114 are about consumer protection orders and undertakings under Clause 159 and cover applications to the appropriate court for an online interface order or an interim online interface order. Clause 159 extends the court’s online interface powers to the enactments, obligations and rules of law categorised as domestic infringements and it is to be welcomed. The Explanatory Notes to the Bill give examples of where online interface orders could be useful, especially in the area of underage sales products. This has been thrown into sharp relief by the Government’s proposals on banning the selling of vapes to underage children and young people. In relation to weights and measures, it is possible that, in order to avoid local inspection systems in the UK, an online supply of short-weight goods would need urgent follow-up with an application for an online interface order against the third-party overseas website where rogue traders are mis-selling to UK consumers.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I was initially going to say that this is a disparate group of amendments but, as I have heard the arguments adduced, I have realised that it has more coherence to it.
The Committee should pass a vote of thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, for tabling her amendment. This is an incredibly sensitive issue and one that in spirit we completely support—why wouldn’t you? If I were in the noble Baroness’s position, having dealt with cases of the sort that she has, I, too, would probably be mounting a campaign on this. We should be grateful to the Mental Health Foundation for the support that it has given. It cannot be right that usually harmless algorithms are used for another purpose like this and it would be helpful if we could get some clarity to the law.
This issue raises highly sensitive issues about online purchases. It is hard to envisage that any commercial undertaking, whether online or trading on our high streets, would deliberately market a product knowing that it was likely to be used for acts of self-harm and far worse. I will listen carefully to what the Minister has to say on this. If there is something that can usefully be done in legislation and there is an opportunity to do it here, we should take that opportunity.
I turn to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, which initially I thought put the cart before the horse, but I do not think so any more. It is a neat amendment that is usefully placed. The noble Lord is looking at how the effectiveness of trading standards is measured and looking at their resource and support.
About 20 or 30 years ago, I was a trading standards national officer. I was not a trading standards officer, but I used to lobby government for resources on behalf of trading standards, which always used to say they did not have enough resource. The answer from the Government at the time was pretty much the same as I am expecting the answer to be this afternoon: that the Government are resourcing trading standards well and that they do a very good job. However, there is a good case for reviewing their effectiveness, particularly in the light of the other amendments in this group.
I will come back to Amendment 111 in a moment, but Amendments 112 to 120 relate very neatly to the scope and jurisdiction of weights and measures—ie, trading standards. They would significantly broaden the responsibilities of trading standards officers, who presumably would take on investigatory and enforcement responsibilities on a shared basis with the CMA. We have sympathy with these amendments because there is a strong case for local enforcement. I understand that people living in a locality might want to go to their local authority trading standards officers for advice, support and encouragement in seeking enforcement against rogue online traders. If we embark on this route there will need to be protocols in place so that duplication does not occur and so that there is good advice and information from officers locally working in tandem with CMA officials, and of course there would be a question of resource and support for local trading standards officers. Ministers and the Government may think that this is a valuable route, but the relationship between central and local enforcement needs to be explored. These amendments valuably focus light on that, because people in any community anywhere in the country will want to know how they can access their rights as consumers dealing as much online as in the high street and offline. We have a lot of sympathy for the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Crawley, the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell.
I will go back to Amendment 111. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, argued, it is really about the detail of the enforcement of penalties and their range and scope. In general terms, we support the notion that penalties should take account of the profitability of the company which is in breach of enforcement orders—breaking the law. Again, it will be interesting to hear the Minister set out the Government’s policy in this field and explain to us how it is going to work. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Scotland Office (Lord Offord of Garvel) (Con)
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to noble Lords for their amendments in this group and for their valuable contributions on these important issues. I will start by discussing Amendment 110. moved by my noble friend Lady Morgan, whose continued leadership on this very serious and hugely important topic is commendable. Amendment 110 would make the marketing of products intended to be used to take one’s own life a specified prohibition, which would therefore be enforceable under Part 3. Like everyone who spoke, I—and the Government—recognise the tragic consequences of suicide and how so many lives and families have been devastated by it. The Government do not underestimate the gravity of this issue, and that is reflected by the measures already in place around suicide prevention and, indeed, the steps we have taken to clamp down on the advertising and supply of pro-suicide materials.
First, we have strong, well-defined laws in relation to complicity in another person’s suicide, such as the Suicide Act 1961. Building on that, where content on the internet reaches the threshold for a criminal offence under the Suicide Act 1961, the Online Safety Act will place new duties on all in-scope user-to-user services proactively to tackle it.
Under the Online Safety Act, search services have targeted duties that focus on minimising the presentation of illegal search results to users, and protecting children from such search content. These duties will play a key role in reducing traffic directed to websites with content that encourages or assists suicide, reducing the likelihood of users encountering this content. The Act also places duties on providers to protect children from harmful content that encourages, promotes or provides instructions for suicide but that does not meet the criminal threshold. Separately, the independent Advertising Standards Authority bans adverts that may cause harm or serious or widespread offence, including adverts containing references to suicide.
These approaches are supported by the Government’s suicide prevention strategy for England. As part of that, the Department of Health and Social Care leads a cross-government and cross-sector group established to rapidly identify and proactively tackle emerging methods of suicide. Through this group’s close working, there are currently over 30 live actions and interventions to reduce public access to, and limit awareness of, emerging methods, with further commitments made in the strategy. These include seeking to tackle at source the suppliers of harmful substances for the purposes of suicide, and the development of a new national process that both captures intelligence and subsequently issues alerts to relevant parts of the health, care, education and justice systems on any emerging methods or risks to be aware of.
Amendment 110 is set against this background. Its laudable intent does not fit with the purpose of Clause 149 and, by extension, Part 3. This amendment would use Part 3, which is merely an enforcement vehicle for existing duties, prohibitions or restrictions, to define and impose on traders a substantive legal prohibition. Once again, I am extremely grateful for my noble friend’s amendment. I applaud her passionate sponsorship of this vital issue and would be delighted to meet, as requested. However, at this moment, I hope she feels reassured enough by existing measures to withdraw the amendment.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lucas for Amendment 110A. The Government fully agree with him that, as with any statute, Part 3 needs to be kept under review to ensure that it achieves its intended real-world impacts. However, it is important to note that the court-based consumer enforcement regime under Chapter 3 of Part 3 is not new. In general, it updates and simplifies the current court-based enforcement regime in Part 8 of the Enterprise Act 2002. There are therefore existing mechanisms for reviewing the effectiveness of consumer enforcement, which we believe to be sufficient.
First, public designated enforcers already review and report on the enforcement interventions they undertake. For example, since 2019, the Association of Chief Trading Standards Officers has produced annual impacts and outcomes reports that show the impact of local authority trading standards services in England and Wales. Both the Chartered Trading Standards Institute and the Society of Chief Officers of Trading Standards in Scotland conduct workforce surveys and publish reports that cover issues such as staffing and enforcement actions. Regulators such as the CMA, the Financial Conduct Authority and Ofcom provide transparent statements about their enforcement work and publish annual reports that evaluate their past year’s performance. These regulators are accountable to Parliament and subject to scrutiny by parliamentary Select Committees.
This ongoing reporting is complemented by dialogue with government about enforcement priorities and capability. For example, the CMA, which has a central co-ordination role in the network of public designated enforcers, already has a statutory role to provide advice to government on matters relating to its functions, including consumer enforcement. The Government may therefore request the CMA to provide information or advice on any gaps in enforcers’ powers or capabilities. The Government have committed to respond publicly to such advice within 90 days, clearly indicating the steps we will take in response.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
Before the Minister moves on, would he be so kind as to point out which bit of the Long Title prevents the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, from being incorporated into the Bill? This is an important issue and he gave us no real comfort about what other powers might be available to remedy the kind of situation that the noble Baroness talked about. Secondly—I sound like a taxi driver—Amendment 110A talks about resources for trading standards but, as the Minister well knows, local authorities are in dire straits. It is not just a question of saying that their funding is not ring-fenced; it is also about the Government making sure that trading standards are adequately resourced for consumer protection. How are they going to ensure that?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. As I said on my noble friend Lady Morgan’s Amendment 110, we are dealing with a serious issue. I took great pains to run through the various layers of protection currently on the statute book and outlined why the Government believe that this is covered elsewhere and is not within the scope of the Bill. I have also said that I will meet my noble friend and look at this in more detail to see whether we need to look further at the Long Title, to which the noble Lord referred.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
Is the noble Lord saying that it is not outside the scope of the Bill?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
We are saying that there is extensive protection built up around this sensitive issue and that there should not be further legislation made within the scope of the Bill, but that, if we need to look at it further, we can do so before Report.
Every local authority always wants more money. It is a feature of UK public life and it is up to local authorities to decide how to spend their money appropriately. As we all know, some are better run than others. Funding is not ring-fenced and it is up to local authorities to make sure that standards are maintained in their area.
Amendments 111 and 122, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, pertain to profits from infringements and the calculation of penalties. They would ensure that profits made from engaging in an infringing commercial practice can be expressly reflected in the calculation of a monetary penalty imposed through an enforcement order made by the court or a final infringement notice given by the CMA. I thank the noble Lord for his amendments and I absolutely agree with the intent behind them. In fact, work is under way to produce a comprehensive set of regulations, which could be made under Clause 203, to set out the amounts that are to be treated as comprising a person’s turnover when calculating the maximum penalty that can be levied.
Our intention is that any profits accruing from the relevant infringement will be captured by this methodology, but we consider that this maximum penalty calculation will be a technical exercise that needs to be supported by robust and detailed methodology, which is therefore better suited to secondary legislation. I hope that the noble Lord is sufficiently reassured that this important issue will be addressed.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I am sorry to keep interrupting the Minister, but this is quite an important factor. Is he saying that secondary legislation can expand the way that the primary legislation is interpreted? I was talking in my amendment about trying to get hold of the profits of abuse, so that the penalties should include a profit-based penalty, but the Minister seems to be saying, “Yes, we can do that with secondary legislation”. Is that really what he is saying?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. In order to get a profit, one has to start with turnover. A detailed mechanism is required to look at how these P&Ls work and, rather than being in the Bill, this needs to be examined as a technical exercise. There needs to be a methodology put together for it; we will therefore do that in secondary legislation.
Amendments 112 to 120 relate to online content take-down powers and were tabled by my noble friend Lord Lindsay but presented by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. These amendments would give trading standards departments in Great Britain the power to apply to a court for online interface orders and interim online interface orders to modify, restrict or take down illegal content displayed online.
We welcome the spirit of my noble friend’s amendments. Indeed, the Government have published their consultation response on proposals to empower additional enforcers, besides the CMA, to apply to a court for online interface orders. We have committed to give this additional power to public designated enforcers. These enforcers include, but go beyond, trading standards departments—for example, sector regulators such as Ofcom, which already have consumer enforcement powers under Part 3 of the Bill. We would be pleased to discuss with noble Lords how best to enact these important changes to ensure that the use of this power is governed by adequate procedures.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
Is it therefore envisaged that the Government will give extra support to local trading standards officers, so that they will have these take-down powers? That seems to be the implication of what the Minister is saying—that it is not just Ofcom or the CMA but that there will be local enforcement as well, so there will be that combination.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
Just to add to that question, is the Minister saying, “It’s going to happen but we just need to get the procedures right and add them”? Is that really all we are waiting for?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I thank the noble Lords. That is indeed the spirit of what we are saying. We are, in the Bill, giving a power to the courts that will contain the online interface orders. The Government have published a consultation to enable additional enforcers, including the CMA, to apply to a court for these online orders. We are saying that, within the current architecture, we believe that we have the power to do what is required, but that we can make changes after the fact to ensure that the power is governed by adequate procedures.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, that is slightly eliding the situation. The Minister was talking about the CMA but, earlier, I understood him to be talking about trading standards. Are trading standards going to get those powers and is it just a question of ensuring that we get the procedures sorted out?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I thank the noble Lord. There is obviously a little confusion about this, so we will need to set it out, which we will do between Committee and Report, to ensure that we know precisely the order of events here.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
That is important, because the Minister was talking about the actions in the court while the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and I were concerned not just with that but with where the enforcement law is going to come from. In the Minister’s letter to us, it would be most helpful if he could set out who will have those enforcement powers and how the mechanisms will work, given the interface between the different enforcing agencies. That would give consumers a degree of comfort.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I am happy to do that. We will look at that in a bit more detail and write accordingly.
We come to some minor technical government amendments, Amendments 121, 123, 124 and 128, which in the main are minor and consequential. They are intended to provide clarity on how the relevant provisions function and on continuity between the current consumer enforcement regime and the reformed regime under Part 3. I hope these government amendments will be supported. I thank noble Lords once again for their amendments and for their considered remarks on this group.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I wonder if he will take another look at Clause 157(5) regarding the amount of monetary penalty that can be imposed. The limitations seem to be there in black and white, yet the Minister is saying that secondary legislation can change that subsection in due course. If he cannot give me an answer now, would he be able to write to all of us? This is an important point.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his response, which I will come back to in a moment.
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Bassam, for their support for my amendment. It is small but, I hope, would be highly effective if it were accepted. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and I spent a long time debating the Online Safety Act last year. It is clear that online marketplaces are not covered. My noble friend the Minister mentioned user-to-user sites and search engines. They are obviously online marketplaces and highly significant businesses—I have mentioned Amazon but there are others—and I do not think the Department for Business and Trade should be agnostic about harmful materials sold on these sites.
I thank the noble Lords who have spoken on Amendment 110 for the sensitivity that they have shown on this difficult topic. I am grateful to my noble friend for the offer of a meeting to look at the scope of the Bill before Report. I will of course withdraw Amendment 110 at this stage, but I look forward to that meeting and further discussions on this important topic.
Lord Offord of Garvel
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would clarify that references in this Clause to maximum amounts of daily penalties are maximums per day, not in total.
Lord Offord of Garvel
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would clarify that references in this Clause to maximum amounts of daily penalties are maximums per day, not in total.
Lord Offord of Garvel
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would clarify that references in this Clause to maximum amounts of daily penalties are maximums per day, not in total.
Lord Lucas
“4A In paragraph 28(1), after “goods” insert “or articles””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would seek to allow evidential articles to be taken at the same time as goods under paragraph 28 of Schedule 5 to the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 124A and to speak to Amendments 124B and 124C. These are all small amendments aimed at making trading standards a bit more effective in practice. Amendment 124A would allow trading standards to seize, as well as the suspected counterfeit goods, articles—for instance, clothing used by the trader that puts them at the scene of the crime. At the moment, trading standards do not have the right to seize such articles of evidential value and they would very much like to have it, since it would make it easier to convict rogues.
As for Amendment 124B, at the moment, trading standards are not allowed to open a vehicle if that is where the goods are being stored, because it does not fall within the definition currently used in the Bill—or at least they believe that is the case. They would like, should all the goods concerned be in a van, to be able to open the van.
As for Amendment 124C, sometimes these can be big crimes of hundreds of thousands of pounds. Level 3 just does not meet the case; it is just a bit off the profit. They would like to see the judge able to set the level of the fine to accord to the crime—Gilbert and Sullivan would have approved.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, once again, with the indulgence of the Committee, I will speak on behalf of my noble friend Lady Bakewell to Amendments 125, 126 and 127.
Before doing so, I say that I support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, which strike me as extremely practical. It must be extremely frustrating when faced with some of the restrictions. This point about vehicles seems to me a particular irritant for trading standards officers—a vehicle being defined as premises. What era are we living in?
We need to bring the powers of trading standards officers up to the 21st century, which is very much the spirit in which Amendments 125, 126 and 127 have been tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, my noble friend Lady Bakewell and the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley. Amendment 125 would delete paragraph 17 of Schedule 5 to the Consumer Rights Act, which at present requires trading standards officers to exercise physical powers of entry to premises—this is in the digital age—before accessing information and the seizing of documents that may be needed in criminal proceedings. Accepting this amendment would be an opportunity to finally update the powers of trading standards in this respect. It would have the effect of changing their information-gathering powers to enable documents requested in writing without the need for physical entry to be used in criminal proceedings. This means also relieving the undue burdens placed on businesses and trading standards officers.
For legitimate businesses there is presently the burden of having to interrupt their normal business to provide the requested documents there and then, whereas, under what is proposed in this amendment, if the request is made in writing rather than physically, they will have more time to source the required documents and even seek legal advice should they wish to. For the small band of trading standards officers, the requirement to exercise physical powers of entry across the country to seize documents they may need to use in criminal proceedings is not cost-effective for their cash-strapped local authorities. If a local authority in, say, my noble friend’s Somerset had to deal with a case in Cumbria, it would simply not be viable for this to happen. The criminal activity could go unpunished and the public and consumer would still be at risk from rogue-trader activity.
In the impact assessment for the Bill, it is accepted that:
“Consumer rights must keep pace with market innovations, so that consumers remain confident engaging with businesses offering new products and services”.
That is a good statement, but for this sort of consumer confidence to become more robust, the enforcement powers of trading standards need to be seriously updated and not inhibited by the present inflexibility.
Amendments 126 and 127 propose to substitute the words “England or Wales” and “Scotland” for the words “United Kingdom” in paragraph 44(3) and 44(2) of Schedule 5 to the Consumer Rights Act. The effect of these amendments would be to add a new paragraph to Schedule 16 to the Bill, which would give new powers to trading standards officers to operate across UK national borders where necessary. Cross-border activities should be included in the Bill; current legislation does not make it clear that trading standards officers in England and Wales can exercise their powers across the border with Scotland, or vice versa, even though consumer protection is a reserved power. In fact, the current legislation implies that this cross-border enforcement activity is not permitted, and we are told that, currently, trading standards officers err on the side of caution. Who can blame them in the circumstances? For the success of these new powers and the Bill to take root, trading standards officers should be able to pursue and enforce across the whole of the United Kingdom.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, and my noble friend Lady Crawley for bringing forward this group of amendments relating to Schedule 16, which is introduced by Chapter 6, Clause 207. They seek to amend Schedule 5 to the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
Amendments 124A and 124B appear to add clarity without altering the intention of the Bill as written. Having said that, we would be interested to hear from the Minister whether there is any reason these changes should not be enacted.
Amendment 124C would make a more substantial change to financial penalties. The current level 3 is no deterrent or obstruction. A mere £1,000 is just petty cash for most businesses, whereas level 5, which is an unlimited fine, would serve as a deterrent and perhaps support some co-operation in investigation. We would like to hear from the Minister whether there has been any assessment of the suitability of obstruction being a level 3 fine since the Consumer Rights Act came into law in 2015. We also seek clarification on whether this is the right place to make such a change, given that its impact would be much wider.
Amendments 125, 126 and 127, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, with the support of my noble friend Lady Crawley and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, make a lot of sense in pursuing investigations in all parts of the United Kingdom, not just England and Wales. That was succinctly explained by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, so I shall not repeat the point. This would obviously be a matter for the Scottish Government. If the Government agree on the merits, is this something they have discussed with their Scottish counterparts?
The amendments in this group are sensible and designed to be helpful. They should be supported. We look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their amendments and their considered contributions regarding Schedule 5 to the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which details the investigatory powers available to consumer law enforcers. As many noble Lords have noted, building a case against rogue traders and rectifying bad business practices not only starts with but depends on enforcers having the right powers to investigate suspected breaches. This is important for all enforcers, but especially so for local authority trading standards departments that typically exercise the full range of Schedule 5 powers. The Government are committed to ensuring that trading standards and other consumer enforcers have the requisite powers to carry out their important work, so we value the perspectives shared by noble Lords today.
Amendment 124A, moved by my noble friend Lord Lucas, would allow “articles” that fall outside the definition of “goods” to be seized and detained by enforcers when exercising their seizure power under paragraph 28 of Schedule 5. I thank my noble friend for this amendment and hasten to reassure him that its intent is, in our view, comprehensively achieved by the statute as it stands. The definition of “goods” under Schedule 5 already encompasses any tangible moveable items. It is not restricted to the goods sold by the trader to consumers. Further, other provisions in Schedule 5, such as the power under paragraph 29 to seize documents where an enforcer reasonably suspects they may be required as evidence in proceedings, can be relied on should there be any doubt as to whether such items are seizable. For these reasons, I hope my noble friend will agree to withdraw his amendment.
On Amendment 124B, on breaking open a vehicle, I again thank my noble friend Lord Lucas for tabling it. This relates to the power under paragraph 31 that allows enforcers either to require a person to break open a container or to open a container themselves in order to seize and detain goods, among other things. It is indeed important that investigators are not frustrated by arguments about what constitutes a “container” and therefore the current definition is broad and means anything in which goods may be stored. Therefore, the definition is capable of including a vehicle that is storing, or may be being used to store, goods which may disclose a breach of legislation.
However, enforcers must consider what exercise of investigatory powers is appropriate in the circumstances. For example, an enforcer may inspect products under paragraph 25 of Schedule 5 for the purposes of checking the compliance of those products with relevant legislation. If the product in question is a vehicle, an enforcer cannot break open the vehicle as that is allowed only for certain purposes, which do not include product inspection. Therefore, I hope my noble friend is reassured that the statute is already sufficiently permissive in the appropriate circumstances and will not press his amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, the Minister seems to have said two directly conflicting things—that you cannot do something, but that he hopes that his noble friend is convinced that the powers are wide enough. Did we mishear him?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I hope that the noble Lord did not misunderstand me. I think we said that this is already covered in legislation. The definition is capable of including a vehicle that is or may be being used to store goods that may disclose a breach of legislation. We are being clear that the definition of “goods” is sufficiently broad to include goods or vehicles. I was coming on to say that an enforcer may inspect products under paragraph 25 of Schedule 5 for the purposes of checking the compliance of those products with relevant legislation, so we are tying this back to the relevant legislation. We believe that the definitions are already sufficiently wide and therefore there is no need to further legislate.
Lord Fox (LD)
That is beginning to be helpful, but the Minister will be aware that different local authorities are receiving different legal advice. Some are comfortable with the definition that he has given and others are uncomfortable with it. At some point, possibly during Report, a Pepper v Hart definition that solidly allows legal officers in local authorities to make the decision that a car is a container in particular circumstances would, at the very least, be helpful. Perhaps adopting the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would be even more so.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I was not aware that there are different definitions in different local authorities. That seems a valid point to address, so we will look at it before Report.
Amendment 124C is on fines for obstructing enforcement officers, for which I again thank my noble friend Lord Lucas. This addresses the question of the appropriate level of fines for the offence of obstructing an enforcement officer, under paragraph 36 of Schedule 5. Currently, the fine must not exceed level 3 on the standard scale, which is £1,000. Amendment 124C would increase that to level 5—an unlimited amount. I fully agree with my noble friend that any sort of obstruction, whether intentionally failing to comply with instructions or knowingly giving misleading information, is a serious matter that must be subject to criminal enforcement.
The current level of the fines was subject to previous government consultation ahead of the introduction of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. It was set to reflect the deterrent purpose of the offence, proportionately and consistently with comparable criminal offences. For example, the penalty for obstructing a police officer or an officer of His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is set at a maximum of £1,000, which is level 3. We consider that the current level of these fines continues to be proportionate to the offence, consistent with comparable regimes. I once again thank my noble friend for his consideration of this issue and hope that my explanation persuades him not to press his amendment.
I thank my noble friend Lord Lindsay and the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell and Lady Crawley, for tabling Amendment 125, which was presented by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. It would end the prohibition on enforcers to use information provided by a person in response to a written information notice in criminal proceedings against that person. Prohibitions of this sort apply throughout the UK legal system and serve to help protect a person from self-incrimination when enforcement authorities are given broad powers to send information notices to compel the production of information.
The Government have listened carefully to trading standards departments, which consider that removing this prohibition would enable them to gather evidence needed for consumer prosecutions more easily. We have been told that using other information-gathering powers comes with operational challenges, such as having to resource travel outside the local area to carry out investigations. We are keen to work with enforcers to address these challenges. However, this prohibition is an important protection. It safeguards a right that is recognised under English common law and the Human Rights Act.
In summary, Amendment 125 stems from an operational issue that does not justify rolling back well-established legal protections. I therefore hope the noble Lord will feel able not to move this amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
Are the Government really saying, more or less, that they do not recognise that the world has gone digital? Will the Minister spell out the principles of common law that prohibit them from allowing trading standards officers to do what we set out in the amendments?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
This says that the Government have the overarching legislative position, but the trading standards departments operate locally, and it is important that central government listens to local government. That consultation listened carefully to the trading standards departments and has come back saying that they believe that removing this prohibition would enable them to gather evidence better and more easily for consumer protection. We follow the local authorities in their requirements.
I turn to the use of investigatory powers across the UK. Amendments 126 and 127, again tabled by my noble friend Lord Lindsay and presented by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, would permit any trading standards department based anywhere in Great Britain to carry out investigations anywhere in the UK. Current law already allows English and Welsh trading standards departments to use their investigatory powers in parts of England and Wales outside that department’s local area. The same is true for trading standards departments in Scotland, which can already use their investigatory powers anywhere in Scotland.
Extending the powers to investigate across the UK fails to recognise that Scotland has its own legal jurisdiction separate from the single legal jurisdiction of England and Wales. I draw noble Lords’ attention to the fact that consumer protection is a transferred matter in Northern Ireland, where trading standards are a central government function, in contrast to Great Britain’s local authority model. These differences across the UK’s nations provide examples that I hope will persuade the noble Lord not to move Amendments 126 and 127.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
I want to tempt the noble Lord to give us a bit more explanation on this. If I understood what he said rightly, it is quite in order for trading standards officers to begin an investigation in their local authority areas and, because it is clearly a broader issue and a company they are looking at operates nationally, it is okay for them to go after it elsewhere. But, when an English trading standards authority wishes to pursue someone in Scotland, is the Minister really saying that, because the Scottish law is different and so on, they could not mount an investigation that had to take place partly in Scotland because that is where the company is operating or trading from? That seems a bit of a gap in provision if it is the case and, if it is not, I would have thought that there needs to be some form of understanding and set of protocols between and across the authorities operating on each side of the border. I am thinking particularly of border authorities in Northumbria and Cumbria working with trading standards authorities in the lowlands. This must be an issue there quite regularly.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
What we are referring to here is that, within these legal jurisdictions, there are differences, not least of all the way prosecutions are conducted in England and Wales versus Scotland and Northern Ireland. Each of those jurisdictions can operate holistically within these jurisdictions. I will write to clarify, but I am pretty sure that the UK remains a united kingdom and, if there is a requirement for someone in England to speak to someone in Scotland, that can still happen. I will find out exactly how it does.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
The noble Lord is such a strong unionist that I would be surprised if that were not the case.
Lord Fox (LD)
When the Minister writes that letter, perhaps he could extend it to include the United Kingdom Internal Market Act because that seems not to have been taken into consideration. Some of us here today—at least two of us—participated in the lengthy discussions about differing standards across borders and how they might be enforced, and this seems to fall well into that territory. What consideration has been made of that Act in drawing up the terms of the Bill? It would be helpful if the letter set out the various positions within the internal market Act and how they have been represented in the Bill.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I thank the noble Lord. I share his interest in this matter, and that was exactly what I was intending to examine. The United Kingdom Internal Market Act is a fundamental new piece of architecture that, on us exiting the EU, allows us to trade as one single nation, and I will always be promoting that.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his answers to my amendments, particularly for his offer of a continuing dialogue between Committee and Report. It seems clear to me that there is some different understanding out there regarding the ambit of the powers. I am content with the answers that he has given but would like to make sure that not only is that understood but that that understanding can have effect without something being added to the Bill. However, that is a conversation that we can conveniently have not now, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Offord of Garvel
“Estate Agents Act 1979
A1 In section 3 of the Estate Agents Act 1979 (orders prohibiting unfit persons from doing estate agency work), in subsection (1)—(a) in paragraph (ba) for “section 217, 218 or 219 of the Enterprise Act 2002” substitute “section 155, 158 or 162 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024”; (b) in paragraph (bb) for “section 217 of the Enterprise Act 2002” substitute “section 155 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment makes a consequential amendment to the Estate Agents Act 1979 as a result of the repeal by the Bill of Part 8 of the Enterprise Act 2002.
Lord Clement-Jones
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to prevent confusion amongst consumers about packaging that is designed to mimic a well-known brand.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 130 I will speak also to Amendment 135, which is another amendment in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, my noble friend Lady Bakewell and the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley. This is an opportunity to remedy the long-standing, unaddressed market practice of misleadingly similar packaging of consumer products—that is, packaging which mimics that of familiar branded products. Amendment 130 would introduce a strengthened brand practice in Schedule 19.
Misleadingly similar parasitic packaging, otherwise known as copycats or lookalikes, adopts the distinctive features of familiar branded products to dupe shoppers into believing that it has the same qualities, reputation and/or origin as the brand when it does not. Shoppers buy the copy based on these mistaken assumptions and can pay more than they would were the product distinctively packaged. Such packaging is extremely prevalent in the grocery market. It inflates consumer prices and prevent shoppers making informed, accurate decisions.
The evidence I have seen is convincing that packaging mimicry misleads consumers in substantial numbers and distorts buying decisions. The similar packaging plays on shoppers, exploiting the fact that they self-select products from the shelf. Stores stock so many products that decision-making must be, and is, fast—typically around two seconds per choice. Labels are not studied closely. Colour and shape are more powerful stimuli than words and prompt shoppers to buy a product that they did not intend to buy, to pay more and to believe that products have similarities. I have a whole string of assessments here from research such as a UK IPO study, neuroscience research and a 2023 study called The Psychology of Lookalikes.
In 2008, the Competition Commission considered such packaging an issue for consumer protection. During consultations and the debate on the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, the then Government stressed that public enforcement would be effective. This has not proved to be the case. There has been only one successful enforcement action by trading standards in the past 15 years—in 2008 itself—and no enforcement by the CMA.
IP rights are insufficient. Copiers tend to design around registered IP rights, such as trademarks, designs and copyright, to avoid infringement. A passing-off action is impractical, as proving consumer confusion to a court’s satisfaction is complex, particularly when a copier argues that the use of a different product name avoids misrepresentation. The evidence that IP rights are ineffective can be seen in the persistent prevalence of such copies on the market, with two large retailers adopting it as a business strategy largely unchallenged. Affected branded businesses are unprotected, as there is a gap in IP protection. The original copied brand is no longer distinctive; it is devalued, sales are lost and costs increase. Overall, return on investment in innovation, reputation and quality is reduced. Other products in the same category may lose sales if shoppers switch to the copy, assuming leading brand quality at a lower price, potentially leading to delisting.
For the unlawful copier, sales are boosted as shoppers buy their products by mistake or trust them unduly. They can also charge higher prices; the evidence shows that this could be by as much as 10%. The ultimate solution, of course, is not for offending products to be removed from the market, just that they be repackaged distinctively. This would preserve shopper choice, strengthen competition and reduce prices. Amendment 130, as proposed, would benefit many thousands of shoppers and branded companies of all sizes, particularly SMEs, wherever in the UK they are based.
I now turn to Amendment 135 and should say that the next group contains an amendment, Amendment 137, that is also on fake reviews, so this is a bit of a foretaste of what is coming down the track in the next group. Amendment 135 would add two more practices to the list in Schedule 19 of 31 commercial practices that are in all circumstances considered unfair and bad practice. The two additions are, first, a new paragraph 32:
“Stating or otherwise creating the impression that reviews of a product are submitted by consumers who have actually used or purchased the product without taking reasonable and proportionate steps to check that they originate from such consumers”;
and, secondly, a new paragraph 33:
“Submitting, or commissioning another legal or natural person to submit, false consumer reviews or endorsements, or misrepresenting consumer reviews or social endorsements, in order to promote products”.
How often do we all look to see what people have said about a product or service or, indeed, a bed and breakfast before we commit to buying? I suspect that young people are particularly vulnerable to wanting to participate in something that has a good review and appears to be popular.
The Government propose adding fake reviews to the list of practices in the future, but there is no logical reason why they should not be included now. Adding fake reviews to this important list would make them both criminal and civil breaches, as we understand it. Trading standards see the widespread practice of giving fake reviews as clearly fraudulent in nature, and therefore it should be a criminal offence. Fake reviews appear to be particularly prevalent for health supplements, where a single course of some miracle ingredient will cure your arthritis for ever—that resonates with me. Large sums of money can be invested by those suffering constant pain in an effort to get some relief, only to find that they have wasted their money.
I understand that there is a proposal. The Smarter Regulation response was quite clear that there is considerable demand for this. That response contains a great deal of other material as well and is very useful. I think the latest version is dated 24 January this year, so it is hot off the press, essentially. There is this proposal to add fake reviews in the future via a separate statutory instrument, but why should they not be included in the Bill at this stage? The language has been proposed by the Government. This is a growing distortion of the online marketplace. It is unfair to legitimate businesses and completely deceives consumers who may rely on accurate information to validate their choices. I very much hope that the Minister will say that on Report it will be perfectly viable to include language on fake reviews in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I have Amendment 131 in this group. It is my understanding, and of course the Minister may correct me, that the investment that a student makes in their university course comes under the Bill—that the relationship is one between consumer and provider. Indeed, since this is the largest purchase that a student will make before they buy a house, it seems entirely appropriate that the sort of safeguards in this Bill should apply to university courses. If that is the case, then paragraph 29 on page 362 forbids universities marketing their courses to children, and that does not seem quite right. I would like to understand how the Government see the confluence of those two factors.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise to speak briefly on Amendment 133 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and I have attached our names. I express support in passing to the attempts to restrict fake reviews, which are clearly an absolute plague online and a cause for considerable concern. I, like many other consumers, very much rely on reviews these days. I am also interested in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I very much oppose the whole structure by which students are regarded as consumers. The Green Party’s position is that education is a public good, which should be provided for free, but his point raises some interesting questions, on which I would be interested in the Minister’s answers.
Amendment 133 is about so-called drip pricing. I found various government surveys producing different figures on the cost of this to consumers, ranging from £1.6 billion to £2.2 billion each year. We are all familiar with this, unsurprisingly, given that more than half of entertainment providers, transport providers and communications businesses use this as a regular practice: “Get this bargain price. Get in now. Click here: it will cost you only £10”. Mysteriously, as you go through the process, the price keeps going up and up. People fill in all the steps in the forms, fill in their names, tick to say that they have read the terms and conditions—even though they have not—and spend all that time and energy, but suddenly the price is three times what it started as. They feel as though they have spent all that time, so it is worth going hunting around again? Do they have that time?
What we are seeing is very much a change in what might have been considered service businesses; consumers are instead servicing them, with their time, energy and efforts. This is an important area, on which people need transparency. In the cost of living crisis, it is worth noting that so-called budget airlines are particular offenders. Most people think, particularly for a long-distance journey, that luggage is not an optional extra, not to mention that a family travelling should not have to pay extra for seats together. Amendment 133 is a particularly important amendment and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend has added her name to that of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on his Amendment 130. We share his concern that online marketing should not be used to promote products or services by mimicking particular brands. In some ways, it is much easier to fool consumers online into thinking that a particular product has the same characteristics and spec as a branded product. As the noble Lord argued very well, we are all familiar with how cheaper and sometimes inferior products on the shelves are designed to mislead the purchaser. This simple amendment is worth supporting for that reason alone.
I was thinking back to an incident not that long ago, when I was misled into buying a product like Lemsip, simply because the colour of the packaging was almost identical. It was so simple and easy to take the thing off the shelf and put it into the basket but, when I got home, the product was inferior. This is about not just price but quality. This amendment is well worth our support.
Amendment 131 from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, asks an important question. It is a niche issue for this legislation, but I am nevertheless looking forward to hearing the Minister clearly explain that universities can or cannot continue to market themselves to pupils and parents. All parents, along with their children, want to receive accurate information that is easily accessible and, more importantly, verifiable so that informed choices can be made. As the noble Lord argued, this is one of the more expensive areas of parents’ expenditure on their child’s education and it is only right that we set high standards for the content of the material that is made available to those making applications, and that it is verifiable.
I now turn to Amendments 132, 133 and 144 in the name of my noble friend Lady Jones. Amendments 132 and 144 should be taken together. They would insert into Schedule 19, which deals with commercial practices, the circumstances considered where there is an unfair reference to the marketing of a counterfeit or dangerous good and would empower enforcement officers to require the removal of relevant listings from the internet. We think that this is a fairly self-explanatory process, which should provide protection for consumers from shoddy goods. If the Minister insists that this is not the place for these amendments, perhaps he can explain how else consumers are to be protected and how else this false marketing is to be tackled.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I thank noble Lords for the amendments in this third group, concerning banned practices. I will take them not necessarily in numerical order.
I start with Amendment 132, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch. It would ban in all circumstances the marketing of counterfeit and dangerous products online. Misleading claims in marketing are already offences under consumer protection law and, for unsafe products, product safety law. The Bill makes it clear that online marketplaces, which can facilitate the sale of these products, must act with professional diligence. This can include taking appropriate steps to ensure that counterfeit and dangerous products are not sold or promoted in a marketplace.
The Government recently consulted on strengthening the public understanding of those duties. Our response to that consultation committed us to undertake further work with stakeholders, including platforms, other business stakeholders and consumer groups, in order to identify the scope and content of further guidance in this area and how that work should best be communicated and set out; I would welcome the noble Baroness’s input into that work. Further, the product safety review includes proposals specifically aimed at tackling the sale of unsafe goods online. The Government will publish a response to that consultation in due course; again, I look forward to being able to share that with the noble Baroness and to discussing next steps.
Ultimately, online platforms have brought huge consumer benefits, including by vastly increasing the range of products available to consumers. The Government are committed to ensuring that platforms bear appropriate responsibility for ensuring that unsafe or counterfeit products do not reach consumers, but we seek to do so thoughtfully and in consultation with the public and industry to ensure that any new regulation does not jeopardise those consumer benefits or harm economic growth. I hope that the noble Baroness, having heard this, will feel able not to move her amendment.
Amendment 144, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, would give public enforcers a tailored power to require that the marketing of fake or counterfeit products was removed from the internet. The Government consultation response that I just mentioned also includes a commitment to empower additional enforcers to apply to court for interim and final online interface orders under Chapter 3 of Part 3 of the Bill. These orders facilitate the removal of online content that breaches consumer law. In that context, I assure the noble Baroness that we welcome and intend to honour the spirit of the amendment. I look forward to further discussion on this matter with noble Lords. I hope that, with this reassurance, the noble Baroness will not move Amendment -144.
I thank my noble friend Lord Lindsay for Amendment 135 and his input on this matter of fake reviews. Amendment 135 would add commercial practices related to fake reviews to the list of banned practices in Schedule 19. The Government agree that the law against fake reviews should be strengthened. Following our recent consultation on proposals to tackle fake reviews, and recognising the strong parliamentary interest in this issue, the Government have set out in their response our intention to add the relevant practices to Schedule 19 to the Bill.
It is important to get the details right. I would like to work with your Lordships to ensure that the new rules meet our shared aims of reducing the number of fake reviews that customers encounter online and being clear to businesses on what their duties are when publishing reviews. I would be delighted if noble Lords would meet me to discuss this further. I hope that what I have just set out will mean that my noble friend Lord Lindsay feels comfortable not to move his amendment.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for Amendment 133. It would add drip pricing to the list of banned practices in Schedule 19 to prevent traders adding mandatory fees to the price of a product during the purchasing process. Likewise, the Government agree that the law should be strengthened to protect consumers from hidden fees that can cause them to pay more than they have been led to expect. As we set out in our response to the consultation on improving price transparency, published on 24 January, it is the Government’s intention expressly to prohibit the drip pricing of mandatory fees in this Bill. I would be delighted to discuss this with noble Lords. I hope this means that the noble Baroness will feel comfortable not to move her amendment.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, all these messages about being prepared to talk further are very welcome; I am sure that we will take the Minister up on them.
Part of the issue about drip pricing and the Government’s response to it is the distinction that they have now made between mandatory extra charges and optional ones. I have a horrible feeling that most of the examples we can think of, such as the airline example, will be classified as optional extra charges, which will not be covered by Schedule 19. Can the Minister say more about that?
I think we are all on the same page but a lot of optional charges are misleading in the sense that they are really charges; the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, talked about families sitting together or your luggage going on a long-haul flight. I am sorry that we keep quoting flights, because there are many other areas where this applies, but it seems to me that the Government have made a false distinction here between things that you have to pay, which are mandatory and which the Minister is saying will go under Schedule 19, and the rest, which are most people’s experience of drip pricing; as the Minister was explaining, that will not be covered—but I might have misunderstood what he was saying.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for that. A distinction has been made as per that wording. As the consultation has come back, there has been a view on the distinction between those two areas, but the whole point of consulting noble Lords between Committee and Report is to allow further investigation, discussion and/or justification of that.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
I want to persist a bit more on that. We are now almost at the end of Committee, and Report is probably two or three weeks away. That is not a lengthy period in which to get the drafting right and for us to have that discussion, so I ask that we get a really early draft of these amendments. The wording is important and that will help my noble friend Lady Jones to form a view about whether it covers what we are after here.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
This is of great concern to many consumer groups, so it is important to publish and make it publicly available so that people are able to examine, think about and get legal advice on it. It is not just the people in this Committee but broader society that really needs to have the chance to input into this crucial issue.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I thank both noble Lords for those interventions. I am happy to get this to noble Lords as quickly as possible. The whole point of the consultation is to allow consumer groups, which are very vocal on this issue, to be heard, and they have already fed into the process, but I take the point about expedition.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his Amendment 130 on product packaging. It seeks to legislate against traders potentially copying packaging or other reference material in order to mislead consumers into thinking that the product in question is from the original manufacturer or mislead them about the specifications or characteristics of the product. I thank the noble Lord for giving us a number of examples, which we can all recognise. I agree with him about the importance of ensuring that consumers are not misled.
However, we believe the concerns underpinning this amendment are already addressed through the prohibition on misleading actions in Clause 224 and the banned practice in paragraph 14 of Schedule 19 to the Bill. These prohibit promotions that mislead consumers into thinking that they are purchasing a product or service from a particular manufacturer when they are not. The provision in Schedule 19 achieves what this amendment seeks to do and applies equally to all products and services. Should a trader try to copy another well-known product’s packaging, this would be deliberately misleading to the consumer looking to purchase a product, as currently set out in the banned practice in paragraph 14 of the Schedule and Clause 224.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, referred to previous CMA work on this issue. I am pleased to say that there is currently an in-depth CMA study of the grocery section, which has already spurred government action on price labelling rules. The study continues and I would expect it to pick up poor practices of the sort he highlighted. The noble Lord also made an important point about the importance of effectiveness. The additional powers given to the CMA and the courts under Part 3 aim to achieve just that. I hope he will feel comfortable in withdrawing his amendment.
I thank my noble friend Lord Lucas for his Amendment 131, which seeks to exclude universities from the currently banned practice of advertising that includes a direct appeal to children to buy products or to persuade their parents or other adults to buy products for them. This schedule replicates the banned practice in paragraph 28 of Schedule 1 to the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.
There is no evidence that these regulations, which have stood since then, have prevented universities or similar institutions from providing information on themselves or the courses they offer. The banned practice in question is unlikely to stop universities or other providers advertising their courses. However, to ensure that there is no misunderstanding, further information on application can be clarified in a non-statutory way, such as through the guidance that will be issued for the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, also pointed out the importance of universities providing accurate information. This is an area where there has previously been enforcement action, which highlights the importance of it being within the scope of consumer law. I hope that my noble friend Lord Lucas will feel comfortable not moving his amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that almost totally positive response. There is quite a lot to take away from it. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, for his supportive remarks on Amendment 130 and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for signing it.
That was a useful walkthrough of the Government’s response on smarter regulation. What we all want to see is it translated into the Bill at the earliest possible opportunity. Earlier in our discussion, we talked about the need for speed, but we have here the ideal opportunity to enshrine in Schedule 19 the provisions on both drip pricing and fake reviews in the way we have talked about. Indeed, I am pleased that the Minister talked about further discussions between Committee and Report on some of the other aspects in amendments put forward here by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. The Ministers seem to be beckoning us through an open door; I hope that that is the case and that we do not find it slammed suddenly when we come to Report. Honing the wording between Committee and Report could produce a good result. I am pleased that the Minister was so positive in almost all respects. In one case, he said that it could already be covered, but this Bill is the ideal vehicle to get these things, which were promised in the consultation response, absolutely enshrined.
The one really interesting area—it struck me immediately when I saw the Government’s response—concerns the difference between “obligatory” and “optional” in terms of the drip pricing arguments. We need to get to grips with this because we do not want to see, by a technicality, companies such as airlines—we have talked about airlines before in Committee—escape liability because we have not got the wording quite right. The noble Baroness was absolutely right to raise this issue because the language that the Government used in their response was a bit ominous in that respect.
I look forward to those discussions. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones
“32 Submitting a fake review, or commissioning or incentivising any person to write or submit a fake review of products or traders.33 Offering or advertising to submit, commission or facilitate a fake review, or hosting offers or advertisements for fake reviews without taking reasonable and proportionate steps to remove them.34 Publishing or providing access to reviews of products or traders without taking reasonable and proportionate steps to prevent consumers from encountering fake reviews.35 Presenting reviews or information about reviews in ways which will mislead average consumers about the reviews that a product or trader has received.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would introduce measures to protect consumers from fake reviews.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, the Committee may get a slight feeling of déjà vu when it comes to my Amendment 137 but we were assured that it covers a different topic and it is therefore perfectly legitimate to have it in a different group. However, there are other aspects—in particular Amendment 143, which I want to speak to in moving Amendment 137. I will be brief.
As we have heard, the Minister is positive about discussions on how we will enshrine fake reviews. As we know, the Government’s response was designed to improve consumer price transparency and product information for consumers. We very much share that intent. They have highlighted how legislation will tackle fake reviews. Any lack of criminal enforcement would be a major concern so I hope that that will be part of the subject we will discuss.
Of course, we know the impact of fake reviews. Amendment 137 is a different way of dealing with the issues. Fake reviews have been identified by the Federation of Small Businesses as one of the three primary problems experienced by smaller firms when trading on digital marketplaces, so preventing the proliferation of fake reviews will support both consumers and businesses; that is a point we should make. This should be added to the Bill.
The one question I have is this: have the Government had discussions with Trustpilot? It would like to see the Government’s proposed wording extended, particularly to the hosting issue. I do not know whether the Minister has a brief on that. I was quite impressed by the Trustpilot briefing and the evidence it gave. It has concerns about other parts of the wording but, for me, the most powerful aspect is making sure that those who host fake reviews are penalised. I hope that the Minister has an answer to that.
Amendment 143 is where I am again the sorcerer’s apprentice. This is an amendment to Clause 288. It seeks further to protect consumers from rogue traders and their unfair practices. It is something that I know the Chartered Trading Standards Institute is keen to see put into practice. It is a breach of Clause 225 of the Bill for a trader to engage in a commercial practice that is a misleading omission, meaning the practice omits material information. That is defined as
“information that the average consumer needs in order to take an informed transactional decision”.
There is much discussion in the consumer field about what information is needed by a consumer and what is merely desired. For instance, there is no specific requirement for a trader to give his or her name and address. Clause 228 adds an additional breach of omitting material information from an invitation to purchase; it states that there are a number of specific matters that are considered to be material and where it could be an offence if the information is not provided to the consumer, so surely things can only get better. However, an invitation to purchase is currently defined in the Bill as
“a commercial practice involving the provision of information to a consumer … which indicates the characteristics of a product and its price, and … which enables, or purports to enable, the consumer to decide whether to purchase the product or take another transactional decision in relation to the product”.
The point that the Chartered Trading Standards Institute and trading standards officers are making in this context is that, in their day-to-day experience, many rogue traders targeting vulnerable consumers, often in their own homes, do not give a price when offering to do work. If they do not give a price, they will not come under this new obligation in the legislation and will get away with their shoddy work or criminal activity, hence the opportunity in this amendment to remove price from the definition of an invitation to purchase. It would automatically mean that the practice is not an invitation to purchase and, therefore, that the information listed in Clause 228 is not considered material information.
To sum up, removal of price in the definition of invitation to purchase would increase consumer protection, as it would automatically make such things as price, the identity of the trader and his or her address become material information. It would therefore be a breach to provide this information to the consumer. I look forward to what the Minister has to say in respect of those two amendments.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I have a clutch of amendments in this group. Amendment 138A continues the series of improvements to trading standards regulations. Before we came under EU regulation, we had considerable freedom to deal with pricing abuses. As one of the many advantages from Brexit, I do not see why we should not go back to the situation we used to have.
Amendment 138B looks at the rights that consumers have and what happens when a business ignores them. At the moment, if a business is denying or ignoring rights, trading standards has to take action under the Enterprise Act 2002 by way of a court injunction. It is slow and expensive, so I cannot see why that should not be dealt with under the scope of this Bill.
I hope that Amendment 140 will draw out from the Government an understanding of what information ought not to be omitted. If, for instance, a trader knows that a particular product has a series of adverse and well-informed reviews or has resulted in poor consumer experience, do they have to share that information? If they have it, they will probably be disinclined to be open with it, but do they have to provide it? How far should a trader go to share information of which they are aware and which they know exists but which they would not normally include in marketing their product? Some elucidation of the limits of this would be much appreciated.
Amendment 145B comes back to trading standards. At the moment, the time limit in the Bill is one year. Trading standards operates an intelligence-led approach: it lets information build up for a while before it takes action to make sure that it is acting in cases of consistent abuse rather than one-off problems. Time is then taken to investigate and it takes more time to get to court, so it is very easy to exceed that one-year time limit—particularly in relation to the earlier offences in a group of offences. Two years would be a better expression of the practical length of time that it takes trading standards to bring cases to court.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I rise briefly to speak to Amendment 140 in my name to add some more fuel to this already well-stoked fire and to set out exactly what we mean in the Bill when we talk about good faith and indeed the lack thereof where a trader does not take into account the interests of the consumer in terms of product design or information about the product or seeks to exploit the consumer because of their biases or particular views to induce a purchase or a desire for a particular product. Amendment 140 merely adds to the excellent amendment, as already set out. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I am pleased to have added my name to Amendment 137 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, which deals with the issue of submitting or creating fake reviews by adding it to the list in Schedule 19 of commercial practices which would always be considered unfair. This is the issue that we touched on in the earlier debate. I am pleased that we have the chance to raise this today because it has been an issue of concern for some time. It is good to get the chance to debate and pursue this, and it is good to hear that the Government are also keen to do that.
We argue that this is not just about the effect fake reviews have on consumers; they affect businesses as well. They damage the livelihoods of many small traders—restaurants and hotels, for example—when their business is deliberately targeted by damaging reviews, or the local competition down the road receives glowing fake reviews which take trade away from the legitimate trader, so this has a business element as well as a consumer element. At the same time, Which? reports that the proliferation of fake reviews for online product sales results in consumers being more than twice as likely to choose poor quality products. We heard a little bit about how that works in the earlier debate.
Urgent action is undoubtedly needed to bring quality standards back into online sales and marketing so that people are not duped. As we have heard, since the amendment was tabled, the Government have produced their response to the consultation on improving price transparency and product information for consumers. It proposes that the Government will add fake reviews to the list of banned practices in Schedule 19. I am grateful to the Minister for hosting a meeting last week where we had a chance to discuss this. It is good to hear that the Government have finally decided to act on it.
However, there are still some outstanding concerns. Concerns have been raised by Trustpilot and others that the fact that the proposed wording lacks clarity. The Government saying that they will work with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel to clarify the wording is a sign that they have not yet got this quite right. Can the Minister clarify the timescale for that additional work? When will we see the outcome of it?
Concern has also been raised that the Government’s proposals do not address the role played by internet service providers and social media in promoting fake reviews. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, raised this issue. What action will we take against those who host and reproduce these fake reviews, often knowingly?
Concern has been expressed that the penalty for promoting fake reviews is subject only to civil, not criminal, enforcement. Can the Minister explain a bit more about why that decision was taken? In the meantime, we argue that our Amendment 137 addresses those concerns. We look forward to further talks along the lines that the Minister has proposed, and we hope that he will agree to work with us and the Committee to produce a government amendment that is both clear and comprehensive.
The noble Lords, Lord Lucas and Lord Holmes, helpfully sought greater clarity on consumer rights to prevent consumers being misled or manipulated. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, rightly mentioned the additional measures needed to protect us from rogue traders. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for asking a series of small but important questions around his almost probing amendments. It is important to have clarification on the record, and I hope that the Minister will be able to give it.
The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, helpfully raised the issue of good faith and asked how we can bring some standards back into trading and the exchange of information. Again, I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify that.
We have had a positive discussion on these important points. It is good to hear that there will be further discussion. In the meantime, I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
My Lords, I turn now to the fourth group of amendments, which concern unfair commercial practices.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for Amendment 137, which would add commercial practices related to fake reviews to the list of banned practices in Schedule 19. The Government agree that the law against fake reviews should be strengthened. Following our recent consultation on proposals to tackle fake reviews and recognising the parliamentary interest in this topic, the Government have set out their intention to add the relevant practices to Schedule 19. It is important that we get the details right.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, mentioned the concerns raised by Trustpilot around the hosting of fake reviews as well as the hosting and facilitation of fake review training. The Government are sympathetic to these issues. My ministerial colleagues have previously met Trustpilot to discuss such matters. I assure both noble Lords that the hosting of fake reviews is already addressed by our proposals; that said, I would be happy to meet them to discuss this topic further. For the time being, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will feel comfortable to withdraw his amendment.
I again thank my noble friend Lord Lucas for his amendments. Amendment 138A specifically references “pricing” when considering whether a trader is misleading the average consumer. Clause 224 already states that
“an overall presentation which is likely to deceive the average consumer”
is a misleading action. Price clearly forms a part of this overall presentation. I understand the importance of the regulations being robust and clear and I greatly appreciate my noble friend’s close scrutiny of these clauses, which was very much apparent in his remarks. We believe, however, that such a point is better reflected in the accompanying guidance to the Bill. I will ensure that my noble friend’s point is reflected as such.
Amendment 138B specifically seeks to add ignoring or denying consumer rights to the definition of a misleading action. Should a trader make a false or misleading claim about the rights that the consumer has, with a view to denying, ignoring or misinforming them, the existing wording in Clause 224(1)(a), which prohibits the provision of “misleading information” on a
“matter relevant to a transactional decision”,
would apply.
Amendment 140 on misleading omissions would in effect require information that is relevant to a decision about the purchase of a good or service to be provided to the consumer. I believe that the current Clause 225 is an appropriate requirement for information that a consumer needs to be provided. As this requirement is well established in law, it gives traders and consumers certainty on what the information requirements are. The amendment could also give rise to uncertainty in the legislation, which may place additional burdens on traders, such as the potential costs of gathering such information. Although I understand and appreciate what my noble friend is trying to achieve with this amendment, I believe that the Bill as drafted strikes the right balance between consumer protection and not overburdening traders.
Amendment 142 would add examples of where a trader is not acting in good faith to the definition of professional diligence in this chapter. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Holmes for raising these issues. Misleading consumers in any way that may cause them to take a different transactional decision is already prohibited. Furthermore, there are specific provisions that protect consumers against undue influence and prohibit exploiting vulnerabilities. Clause 226, for example, protects consumers against aggressive practices that exploit any vulnerability. Given the nature of these exploitative practices, we consider that they would be better explained in guidance accompanying the Bill. I would be happy to discuss this with my noble friend ahead of that new guidance being prepared.
I thank my noble friend Lord Lindsay for tabling Amendment 143 to change what constitutes an invitation to purchase. Actions that are considered an invitation to purchase attract specific consumer rights. For example, traders making an invitation to purchase must provide the individual with the information listed in Clause 228. The Government believe that the changes proposed by this amendment would expand the definition too far; it therefore has the possibility of bringing with it unintended consequences. We are of course committed to protecting consumers. Provisions in Chapter 1 of this part of the Bill already achieve a similar aim to this amendment, prohibiting traders from making misleading statements or omissions in respect of all commercial practices.
Amendment 145B, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lucas, seeks to extend the discovery period of an offence under Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the Bill from one year to two years. Again, I understand his rationale for this. It can often take time for trading standards to gather the evidence to pursue a prosecution against a trader who is breaking the law. However, it is also a key principle of our justice system that investigations should be carried out efficiently and in a timely manner. This is important in protecting the rights of both consumers and those accused of criminal offences. We believe that one year to bring criminal proceedings following discovery is the right balance between expedience and giving authorities the time that they need to carry out investigations.
Lord Lucas (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for his answers, by and large, but I do not understand how Clause 245 is supposed to work. I cannot see how, in its wording, it provides protection for vulnerable persons. I look specifically at Clause 245(2), which states:
“References … to the average consumer … are to be read as references to an average member of the group mentioned in subsection (1)”,
which refers to a vulnerable consumer. So the wording of the Bill is reducing the level of comprehension required and therefore the level of information being provided for the comprehension of that vulnerable group. It therefore makes vulnerable groups open to exploitation. What am I misunderstanding here? In what way does Clause 245 provide additional protection for vulnerable groups? How does it raise the standards that traders have to meet when they are faced with a vulnerable group?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that question. The intention of Clause 244, combined with Clause 245, is to afford a higher level of protection in legislation to those who are vulnerable. It sets out how the “average consumer” should be interpreted regarding vulnerable persons. Therefore, if there is some confusion about their rights having been diminished in some way when in fact the Bill is intended to enhance those rights, I think we should get clarification, so I will write to my noble friend on that matter.
Lord Lucas (Con)
I shall be clearer after reading my noble friend’s remarks.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
I thank the Minister for his reply to this disparate group of amendments. I thought the discussion about information raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was crucial because this is so important to the consumer, particularly the vulnerable consumer. I look forward to seeing the Minister’s letter of clarification, or whatever it is that he will come up with, in due course.
I thank the Minister for his response to Amendment 137, which was, in a sense, rehearsed in the previous group. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for her support. She raised some important aspects about timescale and criminal offences. I am assuming that how the whole fake review aspect is dealt with predicates whether we can also have criminal liability. If it is added to Schedule 19, it gets criminal liability, but if it is dealt with in another way, it may not. Clarification of this is important because only two areas, I think, in Schedule 19 are excluded from criminal liability. All the rest get criminal liability. Therefore, it is important that the Minister can give that assurance when we have these discussions that that will be the case.
On the guidance that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, talked about, I hope the Minister’s reply was that that will be part of what we deliver. The unfair practices guidance will be really important. Just today, the Minister clarified, for example, the brands issue, saying that it is covered by paragraph 14, or whatever it was, of Schedule 19, and that it is not necessary to add that wording. This is all part of important guidance, I suspect, in the end. Expecting people to read the Minister’s words in Committee in the House of Lords might be slightly unreasonable, so I hope that the guidance will nail down the interpretation of some of these aspects of Schedule 19, which will clearly be important legislation.
I think there will be great disappointment about the response to Amendment 143. There was a kind of circular argument that it is going too far—but going too far in what respect? The classic “unintended consequences” were raised as well. There is a set of buzz phrases that one can produce in these circumstances, and “unintended consequences” is one of them, but I did not hear a convincing reason why pricing should not be excluded from an offer to purchase. It strikes me that trading standards officers are correct that this could be a potential loophole. There was perhaps a bit of “not invented here” as well, particularly regarding the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, on “properly inform”, which I thought were rather good compared to the existing wording. However, we will, no doubt, continue these discussions. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Offord of Garvel
“ScheduleChapter 1 of Part 4: consequential amendmentsAdministration of Justice Act 1970 (c. 31)
1 In section 40(3A) of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 (punishment for unlawful harassment of debtors), for “the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008” substitute “Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024”.Trade Descriptions Act 1968 (c. 29)
2 In section 12(3) of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 (false representations as to royal approval or award, etc.) for the words from “and” to “2008” substitute “has the same meaning as in Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 and, for the purposes of this section, a commercial practice is unfair if it would be unfair for the purposes of that Chapter”.Hallmarking Act 1973 (c. 43)
3 In section 1 of the Hallmarking Act 1973 (prohibited descriptions of unhallmarked articles)—(a) in subsection (4C) for “the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008” substitute “Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024”;(b) in subsection (4D) for the words from “satisfying” to “action)” substitute “an unfair commercial practice involving a misleading action for the purposes of that Chapter”.Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 (c. 52)
4 In paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 for paragraph (af) substitute—“(af) to any obligation arising by virtue of rights of redress under Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024;”.Companies Act 1985 (c. 6)
5 In paragraph 17 of Schedule 15D to the Companies Act 1985 (disclosures), omit sub-paragraph (k).Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c. 48)
6 (1) The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 is amended as follows.(2) In section 114A(2)(bb) (forfeiture of infringing copies, etc.: England and Wales or Northern Ireland) for “the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008” substitute “Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024”.(3) In section 114B(15) (forfeiture of infringing copies, etc.: Scotland), in paragraph (d) in the definition of “relevant offence”, for “the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008” substitute “Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024”.(4) In section 204A(2)(bb) (forfeiture of illicit recordings: England and Wales or Northern Ireland), for “the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008” substitute “Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024”.(5) In section 204B(15) (forfeiture of illicit recordings: Scotland), in paragraph (d) in the definition of “relevant offence” for “the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008” substitute “Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024”.(6) In section 297C(2)(bb) (forfeiture of unauthorised decoders: England and Wales or Northern Ireland) for “the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008” substitute “Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024”.(7) In section 297D(15) (forfeiture of unauthorised decoders: Scotland), in paragraph (d) in the definition of “relevant offence” for “the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008” substitute “Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024”.Trade Marks Act 1994 (c. 26)
7 (1) The Trade Marks Act 1994 is amended as follows.(2) In section 91 (power of commissioners for revenue and customs to disclose information), for paragraph (d) substitute—“(d) Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024.”(3) In section 97(8)(d) (forfeiture; England and Wales or Northern Ireland) for “the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008” substitute “Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024”.(4) In section 98(14) (forfeiture; Scotland), in paragraph (d) in the definition of “relevant offence” for “the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008” substitute “Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024”.Enterprise Act 2002 (c. 40)
8 In EA 2002—(a) in Schedule 14 (provisions about disclosure of information) at the appropriate place insert— “Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024.”;(b) in Schedule 15 (enactments conferring functions) at the appropriate place insert—“Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024.”Licensing Act 2003 (c. 17)
9 -In paragraph 23 of Schedule 4 to the Licensing Act 2003 (personal licence: relevant offences), for the words from “regulation” to “2008” substitute “Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024”.Companies Act 2006 (c. 46)
11 In paragraph 25 of Schedule 2 to the Companies Act 2006 (specified persons, descriptions of disclosures etc for the purposes of section 948), omit paragraph (j).Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008
12 In Schedule 3 to the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008, at the appropriate place insert—“Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, Chapter 1 of Part 4.”Consumer Rights Act 2015 (c. 15)
13 (1) Schedule 5 to the CRA 2015 (investigatory powers: enforcer’s legislation) is amended as follows.(2) In paragraph 10—(a) omit “regulation 19(1) or (1A) of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (SI 2008/1277);”;(b) at the appropriate place insert—“section 229(1), (2) or (3) of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024.”(3) In paragraph 18(b) for “the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (SI 2008/1277)” substitute “Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024”.Online Safety Act 2023 (c. 50)
14 (1) The Online Safety Act 2023 is amended as follows.(2) In section 59(6) (“illegal content” etc) for “the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (SI 2008/1277)” substitute “Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024”.(3) In section 218(3)(b) (power to amend section 40) for “the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (SI 2008/1277)” substitute “Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024”.(4) In section 222(6)(b) (power to amend Schedule 7) for “the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (SI 2008/1277)” substitute “Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This Schedule makes amendments that are consequential on the revocation of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and the commencement of Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the Bill.
Lord Offord of Garvel
“(2) Schedule (Chapter 1 of Part 4: consequential amendments) contains further consequential amendments relating to this Chapter.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment moves the consequential amendments to primary legislation that were previously in clause 249 into a new Schedule (see my amendment to insert a new Schedule after Schedule 19). The new Schedule contains the moved consequential amendments and additional ones.
Lord Lucas
Member’s explanatory statement
The purpose of this amendment is to focus discussion on the effects of paragraph (c).
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, we now move on to subscription contracts. I would very much like to understand the reason for Clause 252(2)(c). The Government seem to contemplate that, if a consumer enters into a contract providing for the recurring supply of goods, is liable to pay for each supply and has no right to bring the contract to an end, the consumer deserves no protection under this Bill. What are these contracts? I am delighted to say that I have failed to enter into such a contract in my life. I did not know that such a contract, where there is no right for the consumer to cancel under these circumstances, existed or was common. What is Clause 252(2)(c) aimed at in terms of practice out in the real world? Given these contracts, whatever they are, why does the consumer not deserve protection from them? I beg to move.
Lord Mott (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this fifth day of Committee. I will speak to Amendments 148A and 148B, which pertain to an exclusion to the subscriptions chapter. Subscription contracts are becoming increasingly popular in our society. I support the Government’s ambition to ensure that consumers are given strengthened protections in these contracts. However, I wish to ensure that we target the right kinds of contracts and businesses with the new subscription requirements.
Schedule 20 has an exclusion for foodstuffs delivered by an unincorporated trader; to my reading, this appears to target certain micro-businesses. To qualify for this exclusion, a trader must deliver foodstuffs on its own behalf and must not be a body corporate. I support the need for a narrow, targeted exclusion for micro-businesses providing local goods and services, but I worry that the requirement not to be a body corporate will unfairly impact on incorporated micro-businesses that have similar characteristics to unincorporated ones.
For example, businesses such as a farm shop or corner shop providing local food subscriptions, or a vineyard providing locally produced wine on subscription, will be caught by the subscriptions chapter if they are incorporated, but not if they are unincorporated. To me, this appears to be an unfair technicality impacting these businesses; many small micro-businesses may fall through the cracks of the exclusion. That is why Amendments 148A and 148B in my name would change the requirement for a business not to be a body corporate to a requirement for a business to be a micro-business, as defined by Section 33 of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015.
These amendments would ensure that micro-businesses delivering foodstuffs locally benefit from the exclusion even if they are incorporated. They would retain all the other requirements so that the exclusion rightly remains targeted on only the smallest businesses. I hope that the Government understand the need for tweaks to this exclusion and are therefore minded to support these amendments.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 150 and 151 and Amendments 153 to 167. This is a rather voluminous set of amendments, but they are all designed to try to bring the pre-contract information requirement for subscription contracts back to some of the language of the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013. The theme for these provisions is: if it ain’t broke, why fix it?
These amendments seek to maintain the flexibility for traders currently provided by those regulations by taking account of the limited time and space available for providing pre-contract information for certain formats and connected devices, and by recognising that certain key pre-contract information may be apparent from the context. The new clauses—Clauses 254 and 255—together with Schedule 21 are designed to replace the pre-contract information requirements for subscription contracts set out in the regulations. The clauses establish two sets of pre-contract information: a long set of full pre-contract information that must be given or made available to consumers before they sign a contract and a shorter set of key pre-contract information that must be given to the consumer all together, separately to any other information. The latter set must be displayed in such a way that it does not require the consumer to take any steps, such as clicking a link, and it must be displayed prior to the consumer entering into the contract.
But the Bill does not provide for the limited time and space allowances established by Regulation 13(4) of the CCR, which are necessary for certain formats and connected devices. In addition, the Bill does not reflect the flexibility provided by the CCR in terms of recognising key pre-contract information that is apparent from the context. This one-size-fits-all approach is not appropriate, given the many different types of subscription contract and consumer journey that the Bill is intended to cover, and given the varying screen sizes that consumers may use to enter into a contract, particularly on mobile devices.
These amendments are designed to amend Clauses 254 and 255 and Schedule 21 to provide more flexibility for the presentation of pre-contract information. They would import a standard of reasonableness to a trader’s assessment of whether information is apparent from the context. They would distinguish between the timing of pre-contract information and full pre-contract information, in line with the current approach of the CCR. They would enable traders to choose the most appropriate techniques to bring the pre-contract information to the attention of the consumer. They would add a new clause to reflect the limited time and space allowances provided by Regulation 13(4) of the CCR—this is necessary for certain screen formats and connected devices. They would enable traders to choose how best to present pre-contract information in a clear and comprehensible manner, on the basis that providing information all at once will not always be the most effective or transparent approach. They would simplify information about cancellation and avoid duplication. They would remove the pro-rated monthly price from the key information about a subscription, as this may confuse consumers, and they would make clear that certain information should be presented only if applicable.
In summary, it is not clear why we are going so much further than the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations, which, in the view of many, have worked quite well. Of course, we will deal with the difference in the cooling-off requirements—also covered by the CCR—when we debate the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Black, in a few groups’ time. In the meantime, I very much hope that the Government will adopt a rather more flexible approach than they seem to have in the Bill as it stands.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak briefly on this group because I am very aware that we will have a more substantive debate on subscriptions in the coming groups, so forgive me if I am very brief on some of the issues raised.
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for his amendment. We have consistently argued for clarity, and he is right to hold our feet to the fire over the meaning of the consumer bringing the contract to the end. I am grateful for him probing a little more on what that actually means, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s clarification on this.
I was concerned when I first read the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that they seemed to be an unnecessary watering down of the rights of consumers under the consumer contracts regulations and introduced some ambiguity where there had previously been clarity. He has gone some way to clarifying what he meant by this. It is very unusual for me to be at odds with him. He might know far more about the subject than I did, because I was just going on what I was reading. I would be happy to talk to him more about it.
I of course understand that some mobile devices are too small to display complex pre-contract information. I am sure that we have all been guilty of ticking the box to say that we accept the terms and conditions when we have not actually read them. However, there should be a responsibility on traders to publish the pre-contract details in a simpler form, using better digital design, rather than being given more legal flexibility about how that information is communicated, which rather lets them off the hook. Maybe this is a discussion that we could carry on outside this debate.
Meanwhile, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mott, for raising the question of microbusinesses and what conditions should apply before the subscription contract regime kicks in. He raised a very interesting question which I have some sympathy with, about very local traders in a locality such as a farmer’s vineyard. I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say on this, because we need to protect against the unintended consequences of what he is saying. We need to double check that we are not encouraging rogue businesses to re-describe themselves to get through the loophole, but I am sure that he will address that point when he replies.
As noble Lords can see, I am sitting on the fence on most of these amendments, and I am happy to stay there for the time being. I look forward to hearing what the Minister says, which might persuade me either way.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their contribution to the group of amendments, which is concerned with subscription contracts. I again thank my noble friend Lord Lucas for introducing this topic and for his amendment. Amendment 148 would alter the definition of a subscription contract, meaning that contracts where a consumer does not have the right to bring a contract to an end would be brought within the scope of the chapter.
If we were to expand the definition in this way, many parts of the chapter would serve no purpose. For example, if a consumer were to enter a one-year contract for a service which had fixed payments spaced throughout the year, but the contract expires automatically at the end of the year and no further payment would be taken, the consumer would not need regular reminder notices about their contract as they would not have the right to end that contract before it expires. If, however, the contract automatically renews at the end of the year, rolling over into to another year-long contract, then the consumer has an opportunity to bring a contract to an end and therefore would benefit from being reminded that they can end their contract before it auto-renews.
I will give another example, as my noble friend requested, which may illustrate the point more clearly. If a consumer were to enter a contract with a builder for house renovations and pays in instalments, the consumer would rightly not have a right to cancel the contract before the payment period ends. The provision in the Bill would therefore not apply. Of course, where contracts do not contain a right to be brought to an end, they will continue to be regulated by the existing consumer contracts regulations 2013, where applicable. I hope that my noble friend finds this explanation satisfactory, and that he will therefore feel comfortable withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
I thank the Minister for the way he has set that out. Will he explain how much consultation there was and the nature of it over the introduction of Schedule 21?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I think I should write to the noble Lord to give that in detail.
I turn to the exclusion for microbusinesses. Amendments 148A and 148B, tabled by my noble friend Lord Mott, would replace the requirement for a business to be unincorporated in order to benefit from the delivery of foodstuffs exclusion, with the requirement to be a microbusiness as per Section 33 of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015. The purpose of the unincorporated aspect of the exclusion is to safeguard against larger businesses restructuring in such a way as to benefit from the exclusion, ensuring that only microbusinesses benefit and that there is greater consumer protection in the food subscriptions market.
My noble friend has raised an interesting point about the application of this chapter to certain incorporated microbusinesses, such as local farm shops, that I am keen to explore. However, the amendment as drafted may not work as intended. That is because Section 33 of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act sets out only broad criteria by which microbusinesses should be defined and defers much of the detail to regulations that have yet to be made. With that said, I am happy to work with my noble friend further to understand his concerns and to ensure that the exclusion captures the right businesses. I therefore hope he is suitably reassured.
In her remarks, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, raised the important point about ensuring that the exclusion for microbusinesses remains narrow and well-targeted to ensure maximum consumer protection. I wholeheartedly agree with her on this matter, and I assure her that that is the Government’s intention. I thank noble Lords once again for their amendments and for their valuable contributions to this debate.
Lord Lucas (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for his response to my amendment, which I will read with care when I have Hansard in front of me. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mendoza
“14 Membership subscriptions which qualify as gifts to charity in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act 2007, Part 8, Chapter 2 (gift aid).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would list charity membership subscriptions which qualify for Gift Aid as an excluded contract pursuant to Clause 253 and Schedule 20 (Excluded Contracts) of the Bill.
Lord Mendoza (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 149, I declare my interest as the chairman of Historic England, which also has oversight of English Heritage, which looks after our national heritage collection.
The subject of this amendment was raised by many noble Lords—probably at least a dozen—at Second Reading: the treatment of automatically-renewing membership subscriptions for charities. These subscriptions are vital and a brilliant example of how commercial many of our charities, both large and small, have become in the way they augment their operating models with a regular membership subscription, which can be paid by direct debit monthly or annually. I know that we have all received all sorts of advice from large charities such as the National Trust, Kew, Tate, English Heritage, the Royal Horticultural Society, the RSPB, the Royal British Legion and so on. We can tell how important it is to them.
These membership subscriptions are treated as donations, but they come with membership benefits such as magazines, newsletters and free parking. I have just looked at the Natural History Museum, where you get free or discounted entry into its silent discos. All sorts of things are provided but, as noble Lords know, under the Income Tax Act the subscriptions are treated by HMRC as donations. They are eligible for gift aid—this is the key thing—provided that the payment is not subject to any condition as to repayment. That is what you would expect; if you give £100 to a charity, you do not expect to be able to ask for it back again next month. If it is a donation it is clearly not refundable, but noble Lords can see that there is a lack of clarity here.
I mentioned some of the numbers at Second Reading because they are significant. The National Trust is getting on for somewhere between 5.5 million and 6 million members—I cannot get a precise number. That is not that far short of the membership of the TUC, to give noble Lords some idea of the scale and extraordinary success of that organisation. Its membership subscription income is nearly £230 million, of which £47 million relates to the gift aid rebate. Similarly, English Heritage, the organisation that looks after the national heritage collection, as I said, has an income of £130 million, and membership subscription is its largest source of revenue at £48 million. Other organisations are similar. Tate, which I have just looked up, has £16 million in membership subscription income. The RSPB has £46 million in subscription income.
This amendment tries to place this kind of specific membership subscription income, which is narrowly defined as
“gifts to charity in accordance with … the Income Tax Act”,
to try to get them included in Schedule 20, on page 369 of the Bill ,as a category of excluded contract. I know that my noble friend’s department has done a lot of work on this with Treasury and HMRC officials, so I look forward to hearing whether there is any further update on how they might deal with this situation. The Minister has also expressed his assurance that there is certainly no desire in the Bill to somehow limit the application of gift aid to these charitable subscriptions, so it will be important to do this. The proposed amendment is simple and clear, but I will wait to hear what he says.
We must remember that these charities operate mostly on a break-even budget and their budgets are very hard to balance. They try to balance it across their operating model, looking at not just these membership subscriptions but admissions, fundraising and commercial ventures. They would find it very hard to withstand a sudden withdrawal of the ability to claim back these significant amounts of contribution through the gift aid process, so I look forward to some reassurance from my noble friend.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, first, I should apologise to the Committee that this is my first involvement in the Bill. Secondly, I declare my interest as chair of the Fundraising Regulator, which overseas and regulates charitable fundraising. I want to say how important the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mendoza, is. The number of charities that are potentially affected by this is enormous.
I am quite clear that this is an accidental consequence of what the Government are trying to do in the Bill. It was never aimed at undermining the financial position of charities but the reality is that, because of the rules that exist on the way in which gift aid operates, it would have that effect. It would mean that you would be entitled, as a consumer, to change your mind suddenly. Okay, I believe that people can change their mind, but most people who enter into subscriptions do so on the basis that they have made that decision and want to give money to the charity concerned.
The problem arising is that the HMRC rules would not allow gift aid to be paid on any contribution where there was such an opportunity to return in that way. The whole purpose of a charitable donation is that you have given it to the charity concerned not because you are looking to get a series of benefits back but because you are making a donation. That is why gift aid is allowed. This was an unintentional consequence of what is otherwise a series of sensible protections for consumers. I hope that, when he responds, the Minister will make it clear either that he can accept his noble friend Lord Mendoza’s amendment or that this loophole will be closed.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mendoza, as well and declare my interest as a trustee of Tate. Everything that has been said is absolutely accurate. This is one of those situations where we are all on the same page, in the sense that I think the Government recognise that this is an issue that needs some clarity. It is certainly not their intention at all to put charities in a position where they will lose access to gift aid based on subscriptions or donations that are given to them on a regular basis by the people who support them.
The noble Lord, Lord Mendoza, indicated that many charities depend on membership subscriptions; that is the vernacular used when you join an organisation such as the National Trust or take out a membership with Tate. Certainly, by my now being poacher turned gamekeeper, as it were, and being on the board of a large museum, I see at first hand just how important subscriptions are to Tate. They are a really important revenue generator; we are very successful in securing memberships. They are a way forward for a lot of our national charities to engage a wide community who may not be able physically to visit the museum or organisation. People who live abroad can also potentially become members, although I appreciate that they would not necessarily be able to give gift aid in that respect. This is a huge way forward and it would be a retrograde step if charities found themselves in a difficult situation.
I gather that the Government have made it absolutely clear that, if you take out a subscription and receive nothing in return, that will to all intents and purposes be an annual or monthly donation on which gift aid can be claimed. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Mendoza, indicated, a lot of ancillary benefits now come with membership as a way of attracting people to take it. Obviously, in the case of museums, that might be free entry to their paid exhibitions and a regular magazine. I was unaware until the noble Lord rose that silent discos are now part of the mix—although I gather that the Natural History Museum calls them dino discos, which makes them even more attractive and means that I will leave this Committee and immediately take out a subscription.
The reason that the amendment has been put forward is to provide clarity in the simplest way. Charities are exempt from VAT and can claim gift aid. This does not provide a Trojan horse, where a private company says “Okay, the way to get around the welcome consumer protections that the Government are bringing in is to claim that we are a charity”. Charities have to go through a lot of hoops to become a charity, so exempting them from Schedule 20 would provide exactly the clarity that is needed.
As I say, we are here to listen to the Government because we know that they recognise that this is—I was going to say “a problem”—an issue. The Government are therefore in a great position to tell us what their thinking is as this is a discussion between those of us who have concerns and the Government who recognise those concerns and want to allay them with either their own amendment or clarity from the Minister.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I regret my inability to be present at Second Reading. I support Amendment 149 from the perspective of having been chief executive of two membership charities—the RSPB and Diabetes UK—and my current experience as chair of the Woodland Trust. All three of these charities, and many others about which noble Lords have heard tonight, rely significantly on membership subscriptions and the associated gift aid for their important works. There are big numbers of people involved. As noble Lords heard, the RSPB has more than 1 million members and the Woodland Trust is hotly pursuing it and increasing its membership.
However, I take a slightly different perspective from that of the noble Lord, Lord Mendoza, because it is important to understand that the relationship of membership charities with their members is not transactional. It is not about saying, “You give us this money and we will give you these services”. It is not like that at all. There are ancillary things that members get, but I would not have thought that there are many cases of people giving money to these charities simply in return for the services that they might receive. It is more of a relationship of trust, in which members become part of the charity’s family. The membership donation is unconditional and unrestricted. The member says, “I trust you, as an organisation, to continue to do good things with my money, as you have demonstrated in the past”.
As noble Lords have heard, eligibility for gift aid means that membership subscriptions cannot be cancelled, although they might not be renewed if members fall out with the organisation. The risk is that that very different non-transactional relationship is swept up with the idea of subscription contracts and that, somewhere along the line, these charities lose their valuable gift aid. I am sure that the Minister will assure the Committee that that is not intended but, as much as I trust his assurances, it would be safer if Amendment 149 were agreed and added to Schedule 20 to the Bill.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, I fear that sometimes it is not enough that everything on an issue has been said; we have to make sure that everyone has said everything that needs to be said. I will be extremely brief but, as I raised this at Second Reading, I lend my voice in support of my noble friend Lord Mendoza’s amendment.
Can the Minister straightforwardly assure us that it is not the Government’s intention to prevent charities being able to access gift aid on membership subscriptions? If he can make that assurance, I expect him, as does the noble Lord, Lord Harris, either to accept this amendment or explain to us the Government’s alternative cunning plan to achieve the goal that I hope everyone in the Committee has.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I cannot think of a better introduction to an amendment than the different speeches we have heard. I belong to many of the organisations that have been mentioned. We all have a personal interest in so many of the organisations that depend on subscriptions.
The noble Lord, Lord Mendoza, talked about the impact of the possible loss of gift aid; the noble Lord, Lord Harris, on the issue of why gift aid could be lost; the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, about the importance of subscriptions going forward; and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, about the different kinds of relationship this represents. To round it off, the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, started to hold the Minister’s feet to the fire with the questions that need asking. This amendment has been comprehensively and extremely well spoken to.
We have all had the NCVO briefing, which has a galaxy of different organisations all making the point that the Government really need to create an exemption. This is a very elegant solution that I hope the Government will adopt but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, said, the Government need to reassure us that this was not intended as part of the new subscription regime. I very much hope that, at this moment, the Minister and the department are cooking up a solution as good as the one that the noble Lord, Lord Mendoza, has put forward, or that they are simply going to accept this. In terms of the arguments made, this has been a slam dunk. I would have thought that accepting the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mendoza, is a total no-brainer, otherwise I can see Report stage being carnage.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mendoza, for scripting such a simple and clear amendment. We are acting as co-signatories, and it seeks, very simply, to exempt third sector charities from the effective limitations on subscription contracts in the Bill.
I appreciate that there have already been several attempts to find a solution to this conundrum, including amendments in the Commons. I understood that Ministers were not particularly attracted to this solution, which seeks to list charity membership subscriptions which qualify for gift aid as an excluded contract pursuant to Clause 253. We were a bit reassured by the letter that Kevin Hollinrake, the Minister in another place, wrote to the National Trust, setting out the Government’s position. He said that it was not their intention to create uncertainty about how different legislation might apply. His letter, dated 23 November, also said that cross-departmental work was being undertaken to consider whether clarification would be beneficial. Having listened to everybody this evening, it is pretty clear that it would be beneficial.
If this approach does not meet the happiness threshold for Ministers, this debate is the opportunity for the Minister to explain where the Government’s internal departmental thinking has got to and what other solutions might be available. The Minister argued in his letter to the National Trust that Chapter 3 of Part 4 is unlikely to apply because there is no contract to be deemed a subscription contract. Given the net value of gift aid to charities—for the National Trust it is £47 million, English Heritage is £100 million et cetera—we think there needs to be clarity. We cannot leave a degree of uncertainty. It certainly does not appeal to us to do that at this stage, given the law of unintended consequences. We cannot rely on an assurance that it is deemed unlikely that the legislation would have the effect that many of the charities that we have been talking to have said it would. The charities need certainty and clarity as well.
If it is not this amendment, what amendment will be brought forward? As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, carnage could definitely occur on Report if we do not get a ready-made solution. It needs to be put right and put right now.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Mendoza for moving this amendment and for his compelling speech. I also thank other noble Lords who spoke so passionately on this issue.
Amendment 149 would exclude charity membership subscription contracts eligible for gift aid from the scope of the Bill’s subscription contracts chapter. Many of us have heard strong representations from stakeholders on this matter and it has been valuable to hear the contributions from noble Lords today. It is clear that a number of charitable organisations have concerns about the interaction between the Bill, the existing gift aid rules and the potential implications for their operating models.
Like everyone who spoke, I fully understand the valuable additional income that gift aid provides to charities; as my noble friend Lord Vaizey put it, we are absolutely on the same page as far as that is concerned. Moreover, I assure your Lordships that it is absolutely not the Government’s intention to undermine this critical income for charities.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
I want to clarify what the Minister just said. Does he plan to come back with a solution on Report? Otherwise there is going to be jeopardy. If the Bill goes through and the Government anticipate doing something after that, charities are going to be in a really difficult position. Presumably the Minister is pledging to come back with a full solution on Report.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
Before the Minister replies to that point, what is it about the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mendoza, that is so objectionable? I heard the Minister say that charities are not usually excluded from the effects of legislation in the way that the amendment suggests, but I do not see why they could not be made exempt for this particular purpose.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I thank both noble Lords for their interventions. To take the latter point first, it is absolutely the case that charities are required to live within the statute book generally and are not given exclusions. To take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, I accept that there are commercial elements to these donations. That may not be the primary purpose but they are commercial none the less, and there are examples where benefits are given to donors in return for donations.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
That is the exact opposite of what I was trying to get across, so obviously I was not being very clear. The point is that the vast majority of donors give donations to an organisation for the good work that it carries out, rather than because it is a subscription to a particular service. It is therefore not a transactional relationship. It is not, “I will pay you to get this delivered”; it is, “I will pay you because you do really good stuff and I want you to keep doing it”. It is a non-transactional relationship, while subscription contracts are a very transactional relationship. That is the point I was trying to get across.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
I have another point that the Minister might like to think about. Interestingly, the noble Lord, Lord Mott, was arguing for an exemption for micro-businesses. The Minister said earlier that he would be interested to discuss ways in which that might be practicable. Why can we not have a similar discussion on the point about an exemption for charities?
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
On that point, if the Minister is saying that charities should not be exempt from the law, of course we all agree. If an employee of a charity is treated badly, they are perfectly entitled to take the charity to court and get compensation. The key point here is that membership subscriptions have been able to have gift aid claimed on them and HMRC has made it clear that gift aid is claimable. Now that charity subscriptions are being brought actively within the scope of the Bill by not being exempted, gift aid will be removed by HMRC as a result.
It would be different if we were starting from a position where charities had never been able to claim gift aid and had, in effect, been offering commercial subscriptions. In the same way, when you go into a shop at Tate and buy something that is defective, you have all the consumer protections available to you. You are not giving a gift aid donation when you buy a mug at Tate; you are buying a mug and if it falls on your cat’s head when you get home, you will be able to sue Tate. That is fine, but subscriptions are clearly gift-aidable donations which are now being actively brought within the scope of this Bill.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister said that he would come back on Report, but it would be helpful if he would come back before Report so that all noble Lords can consider how he does so and table amendments accordingly.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions. I can confirm that we will come back before Report. The objective is to get a solution for this issue and to have a satisfactory outcome, so that we avoid carnage in the other place.
Lord Mendoza (Con)
My Lords, I am so grateful for the support of noble Lords. The range of experience and advice we have had in this Room is admirable. It is incredible and so helpful that we have the chairman of the Fundraising Regulator right here. I am grateful for the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and the interjection of my noble friend Lord Vaizey. I had the same thought.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
On a point of information, every time I make a speech where I am sycophantic about noble Lords, I end up in Private Eye. I hope my noble friend is aware of that.
Lord Mendoza (Con)
I hope that results. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for her intervention. Of course, she is right: people contribute to charities because they care deeply about the charity’s mission. Although, as she said, there is no transactional element, if you go on the website of the Natural History Museum or the Tate and to “Buy a membership”, they will clearly list all the benefits that you get, so there is an element of transaction to it. I wanted to bring that out, so that it is clear to the Treasury and HMRC when they concoct whatever regulations they are concocting that we make sure that gift aid is still claimable and that these membership subscriptions still count as a donation to support the charity’s mission. It may be that some charities describe their membership differently from others. I have not checked the Woodland Trust’s website; it may well be completely different from that of a museum or the National Trust.
I am grateful for the support of my noble friend Lady Harding, who could not have been clearer in her request to my noble friend the Minister. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for supporting this amendment and contributing his remarks.
To add to the last point that was made about the simplicity of our amendment, we are trying to exclude charities not completely but just from this narrow point of gift aid, which was carefully defined at great length in the Income Tax Act 2007. We are trying to exclude just this one thing. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister will be able to go back to HMRC or the Treasury to see whether they can find some way of supporting this amendment. It seems clear and simple, without introducing a whole set of other complexities.
I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for giving me the opportunity to talk with the Secretary of State today. I certainly received reassurances from her and, as I say, that should bring some comfort to the Room. I am grateful to noble Lords for this debate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
House of Lords
NHS: Fracture Liaison Services
(10 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Black of Brentwood
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to invest in NHS Fracture Liaison Services in England.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and I declare my interest as co-chairman of the APPG on Osteoporosis.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con)
The Government recognise the value of the quality-assured secondary fracture prevention services, including the fracture liaison services, or FLS. More than 500,000 fragility fractures occur annually in the UK, and up to 40% of fracture patients will suffer from another. FLS are commissioned by integrated care boards, which are well placed to make decisions according to local need. The Major Conditions Strategy: A Case for Change and Strategic Framework outlines that, with NHS England, we will explore supporting the additional provision of FLS.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer, but all we ever seem to get are warm words and then broken promises. We were promised money for FLS in the elective recovery plan by the Chancellor himself, with announcements on FLS before the end of last year. A package of measures was promised in the Autumn Statement, as well as a national specialty adviser on osteoporosis. None of those promises has been kept.
To go back to basics, can my noble friend tell me whether he accepts that the 90,000 people who need anti-osteoporosis medication are missing out on it because of no access to FLS; that universal coverage of FLS in England could prevent 31,000 hip fractures over five years; and that investment in FLS would pay for itself in just 18 months? If he does accept those points, can he tell us why on earth these promises have not been honoured, and why the needless suffering of tens of thousands of people has not been brought to an end? When will words finally become deeds?
Lord Markham (Con)
First, I thank my noble friend for his tireless campaigning in this space. I agree that there is a very good case to be made. Many of us will know the advantage of the fracture liaison services. A lot of studies show that you are at least 10% less likely to suffer from another fracture, so it is a vital part of the prevention programme. There is a very strong case behind it, and my noble friend can rest assured that it is something that we are really looking to progress.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
My Lords, would the Government agree to a temporary transformation fund to pump-prime the fracture liaison services? If everyone over 50 had access to a quality fracture liaison service, it would prevent 74,000 fractures, which would help people to stay in work and help to take pressure off hospital beds. Would the Minister agree that this would be investing to save?
Lord Markham (Con)
As I mentioned, I agree with the noble Baroness that the FLS has shown many cases of prevention. There is a good argument in terms of investment and the return on it all. That is something that we are working towards and, as the noble Baroness will know, it is part of the major conditions strategy for musculoskeletal. So it is something that we are looking to expand.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, do the Government regret dropping the commitment that they gave in a debate in this House in September to expand financial provision for fracture liaison services? Is the health department considering the introduction of a best-practice tariff to reward those trusts that establish and maintain these vital services?
Lord Markham (Con)
I think that the statement made previously has been corrected on this, but, as I mentioned, we accept that these services are very effective in what they do. That is why we have musculoskeletal as part of the major conditions strategy. It was something that we put £400 million behind last year, in terms of a workforce package. We are looking at the effectiveness of FLS and, in ICBs that are not doing it, whether there is a case to expand them further.
The Lord Bishop of Bristol
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Black, for his dedicated work in bringing this important topic to the attention of the House. Around this time a year ago, the noble Lord asked another Question on the early detection of osteoporosis, which is the leading cause of fractures in those aged over 50, particularly women. In his answer, the Minister, who is answering the Question again today, noted that
“a fractured femur is the second biggest reason for intake into hospitals, in terms of beds”—[Official Report, 19/1/23; col. 1926]
and that he would be happy to report on progress on this to the House. Will he tell us whether any progress has been made since he gave that answer one year ago?
Lord Markham (Con)
Yes. Again, I did more research into this and, similar to the point just made, for women over 45 more hospital days are spent with osteoporosis than with conditions such as diabetes, heart problems or breast cancer, so it is recognised that FLS have a very strong part to play. We are trying to pursue a prevention agenda; there is a good cost-benefit argument around it, so we are making a strong case for their expansion.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Black, and the Better Bones campaign have done an excellent job in raising the public profile of fracture liaison services, so I was a little surprised that searching for them on the NHS website returned some general articles about fractures and advice about the Patient Advice and Liaison Service but nothing about fracture liaison services as such. Will the Minister look into this to ensure that people trying to find information about FLSs are given it and directed to their local service?
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank the noble Lord. His interventions around the communications side are always welcome, because we recognise that it is one thing having a service and another thing making sure that the world knows about it. I will go and find out more and write to the noble Lord.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, the fracture liaison service originally started in Glasgow, with the particular intention of identifying mostly women who had a higher risk of fractures from osteoporosis. In England and Wales, a fracture liaison service audit has been established now for several years. How do the Government receive the learning from those audits and how do they implement the learning that they receive?
Lord Markham (Con)
The noble Lord is correct; there has been some good evidence gained. As I mentioned previously, it shows that the probability of suffering from a fracture if you have been in a clinic is 10%—some studies have shown as much as 30% to 40%. It also shows, as my noble friend Lord Black was saying, that there is actually a good cost saving: it is thought that £65 million per annum will give a return of more than £100 million. There are some very good statistics around this, and I assure noble Lords that we are making a strong case for their expansion.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister has previously confirmed in your Lordships’ House that just 51% of ICBs have a fracture liaison service, and that the rest of the country has what he described as “different versions of it”. Will he explain what is meant by this, so that it can be understood whether this means a full fracture liaison service or not in the remaining 49%? When will Minister Caulfield’s promise to establish more fracture liaison services actually be delivered?
Lord Markham (Con)
I believe that the latest number is 57%, but the general point stands that that leaves 43% which are making other types of provision. The work we are doing right now is trying to understand the success of those versus what we see as prudent with that 57%. That is the case we are making and the case that Minister Caulfield was referring to as well. I believe personally that it is a strong case, so it is something that, as I say, we are looking to work further on.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I apologise for adding to the pressure on my noble friend, but half of all over-50s women will suffer fractures due to osteoporosis, and this affects 50,000 working-age women each year, yet too often this disease is just stereotyped as affecting old women. The menopause increases fracture risks for women in their 50s, when many are in the prime of their life. Might such mistaken stereotyping about old women explain the near total absence of osteoporosis from the Government’s laudable women’s health strategy? Will we perhaps see women’s health hubs referring women to fracture liaison services, with further progress in the forthcoming Budget?
Lord Markham (Con)
Again, the use of hubs and their importance for getting people back to work is recognised. That is why in 2023, in the major conditions strategy, we announced the £400 million workforce programme to get 100,000 people with employee support back into work. It is absolutely recognised that what we can do with fracture liaison clinics is a major help. We are also looking at digital therapeutics—the app is close to my heart—that can help with MSK as well. There are a range of measures.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I declare my role as president of the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy. Will the Government undertake to work with the physios and Public Health England to look at prevention? This is a public health issue because people have trip hazards in their homes, and a decrease in exercise means that people’s balance generally is not as good, and therefore they are more likely to have a fall. When people do have a fall when they are older, they are more likely to sustain a fracture. Avoiding trip hazards and increasing people’s mobility can be a very important preventive measure.
Lord Markham (Con)
The noble Baroness is correct. As well as using a physio to strengthen people’s use of their limbs, there is a strong investment case behind home improvements because of the payback from them. This is all part of the prevention agenda, and we are looking to see if we can put a package of measures together because our feeling is that prevention is the best way to go.
Housing: Accessibility Standards
(10 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Penn) (Con)
My Lords, we have proposed to mandate the M4(2) requirement in building regulations as a minimum standard, leaving the current M4(1) standard to apply by exception only when M4(2) is impractical and unachievable. There will need to be a further technical consultation that the building safety regulator will need to take forward as part of its future work plan.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her reply, and to the Government for announcing that these higher standards for lifetime homes will be implemented and mandated through the building regulations. I say that on behalf of the many charities that have been campaigning for years to have these higher standards brought into practice. But that announcement was 18 months ago, and we have seen very little progress in getting on with the consultation that should have followed. Since that time, 220,000 properties have been built that do not accord with the new standards, and every further month we leave the consultation, another 13,000 homes are built that do not accord with the standards. When will we see some results from the Government on this?
Baroness Penn (Con)
I am afraid I will have to disappoint the noble Lord, as I cannot give a specific timeframe for that further work. The building safety regulator is responsible for introducing updates to the building regulations and it is a new organisation with a busy programme of work. However, his points are well made. To reassure him, we are taking these considerations into account in a number of ways. For example, last December we published an updated NPPF which included a specific expectation that, when planning housing for older people, particular regard is given to retirement housing, housing with care and care homes. This reflects the Government’s understanding that we need to take into account accessibility and the changing needs of our population as we build new homes.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, Habinteg housing research shows that only 7% of our existing housing stock meets even the most basic accessibility standards. The Government’s report says that, on average, it would cost only an extra £1,400 to build a new three-bedroom semi-detached house to this standard—a tiny percentage of the cost of a new house. This would mean that thousands of elderly and disabled people could remain in their homes for life. The Government keep saying that they want to implement this standard. What is the delay?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, local planning authorities should already assess the housing needs of different groups, including accessibility needs for those with disabilities or older people, and reflect them in their policies and decisions. Guidance was introduced in June 2019 to help councils implement this policy and make use of the currently optional technical standards for accessible and adaptable housing, including M4(3) and M4(2)-compliant homes. As I have set out, we plan to take forward our commitment to move to mandatory for M4(2).
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that, if we are to reduce the number of people in hospital who do not need to be there as their medical treatment has been completed, we will need to make sure that their accommodation is fit to meet their current needs? That includes small things such as widening the door into the bathroom. Could this be accelerated so that we can address some of these issues?
Baroness Penn (Con)
The noble Lord is absolutely right, and that is what the different accessibility standards seek to address. I undertake to make clear to the department the view of noble Lords today about the importance of this work and the speed at which they wish to see it undertaken.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, further to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Best, I too welcome the decision to make these new accessibility standards mandatory, but the M4(2) standards have been around since 2015 and the building industry is already familiar with them. Surely, any consultation should be quite quick and the regulations should come into effect during the lifetime of this Parliament.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My noble friend makes a good case. As he will know, the Government have already consulted on the principle of this. A technical consultation would be needed to take forward the mandating of the standard.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister estimate how much this—so far—18-month delay has and will cost the public purse through future adaptations of unfit homes and increased care costs due to a lack of the decent, accessible homes that the Government know are needed? Only 8,386 new social homes were built last year, but 52,800 families were added to social waiting lists. This adaptation of homes would enable some family homes to be freed up.
Baroness Penn (Con)
I emphasise that local planning authorities should already assess the housing needs of different groups, including accessibility needs, in their local areas and reflect these in their policies and decisions. As I say, guidance has been issued to councils to help them implement this policy and we have updated the National Planning Policy Framework to reflect some of the issues raised today, but there is also further work that we need to do.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, what environmental standards do the Government require of all new homes, as they would benefit everybody and the planet?
Baroness Penn (Con)
The noble Baroness makes a good point. We should look at these standards in the context of a raft of new building safety regulations and standards that have been taken forward in recent years, and the need for housebuilders to adapt to them. There was a significant uplift to the environmental standards in 2021 and we have just launched a consultation on the future homes standard, which will be brought in by 2025 and ensure that all new housing is effectively net-zero ready.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My noble friend surely is aware that for care homes and similar establishments, it is absolutely vital that these new changes be implemented. I recognise that she has been in her present position for only a brief time, but will she make that clear to those responsible and send out a note to housing authorities, drawing attention to what everybody seems to agree should be happening?
Baroness Penn (Con)
One of the ways we will signal and have signalled the importance of this to local authorities is through the update to the National Planning Policy Framework. It was updated in December 2023 to include a specific expectation that when planning housing for older people, particular regard is given to retirement housing, housing with care and care homes. So, we are already taking action.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, why is there no requirement to have solar panels on new buildings, particularly houses? Around me in Devon, thousands of houses are being built, not one of which has a solar panel. I should declare that I have had solar panels on my roof since 2009.
Baroness Penn (Con)
As I said, we had the interim uplift to energy efficiency standards in 2021, and we have just started a consultation on the future homes standard. That sets out two models that could achieve the standard, one with solar panels and one without. The reality is that the Government have focused on the outcomes that need to be achieved and can be achieved by a number of technologies. Those outcomes are consistent with our net zero commitments and targets, and we are committed to taking them forward.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, is this not just one aspect of the Government’s failure to enforce the standards to which they are theoretically committed, whether environmental, accessibility or others? Are they trying to trade off the standards against numbers because of their pathetic failure to meet the 300,000 homes a year ambition, which was stated time and again?
Baroness Penn (Con)
It is under this Government that we have seen some of the highest housebuilding rates in 30 years. We are on track to deliver 1 million new homes during the course of this Parliament. We are not trading off different standards, but we do need to consider whether any new standards we bring in are deliverable by builders and allow us to meet the needs of local communities and of our environment, and the need to build more homes.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, the Government do not seem to like timelines. The Minister says that there is an organisation responsible for bringing this about, so why does she not open a discussion with it to find out how long this will take it to implement, and have some timelines that people can work to and understand?
Baroness Penn (Con)
I reassure the noble Lord that the Government are in regular contact with the building safety regulator. It was created by the Building Safety Act in 2022 and will become fully operational next April. Since its inception, it has been building its capacity around a number of standards, as we have heard—and we have not touched on the broader building safety standards attached to fire and cladding. It is taking forward its work at pace.
Royal Navy: Drone Attacks in the Red Sea
(10 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of HMS Diamond shooting down a suspected attack drone over the Red Sea on 16 December 2023.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Minto) (Con)
Your Lordships will be aware that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence will shortly update the other place on recent events in the Red Sea. I will not pre-empt that Statement. While on patrol in the Red Sea on 16 December 2023, HMS “Diamond” shot down an uncrewed aerial vehicle which was targeting merchant shipping. This is the first surface-to-air engagement by a Royal Navy vessel since 1991. The Houthis have repeatedly carried out dangerous and destabilising attacks against shipping and continue to do so. Our aim remains to de-escalate tension, but we will not hesitate to defend lives and the free flow of commerce in the face of such continued threats.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, we look forward to the Statement on the Red Sea later, and I accept the Minister’s point about not pre-empting any questions on that. In paying tribute to the crew of HMS “Diamond” and all their work over the last few weeks and months, I will ask the Minister about press reports about concerns around HMS “Diamond” and other ships not having a land-attack capability. What assessment have the Government made on what they will do about the fact that so many other ships do not have the land-attack capability to attack the bases that are launching the drones in the first place?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the congratulations and commitment of the other Benches to the service of the individual men and women. As I understand it, no two warships are exactly the same; they have different capabilities that overlap, and they complement each other and the international force with which we are operating. There is no worry about the effectiveness of their capability.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, firing surface-to-air missiles at drones is a very expensive way of attacking relatively cheap and numerous targets. There have been reports of successful UK tests of much cheaper laser-based defensive systems. Can the Minister assure the House that research into such systems will be pursued vigorously, and, if successful, will be translated into both operationally and commercially effective solutions?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
I thank the noble and gallant Lord for his question; that is a very good point. When firing an expensive missile at a cheap drone, you are not protecting the missile; you are protecting half a billion pounds-worth of equipment behind you—that is certainly worth it. As your Lordships know, we have invested a large amount of money in drone and missile technologies, and we will incorporate that in all future designs.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, the Minister said that he does not want to comment on the Statement that is about to arrive, so I will take him in a slightly different direction. To what extent have His Majesty’s Government assessed the requirements for the Navy in the light of the drone strike on 16 December? Given the very worrying concerns raised by the report of the Defence Committee in the other place, Ready for War?, which points out the difficulties with the Type 26 delays and the power improvement project for the Type 45s, we were very fortunate that HMS “Diamond” is in the region and seaworthy. What assessment are His Majesty’s Government carrying out about making urgent reforms to the Navy to ensure that we are as protected as we need to be?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, the First Sea Lord and his team are fully aware of the situation and are keeping as many ships at sea as we can at any one time. There is obviously a maintenance programme that must be adhered to and upgrading programmes that follow the latest technology. All the learnings from this latest situation in the Red Sea are being built in as rapidly as possible to all future plans.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, bombing the launch sites in Yemen makes sense, particularly if they are using Iranian weapons and rockets, if they are advised by the Iranians, and if some Iranians themselves are even involved in the launch. That is getting near the right target. Will the Minister and his colleagues bear in mind that southern Yemen is not so dominated by the Houthis? There are very many people there, for example, who are very favourable to this country and have been for years. Therefore, we should take great care that the bombing aimed at the launch sites does not descend on people who are favourable to Britain and puzzled as to why they should be bombed at all.
The Earl of Minto (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his question. The accuracy of the bombing is very precise, very limited and specifically targeted at weapons that are being, or are about to be, prepared to be used. As far as we know, that has been successful, and there has been very limited collateral damage. We completely agree that there is a large part of Yemen which is favourable towards us. In fact, we provide quite a lot of aid—although not as much as we did, as noble Lords have raised before—to support the Government of Yemen.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, being under constant air attack over a period time is, as I know from bitter experience, exhausting. What the people on HMS “Diamond” are doing is amazing, and I share the Minister’s statement that we should recognise how well they have done there. However, it is no good continually shooting down things that are being shot at you—which we are doing very successfully, and rather better than we did in the Falklands, because the systems are better; you have to go for the targets on shore. Therefore, I support the Government’s point that we must show that we cannot just sit there and take this damage. My question relates to tiredness. The people on-board will get very tired and they will need to be replaced. I am concerned about the number of ships we have to rotate through, should this go on for a long time. Does the Minister consider that we have enough ships to rotate through there, should things escalate, and to fulfil our commitments in other places in the world, such as in the Falklands, off Guyana, in the Gulf and elsewhere?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
The noble Lord asks a good question about the total scope and scale of His Majesty’s Navy and how long this might go on for. Perhaps I might turn the question around. If we were to do nothing, and provide no support, we would weaken international security and damage the global economy, and it would suggest that any British vessel is fair game. That is just not acceptable. Ships are available as replacements and to be part of the international task force. It is precisely that; it is an international task force, and integrated, particularly with the Americans who are leading it. Between us, we will certainly have sufficient funds.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, in view of the question of the noble Lord, Lord West, do we not need further assistance from our allies in Europe? In particular, what about the French, who have a fleet? Have they been asked for help and have they offered it?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My noble friend makes a very good point. The French are extremely supportive, but of course it is each sovereign nation’s decision whether or not to become lethally involved.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, given the importance of Sea Viper—the missile that was used to shoot down these drones—to our operational capacity, what plans do we have to follow the example of the United States and prioritise work on a transportable rearming mechanism? This is a technological advance that would allow HMS “Diamond” and other vessels to reload vertical launch missiles at sea, rather than putting into port as they presently have to do.
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, that is a very good point. Sea Viper is extremely effective, and there is a new version, which I think is called Sea Viper Evolution. A very substantial amount of money—about £400 million— is being spent to upgrade that. Rearming at sea is something I am not particularly knowledgeable about, so I will find out and write to the noble Lord.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, given that there have been protests on our streets supporting the Yemeni attacks, and given that the Houthi’s slogans include “Death to America”, “Death to Israel” and “Victory to Islam”, why are the Houthis not designated as a terrorist group, given that these acts are clearly acts of terrorism? Are the Government not trying to proscribe the Houthis and their backers in Iran, the IRGC, to help stop these kinds of protests, which are supporting such terrorist actions?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, this question is raised fairly regularly, and of course it is something which is under constant consideration. These are difficult decisions to take. However, in the meantime, we will continue to take action that is necessary, limited, legal—it is very important that it is legal—and proportionate in terms of self-defence and freedom of navigation, and indeed protecting lives.
Devolved Authorities: Expenditure outwith Competences
(10 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they expect to receive a report from the Cabinet Secretary on the arrangements for ensuring expenditure by the devolved authorities is spent in accordance with their competences and, if so, when.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)
The Government agree with the House of Lords Constitution Committee that the principle of a single Civil Service across England, Scotland and Wales should be maintained. The Government are in the process of considering what further guidance may be required for civil servants working in the devolved Administrations. I anticipate that this process will be completed in the coming months.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
But my Lords, it is now more than six months since Simon Case gave that commitment to the Constitution Committee. We have had fine words from the Dispatch Box—we have them again today—yet the Scottish Government have actually intensified their spending on reserved areas, with a campaign for independence, overseas embassies and a whole range of other things, as if they are deliberately defying the UK Government. When will the Government at last take their courage in their hands and take some action on the ground to back up their fine words?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I know there are strong feelings about this, and people in Scotland want both their Governments to concentrate on the issues that matter most to them: growing the economy, gripping inflation and improving public services. On the point about timing, as I said, the Government only recently, on 24 January, responded to the committee’s inquiry, reiterating the work that is under way. I am delighted that the Cabinet Secretary is back; these issues are being given active consideration.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
Does my noble friend the Minister agree that, as Scotland’s educational standards decline, its NHS faces acute challenges—not least the recruitment of consultants—and ferries languish in a Scottish government shipyard, overpriced, overdue and much needed by the operators, the response of the Scottish Government, not only to spend money on completely illegitimate and incompetent objectives, as the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, said, but to make Scotland the highest-taxed part of the United Kingdom, is, in the face of these challenges, as incomprehensible as it is regrettable?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I agree with much of my noble friend’s sentiment, and that the Civil Service should not carry out political work. It has its own Civil Service Code, which replicates the Civil Service Code that is operated across the UK, and it should pursue the priority items that people care about.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, now that devolution has been restored to Northern Ireland and there have been considerable discussions around funding issues—I acknowledge the funding that has already been promised by the Prime Minister—will the Minister indicate what further discussions are taking place about a new funding model for the Northern Ireland Executive to underpin the need for improved infrastructure to deal with health waiting lists and education priorities?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I think it is right for me to say that we welcome the return of the Executive and of devolved government in Northern Ireland. Indeed, I think the Prime Minister is attending Stormont today. A substantial budget has been made available as part of that settlement, and I look forward to hearing the outcomes of that, both from the new Executive and of course from our Northern Ireland Ministers.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)
Does the Minister agree that if Ministers in a devolved Administration wish to embark on a course of action or incur expenditure that may well be beyond devolved competence, one might reasonably expect civil servants to seek a written ministerial direction? What information does she have about the number of written ministerial directions sought from Scottish Ministers in the last five years, and what conclusions does she draw from either their frequency or their infrequency?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
The noble and learned Lord makes an interesting and important point. I understand that any directions of that kind from a Minister would have to be published, and I am not aware of any such directions having been made in relation to the issues that the noble and learned Lord describes. The Government recognise the strength of the arguments and, as I said, are in the process of considering how guidance might support civil servants working in the devolved Administrations on areas that might relate to reserved matters.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, this request to put competence at the heart of decision-making is a dangerous, underhand way of trying to prevent policies being made on impetus and conjecture, which could really change government. For example, it would have prevented a recent decision by the Secretary of State in the Ministry of Justice to describe an investigation into discrimination in the Prison Service, in which none of the complainants was interviewed and no documentation was looked at, as a very thorough, competent investigation.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I am not sure what sort of competence the noble Lord is talking about. Devolved competence is, of course, clearly set out in various bits of legislation. I note what he says about the investigation, which I was not aware of.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister understand that in Wales the problem is the reverse? The Government sought to indulge in a power grab, particularly following Brexit, of competences that were already devolved, and in addition threatened to spend on road projects, for example, that the Welsh Government had specifically rejected. This works both ways.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I do not entirely agree with the noble Lord, but he may be pleased to hear that I am going to Wales to give evidence on the new border arrangements this week.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, the area in which we seem to have come unstuck, particularly over what is devolved and what are reserved powers, is the changing scene of foreign policy. Does my noble friend agree that there might be a case for revisiting the devolution legislation, in a completely changed world, to understand, for instance, the role of the various Scottish offices in other capitals? Are they concerned with trade or are they involved in foreign policy? Do major visiting officials from other countries visit Scotland as a separate entity, with separate foreign policy considerations? This is a very muddled and confused area, and it is getting more so. Does she agree that we need to clear up some of these contradictions?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I agree with my noble friend. This is a live issue, because there was the example of a meeting between the Scottish First Minister and Turkish President Erdoğan with no FCDO official present. I regret that and think it contravenes the protocols, which are designed to ensure that a Minister within the UK lands is properly informed and is making the right points on such a sensitive area—and also reports back, so that we have a joined-up understanding of foreign affairs. Foreign affairs are a UK competence.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I return to the problems that the Scottish Government wish to be independent, pretend they are independent and then complain when they find that things they are trying to do do not conform to the devolution settlement, and that they are using UK Government premises overseas to promote their campaign for independence. Does this not have to be brought to a halt, and the division between what is devolved, what is reserved and what is shared clearly set out and enforced?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I agree that we need to consider the presence of Scottish Government offices in UK Government posts, but there is a case for having individual officials knowledgeable about Scotland engaged on issues such as fishing, where there is an important Scottish interest. I have seen that working well, so there is a balance here—but I agree with the general direction of the noble Lord’s comment.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, further to the question asked by my noble friend Lady Ritchie, we very much welcome the restoration of devolved government in Northern Ireland. But in the letter to the Prime Minister ahead of their meeting today, Northern Ireland Ministers wrote that they want
“immediate and durable changes to our funding arrangements”.
How do the Government interpret that, and what is their response?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I am sure we will get feedback on these very important discussions, and I do not want to be drawn in to making a comment today, despite the persuasion and charm of the noble Baroness.
General Aviation (Persons on Board, Flight Information and Civil Penalties) Regulations 2024
Lord Roborough
That the draft Regulations and draft Order laid before the House on 28 November and 7 December 2023 be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 30 January.
Afghan Relocations: Special Forces
(10 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, while we welcome the Government’s eventual acknowledgement of the failure of the ARAP scheme to appropriately protect the Triples, I am appalled at how long it has taken to get to this point. The Government have launched a review. They are now promising an independent reassessment process that will be followed by a reconsideration of individual decisions which are not considered to be robust—all this while the Triples are either in hiding in Afghanistan or in Pakistan fearing imminent deportation.
James Heappey in the other place pledged that these reassessments would be done in 12 weeks. Can the Minister confirm that they will be concluded by the end of April and that the timescale will include the reopening of ARAP claims where appropriate? Given the number of people currently stranded in Pakistan, can the Minister update your Lordships’ House on current conversations with the Government of Pakistan to ensure that there are no further deportations to Afghanistan while this process is under way?
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Minto) (Con)
My Lords, your Lordships will remember from when we went through this issue the last time that it is not easy. I do not accept that we have made a nonsense of it. What we are trying to do is get it right. Some inconsistencies came up during the process that needed addressing, which is what we are trying to do. The information was held by the Afghan national Government. It was not held by us. Your Lordships will remember that we had 142,000 applications, of which 95,000 were original. We needed to get to the truth of it. As a result, we are looking again at all the refusals, which is the right thing to do.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, these Benches welcome the Government’s change of heart and their agreement to look again at the applications of the Triples. There has been a real problem with ARAP and ACRS. People have not been able to make appeals.
Can the Minister reassure the House that His Majesty’s Government understand the urgency of dealing with these appeals immediately? While 12 weeks is absolutely the longest that it should take, ideally it should be much sooner. Can he tell us what Minister Heappey in the other place meant by saying that a new safe route is by the ACRS? The SNP had asked how we could have new safe routes. The fact that you have been granted ARAP does not mean that you can get out of hiding in Afghanistan to the United Kingdom. What will the Government do to enable people to get here safely?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, I assure all noble Lords that we are in very close contact with the highest level of the Government in Pakistan. They are being extremely co-operative on the situation. Regarding the 12-week timeframe, we would like to get this sorted out as soon as possible. It has gone on for a very long period, but please keep in context the 142,000 applications. It has not been easy, and it is important that we get the safe routes correct so that people can get out of Afghanistan. Once they are in Pakistan and get the letter, we can get them out. We got another 2,900 people out fairly recently. It is a challenge, but we are getting there.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, what the Minister has said today is very welcome, even if he is denying that it is a change of policy, which of course it is. It would have been quite shameful to have continued on the basis on which we were proceeding before this change. Can he or his colleague in the FCDO say whether reconsideration is being given also to those who worked with and for the British Council over many years? I declare that I negotiated the opening of the British Council in Kabul some 60 years ago.
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, I will certainly take up that question about the British Council. The Government are absolutely clear about their responsibilities under ARAP and ACRS, and are doing their absolute best to ensure that we end up with a fair and equitable solution.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the fact that the Government have undertaken to review all those applications that were deemed to be ineligible. Some of those very brave men are in hiding in Afghanistan, and some of them are in Pakistan, but some are here. In the chaos of leaving Afghanistan, they were all denied access to the evacuation flights. They all knew the Taliban knew where they lived. They were forced, in those circumstances, to get here by irregular and dangerous routes. Will the Ministry of Defence undertake not to make them ineligible for ARAP because of the way they got here?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, my understanding is that that is absolutely correct. Everything is being considered on a case-by-case basis, and the information now needs to be as pure as it possibly can be to enable us to decide whether those employees of the Afghan Government are eligible to relocate into this country.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend said that the Afghan Government were being co-operative—what form is this co-operation taking?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, I believe that I said the Pakistan Government. I do not think the Afghanistan Government are particularly co-operative.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his thoughtful answer to my noble friend, but how does his answer square with the Government’s current and proposed future policy on people who come here via irregular routes? When legislation that has already passed is brought into force, and when proposed legislation passes, the Secretary of State will have no discretion even to be kind to people such as the brave men and women we have been discussing but will be under a duty to send them to places such as Rwanda.
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, I am not 100% clear on that point, but I know that, where inconsistencies and inaccuracies have come to light, we are going to reconsider—with a completely new team of people and a completely new assessment—to make absolutely certain that we get the people here who should be here.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, as one who knows that part of the world—Pakistan, India and even Afghanistan a little—is my noble friend confident that our high commission in Pakistan has sufficient resources supplemented to help the existing people, so that this process can be speeded up?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that question. I will ask my colleagues in the Foreign Office and find out.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, the Minister has said that each case will be considered individually, which of course is good, but he will be aware that it is often extremely difficult for applicants to produce incontrovertible evidence of their entitlement. Will he assure the House that, in cases where there is some fuzziness and a little bit of doubt, the Government will exercise their generosity rather than their bureaucracy?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, I recall a very similar question the last time we raised this, and I think I said at the time that there is flexibility and that it is important that we get it right. That is the indication that I will give.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, if nobody else wants to come in, perhaps I may press the noble Earl further to answer my original question and those of the noble Lord, Lord Browne, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. If somebody is entitled to ARAP, and if they make it to the United Kingdom by some circuitous route that would otherwise be deemed illegal, does that mean that they will be eligible to remain even though, in every other circumstance, they would be deemed to have come through an illegal route and potentially be sent to Rwanda?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, that is something I am not 100% clear on. I will not say one way or the other, but I will find out and write.
Victims and Prisoners Bill
Monday 5th February 2024
(10 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 View all Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 31-IV Fourth marshalled list for Committee - (5 Feb 2024)
Baroness Newlove (Con)
My Lords, I add my support to Amendments 30, 31, 37 to 46, and 53. Compliance with the victims’ code goes straight to the heart of what the Bill is about. This year, the code will have been on the statute book for 20 years. Its creation was based on good intentions, and the many entitlements, if properly implemented, would deliver the support and treatment deserved. On that we all agreed.
As discussed in the previous debate, the same piece of legislation sought to underpin the code by setting up the role of an independent Victims’ Commissioner, whose role is to
“review the operation of the code”.
Twenty years later, I think we all agree that the expectations created by that piece of legislation have never been fully met. Victim Support has found that as many as six in 10 victims do not receive their rights under the victims’ code, two in 10 are not referred to support services, and six in 10 are not referred to a needs assessment. In my most recent victim survey, fewer than three in 10 respondents were aware of the existence of the code. Only 29% recalled being told about the entitlement to make a victim personal statement.
In December, we had the report of the joint inspection on how well the police, the CPS and probation supported victims, which also found that the focus on complying with rights under the victims’ code has led to an emphasis on process rather than quality of service. The police, the CPS and the Probation Service did not always consider the needs of victims. As for police sharing information with victims, the report found that this was often a box-ticking exercise, with no evidence of quality. We love tick boxes, but we are missing the whole point of issuing this information and supporting victims. As the recent case in Nottingham has shown so powerfully, the quality and timeliness of communications with victims are crucial.
After 20 years, it is disappointing that we need to have this debate yet again. During that time, there have been many well-intentioned attempts to drive up performance: a tweak here, a nudge there, and yet another revision of the code. This Bill must not be allowed to become another nudge and another tweak.
There is much in the Bill to commend it. It will set up a structure whereby data is collected locally, with the Secretary of State issuing guidance on the data required. There will be an internal process to oversee monitoring of compliance, a programme board, and a ministerial task force. If an agency fails to deliver, it will eventually be issued with a notice of non-compliance. These are all positive developments.
Yes, I do have some concerns—for example, about whether the police and crime commissioners will be resourced to undertake the required data collection and analysis, and about the influence they will be able to assert over national criminal justice agencies at a local level—but let us not focus on those for now. The question we must ask ourselves is: will regional directors of, say, the CPS or the Probation Service lie awake at night worrying about an MoJ notice? I very much doubt it. Where are the transparency, the public accountability, the independent scrutiny and the challenge? By itself, will this worthy framework deliver the culture change we have all been talking about?
As the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said last week—I know we have had a weekend in between—we might ask: does it have teeth? I fear that it does not. I support the amendments in this group not because I want to undermine or devalue the work that has been done in government, but because I want to give the Government the tools to make it succeed.
Amendment 30 sets out a framework for the Government to hold the criminal justice agencies to account should they fail to deliver a minimum level of compliance with victims’ rights. This proposal is not a straitjacket; it is a framework. The Government set the threshold, and the timeframe is two successive years. A failure to meet the Government’s set thresholds will result in an inspection, which in turn will result in a published report highlighting shortcomings and making recommendations for the change. This holds agencies fully to account and provides much-needed transparency. To put it bluntly, it has much more clout than an MoJ non-compliance notification.
For the same reason, I support Amendment 31, which gives holders of my role the opportunity to issue non-compliance notices where there is evidence of persistent non- compliance.
I turn to Amendments 44 to 46, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool. The systematic collection of compliance data offers an opportunity for proper scrutiny and accountability. The publication of the data will be a significant development, but the Government propose to give themselves the responsibility for delivering the assessment of the data. Therefore, they decide on the data to be collected. They fund the PCCs, victim activity and data collection. They also publish their own internal assessment of the data. As the noble Lord, Lord Russell, says, this smacks of the Government marking their own homework.
This framework lacks independent scrutiny and challenge. We can do better than this. This assessment needs to be undertaken by the person who has statutory responsibility for reviewing the operation of the code—in other words, the Victims’ Commissioner: someone who has the freedom to report without fear or favour, and who is able to challenge both the Government and the criminal justice agencies. As a person independent of government, his or her findings would be viewed as credible by victims, the public and the media. I add that my term expires in October, so this responsibility would fall to the future commissioners.
A former CEO of the office of a police and crime commissioner watched the debate last Wednesday, and she emailed me to say that the concerns from speakers about the approach of the criminal justice agencies to the code resonated with her. She said:
“On the additional ‘A’ being added by Lord Bellamy of ‘adaptable’, I understand the point he was making, but I would suggest the agencies sat around the Local Criminal Justice table have made full use of the adaptable nature of the code to date and the lack of governance around it which is why we are in the position we find ourselves with only a third of victims having awareness of the code”.
This needs to change. From the outset, I have constantly said that the credibility of the Bill rests on delivering code compliance and ending the culture within our agencies of adapting themselves around it. This is something on which we are all agreed, and I hope the Minister and the Government will, at long last, listen and act upon our concerns.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendments 30 and 44 to 46 in this group, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool. Others have spoken at length and much better than I can about these, so I really just want to echo the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, here. These amendments are about compliance, accountability and the Victims’ Commissioner. The noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, talked about tweaks and nudges, which we do not want—just give the Victims’ Commissioner teeth, because independence and rigorous scrutiny are vital if the Bill is to have the confidence of victims.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I have signed Amendments 31, 51 and 83 in this group. Amendment 31 would give the Victims’ Commissioner an additional role in ensuring the victims’ code in the event of non-compliance. As other noble Lords have said today and last Wednesday, the real problem with the Bill is that there is no duty on agencies to comply. I support the two previous speakers—nudging agencies will not create the right effect.
Amendment 51, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, would ensure that the justice agencies are properly trained. As with Amendment 83, the aims and objectives of Amendment 51 are something I have laid repeatedly over the decade and more since I have been pushing for training, particularly on matters to do with victims. I am really pleased that the noble Lord has tabled the amendment; I am also pleased that the family courts are beginning to understand that there is a crossover between what happens to victims in the criminal justice system and their experiences in the family court system. I will not say more, because we will be debating a group of amendments on that on Wednesday. However, none of that will happen unless everybody involved in the criminal justice procedure is fully trained. I understand that the justices are extremely concerned that Parliament should ask them to be trained, but it is not just about people sitting on the Bench. This is about everybody who is engaged.
I know that I have said in private and perhaps in public that, when I went to the sentencing of my stalker, I was placed literally next to him. I had no choice of where to sit—that is where the clerk who took me in sat me. It was the first time I had seen him since he was arrested, and it was a real shock to the system. So, when I talk about right through the system, I mean absolutely everything, including the people who help manage the seating areas in the court. Above all, we need a system whereby the family courts will ensure that victims are not victimised twice. It is broader than that, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, for tabling that amendment.
Amendment 83 would ensure that front-line agencies are trained to recognise stalking. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Russell, for expanding it to include higher education places. Stalking in its most unpleasant form is manipulative and coercive. Families and friends of those being stalked are also stalked, meaning that people who come into contact with them, including in schools, colleges, universities and the health system, need to understand when they are being played by a stalker. Because stalkers are very good at it—every single day cases come to court with stalkers behaving in this appalling manipulative way. It is extremely unpleasant and frightening. To train everyone to recognise it, to be able to ask the right questions and, as we discussed last week, to signpost people to the right services, is vital.
There is another reason why Amendment 83 is important. One problem of the Domestic Abuse Act is that it has downgraded non-domestic stalking. The priority in the system is for domestic stalking, and without a specific amendment providing for stalking in one form, we will not see this form of discrimination, which happens simply because it is not domestic—and I am afraid that some people in the criminal justice system think that non-domestic stalking is not as severe.
Overall, from these Benches we welcome the amendments. The deluge of amendments that the Minister is facing is because we know that the victims’ code that the Government have put forward, with which we all agree in principle, will not work without the strengthening of the responsibilities of the Victims’ Commissioner and other agencies involved in managing the lives that victims have after they have become victims.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I support in broad terms the need for the commissioner to have more powers to intervene on behalf of victims, and my questions are about how that should be done most effectively to create the atmosphere that is needed.
For many years we have had people who have intervened on behalf of suspects, but very few people who have been able to intervene on behalf of victims, and I really support that changing. Amendment 30 talks about the ability to produce reports. My questions are about whether the reports are the right way to achieve the outcome, when people in fact want individual interventions for their particular problem. To give more powers to the commissioner to intervene in individual problems might be more powerful.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 36, which is in my noble friend Lord Bach’s name, as well as my own. This is a probing amendment. It does not set out to challenge the Government’s position on delivering their commitment regarding local criminal justice boards, within the scope of the clauses on code compliance. It seeks to set out the benefits of putting LCJBs and police and crime commissioners together.
First, it will drive consistency of approach to code compliance, which can be monitored through LCJBs. Secondly, it will deliver effective collaboration and shared accountability of code compliance and encourage attendance from criminal justice boards. Thirdly, it will ensure that statutory guidance is reflective of the LCJB approach. Fourthly, it will recognise the LCJB role in victims’ code compliance, given the policy intent to place the boards on a statutory footing.
This amendment does not state that LCJBs are the only forum in which to comply with the current regulations. However, LCJBs are important forums that need to be bolstered in order to deliver on the Bill’s ambitions, drive consistency and ensure local shared accountability for code compliance across criminal justice bodies and the elected policing bodies. This amendment will deliver that aim through enshrining them in this Bill.
The Ministry of Justice published guidance for LCJBs in March 2023. This guidance reiterated the commitment to placing LCJBs on a statutory footing:
“In line with recommendations made by the Review, a suitable legislative vehicle is being sought to place LCJBs on a statutory footing and mandate that the PCC act as Chair”.
By giving local criminal justice boards their own place in the legislation, this amendment would remind local partners of their shared accountability for and commitment to supporting victims of crime and to delivering the new responsibilities set out in this Bill. We would also provide PCCs, who chair the majority of these boards, with the levers they need to ensure that the boards are effective and set clear expectations of their members.
Turning to the other amendments in this group, the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, spoke to Amendments 30 and 31, and I agree, of course, with the points she made. She spoke very powerfully on the importance of independent scrutiny and transparency, and she proposed a “framework, not a straitjacket”. She believes, as do I, that what she is proposing is a better way of holding agencies to account. She also quoted the noble Lord, Lord Russell, on the Government currently marking their own homework; he wants to deliver a better system through these amendments.
I also want to endorse what the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said about recognising both domestically related and non-domestically related stalking. I have dealt with stalking matters quite a few times in magistrates’ courts, and even though, from an outsider’s point of view, they can seem less important, I am absolutely convinced that, for the people being stalked, it is an extremely alarming and frightening position to find themselves in. In fact, I dealt with that sort of case very recently. It also reinforces the point in Amendment 51 about the training needed for justice agencies in order to recognise stalking and its importance.
In conclusion, I noted with interest the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, to the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, about multiple inspectors and inspections and the need for this to be carefully thought through. They were very fair questions, but I do not think they add up to an argument against. Their points were well made, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answer.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords very much for their contributions to this group. I first apologise for my heavy cold and thank my noble friends Lord Roborough and Lord Howe for stepping into the breach and dealing with subsequent groups today.
The amendments in this group essentially seek stronger compliance mechanisms, credibility, as has been said, more specific obligations on training and a wider role for the Victims’ Commissioner—in other words, we are in the field of awareness and accountability, to use two of my four “A’s”. The Government would not be proceeding with this structure if they did not believe that they were delivering a credible structure. The whole purpose of Clauses 6 to 10, combined with guidance under Clause 11, is very much to improve awareness and compliance. Under Clause 6, criminal justice bodies must promote awareness and review their compliance, and, in particular, under Clause 7 the PCCs for each area must supervise the criminal justice bodies in their area and provide reports for the Secretary of State. That is all combined with the collection and sharing of information about how they are functioning, together with the publication of compliance information under Clause 10.
In that latter regard, I ask noble Lords not to underestimate the importance and strength of shining light in dark corners. We have seen it in other parts of the criminal justice system, such as the family justice system. Once you have the information and it is in the public domain, that is a huge contributor to raising standards generally. As the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, pointed out, some police forces are doing extremely well; I think Cheshire was the example he gave. So it can be done under the existing system. The question is, how we bring everybody up to the same standard. Clauses 6 to 10, coupled with the duty to collaborate under Clause 12, and the preparation of the strategy and the needs assessment under Clause 13, all involve everybody collaborating, working together, learning from each other and generally arriving at best practice. In the Government’s view, that is a perfectly sensible and entirely efficient and fruitful way to go. So in general terms, at least at this stage, the Government are not persuaded of the need for the further amendments in this group.
I turn for a moment to the rights of individual victims under the statutory code. Without reopening exchanges from the previous occasion, I would like to state categorically on behalf of the Government, at the Dispatch Box, that Clause 5 is not and is not intended to be an ouster of judicial review. The code, its operation and the bodies responsible for this operation are, in the Government’s view, subject to judicial review. From the point of view of the individual victim, that may be something of a technicality but, given the modern prevalence of public interest litigation by groups of various kinds, it is not insignificant that the relevant bodies and the code itself are subject to judicial review.
As for the individual victim, the Government agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, that giving victims the right to sue directly in the courts—for example, for damages—is not the best approach. In the case of the individual victim, the route is a complaint to the ombudsman, who may give such redress, including compensation, as it is within their power to give. Noble Lords will note that another improvement in the Bill, in Clause 23, enables the victim complainant to go direct to the ombudsman rather than through one’s MP. That is an important reform.
What are the enforcement mechanisms if this system does not work as envisaged? What are we going to do about it? I shall give noble Lords a little bit of colour from the additional document about compliance oversight, published on the MoJ website last month and referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove. At national level, there will be a new cross-criminal justice system governance system, with a programme board and a ministerial taskforce to monitor compliance nationally. The Victims’ Commissioner will be fully involved; we are putting the Victims’ Commissioner at the heart, administratively speaking, of the way in which this is developing—as will the various inspectorates and other important stakeholders.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, said, one weapon with which to address non-compliance will be the use of non-statutory non-compliance notifications similar to those used in the Prison Service to drive change. Also very potent, if I may say so, are the inspections themselves. Clauses 19 to 22 give the relevant powers to the inspectors of constabulary and probation and so forth to have inspections. Another aspect that adds to the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner is to build the commissioner into those structures and to require those bodies, when developing inspections, to fully consult the commissioner. There is also the possibility of joint inspections, which is another tool. So when you need to do something on a targeted basis, in this Bill you have the powers, in the end, to do it. That is the Government’s general position.
I now turn to the specific amendments. Amendment 30, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, seeks to create a duty on the Secretary of State to set out in regulations minimal thresholds for the code of compliance and to instigate inspections when these are breached in two consecutive years. The Government’s position is that we fully agree that clear indicators are needed to identify severe and persistent non-compliance. However, it is almost certain that what the Government propose to adopt will be a range of indicators, rather than a specific minimum threshold, to consider not just when entitlements are being delivered but how they are received by victims. Those indicators should be decided by the bodies that are responsible for delivering the code, which is why it will be a matter for the ministerial task force. As I have said, the task force will include the inspectorates, the Victims’ Commissioner, and the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
Perhaps the Minister can drink a bit more water at this point, though that is not the sole reason for my intervention.
I am grateful for the Minister’s clarification, but my own clarification is that no one suggested, at any point, that Clause 5 is an ouster of judicial review. Last time, I was trying to make it clear that, in Clause 5, the code does not give any right to civil proceedings, and so no individual can sue on the code. In the creative scheme that we devised, we were not suggesting that individuals should be able to sue either. We certainly agree with not wanting more litigation for people who have already had a terrible time with litigation and probably have no civil legal aid anyway.
The point was that the Victims’ Commissioner should be more than a toothless tiger. Whether or not it is through force of personality, as with the current commissioner, future commissioners should have something in their back pocket for recalcitrant public authorities which, year after year, do not respect the victims’ code. Even in the scheme that we developed, litigation should not be the first resort for a Victims’ Commissioner either today or in future. They should have to jump through hoops first—the issue of private notices followed up by the issue of public notices. Only in extremis should the Victims’ Commissioner alone—in relation not even to particular a criminal case but to systemic failure—be able, as a last resort, to sue on the code. I understand the Minister’s position, but I hope he will at least take the opportunity to reflect on what noble Lords have suggested before the next stage.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for that intervention. I will continue to reflect on all the points made, including this one. The Government’s present position is that this “slap on the wrist” power for the Victims’ Commissioner probably does not take matters much further forward, but I may reflect on that further.
I turn to Amendments 37 to 42 from the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and other related amendments, which, as I understand it, require the Secretary of State, rather than the police and crime commissioner, to monitor code compliance for a local police area. For transparency, the Government are committed to national oversight via the ministerial task force, but there is an essential role for local accountability. There is a hierarchy here, and the police and crime commissioner is the right person to be responsible for ensuring compliance in that local area as they already play a vital role in improving and championing services for victims through commissioning support services and chairing local criminal justice courts. The Government attach importance to that local activity.
This brings me to Amendment 36, supported by the noble Lords, Lord Ponsonby and Lord Bach, which seeks to specify that criminal justice boards and PCCs may use local criminal justice boards for the purposes of local review. We entirely agree. As the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said—I completely recognise this—we need a wider debate about placing local criminal justice boards on a statutory footing. The Government have expressed support for that happening in a way that reflects the full remit of the work they do. Once we find a legislative opportunity to do so, it should be taken forward. The Government are very much of the view that their often vital work should be supported.
I return to awareness and training in Amendment 51 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, and Amendment 83 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell, on training in support for victims of stalking. The noble Lords are quite right that there is an obvious need for more training. The Government hesitate to have a national training framework because so much will depend on the local situation. These amendments apply to a vast range of organisations and a one-size-fits-all approach will not appropriately support staff to meet the diverse needs of victims in the wide range of settings in which they operate.
However, it is very difficult to imagine guidance on Clause 11 which does not include a reference to the kind of training that should be done. If you are placing a duty on the agencies to work with victims day in, day out to promote awareness of the code, it seems implicit that the relevant persons have to be properly trained. The Government agree with that.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, first, I pay tribute to the Minister, who for 25 minutes has responded to this group when he quite clearly would rather be in another place; I do not mean down the Corridor. We all wish him a speedy recovery, but we would also be well advised to keep a fairly safe distance from him for the immediate future.
The Minister said at the beginning that the key to making the victims part of the Bill work is culture change. To mix metaphors, there was culture change with teeth—which sounds like a strange creature for well-paid Harley Street specialists to dream up new procedures for.
Before I continue with that, it would be nice if we could try to stop in its tracks the growing confusion which has come since the arrival in your Lordships’ House of a brace of Russells. I point out that I am a lowly Baron—the bottom of the heap, Lord Russell of Liverpool—and not the much more elevated noble Earl, Lord Russell, who is in his place. To back up my point, I will quote the letter that the noble Earl’s grandfather and my grandfather wrote jointly to the Times in 1959, which I think makes the point rather clear:
“Sir—In order to discourage confusions which have been constantly occurring, we beg herewith to state that neither of us is the other”.
I hope that puts that particular care to rest.
When talking about what the Government are proposing in the victims part of the Bill, the Minister asked the rhetorical question of whether it is a credible structure. Do we need, as the Government are saying, a strengthening and reinforcing of the current structure or—and this is not rhetorical—is the structure itself part of the problem? The structure has been in place in a slightly weakened form for many years and it is clearly not working. The Government have recognised that, and put a commitment in the 2019 manifesto to try to put that right and produce a victims Bill.
In reflecting on how best to respond to the manifest failings in the current structure—although there are some good points—I suggest to the Government that the best solution is not to try to reinforce the current structure by putting sticking plasters and various forms of glue into various parts of it.
I also point out that, while best practice certainly exists—we know it is exists; there are examples all over the country—we also know a great deal about human nature. Human nature is perhaps best exemplified by something known to anybody now in your Lordships’ Chamber who was once a Minister—a political Minister, not of the Church—in any shape or form: hell hath no fury like different government departments trying to ignore one another, and, above all, like a department doing everything it can desperately to avoid taking on any good practice from another department, which might be seen to imply that its own practice was not as good. We have all known about that; “Yes Minister” was a very successful programme for many years, partly on that premise. That is human nature; it is the same with departments of state, police and crime commissioners and the 43 separate police forces in England and Wales—all the different bodies dealing with this.
I come back to what I mentioned last week: the paean for a past age identified by the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, when you could essentially rely on people and parts of the state doing what is expected of them—the “good chaps” theory of government and administration, if you like. There is so much evidence to indicate that, for all sorts of reasons that we will not go into today, that is not happening. We would be doing ourselves, and in particular the Government, a favour if we looked in the mirror and recognised that it is not working.
The Victims’ Commissioner has to be the most obvious channel for dealing with an awful lot of these issues. In particular, the current interim commissioner, who was largely responsible for the role being created in the first place, has direct experience of being a victim at great cost and has, for the last 15 years or more, dedicated her life to helping other victims and to talking to a variety of individuals and organisations to work out how better to understand what victims are going through and to do something to help them. She knows what she is taking about—she really does. When she talks to the Government and suggests, in her usual very polite way, that things are not quite as they may seem and that things may not turn out quite as the Government hope they will, it behoves the entire House to listen to her very carefully.
An unfortunate fact in recent history is that because the noble Baroness’s predecessor as Victims’ Commissioner was not invited to return for a second term of office, there was a significant period when there was no Victims’ Commissioner and no proper voice for victims. That took place at a critical time when the Bill was going through its birth pangs and was being put together. It would be good for the Government to acknowledge the insights and information that the noble Baroness could have given to the inception, crafting and architecture of the Bill—particularly its structure, which we will come back to. The Bill would have been infinitely improved if it had had the benefit of more input from her and the team around her. It is never too late, and I hope that we can use the time between now and Report to have some intensive meetings and discussions in a completely non-combative way. I and others said at the beginning of the Bill that our role is to drain any politics from the Bill to the extent that we can. It is not about politics; it is about people and victims. The Victims’ Commissioner is the obvious driver of culture change; she is better placed to do that than anybody else, and it behoves the Government to acknowledge that and to listen to her.
As for the minimum threshold, I hear what the Minister said about having a range of indicators rather than minimum thresholds. The sceptic in me would point out that if you are asking a range of institutions—which are themselves being asked to work out whether they are meeting those thresholds—to come up with their own preferred indicators, you may possibly not come up with some of the more challenging and awkward indicators. You may well come up with a preferred list of indicators that are rather more easy to accede to. Philosophically, there is at least a question mark over that approach, and we would like to discuss that further.
I say a big thank you to the Government for acknowledging that an annual statement of the state of affairs is very welcome. I think I can see the noble Baroness nodding. We are grateful for that and regard it as a good step forward.
To come back to the role of the Victims’ Commissioner, whoever is in this role should be front and centre in making the Bill as effective as possible, and then being accountable for holding the Government and the different agencies to account for delivering on it. It is not a satisfactory course to expect the Government to hold themselves to account. In theory, the Government have held themselves to account in this area for the last 20 years, and the report card is perhaps not as stellar as the Government would like it to be. I am grateful that the joint criminal boards are acknowledged as an important part of the process; that is a good move.
As far as training is concerned, I am grateful in particular that the Government are looking at the super-complaint that the Suzy Lamplugh Trust put forward on the basis of some dreadful stories. Stalking is incredibly complex. We need to sit down and try to make sure that people understand just how large scale, complex and insidious it is. To expect any public servant—or even victim—to understand what they are dealing with without effective, precise training will not give a good result, as I learned from talking to Richard Spinks, the father of Gracie Spinks, two weeks ago. He was not bitter, but he was desperately disappointed that Gracie had complained to the Derbyshire police more than 40 times about the way she was being threatened and the concerns she had about what might happen—and it did happen. It happened in plain sight, and the Derbyshire police in effect chose to be blindfolded and mute. To their credit, they have acknowledged after the event that they failed egregiously. What was needed was proper training in place, a proper understanding of dealing with this and, above all, proper leadership. If you want real culture change, you need really good leadership. I put it to noble Lords that having the leadership of a really effective Victims’ Commissioner is probably the most effective way to drive this forward.
We all welcome the Minister’s invitation to have further meetings to, as he put it so elegantly, reflect further—hopefully when his sinuses permit. On that basis, I withdraw the amendment.
“(4A) Regulations under subsection (2) must require information about compliance with the victims’ code to be linked to a consistent victim identifier that is used across the agencies of the criminal justice system.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment comes from the perspective that achieving the Bill's aims of putting victims at the heart of the criminal justice system requires addressing the issue that the information systems used by criminal justice agencies do not at present collect or share information satisfactorily.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, although this amendment has been put down rather late, I hope that once the Committee has heard about it, it will realise that it has some potential importance in this debate. I want to thank publicly the Public Bill Office of this House, which is superb in the way in which it deals with each of us in turn so ably. For it to be able, on Friday afternoon with an hour to go before closing, to deal so satisfactorily with the issue that I now raise is a real compliment to it, and I do not think you would see that in every part of the public or private services.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, as it happens, I did read the article in the Financial Times, and pressed the little button to save it, because I thought what an interesting idea it expressed, particularly as this Bill was sailing on its way into Committee.
Victims in our system, depending on where they are in the system, are often invisible. I spoke earlier about the case of Gracie Spinks, and the number of times she complained to the police, yet none of it was joined up. Eleven years ago, there was a lady called Helen Pearson, who was repeatedly stabbed in a churchyard after she had been given a new and different reference number for each of the 125 previous reports she had made against her stalker. The failure to link these reports meant that the police had missed vital opportunities to understand the pattern that was building up and the degree of danger that she was potentially under. That is a graphic example: there were 125 different reference numbers for the same person, in each case complaining about the same person. That is not good practice, and it is not acceptable.
We do not have an answer today, but I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for raising the issue at this stage, to give us a chance to look at it carefully. I know that His Majesty’s Government, and many other institutions, do not have a brilliant track record in implementing new data and information systems, and many careers have suffered as a result. But that is not a good reason for not looking into this and seeing whether we can use modern technology to try to make victims’ experience better, and above all to help the bodies that are charged with trying to identify what those victims are suffering to do something about it. Having a tool such as that suggested by the noble Lord seems a bit of a no-brainer, and it would be an excellent topic for further discussion between now and Report.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
I too support the amendment. I am grateful that we have put people into the Bill, because that is what this legislation is about: it is about people. I do not think that victims want to be at the centre of the criminal justice system, but they do want a level playing field; that narrative has been overused, although I mean no disrespect to the noble Lord, whom I met as police and crime commissioner—I loved travelling round the country on trains for two and a half years, meeting everyone, when I was previously Victims’ Commissioner. I agree that the Bill is about people. We hear many times that the police servers do not talk to one another, and all these servers do not seem to interact with all the other agencies or all feed into the Ministry of Justice.
I am delighted that this issue is being raised. This morning we talked about it in the context of the National Health Service. A Times Health Commission report out today looks at a similar thing. Even GPs cannot talk to hospitals, and even consultants within the same hospital cannot talk and get the information out. Again, that is about patients. It is important that we are talking about it at this stage. I would welcome further discussions. Victims are given different messages, different police officers and different everything. It does not mount up. How many recordings and crime reference numbers do we need? It should be one. There is one portal for every police force that a victim can feed into. Therefore, it should be the other way around. A victim should have one record and be able to put the narrative together so that they feel safe in our communities. I welcome the amendment.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I too welcome this amendment. Although I am speaking from the Liberal Democrat Benches, first, I will speak personally, as I have had a number of amendments in other Bills relating to the use of very personal data, whether it is medical data or data with other identifiers.
There is a very strong argument for this. I noted that the briefing which we were sent earlier today talked about the independent review of children’s social care, recommending the re-use of the NHS number for the consistent child identifier. One of my concerns is that a lot of different departments of government or agencies are trying to create their own individual number, which suddenly means that you must remember or have access to your NI number, your DVLA number, your NHS number, your school number or whatever it is. For things such as this, provided that there are the appropriate data safeguards, it is sensible to use a number that is already there. My personal view is that it would be interesting to hear the arguments about whether it should be a separate number or the NHS number, because, after all, everybody has an NHS number.
The briefing also talked about the savings to the criminal justice system from having such an approach. One of the big scandals that we have at the moment is that, because the system is failing, victims often withdraw from any criminal justice system. They do not want to appear as witnesses or they find it very difficult to do so. If we really believe that this number is going to help support victims and to help them to stay through the course and get the justice that they deserve, it will also provide many millions of pounds of cost saving over the years to offset any very minor costs and administrative irritations from adding the NHS number or the victim’s journey number to every form.
From these Benches, we welcome anything that we can debate with the Government between Committee and Report to strengthen the role of a victim and ensure that they get the right support.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I too read Dr Natalie Byrom’s compelling piece. I very much took to heart the points made by my noble friend Lord Bach. He said that the police count crimes, the CPS counts defendants, the courts count cases, but nobody counts the victims.
I was interested in the reference by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, to using NHS numbers so that you are not constantly duplicating numbers. I was reflecting on this because in another life I have dealt with large amounts of data as an engineer. I am very conscious that putting in more identifying numbers does not necessarily make situations more straightforward. Nevertheless, it is a good idea and worth exploring further.
A couple of questions occurred to me during my noble friend’s speech and other contributions. How would you record out-of-court disposals? How would you record withdrawals from cases where there may have been a crime committed but not necessarily a victim identified? Also, what would happen when you got cases of a relatively low nature which were across different police forces and were not necessarily picked up? That is often a source of problems.
The context of this debate is stalkers and domestic abuse, but of course it goes wider, because we were talking in earlier groups about anti-social behaviour and where repeated examples of it were not picked up and acted on. It is a good idea and one that is worth looking at further, but I do not underestimate the complexities of putting it in place.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I do not think I could have put it better than the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. It is a good idea, but there are lots of complexities. I am sure that noble Lords agree that, in many ways, joining the dots and handling data is one of the most critical challenges any Government face—whether it is between departments or within the NHS, within the justice system, within or across police forces, et cetera. We still have 43 different police forces with computers that do not even necessarily talk to each other.
I thank the noble Lord for his amendment, which would introduce a consistent victim identifier for the collecting and sharing of code compliance information. This is extremely important so that we can better understand and meet victims’ needs. As I understand it, there is a Ministry of Justice pilot called the Better Outcomes through Linked Data—or BOLD—programme, which is already exploring how to link victims’ data to improve our understanding of their experiences. It is right that we should have a much better knowledge of the victim’s journey through the system and, in particular—to pick up a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, made—better understand why people drop out of the system at a certain stage. Although I do not have a more precise date, I gather that the results of that pilot will be available in 2024.
Whether it is something that is either sufficiently developed or should be in the Bill as a matter of principle is perhaps another question. At this stage at least, the Government are not persuaded that it that should be in the Bill, but they are persuaded that it is something we should continue to work on to understand the complexities and arrive at practical solutions.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this fairly short yet important debate. I thank the Minister for answering the question so positively. Whether or not it is for this Bill is a matter for discussion between now and Report, but it seems that while there are, of course, considerable issues around this in practice, the idea that the victim should be treated in the same way, being known about and followed, as it were, in this area seems an important principle, and would raise the position of the victim—as the Bill says it intends to do. I hope we will come back to this issue. It is worthy of discussion and has had a good outing today in Committee. I do not think it will go away—if we do not take advantage of digital advances in this area, as in every other, we are not doing our duty. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Hampton
“(4A) Collaboration may include the co-location of services in accordance with the Child House model, as defined by the Home Office guidance entitled “Child House: local partnerships guidance”, published on 6 September 2021.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would include within the duty to collaborate the use of the Child House model, described by the Home Office guidance as “a multi-agency service model supporting children, young people and non-abusing parents, carers and family members.”
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to my Amendment 53, which would insert the concept:
“Collaboration may include the co-location of services in accordance with the Child House model”.
We have heard much talk about the child house model pilot project at the Lighthouse in Camden. It is a multiagency model for children and young people who have experienced any form of sexual abuse. I urge noble Lords to visit this place; it is a shining example. It is an extraordinarily light, welcoming and unthreatening place where children and young people can go to receive medical help and counselling, but also where they can tell their story. As we have said, children tend to tell their story only once, so if we want justice from these places, this is the place to do it. It is a pilot scheme that needs to be rolled out.
At the moment the Bill seems to be in either/or mode when it talks about local authorities. The amendment would clarify that a multiagency, multiborough or multi-council format could be used as best practice for child victims when, as must happen, this model is rolled out across the country. With that, I beg to move.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to a variety of amendments. I support the amendment just moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, but I will leave it to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, to talk about it when he winds up. I will speak to my Amendments 54 and 81. I support Amendments 56 and 59 in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. I will then speak to my Amendments 58, 60, 62 and 64.
Amendments 54 and 81 return to the subject of stalking. There were 1.6 million victims of stalking in the year ending 2023, so it seems strange that there is relatively little mention of stalking and stalking victims in the Bill. That is something we hope to persuade His Majesty’s Government to consider. Part of that is the importance of independent stalking advocates, which we will come to in a later group. We particularly welcome the Government’s new measures to expand Clause 15 to include guidance about a number of specialist support roles, including, we hope, independent stalking advocates. But I stress that, although what they propose is extremely welcome, it is obviously a very good idea to think about this and develop the list in close co-operation with some of the organisations and bodies closest to the front line in dealing with victims and experiences.
Stalking should certainly be included within the scope of the duty to collaborate in Clause 12. The Minister said in considering the previous group that the Government are looking carefully at the super-complaint made by the Suzy Lamplugh Trust about stalking not being dealt with effectively, but again, we know that it is being dealt with extraordinarily well in some parts of the country. So we know that there are ways of tackling it, but unfortunately that is being done in only a handful of parts of the country. If you are unfortunate enough not to live in those parts, you will have a pretty ghastly experience, like Gracie Spinks and so many other people. That is probably enough on stalking; I think the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, can be relied on to talk about that in more detail, and, very importantly, from direct personal experience, which has its own power.
The two amendments put forward by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester try to ensure that funding for victims and witness support services is sufficient to meet the needs across the country, particularly the demand for specialist domestic abuse services. While the idea of a duty to collaborate is a wonderful one, to be truly effective we judge that it would be helpful if there was a requirement on the Secretary of State to support duty-holders to meet the needs identified by providing adequate and sustainable funding. The figures are not insignificant. Women’s Aid estimates that it would cost at least £238 million per year to meet the need for community-based services across the country. We feel that the Bill is an opportunity to put in some safeguards to provide a legal framework through which sustainable community-based services and funding could be provided.
Turning to Amendment 59, some “93% of frontline workers” surveyed for Refuge’s Local Lifelines report said that
“their service was being impacted by staff shortages”,
and
“64% said their service was impacted by short-term contracts”.
Therefore, the principle of multiyear funding to try to enable these services to be set up to a sustainable and effective level is extremely important. I am sure that the right reverend Prelate will expand on that in a minute.
I come to the last set of amendments—Amendments 58, 60, 62 and 64—which come from working closely with Nicole Jacobs, the domestic abuse commissioner, and her team. There is a patchwork of provision for victims, survivors and their children when trying to access services. Community-based specialist domestic abuse services are literally life-saving and life-changing for many of these victims. Despite this, there is no duty to fund these community-based services, and in the current economic environment, you can imagine that they are not necessarily at the top of every cash-strapped local authority’s “must do” list of services to which to try to apportion diminishing funds.
Without making too much of it, this is a crisis, and in the Bill we have an opportunity to ameliorate that. We must really try to focus our minds on what is required to deliver sustainable, entrenched, well-run, effective services across the country. This Bill is a chance to try to do it right, so I hope we will take that opportunity.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 56 and 59 in my name; I also support the other amendments in this group. These amendments would all help to firm up the very good intentions set out in Clauses 12 and 13.
In an earlier group, I tabled an amendment to ensure that victim support services were properly signposted; it is no use a service existing if the people it is meant to serve are not able to access it. But now we come to, if anything, a more fundamental point: how do we ensure that the right services exist for victims, and in each and every part of the country?
The Bill as drafted gets much right: it requires policing bodies, integrated care boards and local authorities to collaborate in assessing the needs of victims, producing a published strategy and, indeed, revising that strategy as occasion requires—so far, so good. But, as things stand, and as the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, has indicated, that assessment and strategy could be little more than a combination of the unaffordable and the non-existent—a bit like an overambitious child’s Christmas wish list.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I support the amendments in this group specifically on domestic abuse services. The Justice Committee, in its pre-legislative scrutiny report, observed:
“Additional funding is required to enable services to meet demand and allow the Victims Bill”—
as it then was—
“to live up to its ambitions”.
As the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, pointed out, a mapping exercise by the domestic abuse commissioner revealed just how patchy is the support available to domestic abuse victims and survivors from community-based services because of funding difficulties. Funding, such as it is, is often short-term and insecure, which reduces services’ capacity and ability to plan, with implications for effective service provision and the recruitment and retention of staff.
The mapping exercise also underlined the importance of community-based services, which was what most victims and survivors wanted. This chimes with the experience of organisations such as Refuge and Women’s Aid. The domestic abuse commissioner found that the weaknesses due to funding difficulties were
“compounded for victims and survivors from minoritised communities who face the greatest barriers to support, with specialist ‘by and for’ organisations increasingly defunded despite being best placed to meet their needs”.
In an earlier briefing on the Bill, she pointed out that such organisations
“are particularly ill served by local commissioning, where commissioners can favour fewer larger contracts to cover their whole population, or where there is not the critical mass of individuals from a particular community in a given geographical area for commissioners to commission a bespoke service”.
She emphasises that her mapping exercise shows that by-and-for services are
“by any measure, the most effective services for victims”,—[Official Report, Commons, Victims and Prisoners Bill Committee, 20/06/23; col. 7.]
especially those from minoritised communities.
Women’s Aid makes an important point that the distinction between specialist and generic VAWG services is recognised in Article 2 of the Istanbul convention and should be reflected in the Bill. Women’s Aid also argued that, on the basis of economic analysis conducted for it by ResPublica, the funding of specialist domestic abuse services can be seen as spending to save, given the savings it would generate elsewhere, as the right reverend Prelate underlined.
I return now to a point I raised at Second Reading on the significance of economic abuse. To the Government’s credit, this is now recognised in law. Community-based services need to be able to help victims and survivors of economic abuse, the impact of which can be devastating—even more so given the financial pressures so many families are facing. A Women’s Aid survey last year found that the cost of living crisis has hurt both specialist domestic abuse services, leaving many on their knees, and of course victims and survivors themselves. Of the women surveyed, 73% told them the charity it had either prevented them leaving or made it harder for them to flee. Some two-thirds said that abusers are now using the increase in the cost of living and concerns about financial hardship as a tool for coercive control, including to justify further restricting their access to money.
This underlines the importance of economic advocacy, both for those who have suffered economic abuse and more generally for domestic abuse victims and survivors. Surviving Economic Abuse has done so much to put the issue on the political map. It has made the case for including economic advocacy in the provision of community-based services, including by-and-for specialist services. It sees this as
“key to victim-survivors’ immediate safety as well as long-term economic independence”.
The charity warns:
“Post-separation economic abuse is the primary reason women return to an abusive partner”.
Economic instability affects the ability to access the criminal justice system and pursue a prosecution. Economic abuse, including post separation, makes rebuilding an independent life extremely challenging. The charity therefore recommends
“that the standard support offer in all domestic abuse services should include economic advocacy in partnership with money, debt, and benefits advice as well as financial services, to help victim-survivors establish … economic safety”.
Existing examples of such support show how it can help victim-survivors establish their economic safety and rebuild their financial independence.
As I have said, economic advocacy is important not just for those subject to economic abuse. The DAC’s mapping exercise found that half of victim-survivors wanting support for domestic abuse during the previous three years mentioned the need for help with money problems or debt. Of those, only 27% were able to get such support, which is almost the largest category of unmet need that the survey found. This suggests that higher priority must be given to funding economic advocacy generally; otherwise, there is a real danger that some victim-survivors will end up returning to an abusive partner because of the dire economic circumstances they face trying to establish an independent life free of abuse.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
My Lords, I wish to speak in support of Amendments 59, 60, 62, 64 and 65. When you become a victim of crime, your life is thrown into disarray in a moment, as I know only too well from bitter personal experience. Indeed, I had to become the main breadwinner as well as supporting my daughters through the most horrendous acts they had ever seen in their lives. What people need at this time is help and support so that they can attempt to pull their lives back together and to recover. The victims’ code gives all victims of crime the right to refer to support services. However, I am often told how difficult it can be to get access to these services. In fact, people do not even know they exist half the time.
In my victims’ survey, only 46% of people—less than half of the people who responded—said they were referred to victims’ services. Even if they are referred, getting that service does not prove easy, with only 43% of respondents agreeing with the statement, “It was easy to get access to victims’ services”. One victim told me that
“it took a really long time to get the support I needed at that time, as I was going through a very traumatic time and this was really impacting my mental health in such a negative way”.
I appreciate that there are, and will always be, constraints on funding, but the way victims’ services are funded contributes to the problems faced by many of these organisations. Victims’ support services are currently delivered via a complex network of statutory and non-statutory agencies, which compete with other providers for funding. There are huge regional inequalities for victims trying to access support services. Access to counselling—the most sought-after type of support—showed the biggest disparity, with 58% of victims in the north-east of England able to access counselling, compared with 37% in Wales. Demand is increasing for these services, but this increase is not being met by additional funding or capacity being allocated by the local authority.
We need long-term, sustainable funding for victims’ services. Importantly, these contracts should be for no less than three years. I feel that I am on a carousel, because I have been arguing for that since day one as Victims’ Commissioner. This would give these organisations the stability they need to be able to recruit, train, and, most importantly, maintain staff. Staff are given notices three months before this funding is even being put into accounts. Nobody in any job can absolutely go through that, when they have mortgages, children to feed and everything else. It is not acceptable.
In the victims’ funding strategy, the Ministry of Justice is committed to the principle of multiyear funding for core victim support services, and I welcome this. However, the short-term nature of contracts and the competitive tendering process really do have a damaging impact on organisations’ ability to deliver services—especially the smaller organisations, many of whom deliver by-and-for services. By-and-for services are extremely valuable in the support landscape, because these are organisations that are run and staffed by the marginalised communities they support. It is vital that victims feel supported and, more importantly, build relationships to feel they are being understood by getting support in an environment that is comfortable to them. For many, this means being supported by people who understand their culture or have similar life experiences. Again, in my recent survey, only 29% of victims told me they were able to easily find suitable services for their specific issues.
The commissioning processes fail these specialist by-and-for organisations, because the way in which they are structured favours bidders who can provide support at lower costs and have a larger reach in terms of numbers—not necessarily the best practice for victims. They can also force providers into partnerships and consortium arrangements in which by-and-for organisations are underresourced, silenced, marginalised or squeezed out. It is vital that these organisations can continue the vital work they do, and not be continually disadvantaged by short-term funding rounds. That is why I am in favour of ring-fenced funding. I know that the Government do not like ring-fencing—but a ring-fencing pot is essential for specialist by-and-for support services.
I also want the statutory guidance on the duty to collaborate to include direction to commissioners on the importance of commissioning practices that do not discriminate against smaller specialist services but encourage them to fund a range of services suitable for all victims.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, I am going to speak to my Amendment 65. I am delighted that the noble Baroness who has just spoken supports it. It was supported also by the noble Lord, Lord Wasserman, who cannot be in his place today. I remind the Committee that I was a police and crime commissioner for five years and had some responsibility for victims’ services at the time. This amendment springs from a view of the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, and I am very grateful for its help.
Noble Lords will have seen that the duty in relation to victim support services to collaborate and the strategic guidance under Clauses 12, 13 and 14 refers to police areas in England alone. The purpose of the amendment is to try to persuade the Government that the duty to collaborate should apply to elected policing bodies across England and Wales while, of course, respecting Welsh devolved powers.
The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, which of course represents all police and crime commissioners across England and Wales, is enthusiastic and welcomes the Bill—I should say that to start with. However, it thinks that there is a problem in that, as the clause is drafted now, it could make a real difference to the effectiveness of Welsh police and crime commissioners, and more particularly to how they are perceived in both Wales and England. I want to make it clear that I am advised that the four Welsh police and crime commissioners who would be most directly affected by the amendment are all strongly in favour of it. I emphasise to the Committee that they are not all from one political party; politics does not come into this particular issue.
All noble Lords will of course appreciate that policing in Wales is a reserved power of the UK Government, so that these four Welsh police and crime commissioners operate under the same rules and regulations as their colleagues in England. Nevertheless, of course, they operate entirely within the boundaries of the principality. Therefore, to be effective they have to take fully into account the ways in which health, local government, highways, housing and their local public services are organised and delivered in Wales, notwithstanding the fact that they themselves are not under the control of the Welsh Government.
The four Welsh police and crime commissioners have expressed concerns about the Bill, hence this amendment. Their concerns are that while the Bill imposes on their English colleagues a duty to collaborate in the exercise of victim support services, it does not impose the same duty on them. The Welsh police and crime commissioners believe that this could make a significant difference to their effectiveness in this field and, more significantly, lead to a perception that they are less committed to dealing with such issues as violence against women and girls than are their English colleagues—and nothing could be further from the truth.
Equally, and this is perhaps a significant point, although Welsh police and crime commissioners engage enthusiastically at present with the partnerships set out in the Welsh legislature, they are under no statutory obligation to do so. There are impending elections, and these could change collaborative approaches without such a duty as this amendment seeks to safeguard continued partnership engagement.
It is for this reason that the amendment has been drafted. It recognises the special circumstances under which the four Welsh PCCs operate, but at the same time makes it clear that Welsh police and crime commissioners are no less determined to support victims of crime than are their English colleagues, and no less determined to collaborate with other agencies in Wales to achieve this object.
Neither I nor, with great respect to him, the noble Lord, Lord Russell, are experts in the details of the Government of Wales Act 2006, or the legislation, regulations and administrative arrangements that flow from it. If the Government, in further discussion with the Welsh Government, have concerns with the drafting of the amendment and suggestions for improving it, we would be very happy to welcome them. We are concerned here with the principle of the amendment: to ensure that the obligation that the Bill imposes on police and crime commissioners in England to collaborate in the exercise of their functions to support the victims of crime is extended to the four police and crime commissioners in Wales, whose powers are in every other way identical to those of their English colleagues. On that basis, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I want to pick up the last point of the noble Lord, Lord Bach. The duty to collaborate is extremely important, and both his amendment and that of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, are certainly worthy of consideration. The lighthouse model that has been referred to is extremely impressive. I have also seen, in times past, really effective local working, particularly through services for child victims. However, it would be good if this were strengthened to ensure that part of the victim’s journey, regardless of their age, was helped.
It is a convention in this House that, if we are not quite sure where to go next, we ask for reports. However, we have tabled a lot of amendments about a lot of detail because we are concerned about the practice, and this is one instance where reports actually become vital. They are vital not just to hold the Government to account in Parliament but to ensure that the Government are forced to reflect on how the systems are working, because if this continues for yet another decade, we will be going through another Bill in 10 years’ time saying the same things. A report might help focus the mind when the systems are not working.
I support the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, in her comments about the provision of DA support and the real crisis times that victims face, with their lives in complete upheaval. I agree particularly with her points about economic coercive control, which is really worrying and something I have heard more and more about. I have been working with one victim for about 15 years; it took her 10 years to clear the debts that she was left with as a result of the coercive control of her partner, who completely disappeared. She is on the minimum wage, and it has been very difficult and has affected her life for that long.
I signed Amendments 54 and 81, which the noble Lord, Lord Russell, outlined in his speech, on including stalking in the list of relevant victim support services and placing a duty on the Secretary of State to assess a number of advocates, including stalking advocates. I go back to the issue we discussed in the last group: how important it is to have a victim journey number.
In the case where my colleagues and I were victims, our first barrier was finding one crime number. The man who stalked me pleaded guilty to 67 crimes and asked for another 100-and-something to be taken into account. Not all of the crimes happened to me; some of them happened to council colleagues and supporters of my party, and some happened to people who were, unfortunately, parked on the driveways of supporters of my party. Each time we rang the police, we were given a different number. As the PPC, I started a spreadsheet, and when it got to 30 I went back to the police and said, “This is impossible”. We did not know who it was—we had suspicions—but we knew that it was a very particular campaign.
At that point, about six months in or perhaps slightly more than that, we had the one funny incident of a two and a half year-experience, where, every week in the Watford Observer, there was a letter being very unpleasant about me and occasionally about my council colleagues. The letters got more vitriolic, but each was signed by somebody else. I went with a colleague to see the editor of the newspaper, and he said, “Politics is a tough old game, and you just have to accept that, if people want to write in and tell me that you are poor on this topic and not a very nice woman given what you do with your children, I will print it”. I asked him if I could read out the surnames of the people who had written in over the last few weeks: they were Freeman, Hardy, Willis, Debenham and Freebody. At that point, he realised he was being had, but we had been watching the letters go in for four months at that stage. The objective was to destroy my campaign—that is what the judge said when the man was sentenced. But that was the only funny part.
The other thing about stalkers is that, when they do not achieve what they want, their behaviour becomes more drastic; the Suzy Lamplugh Trust will tell you that this is well-known. The man then started printing completely fictitious letters about one of my council colleagues who lived just round the corner from me and literally scattering them along the road in his car. At that point, we thought we knew who he was, but we could not get the police to take it seriously. The letter said that my council colleague—who was married to his one and only wife—had deserted his previous wife and was not paying her maintenance and that his daughter was distressed; funnily enough, my colleague was up for election that year. That was a step up, and then it went a step further up during the 2005 general election, when all the poster boards were pulled down. My husband, who happened to be our poster board supremo, kept creating higher and higher stakes for the poster boards—we really made it into an artform. When one got to three times the normal height, the man scratched the car on the driveway of the house. Thereafter, it moved on to petty crime, but it was not stalking because it was petty crime against other individuals. That is why we need one crime number for this sort of thing, but also recognition that, although there is a core victim, there are other victims because of the nature of stalking.
What really freaked them out was when he started to put knives through the tyres of cars on driveways at night and spray epithets on the homes of councillors. My husband had installed 10 closed circuit cameras on the most likely places by then. The police provided one on our house, and our house was never targeted—I cannot imagine why. We were able to use that evidence, along with a picture of him where you could see that he was wearing a watch on his right arm which matched the one seen during the spray-painting. At that point—this was the worst day—the police said that a forensic psychiatrist had come in as they were worried about the behaviour, and it was clear that he was going to go for people with the knife next, and it was a 10-inch knife.
At that point, we were well over two years in. That is why, 15 years on from his sentencing, when the noble Lord, Lord Russell, spoke about knives the other day, my blood ran cold. I was remembering when the police came to our house and upped security. Stalking can be very dangerous. I was lucky; we got it taken seriously and he pleaded guilty when caught, but there are other cases.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, to repeat what I said earlier, I dealt with a couple of stalking cases relatively recently. Interestingly, they were both of women stalking men. It is a very difficult scenario and can get extremely complex when you are assessing behaviour over sometimes protracted lengths of time. I absolutely recognise the trauma that it inflicts on the victims.
I will open by looking through the other end of the telescope. As a magistrate, for every sentence I give, I put in place a victim surcharge. That money, which at the moment is 40% of any fine I put in place, goes into a victim and witness general fund. Can the Minister say where that money goes? Is it enough to fund all the victims’ services that we are talking about? Does it need topping up for the other victims’ services that are provided? Interestingly, when the fund was first introduced in 2007, it was set at about 10% of fines. Now it is 40%, so there has been a big increase in the amount of money going into that fund over the last few years.
In general, this group of amendments is about the funding and provision of victim support services. The theme from all noble Lords has been sustainability, predictability and consistency of funding. There are any number of organisations and charities supporting victims, sometimes on a small scale and sometimes on a large, integrated scale. I know from my experience of the Minerva project in Hammersmith in London that it is part of a wider network of support for women going through the criminal justice process, sometimes as victims and sometimes as perpetrators. There is a wide network of services, but it is uneven across the country and funded in different ways. They all aspire to sustainability of funding, as we have heard from all noble Lords, so that they can make best use of the available funding.
My noble friend Lady Lister spoke about economic coercive control in particular; I absolutely agree with the points she made. Nicole Jacobs, the domestic abuse commissioner, has been campaigning on this for many years. I am very glad that it is getting more recognition as an offence that should be brought to court if appropriate.
The noble Lord, Lord Russell, spoke earlier about the “child house” model. I went on that visit to the Lighthouse project with him. The general theme here is the integration of services to meet the particular needs of victims. I have some peripheral experience of that, but my most direct and relevant experience is not of victims but of young men coming out of jail under a previous funding model by the Conservative Government—the troubled families programme—funded in three boroughs in south-west London. There was an integrated approach to supporting and providing services to those young men as they came out of prison, across the CPS, housing, health and education, and more widely, so that they did not reoffend. I sat on the board for a number of years. It was very interesting that, when the money dried up, the co-operative approach dried up as well. That was very regrettable, but it taught me the lesson that the co-operative approach works best when there is a focus and an impetus through funding to make those co-operative services work effectively.
Everybody aspires to co-operative funding. Of course it is a good thing, but there needs to be either a direct instruction or a direct pot of money for people to co-operate as they should. So often, co-operation is difficult and the lack of it makes it easier for individual organisations to continue to work along their separate tramlines. I hope the Minister will say something about how to use that money imaginatively and sustainably so that co-operation across services can be embedded into victim support.
The Deputy Leader of the House (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, this group of amendments brings together a very important set of issues, as we have heard. I am most grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, for their amendments on the funding and provision of victim support services, where I will start.
The right reverend Prelate’s Amendment 56 seeks to require the Secretary of State to have regard to the needs assessments identified under the duty to collaborate and use these to ensure that local commissioners effectively commission relevant support services. I hope I can be helpful in providing some reassurance on that topic. Under the duty to collaborate, local commissioners must have regard to their joint needs assessments when producing their local strategies. The strategies should include evidence of how relevant authorities have carried out the needs assessments, as well as how the assessments have informed their commissioning decisions. A ministerially led national oversight forum will be set up to scrutinise the local strategies; that is how we can join up the process. For that reason, I respectfully suggest that the amendment the right reverend Prelate has tabled is unnecessary.
The oversight forum will have the relevant insights and information and undertake appropriate scrutiny of the published strategies to assess whether and how relevant support services are commissioned in individual local areas. The insights will also be used to inform national funding decisions made through the spending review process; again, that is another element in the join-up process. That is the right approach to setting government budgets. Looking at everything in the round, the measures will achieve the objective the right reverend Prelate’s amendment also seeks to achieve.
Amendments 58, 59, 60 and 62 would require the Secretary of State to make a statement every three years, in response to the strategies published under the duty to collaborate, on support for victims of domestic abuse, sexual violence and stalking. They would also require the Secretary of State to ensure that commissioners, under the duty, have sufficient multi-year funding, and the establishment of a cross-government by-and-for funding stream. The key point here is surely transparency. As I indicated a moment ago, the local strategies under the duty to collaborate will be published and will provide valuable insights into the levels of service certain victims are receiving in each local area. Therefore, additional reporting in a statement made by the Secretary of State would be largely duplicative.
I am, however, in full agreement that the funding of victim support services is crucial to enable victims of crime to cope and build resilience to move forward with their lives. That is why we have already committed to quadruple funding for victims’ services by 2024-25, up from £41 million in 2009-10. This includes funding that the Ministry of Justice provides to police and crime commissioners, specifically ring-fenced for domestic abuse and sexual violence services.
There are two additional points I can make on this. The joint needs assessments will help local areas to make the best use of existing funding through the collaborative process. This will lead, I suggest, to a more efficient use of money. Following on from that, the information that flows from it will strengthen the evidence base used to inform funding decisions made through the spending review process. The Government have responded to intelligence from local commissioners previously. For example, PCCs received a £6 million boost in funding per annum over the spending review period for community-based services supporting victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, asked what happens to the money that goes into the general support fund for victims. The victim surcharge provides a contribution towards MoJ-funded victim and witness support services. It does not cover the full cost of victim support services funded by the MoJ, but it makes a contribution. Income from the surcharge is then topped up from departmental budgets.
On multi-year funding, for which my noble friend Lady Newlove so powerfully advocated, the Government have already committed to it where possible and appropriate. The victims funding strategy set out an expectation for all commissioners to pass multi-year commitments on to their providers.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I am sorry to interrupt, and I realise that the Minister has had to take over the brief at short notice. He paints a rather positive picture whereby the Government are doing all these wonderful things. Why, therefore, is the domestic abuse commissioner so concerned about the patchy provision of services in general, particularly by-and-for services?
Earl Howe (Con)
That is clearly a concern, and we must listen to the domestic abuse commissioner very carefully. I have tried to set out how we have responded within existing powers and structures to improve funding across the piece. If one is not careful, there will be too much micromanagement from the centre. I always resist that, and we know that it can lead to perverse results in all sorts of contexts. I would be very happy to talk further to the noble Baroness about the domestic abuse commissioner’s concerns in this context after we finish the debate, as I am sure my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy would also be glad to do.
Moreover, as part of the joint needs assessment in the duty, commissioners will be required to have regard to the particular needs of victims with protected characteristics. This could result in the commissioning of by-and-for services.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, for submitting Amendment 64, which would introduce a statutory requirement for certain commissioners and sector stakeholders to be consulted before issuing statutory guidance on the duty to collaborate. The Bill already requires the Secretary of State to consult such persons as they consider appropriate before issuing the guidance, without specifying particular bodies or roles. This is because of the wide-ranging nature of the duty and the key stakeholders involved—a list of relevant consultees could be extensive and change over time. Naturally, the department would continue to engage thoroughly with the various key stakeholders as the guidance develops. Therefore, we do not need a legislative requirement specifying who exactly that should be to enable them to do so.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
I thank the Minister very much for what he said. Does he accept that the officeholder, who is perhaps in the best position of all to guide His Majesty’s Government towards the most effective organisations with which they should be co-operating and talking, is the Victims’ Commissioner himself or herself? The Victims’ Commissioner is at the centre of an information web and, frankly, is likely to be better informed than His Majesty’s Government.
I understand the virtues of police and crime commissioners and, in principle, would agree with the Minister that micromanagement can be a very bad thing. However, if I were a victim, I would be in favour of slightly more micromanagement to make sure that, wherever I lived in England and Wales, the type of service I got was more uniform, consistent and joined up. In evidence, I cite a glossy 2022 document from the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners celebrating
“10 years of PCCs Making a Difference”.
It lays out no fewer than 39 different schemes across England and Wales that different PCCs have put in place for
“advocating for victims; developing innovative services for victims; and using multi-year funding to fund quality services”.
While that is a wonderful idea—let a thousand flowers bloom—what the system is currently sorely lacking is any comprehensive follow-up and measurement to see how effectively all those initiatives work. Do any of them still exist? Have they been developed any further? If some of them are working particularly well, is there an effective mechanism to ensure that other police and crime commissioners are taking on those best practices and applying them in their areas?
Earl Howe (Con)
First, I take the noble Lord’s point about the Victims’ Commissioner; I am happy to feed that into the department. Secondly, I come back to the point I made earlier about building transparency into the process. The local strategies will be published and then scrutinised by the oversight forum, which will be ministerially led, so there will be a way for the commissioning practices to be exposed to daylight at the local level. I suggest that that could reveal the kind of disparities that the noble Lord referred to; that would be very helpful, not only as regards funding but for sharing best practice. He raised a very important point, but I like to believe that we have thought about it and are addressing it.
I turn to the issue of stalking. I do not think that any of us could fail to be impressed by the horrific examples given by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I listened also with care to the noble Lords, Lord Russell of Liverpool and Lord Ponsonby, on this issue. Amendment 54 seeks the inclusion of support services for victims of stalking under the duty to collaborate. Stalking—which I am the first to agree is a tremendously important and emotive issue—can already be covered by the duty. The accompanying statutory guidance will make it clear that stalking is one of a number of crime types that sits across the scope of domestic abuse, serious violence and sexual abuse, and needs should be assessed accordingly. I fully appreciate the concerns raised by stakeholders that, all too often, stalking is considered only as a form of domestic abuse, and support is provided largely on that basis. The definition of serious violence under this duty is deliberately broad to allow commissioners to determine what constitutes serious violence in their local area, which can include stalking as well, including where it is not perpetrated by an intimate partner.
It is important to retain legislative flexibility in this area so that the duty can evolve, if it needs to, just as the overarching offences of serious violence, sexual abuse and domestic abuse evolve. A prescriptive approach, as proposed by the amendment, would restrict our ability to be flexible, but we will continue to engage with commissioners and stakeholders on the guidance as it develops, and with noble Lords who are willing to lend their expertise. I am sure that my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy would be glad to do that. I can commit him in his absence to meet the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell, if they would find that helpful.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I apologise for interrupting the Minister. I am very grateful for his response; I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, would have responded in the same way. What is happening in practice and on the ground with front-line services—in the police and the criminal justice system—does not reflect what the Minister just said at the Dispatch Box. The problem over the last few years has been trying to make that happen, which is why we believe that stalking needs to be added to the duty. Can he reassure me, in other ways, on how the actual practice will change? Therein lies the problem.
Earl Howe (Con)
Indeed. We come back to the earlier amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, on how one should best join up individual reports of crime, abuse or whatever else so that the police and others can obtain a rounded picture of what is going on. I fully take the point about changing practice. This is perhaps a subject for a longer discussion than today’s debate. I do not pretend to be expert on operational practices at the local level, so it would be wrong of me to chance my arm. The point is well made, and I am very happy to ensure that we have a separate discussion about it before Report.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
Can I make one additional point? The Minister just referred to allowing police and crime commissioners—and, I assume, chief constables—to decide what type of criminality should be regarded as serious or violent. One of the issues with the complexity of stalking is that, in many cases, stalking does not start from a violent position. Stalking, in many cases, can evolve, sometimes over a period of years, in a series of interactions by the predator, in such a way that, unless you know what you are dealing with, it is very hard to understand that there is a pattern developing or what type of stalking it is. We will come to the issue of training and advocates in the next group, but all the evidence produced by using the police force in Cheshire as a test case—to drive through the organisation clear understanding, training, lines of communication and technology to put this all together—has been transformative for the victims.
This is a victims’ Bill. Often, when I hear the Front Bench talking about the response to some amendments, I hear the voice of—understandably—the Government looking down on the victims. I very rarely get a sense of the Government articulating and espousing the rights of the victims themselves as they look up into the system, which they feel is failing them at the moment.
Earl Howe (Con)
I think we come back to the guidance on this—to get the guidance right and ensure that the focus on victims’ needs is there, and on teasing out what we mean when we refer to certain terms. Again, the process of formulating the guidance is not by any means complete. I am sure the whole debate that we have had today will be extremely helpful for officials in the work that they are doing on that front.
I am also grateful for the noble Lord, Lord Russell, for his Amendment 81, which seeks to improve the process for assessing the numbers of ISVAs, IDVAs, stalking advocates and other specialist support services in England and Wales. I reassure him that I fully recognise the importance of understanding both provision and demand so that resources are targeted, as they should be, and the right victims’ services are commissioned. I am confident, in the light of advice that I have received, that measures are already in place to appropriately assess support provision through existing reporting measures, and I believe that a central annual report risks duplicating work.
I also point to the Bill’s duty to collaborate, which will enhance transparency around what local services are being funded by requiring the relevant authorities to publish local strategies, which is the point I made a little earlier. These strategies will be informed by joint needs assessments that will assess the needs of victims of domestic abuse, sexual abuse and serious violence—which can include stalking—and consider whether and how those needs are being met. This will encourage joint local efforts to rectify data gaps, and drive evidence-informed decisions for prioritising funding to address local needs. The noble Lord suggested that too often he was hearing from the Front Bench a kind of government top-down view of life. What we have tried to emphasise through these measures is our desire to see local needs defined, and those needs—the needs assessment—being the bedrock for any service provision that commissioners decide upon. So we are encouraging, I hope, a victim-focused process.
Requiring separate reporting will, I fear, duplicate the activity that I have outlined and put an additional burden on victim support services to share information, which would inevitably take resources away from direct front-line provision for victims. However, I know that my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy is, again, open to considering what could be included in the supporting guidance for the duty to help ensure better understanding of provision.
I hope that what I have set out demonstrates that we already have the necessary mechanisms for assessing need and provision for victim services. So I hope that the noble Lord and, indeed, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester will not feel compelled to move their amendments on this topic when they are reached.
Amendment 53 from the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, would include the “child house” model in the duty to collaborate. I listened very carefully to what he had to say about that. It is right that we continue to innovate and trial different ways to support victims, such as the “child house” model, exemplified in areas such as Camden through the pilot programme. The duty to collaborate aims to create a strategic and co-ordinated approach to commissioning services, ensuring that victims—including, notably, children—receive the necessary support. I assure the noble Lord that the services which the “child house” model co-ordinates will already be caught by the duty to collaborate where they provide support to child victims of domestic abuse, sexual abuse and serious violence. Moreover, the statutory guidance for the duty will suggest that local commissioners refer to Child House: Local Partnerships Guidance when considering how good commissioning practices can help address the needs of children. I hope that is helpful, because I do not think that we should be specifying operational models in primary legislation. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw that amendment.
Turning finally to Amendment 65 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bach, I am grateful to him for raising the issue which it covers. The amendment would ensure that the duty to collaborate will apply to elected policing bodies across England and Wales, while respecting Welsh devolved powers. There is already similar legislation in Wales under the Violence against Women, Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence (Wales) Act 2015, which I will refer to as the 2015 Act. The 2015 Act places a duty on Welsh local authorities and local health boards to jointly prepare, publish and, from time to time, review a local strategy setting out how they will help improve local arrangements and support for victims of these crime types.
The noble Lord, Lord Bach, is right to state that elected policing bodies in Wales are not required to collaborate in this duty, but the statutory guidance states clearly that Welsh local authorities and health boards must invite PCCs to participate in their activities under the Act. Engagement between the Welsh Government and Welsh PCCs has shown that Welsh PCCs are active partners in the delivery of the Welsh Government’s 2015 Act strategy through the blueprint, which is the shared governance structure to support delivery of the strategy, and also through regional boards. As a result of ongoing engagement and collaboration with the Welsh Government, we have come to the collectively agreed position that we do not currently consider a duty on Welsh PCCs to be necessary, per the intention of the noble Lord’s amendment.
There is a subsidiary point on the drafting of the amendment, but I do not need to go into that, unless the noble Lord would like me to. However, I reassure him, because this is a significant issue, that we will continue to work with the Welsh Government on the implementation of the duty to collaborate and any interactions between this duty and that under the 2015 Act. On the basis of the points I have made, I hope the noble Lord will not feel it necessary to move the amendment when it is reached.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who took part in this extraordinarily wide-ranging debate, which seemed to come down to three strands. The first was collaboration and how local services, the police—any groups—can work together better. Secondly, we had powerful discussions again about stalking and how we can make that work much more efficient so that these ridiculous repetitions cannot go on; the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, gave some extraordinarily good examples and a very amusing one I will take away. The third was how on earth it will all be funded, with some eye-watering numbers being talked about. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, asked the very interesting question about where the victims’ fund goes.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, is drinking a soothing hot lemon and honey somewhere, perhaps taking two aspirin and lying down, but I thank the noble Earl the Minister for another very collaborative series of answers, with lots of words of reassurance on the needs assessment, the forum being set up for national funding assessments, the duty to collaborate, talk of transparency—which is always good—and of exposing to daylight, about stalking being tremendously important, and what statutory guidance will make clear. A lot of points were made and I am afraid my pencil got worn down to the nub trying to write down the different funding strands pouring in that will be used, so I cannot get too technical on that.
There was talk of more efficient use of money and full agreement on funding victim support—quadrupling the funding of that. The victims’ surcharge is being topped up and multiyear funding is happening—the Government are committed to that—although the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has concerns there as well. This genuinely sounds great, but partly we need to make the money work not harder but smarter, which I think is what we are all trying to do here. The proof is inevitably what will come out of the oven at the end of it all. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment 53.
Baroness Thornton
“(c) independent stalking advisors.”
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak also to Amendment 69 in my name, and I have the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, whom I thank very much. The Government also have an amendment in this group, which I will comment on when we reach the end of the debate and I have heard what the noble Earl has to say about it.
We are in that part of the Bill that is concerned with the issue of stalking—indeed, in the group that we have just discussed I had my name to Amendments 54 and 81, alongside the noble Lord, Lord Russell. It is important to say that we are indebted to Laura Richards, the founder of Paladin, and the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, for their relentless work to have the vicious and pernicious crime of stalking recognised, acted on and integrated into the legal framework tackling violence against women and girls—and for us that includes this victims’ Bill.
I am aware that we have to ensure that stalking is dealt with across all the criminal justice legislation that we are dealing with, so that there is a read-across with MAPPA and the issues that we will be discussing later in the Bill, not just for this Bill but for the Criminal Justice Bill, which we know is coming down the track. Can the Minister assure the House of that legislative coherence? For too long we have been waiting for there to be legislative coherence that can be enforced for the crime of stalking—its recognition and dealing with it.
The context is that women, children and men are being failed and not protected. There is no compulsion on the police to automatically identify serial domestic abusers and stalkers, so they do not—of course they do not. So, for example, although the application of Clare’s law is not in the scope of the Bill, it is the lack of that application across all police forces which means that there are victims in the criminal justice system who need not have been there. This amendment seeks to address that issue of recognising the particular needs of victims of stalking.
We should recognise that a lot of work has been done on this over the years. These two amendments are quite simple. Independent stalking advocates should exist, and an independent stalking advocate means
“a person who provides a relevant service to individuals who are victims of criminal conduct which constitutes stalking”.
That means creating what are called ISACs in the Bill—independent stalking advocacy caseworkers.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for speaking to these amendments.
We return to stalking; stalking is stalking us yet again, as I am afraid it will continue to do through time immemorial, and until and unless we really grab hold of this. The case for independent stalking advocates is fairly undeniable. One can scarcely imagine what it must feel like when you do not know where to turn, you do not really understand what is going on, and the people that you are turning to for help clearly do not really understand what is going on either. It must be a pretty horrendous state to be in, and the independent stalking advocate can and does make an enormous difference. They can undertake risk assessments and work with the different authorities to ensure that safety plans are put in place to protect victims—and, importantly, where children are involved, those around them—from further harm.
The research that has been done by the Suzy Lamplugh Trust indicates that: 77% of stalking victims are not able to access an independent stalking advocate; 69% could find no advocacy support of any kind whatever; only 4% access support from a non-specialist service; and only 15% of victims were referred to an independent stalking advocate by the police. So even the police themselves, in 85% of cases, failed to point the potential stalking victim in the direction of help.
The demand for such stalking advocates far exceeds current capacity. National stalking services supported a combined total of just under 12,500 stalking victims in 2021, and there were 1.5 million stalking victims in total. Noble Lords can do the maths; that is not a highly impressive percentage. In some parts of the country, there are effectively no local specialist supporting services whatever.
I mentioned earlier that I had the privilege of speaking with Gracie Spinks’s father, Richard Spinks, a couple of weeks ago. One of the extreme examples of the more than 40 reports that Gracie made to the police over an extensive period was a case when, after she had pointed out that she was again being threatened, the police undertook a search in the vicinity of where she lived, and they found a bag of weapons—knives, hammers and so on. What did they conclude from having found that cache of weapons? They told Gracie that they were probably theatre props. Clearly, the officers involved had undergone extensive training, but probably in how to supervise playgroups, rather than in helping victims of crime. That shows the gulf between the sort of support, help and advice that one might expect as a victim of stalking and what actually happens.
As we mentioned on earlier groupings, at the end of 2022 the Suzy Lamplugh Trust submitted a super-complaint against the police, outlining systemic issues such as those that we have talked about in previous groups. One of the recommendations was that the College of Policing
“mandate that all officers that deal with cases of stalking complete training by a specialist stalking training provider, in order to adequately identify, investigate and—
this is very important—
“risk assess cases of stalking”.
We referred earlier to the pilot that the Suzy Lamplugh Trust ran in Cheshire. I conclude by giving some quotes from the senior police officers involved in the study and what they observed happening through the results of this programme. One front-line officer said:
“It’s an injustice that in nearly half of all stalking cases unrelated to prior intimate relationships, victims must rely on luck for access to specialised, local advocacy—something that should be a non-negotiable right. Including Independent Stalking Advocates … in the Victims and Prisoners Bill isn’t just an option; it’s an imperative step towards rectifying this imbalance.”
Finally, the Police and Crime Commissioner for Cheshire said:
“Cheshire’s example shows that multi-agency working delivers results for victims and it benefits all agencies involved. The impact of ISAs”—
independent stalking advocates—
“here is clear to see, and I believe it would hugely enhance our collective ability to deliver justice for victims of stalking if they were to be included in the Bill”.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
My Lords, I support all the amendments. Listening to stories of stalking, we realise that it is just one simple word but it has a huge impact, including, sadly, loss of life. Before we start talking more about it, it is important to say that, as legislators in the House of Lords, we have done enough talking; we need now to put in legislation support to protect families who have lost loved ones through such horrendous acts.
I welcome government Amendment 74. Since my appointment as Victims’ Commissioner, my feet have not touched the ground. I have met over 20 different victim organisations to discuss this Bill. Many raised concerns about placing advocates, or advisers—whichever the Government want to choose—in the Bill. I know that the judiciary gets a bit twitchy when we mention advocates; for me, it is all about what the victim gets from this person who helps them tremendously. These concerns were set out very clearly by the VAWG sector in particular. I hope that Amendment 74 will alleviate concerns when the Government come to explain it. It provides the flexibility to include as many or as few advocates as they see fit, working, I hope, in close collaboration with the relevant stakeholders in the victims sector. However, I would welcome an assurance from the Minister that the Government will consult extensively with all stakeholder groups before finalising the guidance.
I have also received a briefing from the Suzy Lamplugh Trust. I feel that we are on a carousel now—none more so than the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, who has worked tirelessly, having been a victim of stalking herself.
I agree about the collaboration in Clause 12, because it is extremely important to ensure that we have multi-agency working. I also agree on mandatory training for police; that goes without saying. I work with trainee police students to ensure that they understand the victim’s journey, but, again, it is about breaking down the culture.
I have lots of briefing here, and I would like to thank many of the organisations. Laura Richards, who I work closely with, has given me tons of briefing, because she has worked in this area for so long. She must feel like a parrot, but she does it so elegantly. I will pull out bits from the briefing that people really need to understand.
Stalkers do not play by the rules. Restraining orders and other pieces of paper do not protect the victims. There is still no stalkers register, which would mean the perpetrator’s history would have to be checked. Sadly, though we still hear about Clare’s law, it has not been put into practice. Yesterday, I heard a victim who was desperate for Clare’s law, but the police did nothing. Even as we speak, I am still helping and supporting somebody.
My friend the noble Lord, Lord Russell—not the Earl—emphasised how tragic the murder of Gracie Spinks was. Similarly, when I was working on the Domestic Abuse Bill, I had the honour of talking about Georgia’s story. She was 14 years old, and watched her mother being murdered. I will never forget that.
For me, the solution is amendments to prevent and protect, saving lives and saving money. The same tactics must be applied to serial and dangerous domestic violence perpetrators and stalkers as to organised criminals and sex offenders. That would cut off opportunities for them to cause harm, and ensure that they faced the consequences of their actions. As we discussed in the context of anti-social behaviour, more and more the police report such actions as individual crimes. They do not join the dots, or “flag and tag” serial high-risk perpetrators. Instead, they focus on the victims. The victims do not know what happens on any other crime, so they feel that they are constantly going back and back.
Stalking is not like having a broken leg, where people can see it; it is like having a chronic invisible illness. Because people cannot see anything they think everything is okay—again and again, it is all down to the victim.
I finish with a recommendation from Laura Richards, who recommends a consistent national and collaborative multi-agency approach, led by statutory agencies, with specialist domestic abuse and stalking professionals round problem-solving tables. That would save lives and money. It would not be a talking shop; they would know what they are doing and would be professional, and they would make better policies.
In this Chamber, we are all so passionate about this, but we really have to do something to protect victims of stalking. We cannot keep doing the talking and then reading in the media about these horrific offenders. Even this weekend, we have more victims, because the police and the agencies are not joining the dots. I am sick and tired of inquiries and “lessons learned”. This is about lessons learned now, to protect the victims of stalking and give them the advocates that they rightly deserve and must have in the future.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I signed Amendments 67 and 69, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. She was right to talk about a strategic perspective over the whole of the legislation coming through from both the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office. Once again, the debate we are having about stalking advisers is because other parts of the system are not working.
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, for laying Amendment 74. However, it is not specific to stalking, and talks about the importance of having a range of advisers. I do not disagree with that at all, but, for reasons I shall go into when I say more about why stalking advisers need to be visible in the Bill, there are very particular issues relating to stalking that mean that we must ensure that people get the best support they can.
I also thank the Suzy Lamplugh Trust and Laura Richards, not just for their briefing but for the phenomenal work they do every single day. It is extraordinarily difficult work and, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Russell, it is only a drop in the ocean given the number of victims of stalking now. In an age when people can use mobile phones and apps, stalking is becoming all the more prevalent.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, cited the benefits of an independent stalking adviser. From my perspective, most victims of stalking arrive at the beginning of a journey through the criminal justice system knowing nothing about it, let alone about any stalking experience other than theirs at that point—which may not be the last point of the crime of stalking against them. We need training for police officers, community officers, call centre staff and those in the education system to be able to recognise it and know when they need to get help.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
There is an important point about parole. I know that parole is in the Bill later, but I cannot wait. What people do not understand is that if there are exclusion zones, the offender knows where you are yet the victim does not know where they are because the victim is not allowed. We need to protect victims even more when the stalker comes out because they will carry on, and the exclusion zone gives them an idea, even though it is there to protect the victim.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for that very helpful intervention.
At the end of the debate on the previous group, I asked the Minister how we can get into the culture, focusing on the things that need to be looked at in stalking cases. Stalking advisers would be key to that. They would not just support the victim but know and understand the local people in their system and the criminal justice system; they would talk to them and ask them to look out for things. I hope the Minister can give a positive response. From our Benches, we support these amendments.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I will speak extremely briefly, because others have spoken at great length, to support very strongly Amendments 67 and 69 and to applaud the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell, for seeking to ensure that the Secretary of State provides guidance for stalking advocates along with guidance for domestic abuse and sexual violence advisers.
As we know, stalking all too often ultimately leads on to criminal violence against women. An important measure ultimately preventing violent crime against women is to provide this support and advice for stalking advocates. It is far better than waiting for violence to occur before intervening. These are much more important amendments than they might appear.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, government Amendment 74 has been tabled to place a duty on the Secretary of State to issue guidance about victim support roles specified in regulations and to give the Secretary of State a power to make regulations that specify those roles. This replaces the current Clause 15, which specifies that guidance must be issued about independent sexual violence advisers and independent domestic violence advisers.
Through the Bill’s passage to date, we have carefully listened to concerns that naming particular roles in the Bill could be misinterpreted by funders as the Government prioritising these roles above others. We remain clear that ISVAs and IDVAs are only two roles within a rich and diverse support sector, meeting a range of victim needs, and that the right mechanisms are in place to ensure that funding for services is determined on the basis of local need for a resilient and cost-effective support offer. But we are conscious that the debate about naming certain roles in the Bill risked overshadowing the purpose of the clause, which is simply about improving a consistency of certain roles. While we know that this is not an issue or intervention wanted or needed for all support roles, we have also listened to arguments put forward that there are other support roles that might benefit from the improved consistency provided by national statutory guidance.
Therefore, this amendment avoids naming any victim support roles in the Bill. It instead provides the more flexible mechanism afforded by regulations to set out the relevant roles for which guidance must be issued, for use now and in the future. We intend to still use this only in cases where consistency of service provision is of sufficient concern to warrant national statutory guidance. This of course remains the case for ISVAs and IDVAs.
I am pleased to announce today that following constructive debate and engagement, the Government agree that such guidance is warranted for independent stalking advocates. They do vital work to support victims of these terrible crimes, as highlighted in the coroner’s report following the inquest into the tragic death of Gracie Spinks. Clear national guidance on the role of independent stalking advocates will be an important step in improving support for stalking victims. In response to my noble friend Lady Newlove, the Government can of course commit to consulting thoroughly with all stakeholders. We will require guidance to be issued on support services named in regulations. We will shortly publish draft regulations that will list independent domestic violence advisers, independent sexual violence advisers and independent stalking advocates. We have therefore heard the point on the value of ISAs and will require guidance to be issued.
I offer my thanks to the Victims’ Commissioner, my noble friend Lady Newlove, and the domestic abuse commissioner, Nicole Jacobs, for their engagement on this clause, to the National Stalking Consortium, convened so well by the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, and to the wider victim support sector, which is assisting the Government in developing the relevant guidance.
Turning to some of the points that have been raised in this helpful debate, I hope I can reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. The Criminal Justice Bill does not have any stalking-related measures, but stalking victims have further been supported by the following legislation since 2012. The Stalking Protection Act 2019 aimed to protect people from the risks associated with stalking. Stalking can fall within the scope of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 where the perpetrator and victims are 16 or over and personally connected. With the Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Act 2023, if someone commits an offence under existing Section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986, and does so because of the victim’s sex, they are liable for a higher maximum penalty. Finally, the Online Safety Act 2023 names Section 2A and 4A offences as priority offences.
I turn to some of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool. The Government of course recognise the value of ISAs—and I have recognised it in this amendment today—and have provided additional funding to stalking charities to help support victims, including funding specifically for advocacy. The Home Office part-funds the National Stalking Helpline, run by the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, providing £160,000 annually between April 2022 and 2024.
Through the Government’s up-to £39 million domestic abuse and stalking perpetrator intervention funds, PCCs for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, Cheshire, Kent, Sussex and the West Midlands are delivering interventions for perpetrators of stalking, and support for victims. An evaluation partner has been appointed so that we can develop an evidence base from this fund that works to protect and support victims. It is fair to say the Government can always do better, and we welcome a response to many of the points that have been raised and any dialogue between the department and interested parties.
In response to the noble Lord’s point about the Suzy Lamplugh Trust’s super-complaint to the police, we recognise the devastating impact stalking can have and expect the police to take reports seriously and to take swift action. We thank the trust for submitting this complaint—the Government will follow its progress with interest and have already provided relevant information about some of the issues to the investigating organisations.
To, I hope, reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, we have been engaging with stakeholders about the inclusion of ISAs throughout the passage of the Bill, and we are pleased to be able to confirm that we intend to specify in regulations that ISAs are included in the duty of the Secretary of State. As I mentioned earlier, our point is that these advocates are of equal status, and we do not want to create a hierarchy, so inclusion puts them on the same level as ISVAs and IDVAs.
On the points about information and how these offences are treated, stalking is an offence that often escalates over time—as we have heard earlier in this debate. That is why it is important to take preventative steps to protect victims of stalking at the earliest possible opportunity. In January 2020, the Home Office introduced stalking protection orders, which aim to address perpetrators’ behaviours before they become entrenched or escalate in severity. The Government have also awarded up to £39 million, as I mentioned, for the domestic abuse and stalking perpetrator intervention funds. Finally, victims can access support at any stage of their journey through the National Stalking Helpline, which is run by the Suzy Lamplugh Trust and funded by the Home Office.
As we are bringing forward this amendment, and intend to specify ISAs in regulations, I urge the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, not to press her amendments requiring guidance to be issued for independent stalking advocates. I hope that this demonstrates that the Government are committed to ensuring that victims of these terrible crimes receive the right support.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
Before the Minister sits down, he said there is no need to add or specify independent stalking advisers because there is no other specific reference, but in Clause 15(1) there is a reference to “domestic violence advisors” and “sexual violence advisors”. That is the problem, because some advisers are named and, unfortunately, stalking advisers are not. If they are not in the Bill, they will not go down—right the way down to the front line—as people who need to be approached.
Lord Roborough (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her point. While we are clear that there should be no hierarchy of support, and we know that ISVAs, IDVAS and ISAs are most effective when part of a wider support network, I will take that point away and consult the Minister.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his comprehensive remarks and for his explanation about why Clause 15 is being replaced. I sought advice from the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, and from other organisations which I knew had been in discussion with the Government. I am advised that the reason the Government have put forward their amendment is that they have met stakeholders and that the original plan to place ISVAs and IDVAs in the Bill was a concern that came from the violence against women and girls sector and was shared by the children’s sector and modern slavery and stalking charities. There was a concern about creating a hierarchy and, therefore, I understand the Government’s motivation for replacing Clause 15.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
“(c) older people’s independent domestic violence advisors;(d) older people’s independent sexual violence advisors.”
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
I must declare an interest, not because of my own age but because I used to work for Age Concern Scotland and am now proud to be a patron of the Hourglass Safer Ageing organisation, along with the noble Baronesses, Lady Gale, and Lady Ritchie, who both support this amendment. The amendment would ensure that police and crime commissioners included specialist
“older people’s independent domestic violence advisors”
and
“older people’s independent sexual violence advisors”
in their work.
There are currently PCC contracts for such OPIDVAs in Thames Valley, Sussex, Kent, and in five boroughs in London—Greenwich, Southwark, Bexley, Lambeth and Lewisham. There are similar domestic abuse support workers who specialise in supporting older victims in Sussex, Surrey, and Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, and another commissioner in Wokingham Borough Council. They are doing a good job, but clearly there are many parts of the country that do not have them, and I am suggesting that we should encourage them.
In areas where local PCCs have commissioned generic adviser services, their casework is often referred to the Hourglass Safer Ageing charity, which is a UK-wide charity supporting older victims, survivors of abuse and survivors of neglect, to provide the specialisms as a backbone service. Hourglass receives no additional funding or support to deliver what is, in many instances, very complex casework.
The challenges that older victim-survivors present include digital exclusion, dementia and increased vulnerability due to disability. As a result, generic domestic abuse services are often not appropriate for older victim-survivors. Older people often do not want to take up the time of other abuse services, which they deem to be for younger women escaping domestic violence, while the abuse of older people is just as harrowing as the victims often do not see themselves in that way. Sadly, the perpetrator is often a close family member—for example, where the abuse has been committed by the victim’s child or grandchild. As a result, victims are reluctant to report it or feel that it is a reflection on them as a parent or a grandparent if they do so. That abuse can be financial, as well as physical and in other forms.
When PCCs were given funding to commission IDVA and ISVA services in 2022, the Government said that specialist children’s services should be provided by each PCC, but older people also require specialist support when they experience abuse or neglect. PCCs should be required to make this support available. The Bill provides us with the opportunity for the Government to ensure that this happens.
The Minister, Edward Argar, has said that the Government will issue guidance to PCCs on tailoring support to meet victims’ needs. He also said that the duty to collaborate will require PCCs to work together to ensure that services support people with protected characteristics, including older people, so that they have the support they need. While this is encouraging, it falls short of ensuring that specialist support for older people will be available in every PCC area. I hope the Minister will take note of these amendments, consider them carefully and see what can be done to make that commitment stronger.
In 2018, Hourglass received 4,000 calls to its helpline, but this year it expects to receive more than 50,000 contacts from the ageing population, and the number of cases will increase rapidly. We need to ensure that there is specialist support and advocacy for older people everywhere. It is something that families are often reluctant to talk about and older people are reluctant to reveal, but it can cause great hardship and misery and ought to be dealt with by specialism. I hope consideration will be given to this amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 72, which I am delighted is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough. This was originally an amendment to Clause 15 relating to guidance for independent domestic violence and sexual violence advisers, but the Government have rather usurped that, as we have heard. However, the issues my amendment probes the Government on—specialist victim support for women, in my instance—are still pertinent. I listened to the debate on the previous two or three groups and refrained from speaking, but the issues we have been discussing could have been reflected in all the themes I am interested in looking at.
To state something absolutely obvious, but it is important to remind ourselves: certain crimes are predominantly aimed at women. Although it is true that anyone can suffer domestic abuse or be raped—I acknowledge that male victims may be underreported and I do not want to downplay that women can be perpetrators—all the evidence suggests that approximately 90% of victims of rape or domestic abuse are female. I will return to the reliability of data and whether we can trust it with an amendment in the next group.
My amendment probes whether the Government can ensure, via this Bill, that female victims of sexual and domestic violence have the option of female advocates, advisers and services, and that these victim advocates respect victims’ requests for access to women-only provision. This choice is no longer guaranteed, largely due to the turmoil and confusion caused by gender ideology and political rather than material definitions of what a woman is. This turmoil was vividly illustrated by an invaluable report published last week by the campaign group Sex Matters, entitled Women’s Services: A Sector Silenced. I will ensure that whichever Minister responds gets sent a copy of the report because it is a must-read. Will the Minister agree to meet with its authors? Its contents directly relate to the Bill’s important aim of improving service provision for victims.
The Sex Matters report reveals that the women’s service sector is mired in confusion as it grapples with the conflicts arising out of a move towards either trans-inclusive or so-called gender-neutral services, which are often forced on them by funders and commissioners, all at the expense of women victims’ choices. I will stress why this choice is crucial for victims of certain crimes. I have used the point about choice and options very carefully in my amendment. I quote JK Rowling explaining why she financially backed Beira’s Place, a single-sex rape crisis resource service in Scotland:
“As a survivor of sexual assault myself, I know how important it is that survivors have the option of women-centred and women-delivered care at such a vulnerable time”.
I testify to that from my own experience.
The Equality Act recognises the importance of offering such support as a choice and uses rape counselling as an example of a service where it is proportionate to discriminate—for example, by restricting counselling jobs to women. Despite that, even services that claim to be women-only are compromised by policies based on the belief that anyone who identifies as a woman—even those with male bodies—is a woman. To quote the head of operations of one charity that offers, it says, counselling, advocacy and group work for survivors of sexual violence and abuse in Sussex:
“We do not police gender and we do not define who is and is not a woman; we allow women to define this for themselves”.
I am afraid that such policies are hardly reassuring and create real quandaries for some victims and, indeed, service employees alike.
As we speak, a high-profile and important employment tribunal is taking place in Scotland, involving former staff support counsellor, Roz Adams, who is claiming constructive dismissal against the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre. In evidence, Ms Adams explained how she was told that revealing the biological sex of support workers to centre users was transphobic. The issue arose when a 60 year-old female survivor of sexual assault said she would feel uncomfortable talking to a man, but when she inquired about the sex of the centre’s volunteers, Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre’s response was that it was inappropriate to disclose such information. Worse, her question led to her being sent an email saying that she was not a suitable user of the service—the wrong sort of victim, I assume. Surely it is essential that any advocacy or advice services should be honest with victims about something as basic as the sex of staff who will provide victim support.
Yet, to muddy the water further, consider this. When Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre advertised a senior post a couple of years ago, the job blurb read “only women need apply”, citing the single-sex exemption in the Equality Act. All clear, noble Lords might think, and that would satisfy me. Or perhaps not, because the “only women need apply” job advert then added that as a diverse organisation, applications from trans women—that is, biological males—were especially welcome. Noble Lords may think, “That’s just Scotland: it’s all got a bit gender bonkers up there”, but these confusing trends are widespread throughout the UK. The domestic violence and sexual violence service sector is in turmoil. As the Sex Matters report reveals, there are serious consequences, such as women victims self-excluding and being reluctant to seek help because they do not want to risk being counselled by a man.
A story from Sussex Rape Crisis Centre illustrates the dilemma—it has been in the news recently. One service user, Sarah Summers, is suing Survivors’ Network for discrimination because it refused to provide a women-only peer support group. Sarah had joined a female-only group, which she found helpful and supportive as a victim, until a man who identified as a trans woman joined the group, making her feel uncomfortable and unable to be open about her past trauma. Sarah explains, in completely reasonable terms, that she knew:
“Some women are happy to be in that space, and obviously trans survivors have a need for that support. But single-sex spaces should be an option”.
Indeed, Survivors’ Network has such groups for trans, non-binary and intersex people.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and to support her Amendment 72 to Clause 15. I do so as a man, because I am not embarrassed to say that the safety, health and welfare of women is not just a women’s issue. It is an issue for men and women, and anything that compromises that is an issue of public interest.
It seems to me, reading the amendment, it is pretty axiomatic that it is a good thing and I hope Ministers will look very favourably on it. The wider context we need to look at, though, is the whole issue of gender-critical views. Noble Lords will know that in June 2021 in the Forstater ruling, it was found that it was not an ignoble thing to have gender-critical views. The premise that they were not worthy of respect in a democratic society was repudiated by Mr Justice Choudhury in that ruling, which overturned an employment appeals tribunal.
I also draw your Lordships’ attention again to the excellent report that the noble Baroness referenced, from the author Matilda Gosling and the Sex Matters organisation. The ruling found specifically that gender-critical beliefs are now legally protected from discrimination and harassment in employment and specifically—the key words—in respect of service users. To further quote from that ruling,
“it is clear from Convention case law that … a person is free in a democratic society to hold any belief they wish, subject only to ‘some modest, objective minimum requirements’”.
So a lack of belief in transgenderism and a lack of belief that someone can change their biological sex are both protected by the Equality Act 2010, provided that there is a reasonable expression and manifestation of that belief.
So I believe that this amendment should be in primary legislation because there is a concern among many women in many of these organisations that do superb work—refuges, counselling and support services, and rape crisis centres—that further guidelines without statutory impact and force will not actually deliver the results they need and want. This is about clarity in the Bill, but, more fundamentally, it is about the agency and autonomy of women in the most difficult circumstances imaginable—women who are damaged, women who are angry, women who are vulnerable and women who have been mistreated, in particular by men but also by society as a whole. It is about their agency and autonomy, and this amendment makes that specific.
It is not about bigotry or discrimination in respect of trans people, or biological men who identify as women. It is not that at all; it is important to put that on the record. The report referenced earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, gives much food for thought in terms of some of the impacts of self-censorship and a feeling that people have to change their policies in order to protect themselves from, sometimes, the pernicious attacks of trans activists, and their representatives and supporters in, for instance, Stonewall. That may give rise to things such as poor mental health, safety risks, self-exclusion, a poorer quality of service delivered, discomfort and forced compliance. So it exacerbates the very reason they had to access these services. Therefore, it is not just an arcane technical issue; it is about real-life, vital and imperative issues for a small group of women impacted.
I put on record my admiration for those women who have stood up and been counted on the gender-critical side in the so-called culture wars. It has taken great courage for them so to do. They include Maya Forstater, Jo Phoenix, Allison Bailey and Rachel Meade.
The wider context of the report is that the Government need to be seen—I hope that the Minister is mindful of the strength of feeling over this—to be taking real action and cutting through the confusion. The report says, among other things, that the GRA and the Equality Act 2010 need to be explicit in protecting women and the concept of women as a sex, and allow for information sharing. There is clear guidance on gender recognition certificates in the GRA with organisations, and those organisations should leave the Stonewall champion scheme and review their own training.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission also needs to issue guidance and model policies for organisations in the women’s sector, and for organisations with statutory bodies subject to the victims’ code. There should also be clear guidance for charity regulators, specifically on charities that provide single-sex as opposed to mixed-sex services.
This is a popular policy. In recent polling, the public are broadly behind this amendment in making the value judgment that it is important to have single-sex services for women in the most vulnerable position. I hope that the Minister will look favourably on the amendment; it has broad support across the House, and I support my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, was not here to move his amendment. Given the debate we had on the previous group, I think he would have made the point that we need specific guidance for other specialist services as well. I hope that the Minister will respond to that.
I was very taken with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, about older people. We assume that it is younger people who tend to be victims of domestic abuse, economic abuse and sexual violence, but that is not the case. Older people’s circumstances are often different, and they require more specialist advice. That does not mean that a person cannot be qualified to be a specialist adviser in two or three areas, but it means they have done the training and understand the differences. I am very mindful of that, and these Benches are supportive of it.
On the amendment spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, I am wondering how it would work. I think the noble Baroness is saying that trans women are incapable of understanding, helping or addressing trauma, yet trans women are already accessing women’s refuges because they have been victims of trauma.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
Let me develop this point first. The difficulty that I have is that the one place where a trans woman can feel safe if she has been assaulted by a man is a women’s refuge. I have looked and looked to see whether I can find evidence of trans women assaulting women in refuges, and I can find none. I cannot find any publicity, and in the current culture wars that the noble Baroness spoke of, it would be everywhere if that were the case. I hope that it does not happen. From talking to trans women, I know that they have frequently—more frequently than women, if you look at the ratio; it is a very small number of trans women—been assaulted and raped. Therefore, I would be very concerned about anything that removes their rights. I am worried that there is not a problem that needs to be solved. I say that with the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and the noble Lord, Lord Jackson.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I only want to clarify. The example that I used, to be clear, concerned instances where there was provision for trans women but not all natal women wanted to share their trauma with trans women. I did not mention assault by trans people against anyone, because that is not what this is referring to. The women’s-only facility argument in relation to services for sex, sexual assault and violence and domestic abuse is quite straightforward; it is understood in the law that women can have only-women provision, but the use of the word “woman” is now so misunderstood and can be interpreted as including trans women that it gets very confusing. I am afraid that that means that the lack of choice is not for trans women but for natal women—women.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
With the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, who said he felt that the entire House was behind this amendment, it is important for them to know that some people disagree with it. Although I understand where the noble Baroness is coming from, it does not help the issue inside our refuges. The most urgent thing is to help women, regardless of their natal birth, if they have been assaulted and raped and need somewhere safe to go.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Foulkes on his suite of amendments. I am not surprised that he has tabled them; he is quite right that older people need particular support and help as victims of violence. We can imagine why that might be the case. It feels like we should not really have to say it, but it is the case, and this is an important suite of amendments, which I hope the Minister will invite to be part of the wider discussion that we will have about how different groups can be supported as victims as we move forward. That goes without saying.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that I am confident that the arrangements to be put in place will comply with the Equality Act 2010.
Lord Roborough (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate on two related amendments. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, would require the Secretary of State to publish guidance about older people’s IDVAs and ISVAs. The Government recognise the vital support that older people’s advisers provide to older victims of these terrible crimes. The advisers offer invaluable emotional support, provide a focus on safety and help them navigate the criminal justice system.
As I have indicated in relation to the amendment on children’s ISVAs and IDVAs, the Government are open to considering the case for guidance for other types of roles, although my starting point is that guidance for these roles will be covered within the planned umbrella guidance for ISVAs and IDVAs. This will cover a range of specialisms, including the different considerations needed for older people.
I reassure noble Lords that we are continuing to draft guidance with the support of a working group made up of various representatives across the sector, including Hourglass, which does a fantastic job supporting and advocating for older victims of abuse, so that we get it right. The dedicated section on tailoring services to meet victims’ needs covers the particular needs that older victims may have.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for speaking to the amendment that seeks to require the IDVA and ISVA guidance to include provision about allowing victims to ask to be supported by an IDVA or ISVA of the sex of their choosing, and the Government would agree to a meeting with Sex Matters.
I reassure the noble Baroness that the Government have made it clear through the victims funding strategy that victims should be at the heart of every decision a commissioner or service provider makes. Service providers are best placed to tailor services to individual victims and decide the most appropriate person to support them. They will take into account the needs and preferences of the victim, the availability and capacity of staff, and staff members’ skills and experience, to ensure they can meet the victim’s needs.
This amendment seeks to require that the ISVA and IDVA guidance cover this topic. As there are a wide range of relevant issues that this guidance covers, we do not propose to list each issue in the Bill, but I can confirm that the draft guidance will have a dedicated section on tailoring services to meet victims’ needs. This includes setting out the different considerations for supporting both male and female victims, which may include considering the sex of their ISVA or IDVA.
The noble Baroness raised one particular circumstance, but there could be a number of reasons why a victim may wish to request a particular support worker—for example, language, age or cultural needs. The Bill is not the right place to set out these considerations, nor how a service should respond. Service providers are best placed to make those decisions and must also comply with the Equality Act 2010, as the noble Baroness pointed out, in the provision of all services that they operate. I hope this demonstrates that the Government are committed to ensuring that victims of these terrible crimes receive support, and I hope the noble Baroness will not move this amendment.
Lastly, Amendment 67A would require the Secretary of State to publish guidance on other relevant specialist support services. Such guidance would cover a wide range of services. It is not clear, without knowing which support roles this amendment is intended to cover, that such services need or would value government-issued guidance to support or improve the consistency of their service. Government Amendment 74, which amends Clause 15, provides a more flexible mechanism afforded by regulations to set up relevant victim support roles for which guidance must be issued.
I turn to a couple of the other points raised during this debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, mentioned whether services should provide single-sex spaces for victims. The Government are committed to ensuring that victims get the right support at the right time and that that support is tailored according to needs. The Equality Act 2010 sets out that providers have the right to restrict use of spaces on the basis of sex where it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
In response to a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, about guidance based on age, the draft guidance has a specific section on how IDVAs or ISVAs may respond to meet the needs of different types of victims, which includes examples of how they may tailor their support to meet the distinct needs of female and male victims. The guidance also highlights that some victims may prefer to be supported by a worker of their own sex or age and may prefer to access single-sex services where available.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I think it is rather early to be saying, as the Minister did, having not read the Sex Matters report, that delivery organisations are best placed to make their own policies. The report finds that they are trying to negotiate a maelstrom of difficulties, so for the Government to take a set view that the delivery organisations are best placed to do this, using the rationale of the Equality Act 2010, is not sufficient.
I should also say that I expected a less peremptory response from the Labour Front Bench to the very well-argued amendment.
Lord Roborough (Con)
I am afraid that the response to my noble friend is that the Government are absolutely adamant that service providers are the right people to make these decisions. They deal with a number of different concerns from victims and have to balance those against the resources available to their organisations.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I know that noble Lords want to move on, but the key to what I was saying is that service provision has been compromised by political and ideological interventions. If anything, this undermines the very exemptions in the Equality Act. I am afraid that saying “It’s up to them”, when they are the problem, potentially, is not quite going to cut it.
Could the Minister at least take back to the department that we will be returning to this issue on Report? It is very important, and we need some clarification. Maybe it can come after the meeting with the Sex Matters report writers, but saying that the status quo prevails does not work in this instance.
Lord Roborough (Con)
I am very happy to take the noble Baroness’s comments back to the Minister and the Government, and to discuss them.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and my noble friend Lady Thornton for their kind, sympathetic words. I appreciate them and I know that Hourglass will too.
The Minister has been very helpful, saying that older people will be considered as a group and their special needs will be considered in the following discussions. That was a very helpful response and in light of it, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Roborough
“Guidance about specified victim support roles(1) The Secretary of State must issue guidance about specified victim support roles.(2) In this section—“specified” means specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State;“victim support role” means a role performed by individuals which involves the provision of support to victims of criminal conduct (where the support relates to that conduct).(3) A victim support role may be specified by reference to (among other matters)—(a) the circumstances in which the role is performed;(b) the type of support provided in connection with the role;(c) the type of criminal conduct in relation to which such support is provided.(4) Guidance under this section about a victim support role must include provision about—(a) the support provided in connection with the role;(b) training and qualifications for individuals who perform the role;(c) how individuals who perform the role, and other persons who have functions relating to victims or any aspect of the criminal justice system, work together.(5) Guidance under this section must (where relevant) make provision in relation to victims who are children or have protected characteristics within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010.(6) Any person who has functions of a public nature relating to victims, or any aspect of the criminal justice system, must have regard to guidance under this section where—(a) the person is exercising such a function, and(b) the guidance is relevant to the exercise of that function.(7) Subsection (6) does not apply to anything done by any person acting in a judicial capacity, or on the instructions of or on behalf of such a person.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to issue guidance about victim support roles of types specified in regulations.
Baroness Brinton
insert the following new Clause—
“Mandatory training: violence against women and girls(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations require certain police officers and employees of the Crown Prosecution Service to receive training in respect of violence against women and girls.(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must—(a) make provision about the content of mandatory training, including training on the impact of trauma on victims of violence against women and girls; and(b) make provision about the persons for whom this training is mandatory.(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause requires the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations to provide for mandatory training for certain persons in the criminal justice system to receive mandatory training in respect of violence against women and girls.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I can be fairly brief because we have covered the issue of mandatory training in other areas earlier today and on previous days in Committee. Obviously, one does not know prior to starting Committee how many vaguely similar amendments are likely to be laid. That does not, however, reduce the importance of mandatory training for police officers and employees of the Crown Prosecution Service specifically in respect of violence against women and girls.
The amendment asks for regulations to be formed and provision to be made about the persons for whom this training is mandatory, and then an SI to be drawn up, presented to Parliament and approved by a resolution of Parliament.
We have not talked much about girls; most of our discussions have been about grown-ups and women. There is a particular need to support younger girls if they have been the victims of domestic abuse or stalking. The Minister said earlier that that was not necessarily excluded from the broader debate, but their needs are particular. The way they are approached by the police, perhaps when they first report an incident, may need to be very different. I know the police are pretty well trained, but it is none the less important that we see that support. I suspect that, when we get to Report, a single global training amendment may be tabled, rather than lots of different ones.
My Amendment 104 asks the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament within six months of the Bill being passed a report on the impact of the UK’s reservation of Article 59 of the Istanbul convention. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, referred earlier to the convention. It is a vital document, and it was very important that the UK signed it in 2012. It is a shame that it took 10 years for it to be ratified, but it is now.
However, the problem is that there are some reservations, and one of them is Article 59. The real issue is the Support for Migrant Victims Scheme. One of the things we are concerned about is a migrant victim not getting the benefits of the Istanbul convention when they are a victim of domestic abuse or trafficking. It would be really helpful if the Minister could outline the Government’s current position and whether they will report on it. I understand from the Government that it was already under review, pending the results of the evaluation of the Support for Migrant Victims Scheme. In summer 2022, the Government said that this decision is
“without prejudice to the substantive decisions which the government will make on the matters relating to article 59, in the light of the results and evaluation of the support for migrant victims scheme”.
So we are still waiting to hear what the issues are relating to it, and I hope that the Minister will give us a response. I know that elsewhere in this group, my noble friend Lord German might also touch on this issue, so I will leave him to do that; but the Istanbul convention is something that this Government have quoted themselves and believe is still important, and that should happen for anybody who ends up in this country.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak also to Amendments 77 and 107 in my name, and in support of Amendment 80, to which I have added my name. I very much support Amendment 75, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, but believe it could be strengthened: first by specific reference to domestic abuse—in particular, to controlling or coercive behaviour, including economic abuse—and secondly by ensuring that such training is delivered by specialist providers in the violence against women and girls sector. I tabled my Amendments 76 and 77 on behalf of Surviving Economic Abuse—SEA—with which I worked closely on the Domestic Abuse Act and for whose help on the amendments I am grateful.
As an officer of the APPG on Domestic Abuse and Violence, I have been struck by how often the domestic abuse sector has referred to the need for “training” or “improved training” on domestic abuse—particularly coercive control, including economic abuse—for those working in the criminal justice system. According to SEA, 5.5 million women experienced economic abuse from a current or former partner in the previous 12 months. As I argued earlier, it causes significant hardship, damages mental and physical health and makes it harder for a survivor to leave the abuser, putting them and their children at increased risk of further harm or even being killed. It also often continues long after separation, yet for those who build up the confidence to report it to the police, the criminal justice system is not using all its powers to tackle controlling or coercive behaviour, including economic abuse.
The latest criminal justice statistics from ONS showed that there were nearly 44,000 reports of coercive control recorded by the police in the year ending in March 2023, yet there were just 611 court proceedings and 566 convictions handed down in the year ending the previous December. Evidence shows that in many cases, the police rank economic issues as “low” when it comes to risk. They tend to focus on gathering evidence of physical abuse, even when victims disclose economic abuse. This is leading to perpetrators not being held to account for this crime, and victim-survivors left without true justice and at risk of further economic abuse. It is also particularly concerning given that economic issues were identified in just over a third of intimate-partner homicides analysed by the Home Office.
SEA has demonstrated that, when training is developed and delivered by specialist providers and is informed by the lived experience of survivors, it can positively change practice. Following training it developed and delivered to domestic abuse champions in 10 police forces, in partnership with SafeLives, nine in 10 police officers could recognise economic abuse and knew how to gather evidence to support a prosecution. There is a real danger that the positive steps that the Government have taken to tackle this form of abuse will be undermined by a lack of understanding on the part of the police and others in the criminal justice system. This can be straightforwardly addressed through access to necessary training, so that criminal justice professionals can identify controlling and coercive behaviour, including economic abuse, effectively build a case for prosecution and make sure that victims are referred to life-saving specialist support. I hope, therefore, that the Government will look sympathetically on these amendments.
I have tabled Amendment 107 as a probing amendment, designed to explore the issue of the use of a victim’s personal data for immigration purposes. Its substance has been promoted consistently and forcefully by the domestic abuse commissioner, and organisations supporting migrant victims of crime. In his letter of 12 January to Peers, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, acknowledged the importance of victims and witnesses being free to report crimes without fear, and that it is in the interests of the general public for all crimes to be fully investigated. But then he continued:
“We are, however, also duty bound to maintain an effective immigration system to protect our public services and to save the most vulnerable from exploitation because of their insecure immigration status”.
Can the Minister tell us how this is consistent with the repeated ministerial claim that domestic abuse victims/survivors must be treated as victims first and foremost, regardless of immigration status, given that the argument is, in effect, putting immigration status first—not “safety before status”, in the phrase used by the domestic abuse commissioner?
The reference to safeguarding those most vulnerable to experiencing serious crime because of their insecure immigration status simply does not make sense. As the DAC and all the organisations in the field, notably the Latin American Women’s Rights Service, point out, the absence of a firewall, in the DAC’s words,
“allows dangerous offenders to continue to abuse with impunity; safe in the knowledge that their victims … are too afraid of enforcement action to report to the police”.
The DAC has heard from many migrant victims and survivors that contact from immigration enforcement, particularly following a disclosure to the police or other statutory services, can instil fear and insecurity and prevent them coming forward for support in the future. In fact, recent data has shown that all police forces in England and Wales have referred victims or survivors of abuse to immigration enforcement in the last three years. Victim Support states that this is often the reason why victim-survivors do not seek support sooner.
The DAC’s concerns were echoed in the pre-legislative scrutiny report. This cited evidence from the organisation Imkaan that more than 90% of abused women with insecure immigration status had their abusers use the threat of their removal from the UK to dissuade them from reporting the abuse. It argued that the lack of a firewall denies safety to victims and witnesses and may allow perpetrators to commit further offences. No doubt the Minister will argue that these concerns will be addressed in the forthcoming immigration enforcement migrant victims protocol that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, mentioned in his letter. It is disappointing that the protocol has still not been published, despite it originally being promised at the end of last year. According to a recent Written Answer to me, it is now expected in “early 2024”. But, given that the Home Office can be rather vague in its temporal references, can the Minister say what is meant by “early”?
However, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, said in his letter, we know it will put limits on immigration enforcement action against migrant victims. But that is not enough to satisfy the domestic abuse commissioner, who argued that victims would still be open to contact from immigration enforcement, meaning that the fear of any immigration enforcement is not removed, and nor is the risk of potential immigration action once criminal proceedings conclude—which, for the victims and survivors of domestic abuse, can be within days. In view of the DAC’s continued concern, I urge the Minister to look again at this.
Turning to Amendment 80, the domestic abuse commissioner told the Public Bill Committee that one of her main concerns when it comes to genuinely providing services for all is the continued exclusion of migrant survivors, which could, she argued, be
“fixed quite simply by allowing recourse to public funds for domestic abuse survivors”.
According to the briefing from Southall Black Sisters and four other on-the-ground organisations, these women continue to face a stark choice between domestic abuse or deportation and destitution. Many are unable even to enter a women’s refuge, as they cannot pay their rent or living costs, as they are not eligible for housing or other social security benefits. Women and their children are vulnerable to homelessness and exploitation and can be locked in new, dangerous situations or even driven back to abusive relationships.
We tried to address this issue with amendments to the Domestic Abuse Bill, which were resisted by the Government. The current amendment is much more limited so as to remain within scope; the hope was that the Government would look more kindly on it—yet still they resist it, or they did so in the Commons. When it was proposed in Committee there, the Minister responded that victims without recourse to public funds are eligible for support under the terms of the code. However, he acknowledged that the “no recourse” rule affects the ability of victims of domestic abuse with insecure immigration status to access some accommodation-based support services. He went on to pray in aid the pilot established in 2020, as if that negated the need for the amendment, but did not otherwise offer any substantive arguments.
That year—2020—the Government said that they would consider the pilot’s findings once the evaluation was published and develop sustainable options for the future. The independent evaluation funded by the Home Office was published last year, as was an academic evaluation for SBS. The pilot demonstrated the need for support for this group, and the evaluation found that for the most part it performed well in meeting the immediate and emergency needs of victims and survivors. But it also identified problems with, for instance, the level of subsistence payments—a particular issue for those with children, according to the SBS evaluation—and the provision of suitable accommodation within the constraints of a pilot.
With regard to the latter, the report for the Home Office noted:
“Refuges could almost never be covered within the accommodation budget, meaning that some victims/survivors were housed in a patchwork of other provision which might be unclean, unsafe, or unreliable”.
The evaluators made it clear that it was outside their remit to provide policy recommendations but concluded with the
“hope that the insights contained within this report will help to provide the support needed to victims/survivors with NRPF”.
Well, they will be disappointed, because instead of the long-term solutions, together with a clear timetable for implementation, to which the Home Office committed itself in principle back in 2022 following a DAC report, the response to the evaluations was to extend the pilot yet again—this time to 2025.
I asked at Second Reading for an explanation of why the Government have failed to come forward with the long-term solutions originally promised in principle, now that they have the findings from two evaluations. I did not get an answer; nor was there one in the detailed letter from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, which simply set out the current position. I would be grateful if the Minister could provide an explanation now.
More fundamentally, could we have a clear explanation as to why the Government are rejecting this very modest amendment? In the Commons, Sarah Champion suggested that it was due to the hostile environment towards people from overseas. I hope that the Minister can assure us that this is not the case. Surely, whatever one thinks of the hostile/compliant environment, it should be irrelevant if policy is to reflect the ministerial mantra cited by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, in a Written Answer that
“anyone who has suffered domestic abuse must be treated as a victim first and foremost, regardless of immigration status”.
That point applies also to Amendment 107 on the firewall. I beg to move.
Baroness Bertin (Con)
I rise to say very quickly, because I know that we are trying to get through this, how much I support Amendment 75. To be perfectly honest, I find it deeply depressing that we have had so many debates and so much legislation on this issue and it is still so patchy. We have 43 police forces around this country, and we are still the victims of, or are at the mercy of, the priorities of those forces. We have a strategic policing requirement that includes violence against women and girls and domestic abuse, yet I am not sure that we are seeing it put into action. I wholeheartedly support this proposal, in the hope that the Government take it on board.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, reference was made briefly to Amendment 80, and
“services for victims … with no recourse to public funds”.
I want to offer brief but firm support for that amendment. Quite simply, victims of domestic abuse with no recourse to public funds are some of the most disadvantaged people that one sees in the family justice system. It is unthinkable, in my view, that they could be excluded in any way from the benefit of services under the victims’ code.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I have an amendment in this group—sometimes the way the groupings lie is a bit difficult. This group covers violence against women and girls, and my amendment relates to how we assess data on that violence. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Jackson of Peterborough, for their support—and we shall hear from one of them shortly.
Amendment 105 seeks to probe problems with the data that we use to develop policies and ensure that there is guidance to establish that sex registered at birth is used for any analysis of patterns of offending and recording victim and perpetrator profiles. Ideally, this would apply throughout the whole criminal justice system but, for now, this amendment focuses on violence against women and girls. I hope that, on this topic at least, there will be unanimity in acknowledging that sex difference between men and women can impact on people’s experience of victimisation and offending and on patterns of offending and risk.
Official crime data is used to assess the most appropriate services that should be developed, and how resources should be targeted effectively—something that the Bill has focused on at length in relation to support for victims. But any claims for evidence-based policy must be based on material reality and cannot depend on, for example, subjective assertions or ideological beliefs, both of which could be misleading. I invite people to agree with me that data needs to be accurate, credible and consistent. The problem is that accuracy, credibility and consistency are being undermined at present, because the criminal justice system has either conflated or replaced data based on immutable sex with data based on more fluid concepts, such as gender identity or self-declared sex.
I am aware that even discussing the collection of data based on a person’s sex, whether male or female, has become controversial these days. One has only to look at last week’s media reports of internal rows taking place in the Office for National Statistics about the methodology used in the census. But that is all the more reason why my amendment emphasises the need to raise the consistent measure of sex registered at birth. At present, there is an inconsistent model of options. The variable category of “gender” is used carelessly in criminal justice circles as interchangeable with sex. Sex can mean, if used imprecisely, sex as self-declared gender. It can mean a legally recognised but none the less acquired gender, sometimes evidenced by a gender recognition certificate—GRC. It can also mean changed government records, such as passports, driving licences, or NHS numbers, even though a person’s biological sex does not change, even if the documentation does. But the introduction of this vast array of recording practices creates a lack clarity about what is being measured and what exactly some types of official criminal justice data represent.
To illustrate that confusion, let us consider that a few years ago the British Transport Police stated that, because the BTP treats all people—victims, offenders and witnesses—with dignity, it
“records their gender according to the gender they present as, and/or how they self-identify their gender”.
That seems to suggest that the British Transport Police is undoubtedly well meaning but none the less prioritises validating people’s identity rather than understanding that data collection is a critical variable in crime statistics. It is important we ensure that official statistics are not treated as personal records of preference; they must be objectively accurate if they are to be useful. What is more, different police forces use different criteria for data collection, and this is very important for our understanding of violence against women and girls.
Keep Prisons Single Sex is involved in an invaluable project and public service which annually submits freedom of information requests to all police forces in the UK with the aim of determining how they record a suspect’s sex. The campaign’s findings for 2023 make for troubling reading. Just for a taster, of the 32 forces that answered the freedom of information request, no force records sex registered at birth in all circumstances; 20 forces use legally recognised acquired gender where the suspect has a GRC; and 13 forces stated that, where a suspect has a self-declared gender identity, they will record this as sex, rather than sex at birth. Some 22 forces answered the question on how a rape suspect’s sex is recorded, with 20 forces recording legally recognised acquired gender—in other words, GRCs—and only one force recording sex registered at birth. This means that suspected rape perpetrators and convicted rapists can be recorded in official statistics as female, if they no longer wish to identify with their male birth sex. To confuse matters further, 22 forces answered questions on how they record the sex of a suspect who identifies as non-binary, with 11 recording sex as “indeterminate” or “unspecified other”, and only nine using sex registered at birth.
Noble Lords might wonder whether any of this matters, and some say it does not. However, in 2019, when Fair Play For Women revealed results from its FOI requests to police forces, the National Police Chiefs’ Council responded that:
“There is no evidence to suggest that recording a person’s gender based on the information that they provide will have an impact on an investigation or on national crime statistics, because of the low numbers involved”.
That is wrong-headed and complacent. On the point about the low numbers involved, one might ask what will happen if many more people apply for a legal sex change. Organisations such as Stonewall claim that the UK trans population is up to 500,000, even though only a small minority have GRCs. That would make a significant error in the datasets. Small numbers of cases misclassified in this way can lead to substantial bias in crime stats, and, importantly, can distort and mislead public understanding of the nature of, in particular, violence against women and girls and offending patterns in relation to sexual offences.
If the police now record female crime based on gender identity, this means female crime statistics include both women who were born female and trans women who were born male. I do not know whether noble Lords recall that, in 2021, newspaper headlines screamed that the number of female paedophiles had doubled in four years. This shocking statistic was based on a Radio 4 “File on 4” documentary that used data from FOI requests. It claimed that, between 2015 and 2019, the number of reported cases of female-perpetrated child sex abuse prosecuted by police in England and Wales had risen from 1,249 to 2,297, an increase of 84%. A moral panic followed, as people assumed that that meant that more women were sexually abusing children, with endless talking heads on TV discussing why. The furore calmed down only when it dawned on commentators that no account had been taken of whether males who identify as women might be responsible for the apparent increase because of confusion about data protection. Of course, maybe it is the case that there are more women sexually abusing children—after all, offending patterns do change. However, it is impossible to know or make that claim from the collected data based on a mixture of gender identity and sex registered at birth.
This sort of unreliability surely erodes public understanding. Trust is eroded when sex-disaggregated data held by the police does not actually record what most people think it does. Unsurprisingly, this can lead to media reports of female rapists, women as sex abusers and so on, when in fact what is being reported is male perpetrators claiming female gender identity. We have to look only at the widespread public shock when it was revealed that a double rapist treated as a woman when remanded in a Scottish women’s prison was in fact not the female Isla Bryson but Adam Graham. Indeed, that scandal precipitated the downfall of the Scottish First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon.
To finish, routinely such confusions continue. Only last week, in media coverage of a trial at Southampton Crown Court, both broadcast and print media reported that a 56 year-old female charity shop worker was charged with exposing “her” penis. Lawyers in court were quoted as describing how Samantha Norris pulled down “her” trousers and manipulated “her” penis in front of two 11 year-old girls as they walked past the window of “her” home. But it is “his” home, “his” pants and “his” penis. Mr Norris may identify as a woman and be treated as such by criminal justice agencies, but he is male. How can the public or public authorities have any realistic picture or analysis of the threats posed by violence against women and girls if these confusions are reflected in official data?
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and shall speak to her Amendment 105. I apologise that I was not able to participate at Second Reading due to attending another meeting.
I submit that sex registered at birth is a fundamental demographic and explanatory variable reflecting the reality of sex-based differences between men and women. Sex registered at birth is a powerful predictor of outcomes and is established throughout the criminal justice system as important in the analysis of offending and pathways into offending and risk.
Males and females offend at different rates, with males offending at significantly increased rates to females. In September 2021, women represented just 4% of the total prison population. Some offence categories, including serious violent and sexual offences, are only very rarely committed by females, with the overwhelming majority of these offences being committed by males. For example, in 2019, women comprised 2% of prosecutions for sexual offences, 16% of prosecutions for violence against the person and 7% of prosecutions for possession of weapons. The groups with the highest proportion of males prosecuted were sexual offences, at 98% male, and possession of weapons, at 93% male. Pathways into offending also differ between the sexes. There are strong links between women’s acquisitive crime—for example, theft and benefit fraud—and their need to provide for their children. For women, a history of male violence, including coercive control, frequently forms a distinct pathway into offending.
Sex registered at birth underpins the provision and planning of services within the criminal justice system, with the female offender strategy providing an evidence-based case to address the distinct needs of women in the criminal justice system. More generally, differences due to sex underpin risk assessment processes, the provision of offender treatment programmes, and the differing security categorisation and arrangements in the male and female prison estates. It is for these reasons, I suggest, it is fundamentally important that, throughout the criminal justice system, suspects’ sex registered at birth is recorded—for all offences, not just violent or sexual offences against women and girls.
However, despite the clear, established, evidence-based importance of sex registered at birth, throughout the United Kingdom police forces routinely record suspects’ gender identity, self-declared gender, legally recognised gender or transgender identity and not their sex registered at birth, including in the case of rape. I will not quote all the statistics which the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, quoted on the freedom of information access requests acquired by Keep Prisons Single Sex, but it seems to be the case that in at least 32 of our police forces there is a complete mishmash in recording the sex of offenders, and that leads to perverse consequences.
There is no evidence that either legally recognised acquired gender, where an individual has been issued with a gender recognition certificate, or self-declared gender or gender identity have even equivalent explanatory power. In fact, where evidence is available, it continues to demonstrate the superior explanatory power of sex registered at birth to offending. I am sure some will argue that, even if sex registered at birth is erased from data in this way, surely the number of times it happens is so small that there is no appreciable impact on the data overall, so why does it really matter and why get upset about it.
The Lord Bishop of Bristol
My Lords, I rise to speak on behalf of two of my colleagues who have supported amendments in this group. My right reverend friend the Bishop of Gloucester regrets that she cannot be in her place to add her voice in support of Amendment 80, which concerns a cause on which she has long been an advocate. She tabled an amendment to the Domestic Abuse Bill, with cross-party support in 2021. Advocates have campaigned for 30 years to improve conditions for migrant women who have no recourse to public funds and who are victims of domestic abuse. While there has been some progress, including the introduction of the domestic violence indefinite leave to remain rule and the destitution domestic violence concession, there is still much more to be done to make sure that victims of domestic abuse with no recourse to public funds, or who are undocumented, are eligible for those schemes. Victims face an impossible choice: domestic abuse or deportation and destitution. Many are unable even to enter a women’s refuge; they cannot pay their rent or living costs as they are not eligible for housing or other social security benefits.
As we have heard, not much has changed since my right reverend friend raised these issues in 2021. The Government have extended the support for migrant victims pilot scheme, so it can be concluded that the support it offers is valued. Why not then grant a long-term solution? The pilot offers a victim financial assistance for 12 weeks towards rent and subsistence to enable them to leave an abuser and to begin the process of regularisation of their immigration status. More support for longer is needed, as those delivering the pilot scheme are finding that they are providing advocacy and counselling support pro bono as the pilot funding is insufficient. Victims of domestic abuse with no recourse to public funds deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, and offered the support they need to leave their abuser. Alongside my right reverend friend the Bishop of Gloucester, I support Amendment 80.
I also support Amendment 107, alongside the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, who has added her name and sends her apologies because she cannot be present today. This amendment seeks to ensure that the data of a victim of crime is not shared between statutory agencies and immigration enforcement for any immigration control purposes without their consent. The amendment covers victims of serious crimes including domestic abuse, sexual violence and modern slavery. There is much evidence that shows that migrant victims of crime cannot report a crime to the police and other statutory agencies due to the fear of facing immigration control. This is even more pertinent for women who have experienced abuse or exploitation, as the threat of detention or removal is used by their abuser to prevent them coming forward. The Latin American Women’s Right’s Service and the Step Up Migrant Women campaign found that 62% of migrant women had experienced such a threat from their abusers.
The findings of the first super-complaint investigation by three independent police watchdogs concluded that data sharing arrangements harmed the public interest as crimes are unreported,
“victims are denied justice, while offenders go unpunished and remain a threat to the public”.
In the immigration enforcement migrant victims protocol that the Government have proposed, the conflict of interest at its heart remains. Asserting that data sharing with immigration enforcement is essential for victims’ protection misses the years of evidence and campaigning on this issue. It does not address the fear of data sharing that prevents victims of crime coming forward. We have a responsibility to victims and cannot prioritise immigration enforcement over safe reporting pathways. The barriers that migrant women particularly face in reporting crimes put them at risk and protect the perpetrators. I support Amendment 107.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I rise to add my support to those remarks from the right reverend Prelate. I have added my name to Amendment 80, and I wish to say a quick word about the Istanbul convention and about the firewall, which, as we have just heard, is an issue.
If you want to understand why Amendment 80 has been tabled, you need to get out a calendar and track what has happened in the last three years. There have been huge inconsistencies between the Government’s approach and the wording of their priority policies. Initially, they responded to the needs of those with no recourse to public funds—largely, migrants seeking refuge —by saying that they would introduce the support for migrant victims scheme, with two platforms of funding. I will not bore the Committee with the names of those funds, but the Government wished to pilot the scheme. As we have heard, it has now been extended. In fact, the pilot has now been going on longer than if you were to sail around the world in a boat twice over. It has been a hugely long pilot and there has been extensive evaluation of it, so a scheme has clearly been put in place.
However, then the domestic abuse commissioner made a study of the scheme and recommended implementing flexible support for all migrant victims regardless of their status. The Government responded in 2022 by saying that they were not considering a routine pathway between public services and the domestic abuse sector because they felt the regulations already in place were sufficient. In those regulations that they think sufficient, you find that the support for migrant victims—SMV—scheme they put in place is applicable only to those of certain status seeking refuge or to live in this country. Certain groups are excluded. The Government’s response was basically: “We have what we’ve got. We won’t do anything more”. However, they did not say so in their response to the domestic abuse commissioner; there they simply said that they already could, but you can clearly see from the government regulations that they cannot.
Last year, we had the Illegal Migration Act. A whole host of people—I hope the Minister can tell us how many—who entered this country since it was enacted suddenly have no status, because they are not eligible for anything. We do not even ask them any questions. I do not believe that the Government know nothing about these people. They must know something, but we do not know what it is. We know neither the exact numbers of people who have arrived nor anything about them, because we do not ask them what they are here for. We simply warehouse them before some scheme to remove them from the country—although nowhere near the numbers of people who arrived—takes place. There is a cohort of people who do not have the status currently required for the support for migrant victims scheme. We do not know who they are because the Government do not ask them, but we know that there are substantial numbers of people in that cohort who are suffering or have suffered from domestic abuse.
This is where the problem gets complex. In their evaluation of the Government’s scheme, the London School of Economics and the Oxford Migration Observatory found that the extension of the scheme would produce major cost savings for the Government in the longer term. It estimated that there are potentially 32,000 victims with no recourse to public funds who are likely to report domestic abuse to an authority in each year and that only 7,700 of these victims are likely to access a refuge or accommodation for a short period. It recommended the extension of the model to benefit all the people in that cohort and to do so until their circumstances could be put right.
The government-funded evaluation of the scheme said that it needs to be expanded to include all those without recourse to public funds. There is also a view that more money needs to go into that scheme to provide enough money to give people a route out of the problems they face, which anyone who has contributed to this Bill will know about.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I will make two extremely brief points. First, I will address Amendments 80 and 107, affecting individuals facing domestic abuse who have an immigration status of “no recourse to public funds”. I strongly express the Green Party’s support for these amendments. We are essentially forming again a collation—across the Committee in total, and with full political breadth—as was put together during the Domestic Abuse Act. The Government need to get the message that this coalition is not going away and will keep hammering away on this point.
Secondly, on Amendment 75, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, I am aware that it refers to the education of the CPS. I think we have to look at the very recent context. In a discussion on violence against women and girls with the Culcheth & Glazebury Parish Council, the Cheshire police and crime commissioner, John Dwyer, was quoted as saying:
“I notice school girls in my area are all wearing very short skirts and this did not happen in the 1960s”.
There is an evident need across the criminal justice system for a great deal of education. It is possible we might think some people are beyond education, but we need it to be happening anyway. We need it to deliver confidence to the victims of crime, so that they feel they can come forward and be treated properly.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I was there in the 1960s but that is not quite the object of this debate.
I was struck during the previous group of amendments, and it has continued in this one, by the question of training. What everyone involved in these issues needs is professional curiosity and an ability not to compartmentalise people’s reactions. Older people’s vulnerabilities—I have come across Hourglass, and I admire it—can also be found in younger people, so training needs to be thorough, with no cliff edges in how it is delivered. We are all different people and we all exhibit a variety of traits, which at different ages and in different circumstances may rise higher up the list than at other times. I was glad to hear my noble friend say that she could see a single wide amendment coming, because I think it is needed.
The Istanbul convention has been debated in this House before, as has the reputational damage of the country in this context. However, I put it in again today.
There is an important debate to be had on data collection and the argument about consistency. However, it is a very wide debate and not something that can sensibly be addressed in a Bill which is about a discrete area of work.
My name is to Amendment 107, which may not give it a very good prognosis, since I opposed paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 to the then Data Protection Bill all the way through its passage through the House and led a vote against it. The paragraph says—this is not verbatim—that the exemption for personal data does not apply, fit to prejudice, to immigration enforcement. I never succeeded in my opposition, but I hope that might change.
On the detail of the amendment, there is one thing I need to say in making the case for it. It is not only a matter of information about someone’s immigration status being given where, in the views of all speakers, it should not go, and immigration officers turning up on the doorstep; it is the deterrent effect of an abuser telling a victim, “You’re not entitled to be here. I’ve got your papers, and there’s nothing you can do about it. If you complain, you’ll be thrown out”. Abusers have been known to lie and, from what one hears from the organisations working in the sector, that happens a great deal in this situation.
I suppose that “domestic abuse” is the correct term, but this situation does not apply only to people who are in a personal relationship; domestic workers are very vulnerable to this abuse. The deterrent effect on them complaining about the appalling treatment that some of them suffer is very notable. On behalf of these Benches, I hope we manage to make some progress on this issue during the course of the Bill.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate; it has been interesting, if slightly wider than we expected. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for introducing it. I put my name to Amendment 75. This is the first time that we have talked about women and girls at all; the noble Baroness was right to initiate that. I also tabled Amendment 80, which we on these Benches feel strongly needs to be addressed in the course of the Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred to Amendment 107, which the Government will also have to address, because it is clearly about a very serious issue. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is completely right about the importance of the UK’s reservation on Article 59 of the Istanbul convention, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is right about the reputational damage it does to our country. I hope the Minister will be able to respond to that.
I thank Southall Black Sisters for the excellent brief it produced about seeking to ensure that victims of domestic abuse who do not have the recourse to public funds are still entitled to be provided with services in accordance with the victims’ code. It was thorough and I hope that a Minister will respond, even if it is not this Minister. It is very nice to be opposite the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for the first time in quite some years; we faced each other for about seven or eight years on health matters. Of course, we have two Fredericks on our Front Benches, which is probably worth noting.
Southall Black Sisters has done extensive research on the effect of having no recourse to public funds. It has made a very serious record of the hardship and cruelty that this can lead to. I very much hope that the Minister will look at that evidence and that we will be able to take this forward. I will not say anything further, because we have had a very thorough discussion about the amendments.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I too am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken to this group of amendments, which cover a range of sensitive and complex issues.
I turn first to Amendment 104, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, on the UK’s reservation on Article 59 of the Istanbul convention. We were delighted to ratify the Istanbul convention. I believe that our doing so sent a clear message, not only within the UK but overseas, that Britain is committed to tackling violence against women and girls. I need to explain the point around the reservation, though. First, we are far from alone in making such reservations. Secondly, and more germanely to the noble Baroness’s concern, the reservation does not mean that we are not committed to supporting migrant victims, as I shall now explain.
We will continue to consider the findings of the SMV—support for migrant victims—scheme pilot, along with other assessments, and take account of the domestic abuse commissioner’s report Safety Before Status: The Solutions. This is very much work in progress. I assure the noble Baroness and the Committee that we will consider all matters in the round before making any further decisions on our policies and compliance position on Article 59. We have been clear about this in our last two annual progress reports, which were laid before Parliament, as we have been in many other fora.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
Can the Minister give the Committee any sense of the timescale? This is really overdue. It was promised some time ago. It would be enormously helpful to know what the blocks are and how long he thinks it will take.
Earl Howe (Con)
I will need to write to the noble Baroness—and to other noble Lords, of course—on that point, as I have no advice. I shall come on to Amendment 80 in a moment.
Amendment 75 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and Amendments 76 and 77, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, would require the Government to bring forward regulations to provide for certain persons in the criminal justice system to receive mandatory training in respect of violence against women and girls. My ministerial colleague and noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy has emphasised to me that we are deeply committed to driving improvements to the police and criminal justice response, which we know has too often not been good enough.
In that context, we recognise the importance of police officers and prosecutors having the right skills and knowledge to respond effectively to VAWG crimes. While the police and Crown Prosecution Service are operationally independent of government, we have taken action to help ensure that police officers and prosecutors are equipped to respond in three principal ways—through our tackling VAWG strategy and complementary domestic abuse plan, and the rape review. This includes funding the College of Policing, which is responsible for setting standards on police training, to develop and implement a new module of the specialist domestic abuse matters training for officers investigating these offences. This will enable further improvement in the way that police respond, investigate and evidence this crime. The domestic abuse matters programme has been completed by 34 police forces to date.
Ultimately, as has often been pointed out, this comes down to culture. It is therefore imperative that the right culture is in place. That is why the Government are driving forward work to improve culture, standards and behaviour across policing. That includes implementing recommendations from the Home Office’s police dismissals review to ensure that the system is fair and effective at removing officers not fit to serve. Given the significant work already under way that is expressly designed to strengthen both the police and CPS response to violence against women and girls, I hope the noble Baronesses will feel comfortable not to move these amendments when they are reached.
Turning next to Amendment 80 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, I thank her for raising this issue because it allows me to put on record how victims without resident status who do not have recourse to public funds are entitled to be provided with services in accordance with the victims’ code. The proposed new clause would state that victims of domestic abuse who do not have recourse to public funds can still receive services under the victims’ code.
However, I reassure the Committee, particularly in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, that the code does not contain eligibility requirements linked to immigration status. It explicitly states that victims are entitled to receive services regardless of resident status, which means that victims who have no recourse to public funds are still able to receive support under the code. This includes right 4 in the code, which is the entitlement to be referred to and/or access services that support victims. However, we are aware that, in practice, the recourse to public funds rules in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 impact the ability of victims of domestic abuse with insecure immigration status to access some accommodation-based support services.
Victims with no recourse to public funds can access safe accommodation funding and can do so through our destitute domestic violence concession, which has been in place since 2012. It is a quick route to public funds and for those eligible to regularise their immigration status. Furthermore, the statutory guidance for the duty to provide safe accommodation under Part 4 of the Domestic Abuse Act makes it clear that this provision is for all victims of domestic abuse, including migrant victims with insecure immigration status.
We remain of the view that this amendment is not necessary, and I hope that what I have said goes some way to reassuring the noble Baroness of the various ways that the Government are supporting victims regardless of their resident status, especially victims of domestic abuse.
I turn to Amendment 107, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, which I recognise covers a very sensitive issue. We remain determined that all victims and witnesses must be free to report offences without fear. However, this must be balanced with the need to maintain an effective immigration system, to protect our public services, and to safeguard the most vulnerable from exploitation because of their insecure immigration status.
It is the role of law enforcement agencies to protect victims, bring offenders to justice, prevent the commissioning of offences and preserve order. For them to discharge these functions, information sharing, very much on a case-by-case basis, must be allowed to take place, having regard to all the circumstances of the case. I say that especially because this information in some instances may help to protect and support victims and witnesses, including identifying whether they are vulnerable, and aiding their understanding of access to services and benefits.
However, we agree that more can be done to make it clearer to migrant victims what data can be shared and for what purpose. That is why we will set out a code of practice on the sharing of domestic abuse victims’ personal data for immigration purposes. This will provide guidance on circumstances when data sharing would or would not be appropriate and will provide transparency around how any data shared will be used. We will consult on this prior to laying the code for parliamentary scrutiny and approval by this spring.
That is not all: the Government are also committed to introducing an immigration enforcement migrant victims protocol for migrant victims of crime, which we aim to launch later this year. The protocol will give greater transparency around how any data will be shared.
Finally, Amendment 105 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State for Justice must issue guidance in respect of data collection to ensure that sex registered at birth is recorded for both victims and perpetrators of crime in respect of violence against women and girls. I was very interested to hear the statistics that she quoted on this issue and the arguments that she advanced—and I say the same to my noble friend Lord Blencathra about his powerful speech.
It may be helpful if I set out what the current system provides for as regards data collection. The Home Office collects, processes and analyses a range of national crime and policing data provided by the 43 territorial police forces of England and Wales. These collections form part of the Home Office annual data requirement—ADR. The ADR is a list of all requests for data made to all police forces in England and Wales under the Home Secretary’s statutory powers. The Home Office issued guidance in the ADR in April 2021 that sex should be recorded in its legal sense —what is on either a birth certificate or a gender recognition certificate. Gender identity should also be recorded separately if that differs from this. For consistency, this is based on the classifications used in the 2021 census for England and Wales.
Since implementing this guidance, the UK Statistics Authority has launched its own review on guidance given on the recording of sex, and that is expected to report this year. The Home Office will consider the new guidance in deciding whether or not changes are needed to the recording of the sex of victims and perpetrators dealt with by the police, including whether to move from the existing voluntary basis to a mandatory footing. I suggest that we do not need to amend the Bill to achieve what the noble Baroness seeks, in the light of the action under way to help address this issue. I hope she will feel a little more comforted than she was earlier as a result of what I have been able to say.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I gather that I am supposed to speak now, because I moved an amendment to the amendment. I did not realise that I would be responding, so I am sorry if I do not do it terribly competently. I thank the noble Earl for his very full reply, and all noble Lords who have spoken, particularly in support of my amendments. I shall be brief because I am conscious that there is other business waiting.
On training, I agree with the noble Earl on one thing, which is the importance of culture. But culture does not just come out of thin air—and, judging by what the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said, there will be a more amalgamated amendment on training coming down the track. She is nodding, so I am afraid we still think we need something in the Bill on that subject, but perhaps something broader than the original amendment.
On no recourse to public funds—this is not surprising, and I do not blame the noble Earl—what we have heard is what the Minister said in the Commons, which I argued against as inadequate. We just had the same again. That is what happens so often. There is an argument in the Commons, we argue why that is not enough, and then we get the same argument again.
I asked some specific questions, which I will not repeat now, but again, perhaps a broader letter could be sent to noble Lords covering the different things that were asked about. On the firewall, again there is the sense that we just go round in circles. When I asked for clarification on the protocol promised for early 2024, the Minister talked about later this year, which sounds rather ominous. It sounds later than early 2024.
So it feels that on both the recourse to public funds—the noble Lord, Lord German, spelled out at great length the saga on this and the history of it—and on the firewall, that we are just waiting for Godot. We just wait and wait and get nowhere. I do not know whether the domestic abuse commissioner is watching, but she will definitely read the debate and will be extremely disappointed, because the Minister may say that legislation is not necessary, but organisations on the ground such as Southall Black Sisters, which has been cited, and the domestic abuse commissioner feel very strongly that legislation is needed. It is disappointing, but I will leave it at that. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment to the amendment.
Red Sea Update
(10 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Minto) (Con)
My Lords, with permission I shall now repeat the Statement given by the Secretary of State for Defence in the other place earlier today, on the recent response to Houthi aggression in the Red Sea. The Statement is as follows:
“Freedom of navigation has been a cornerstone of civilisation since time immemorial. It underpins our prosperity and security and is a founding principle of the international rules-based system. Since 19 October, the Houthis, supplied and aided by Iran, have been infringing on those fundamental freedoms by attacking international commercial vessels in the Red Sea and in the Gulf of Aden. On 19 November, they illegally seized the merchant vessel ‘Galaxy Leader’ using a helicopter-borne assault crew, and since then they have conducted around 40 attacks against commercial and military vessels. Despite repeated warnings, their attacks have continued.
The UK has always stood up for the rules-based international order, and since the Houthis began their illegal attacks we have been at the forefront of the international response, whether helping to defend vessels in the vicinity, as one of the first members to join the US-led task force Operation Prosperity Guardian, or working in tandem with the US and other allies to tackle the Houthis, always in response to specific threats and always in line with international law and the principle of self-defence.
On two previous occasions we were required to use force, and these attacks have had a significant effect in degrading Houthi capabilities, but the Houthis’ intent to continue disrupting the Red Sea has not been fully diminished. Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister came to the House to make it clear, as I did the following day, that unless the Houthis desisted from their inflammatory actions, we would not hesitate to act again. Yet instead of ceasing their activities, they have chosen to persist, accompanying their increasingly incendiary rhetoric with further missiles and drones targeted at shipping and at the Royal Navy.
Most recently, the Houthis set the vessel ‘Marlin Luanda’ on fire and targeted HMS ‘Diamond’ directly in the Red Sea. Such behaviour is simply intolerable. It breaks international law and is already having consequences for the economies of the world. Insurance premiums have rocketed tenfold since the start of December. The number of cargo ships transiting Bab al-Mandab has fallen and the cost of containers has rocketed, all of which could send food inflation spiralling and will certainly hit those countries with the greatest poverty levels the hardest.
The Houthis believe that they are the region’s Robin Hood, but as I discussed with the Yemeni Defence Minister just yesterday when I saw him in Saudi Arabia, the only people they are robbing are innocent Yemenis whose food and aid arrives via the Red Sea. That is why at the weekend the Prime Minister and I again authorised the use of force, in strict accordance with international law and in self-defence. On Saturday, Royal Air Force Typhoons, supported by two Voyager tankers, joined the US forces to conduct further precision strikes against Houthi locations in Yemen. The Typhoons employed Paveway IV precision-guided munitions against three military targets, hitting 11 separate targets, which were identified after very careful analysis at those three locations, and approved by me.
At As-Salif, due west of Sana’a on the Red Sea coast, our aircraft targeted a ground control station inside a defensive position. This station had been used to control Houthi attacks and reconnaissance drones launched from further inland and operating over the sea against international shipping. A second drone ground control station was confirmed to be Al-Munirah on the same stretch of coastline. As with As-Salif, the station provided direct control of reconnaissance and attack drones targeting shipping in the Red Sea—its position on the coast allowing it to maintain the line-of-sight data links used to target innocent shipping with accuracy.
Our Typhoons also attacked a significant number of targets at Bani. The House may recall that an initial group of facilities at Bani was successfully struck by the RAF on the night of 11 January. Since then, a further set of buildings at the site were positively confirmed to be involved in the Houthi operations and were, as a result, targeted on this occasion. As is standard practice for operations by the RAF, the strikes were very carefully planned to ensure minimal risk of civilian casualties. Dropping munitions at night further reduces such risks and we do not believe there were any civilian casualties on Saturday night.
Military action can only ever be one element in our efforts to confront these global challenges. Any military action is indeed the very last resort. It would be far better if the Houthis simply stopped their attacks. Our approach is founded on four pillars. First, we are increasing diplomatic engagement. The Foreign Secretary travelled to the region and met his Iranian counterpart last month to make it clear that Iran must cease supplying the Houthis with weapons and intelligence, and use its influence to stop the Houthi attacks. The Prime Minister spoke to President Biden recently to discuss our joint approach and I met my counterparts in the region this weekend, returning this morning from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, where I discussed regional security.
Secondly, we must end the illegal flow of arms to the Houthis. Britain and the US have previously intercepted weapons shipments in the region, including the same kind of components that we have seen used in recent strikes. Thirdly, we must cut off the Houthis’ financial resources. We have already, last month, sanctioned four key figures within the Houthi regime, including the commander of the Houthi naval forces and the Houthi defence minister.
Fourthly, we continue to help the people of Yemen by delivering humanitarian aid and supporting a negotiated peace. The UK has committed £88 million in humanitarian support this year, feeding 100,000 Yemenis every month, with aid arriving through the very sea routes that, ironically, the Houthis are targeting.
Let me be absolutely clear: we would much rather the Houthis simply stopped attacking international shipping, stopped damaging global trade and stopped harming the prospects of their own people. At the same time, appeasing the Houthis today will not lead to a more stable Red Sea, nor indeed a more stable region. We are not seeking confrontation and we urge the Houthis, and all those who enable them, to stop these illegal and unacceptable attacks. However, if necessary, the UK will not hesitate to respond again in self-defence.
Placating the sponsors of terror does not benefit our international order in the long run, or bring peace to the Middle East or elsewhere in Europe or, indeed, the world. The truth is that we cannot ignore the importance of these great waterways for shipping. This is the reason why the world backs the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. It is the reason why New Zealand has joined the UK, the US, Australia, Canada, Bahrain, Denmark and the Netherlands in providing support for this weekend’s air strikes, and it is the reason why, as an island nation, we have always appreciated freedom of navigation. It is intrinsic to our way of life. If we do not deal with these threats, every nation will be poorer. I commend this Statement to the House”.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Minto, for repeating the Government’s Statement. I very much welcome its tone and content. I say at the outset that we back the US-UK air strikes, which are supported by other countries, as the noble Earl read out. We also praise all the members of our Armed Forces involved in these actions and actions that have gone before. We should all pay tribute to their bravery.
We know that, as the Government said, these actions are to protect shipping and freedom of navigation in the Red Sea. In essence, we are standing up for the international rules-based order. This is of extreme importance, as the noble Earl mentioned, as the Houthis are attacking the ships of many nations, threatening maritime security and international trade. They are putting lives in danger. They cannot just act with no consequence. We cannot just stand by and let these things happen. Let us be clear: taking no action also has consequences.
We fully back the leading role that the Royal Navy has played, with the US and others, in the continuing defence of shipping for all nations in the Red Sea, but as the Minister said in the Statement in the other place, despite having had
“a significant effect in degrading Houthi capabilities”,
their intent
“has not been fully diminished”.
Can the noble Earl tell us what assessment the Government have made of the effectiveness of the action that has been taken so far? At what stage do these one-off strikes become a sustained campaign, with the need to involve Parliament? It is good to see a coalition of countries supporting the action, but perhaps the noble Earl can outline the efforts the Government are making to persuade other countries to join Operation Prosperity Guardian.
Actions in the Red Sea raise many legitimate questions. In particular, we know that Iran is the sponsor for many actors in the region, including the Houthis. What steps are the Government taking to prevent regional escalation, which we all wish to avoid, while maintaining dialogue with Iran about action that may be taken?
Questions also arise about our ability to sustain a military operation, even in the support role we have. Can the noble Earl reassure us that we can and will be able to provide all the necessary equipment and military assets? For example, are the Government rethinking the need for our ships to carry missiles that allow them to attack land bases, such as drone bases in Yemen?
We also read of the fact that the aircraft carrier “Queen Elizabeth” now needs repairs to a propeller. Can the noble Earl update us on this? Has it impacted on Red Sea deployment decisions, given that we were all led to believe that the “Queen Elizabeth” was being considered for deployment to the Red Sea? How long before the “Prince of Wales” can be readied to take on her role in the NATO exercise? Could it also be the case that she will be sent to the Red Sea?
It is also important that we recognise, as the noble Earl did, the important role played by the RAF and the importance of the base at Akrotiri. Can the Minister outline whether we are due to rotate HMS “Diamond” with another naval ship? Can we be certain that any of our ships can be fully supplied at all times?
These questions arise on the day that a Defence Select Committee report said that
“parliamentary scrutiny of and debate about UK armed forces readiness currently relies on media reporting and corridor conversations”.
That simply has to change, hence my questions. Operational ability to do all we would wish to do, even with our allies in the Red Sea, becomes important.
Ministers have said that they need to deter Houthi attacks and degrade their capabilities. As I asked earlier, what assessment has been made of that? This also has to be done alongside diplomatic efforts, so can the noble Earl update us on these efforts to put pressure on the Houthis, particularly via Iran, and other diplomatic measures that have been taken?
Finally, we agree with the Defence Secretary in rejecting Houthi claims that this is somehow linked to the conflict in Gaza. They have been attacking ships in the Red Sea for at least five years. This is about the international rules-based order, and we will act with the Government to defend that principle.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, from these Benches I also thank the noble Earl for repeating the Statement. Like the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, I support the actions that have been taken so far. In particular, I thank the Government for being so clear about the precision with which the actions have been taken. It is hugely important that if we state that we are taking action against the Houthis to support the international rules-based order, we are very clear that our actions are proportionate and in line with international law. That is very welcome. Like the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, from these Benches I thank His Majesty’s Armed Forces for their deep commitment and the fact that they have been able to act and react so effectively.
I will start with Akrotiri and the RAF, because over the years Akrotiri has been hugely important, and we have made significant demands on the RAF. My starting point for questions on His Majesty’s Government’s capabilities is whether the noble Earl thinks we have sufficient support in Akrotiri. Is the Air Force able to keep up the level of support we have, or do we need to think about additional support for the RAF? Clearly, what has been happening so far has been significant and is working well, but can we sustain that—and for how long?
I have a similar set of questions about the Royal Navy. We rehearsed some of those at Questions this afternoon, and discussed naval capabilities. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has already raised some questions, but I will ask a little bit about crewing. One option is obviously to rotate out HMS “Diamond”, but do we need to do that, or might we think about changing the crewing? Is that what His Majesty’s Government might be thinking about?
Can the noble Earl also tell the House how many of our ships are currently at sea, how many are in planned maintenance and how many need to have, for example, propellers mended, which is not part of planned maintenance? Can he elaborate a little further on some of the answers he gave this afternoon about our naval capabilities? The Defence Select Committee’s report from the other place really is quite damning about our capabilities.
From these Benches and the Labour Benches, we have raised questions over years with His Majesty’s Government about not just defence spending but how effective that expenditure is, and how effective our capabilities are. It is great that we have two aircraft carriers, but if they are troubled by defects, that raises concerns. The Type 45s were beset by design defects. The noble Earl’s predecessor, the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, was very keen to say that with the PIP, the Type 45s were a better ship than they had been before the refinements, but do we not need our ships to be right first time?
Are we confident that, moving forward, as we see ever more zones where His Majesty’s Armed Forces need to be present, we really have the capabilities, as an individual state and alongside our allies, to play the international role that we seek to play and to give our Armed Forces the support they deserve?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for providing that firm commitment to support the Government in their actions and to give at all times the full level of support that our forces value so highly.
This is not an easy situation; it is correct that what we are doing now is a continuation of these single actions—it is not a sustained thing. I can give a commitment that if that changes, it will be discussed much more widely. I understand the issues surrounding this but for force protection and operational security, the Government must have the ability to act on information received.
I shall go through the specific questions asked. The assessment of the action taken so far, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said, is that it has been very accurate. It has been successful—it is not over. The noble Baroness referred to the accuracy of the targeting. That has been very effective, by all accounts, and we should continue along that route. It is important that we keep up the pressure but do not move to anything more sustained at this point.
We have been successful in getting more allies to join Prosperity Guardian. As I said this afternoon, for them to take action is something which each sovereign state needs to decide for itself. It is incumbent on that; I am sure that there is a lot of diplomatic action going on in the background, but we cannot take a decision for them.
Both the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have been determined to make Iran fully understand that waging a war, in effect, through its proxies is something that the rest of the world finds illegal and cannot contemplate, and it needs to stop. There can be no doubt in my mind that Iran understands that; I hope that diplomatic pressure will continue and there will be a breakthrough at some point.
Both noble Lords asked about the sustainability of the action we are taking. I am absolutely sure from the RAF side at Akrotiri and the naval side in the Red Sea that this level of pressure is sustainable. There is the question of rotation; obviously, planned maintenance is a programmed activity and there is no gap in capability while they transition from one ship to another or swap planes over. That is very important.
We are part of an international force, and it is complementary in many areas. While we may not have on a particular ship all the weapons to provide a complete field, there are others that will do that.
The point was made about ship-to-shore missiles. The RAF from Cyprus is extremely capable of filling that in.
On the issue of the “Queen Elizabeth”, it is not uncommon to have maintenance issues; these are highly technical, state-of-the art ships, and it is extremely unfortunate at this particular moment. However, the fact that we have two aircraft carriers is very welcome. We will be able to deploy the “Prince of Wales” to exercise Steadfast Defender. We should be able to maintain our full strength, as per our NATO commitment, during Steadfast Defender. The situation with the “Queen Elizabeth” is being investigated now, and it is not absolutely clear how long the repairs will take to complete. I will certainly advise your Lordships when they are. There has been conversation about one of the aircraft carriers going into the Red Sea. This is part of an international action, and we discuss these contingency operations with our US colleagues at great length. There is flexibility in both directions, so no clear decision has been made yet.
I think I have answered the question of rotation and the aircraft carriers. However, the noble Baroness made a valid point about ships getting it right first time. The question of procurement is always uppermost in the mind in the Ministry of Defence. The only thing I would say is that, with the rate at which weapons systems develop, you need to refit and get the latest ones in place; often, that is part of planned maintenance and upgrading. I think I have answered all the questions.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. In the interests of legal clarity for our Armed Forces, this Statement confirms the right to self-defence, which is well recognised internationally and in proportion. The Houthis launched an attack on HMS “Diamond”, which was successfully repelled. This gave firm legal grounds for our first kinetic response. Have further attacks been mounted against His Majesty’s ships or UK-flagged vessels that would deserve further UK self-defence responses, or is the threat of further attacks from the Houthi leadership sufficient legally to justify further kinetic responses from His Majesty’s Armed Forces? Noble Lords should be in no doubt that I support the present operations; I am just seeking a clear statement of their international legal justification.
The Earl of Minto (Con)
I thank the noble and gallant Lord. My understanding is that, under Article 51 of the charter of the United Nations, the force out there is completely entitled to defend itself. The very threat to it and to the sailors on-board is sufficient; we have that cover.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, no other navy in the world has the UK’s extraordinary institutional history of protecting global shipping, so it is very appropriate that we have a naval presence in the Red Sea. Obviously, the HMS “Diamond” Sea Viper system has been incredibly effective at intercepting Houthi drones. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said, there may be times when ship-to-shore capability is needed. The Minister mentioned that this could be provided by systems based in the Mediterranean. Could he say something about naval vessels employing this capability, perhaps against Houthi targets on the ground?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that comment. I am sure that he will understand that there are certain things I cannot say. One of the points made about the RAF flying from Akrotiri is that it does seem to be quite a long way, but when you think that the Americans last weekend flew from the United States to carry out their attacks, it brings it into perspective. On the question of Sea Viper and the upgraded version of Sea Viper, on which, as I said earlier today, we are spending about £400 million, it is an extremely effective weapon. We are always looking at ways to broaden the range of weaponry based on any particular ship.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I join the comments of my noble friend Lord Coaker in supporting the action that the Government are taking, and also in supporting His Majesty’s Armed Forces on duty over there. Last month, the US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, designated the Houthis as a specially designated terrorist group. Will the Government take that back, look at it very carefully and, hopefully, decide to do the same thing?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
Your Lordships will be fully aware of the view that the Government take of these types of organisations. The noble Lord is correct: the US has designated the Houthis as a specially designated terrorist group. That is slightly different from full proscription. As he knows, we have taken out individual sanctions across quite a lot of people within the Houthi organisation. We are always looking at updating exactly what category these types of organisations come into. So it is being considered in real time.
Lord Walney (CB)
My Lords, the Defence Secretary is right to say that appeasing the Houthis will not bring stability, and that placating the sponsors of terror does not benefit our international order. Do the Government accept, therefore, that it was a profound mistake for President Biden to withdraw support, as he did, from the Saudi Arabia-led coalition against the Houthis, who have illegitimately taken over part of Yemen, remain embedded there and have the capability to carry out these attacks to this day? This was a course of action that many in the Opposition, under very different leadership at that time, called for in this House. To their credit, the Government looked like they were going to stay the course at the time. Is it not time now to learn the lesson from that and actually prosecute a campaign against this terrorist organisation to its natural finish?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
The noble Lord is talking about a sort of sea-change in the level of activity. I certainly do not think that the Government believe that we have got to that position yet. As far as the historical aspect is concerned, far be it from me to take a view as to what was and what was not the right thing to do at the time. I cannot imagine that anybody thought that it would be a good idea to end up where we are, with Yemen being effectively split and some of the most needy people, certainly in the area and probably in the world, put under the pressure they are by this terrorist organisation.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for his comments and contributions tonight. First, in 2001, the British Government proscribed an organisation called the Islamic Army of Aden, which was probably responsible for the attack on the “USS Cole”. That is now largely a busted flush as an organisation, and trivial in comparison with the Houthis. Will my noble friend please urge the Arabists in the Foreign Office to proscribe the Houthis as the evil terrorist organisation they are?
Secondly, we are spending millions on missiles, taking out individual missile and drone sites, which are easily restored. Will we now try to cut off the head of the snake, take out the command and control and the headquarters, hitting the senior leadership?
Thirdly and finally, could the Government please find the money to buy—or beg, borrow or steal—some F35s to put in those two big empty boats, whichever one happens to be working this week?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
I thank my noble friend. I shall certainly take away the points that he makes. Precision-driven strikes to disrupt and deter is one thing. To move to something more sustained is a decision that would have to be taken by the allies as a whole.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I begin by referring to the first sentence of this Statement:
“Freedom of navigation has been a cornerstone of civilisation since time immemorial”.
This is a principle that was codified in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea in 1982. It was not broadly accepted until well into the 19th century—and, in fact, the Dutch imposed it on us by the Treaty of Breda and the Treaty of Westminster in 1667 and 1674 respectively. Does the Minister agree with me that historical accuracy, sobriety of language and avoidance of hyperbole are important in an approach to foreign affairs at all times, but particularly given the state of the world today?
Following on from the points just made by the noble Lord, the Statement says:
“Despite repeated warnings, their attacks have continued”—
that is, the Houthi attacks. It says that
“the Houthis’ intent to continue disrupting the Red Sea has not been fully diminished”.
As the noble Lord just said, we have had drones, missiles and small boat assaults—there are many different methods. The definition of “fully diminished” would presumably be “stopped”. Do the Government believe that they can by military means stop the Houthi attacks?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her views. On the question of hyperbole, personally, I try never to use hyperbole. There is nowhere that you can go from hyperbole, so I tried to avoid it.
On the question of diminishing the Houthis’ ability to strike, we have seen that this has been to some extent successful. Certainly, the frequency of the strikes has reduced; the ferocity of strikes and the number of drones and missiles that they have been firing towards international shipping has also reduced.
I take the point about when freedom of navigation may have been enshrined in some form of law, but it has long been accepted that the freedom of the seas and the ability to trade from one country to the other are absolutely critical.
On the diplomatic efforts, I entirely agree. Military action is unlikely to achieve our aims. That is always the case with anything like this. But it provides a level of commitment and gravitas which, I hope, makes any aggressor realise that there must be another way out. We have increased our diplomatic engagement, with the Foreign Secretary going again, having met his Iranian counterpart last week. We apply pressure not just bilaterally but through forums such as the United Nations, and that sort of thing. So there is a very broad diplomatic approach to trying to finish this matter.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, if I understood him correctly, the Minister suggested that rust is a regular occurrence. If that is the case and propeller rust is a regular occurrence—and I do not profess in any way to be a specialist—why not set up a rotational or regular change to ensure constant readiness? That is something he may wish to take away for the future.
The Minister intimated, I think, that that it is up to any new participant to determine their activities in the arrangements with the Houthis. Where is the command centre and who is running it?
Securing sea routes to ensure safe passage for supply chains is paramount. While Djibouti is a haven for French and US assets, what consideration has there been of extending outreach in a winning combination of the two, utilising the port of Berbera in Somaliland? Am I right in thinking that the Chinese are considering investing in the management of that port? Is the Minister considering setting up discussions with the Chinese interests to set out a beneficial rulebook as to how we can avail ourselves of that port for our own affairs as well?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, on the question of rust, I imagine that the noble Viscount is talking about aircraft carriers. I am not certain that one should necessarily believe all the headlines that one reads, but it is certainly something that is being looked at. As I said earlier, we are very lucky that we have another one, so there will be no reduction in commitment or effort.
As to who is leading, this is a US-led coalition. Clearly, the US relies very heavily on its allies and each party, each country, is obviously providing a level it feels comfortable with, but it is definitely a US-led coalition.
The point about supply chains is extremely well made. This situation is potentially so damaging to the world’s trade—and it must be damaging the Chinese more than anyone, I would have thought—that there will definitely be countries and groups of countries that will look very carefully at where we could get bases from. Of course, we have a very successful base in Cyprus, and the Chinese are all over the east coast of Africa as we know, but the point is well made.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, the Statement says that we must cut off the Houthis’ financial resources. I absolutely agree with that point. It goes on to say that we have sanctioned four people, and prior to that, 11 people—that is 15 people—and two entities. That is great, but I suggest that we need to go much further, because we really have to make this hurt. As the noble Earl said, there will no one way of getting this situation resolved; there will be a number of prongs to deal with it, including sanctioning a much larger group of people and many more entities. I bet that if we look carefully, we will find that there are assets held in this country, and we need to deal with those as well. This is important; it really has to hurt.
The Earl of Minto (Con)
I entirely agree. Any way that one can starve any of these sorts of organisations with access to funds should be pursued with absolute vigour.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, some time ago, I proposed to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, that Somaliland be recognised. He suggested, if I remember correctly, that it is for the UN to determine this. Nevertheless, I think that there should be a lead from the UK in suggesting that Somaliland be recognised in its own right. For example, it shares the SOM designation with Somalia, so Somaliland being its own entity would probably be beneficial all round. Does the Minister agree?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
I will certainly take that up with my colleague, my noble friend Lord Ahmad.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, given that the Statement refers to the £88 million in humanitarian support provided to the people of Yemen this year, it is a bit of a pity that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, is not with us, because I am sure he could recite how much that figure has gone down. We are obviously talking about diplomacy and the views of the people of Yemen and how they react towards who is governing and controlling them. Have His Majesty’s Government made an assessment since the US and UK strikes started of what impact the strikes have had on the views of the people of Yemen, particularly towards the Houthis?
The Earl of Minto (Con)
The noble Baroness is right. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, has made a very good point about the reduction in aid generally, and the Government have responded to that in the appropriate way.
The Houthis are extremely powerful, but they seem to be limited to this specific area, and it is incumbent on the allies to ensure that pressure is kept up so that they do not spread to the rest of Yemen. We have very good relationships with the legitimate Government of Yemen and continue to work with them in that direction.