House of Commons
(9 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(9 months, 4 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
(9 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
As we have said often in debates this House, knife crime is a terrible crime; it tears families apart and all too often takes young people from us. As the House will know, violent crime overall has reduced by 51% since 2010, but there is more we can do. That includes funding violence reduction units—Manchester’s VRU has £20 million of funding for the coming financial year—and running hotspot policing in areas where serious violence and antisocial behaviour are a problem. The £66 million of funding for that across England and Wales is in addition to the existing police funding settlement.
Afzal Khan
In September 2021, my constituent Rhamero West was chased across Manchester, stabbed and killed—he was just 16. His mum, Kelly, has worked tirelessly to make sure that no other families have to face the suffering she and her family have faced, including by raising money to fund a network of bleed kits across Greater Manchester and a youth project in Fallowfield. She wants to tell Rhamero’s story to help save other young lives, so will the Minister agree to meet her?
Chris Philp
Yes, of course. It sounds as though the hon. Gentleman’s constituent is campaigning bravely, as so many parents do, to try to bring some good out of a terrible personal tragedy, so I would be delighted to meet him and his constituent.
Mr Ellwood
May I quickly put on record my thanks to the Security Minister and the Policing Minister for their efforts in upgrading MPs’ security?
Across the UK, ever more young people are choosing to carry knives. Sadly, that is the case in Bournemouth as well. Violence reduction units are dedicated police units that have a proven track record of reducing knife crime in town centres in other parts of the country, not just through increased policing, but by working in the community, including at schools, to educate youngsters on the dangers of carrying a knife. I am grateful for the increase in police numbers in Dorset, but will the Minister ask the Chancellor to see whether extra funds can be provided specifically for a VRU for Bournemouth?
Chris Philp
I will convey my right hon. Friend’s request to the Chancellor, and I put on record my thanks for his tireless campaigning and that of other Dorset MPs for resources for that county and its police force. Dorset police will receive about £11 million more next year than it received the previous year. Thanks to the campaigning of my right hon. Friend and other Dorset MPs, it also received an exceptional special grant last year of £600,000 to help campaign against violence.
My right hon. Friend is right to say that violence reduction units have a very positive effect. In the next financial year, £55 million will be spent on them for the 20 police force areas judged to have the most significant violence problems. Dorset is not among those 20, but I will pass his message to the Chancellor and I know that through our work with the police and crime commissioner, Dorset police and the PCC will do everything they can to combat knife crime not just in Bournemouth, but in Dorset as a whole.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
With incidents up by 70% since 2015, the public are looking for leadership on knife crime. Earlier this month, the Government would not support our plan, which includes broadening the ban on zombie knives to include ninja swords; an end-to-end review of online sales; and criminal penalties for tech execs who allow their platform to be used for illicit sales. The Government rejected our plan, but what they have in place simply is not working, so we will push again during the remaining stages of the Criminal Justice Bill. Will they accept it then?
Chris Philp
The shadow Minister should be aware that according to the crime survey of England and Wales —the only reliable long-term indicator for volume crime trends, according to the Office for National Statistics—violent crime is down by 51% since 2010. He asked about online knife sales. He should be aware that when the Online Safety Act 2023 is fully in force, very strong action will be taken, for example against online marketplaces, and the illegal sale of knives online will become a priority offence under schedule 7. He will also know that we are bringing forward legislation to ban a range of machetes and zombie-style knives. We define them in relation to the features they have. For example, knives over 7 inches in length with two cutting edges and serrations will be banned. Those are just some of the measures we are taking, all of which have helped to bring down violent crime by 51% since 2010.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
The Government are committed to ending rough sleeping. Huge amounts of money are being invested in getting people off the streets. Rough sleeping levels in England are 35% lower than they were in 2017. Criminal sanctions where rough sleeping is causing a problem, for example for businesses, are very much the last resort in the Criminal Justice Bill. The first resort is giving people the support they need to find accommodation.
Nickie Aiken
As I walked here today, I passed several rough sleepers in doorways and in tents. The police already have the ability to move rough sleepers on under a number of different pieces of legislation, including the Public Order Act 1986, the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 and the Highways Act 1980. Does the Minister understand my concern that what is suggested in the Criminal Justice Bill criminalises rough sleepers and does nothing to help them? The police already have the powers but are failing to use them.
Chris Philp
The powers in the pieces of legislation my hon. Friend lists are not precisely the same as those in the Criminal Justice Bill. The Bill does not criminalise rough sleeping in general; it criminalises particular types of rough sleeping when it causes a nuisance. That said, as I have signalled privately to various hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), the Government are willing to look at the way those provisions are drafted, to ensure that they are tightly and narrowly drawn, because out intention is that the first stop will always be to offer support. Criminal sanctions are appropriate only as a last resort if rough sleeping causes a serious problem, for example for businesses.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
As drafted, the Bill is a new vagrancy Act with bells on. Rough sleeping is up 75% since 2010. Rather than criminalise people who happen to be rough sleeping, should we not provide support and build the houses they need?
Chris Philp
As I said, my colleagues in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities are providing extremely comprehensive packages of support. Rough sleeping is down by 35% since 2017 and by 28% since before the pandemic in 2019. The Government are willing to look at changes to make these provisions tightly defined and narrow. The intention is to use criminal sanctions only as a last resort where rough sleeping is disrupting a business, for example, and preventing it from operating. It is a last resort—the first resort will always be offering help and support.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
The Minister for Legal Migration and the Border (Tom Pursglove)
On 4 December, the Government announced a package of new measures to further reduce net migration, including but not limited to stopping overseas care workers bringing family dependants, increasing the salary threshold for skilled worker visas to £38,700 and raising the minimum income requirement for family visas in stages to £38,700. The changes are being introduced gradually from early 2024 and are not retrospective.
David Duguid
I welcome the measures taken to reduce abuses of the immigration system, but I also recognise the need to exempt critical occupations where we have a specific shortage from the new minimum salary, for example health and care workers. However, in the Migration Advisory Committee’s interim review of the immigration salary list, published on Friday, several occupations have been removed because a discounted salary of around £31,000 is well above the going rate for such occupations. Given the vital and growing importance of food security across the country, will my hon. Friend commit to a review of those occupations which, although not the highest tech or highest paid jobs in our economy, are none the less critical for our food sector and our rural and coastal communities?
Tom Pursglove
There is no stronger advocate for the fishing industry in this House than my hon. Friend. He will appreciate that we have received that return from the MAC. We will look very carefully at its recommendations, but my hon. Friend knows that as a Government we have been consistently flexible in responding to the needs of the fishing sector. I would argue that there is more we can do to promote domestic employment, but let me take this matter away and consider his representations.
Miss Dines
A key issue often raised by my constituents is the desire to see a dramatic reduction in legal migration. Bearing in mind that the Opposition appear to have no plan in that regard, can my hon. Friend reassure me that he will look at new ways to stop this migration, that he will make sure that everybody has the right to work in this country and that we will not decrease wages by bringing in cheap labour from abroad?
Tom Pursglove
My hon. Friend is very supportive of the holistic approach that the Government are taking on this issue. The measures that we have announced and are taking forward will reduce the inflows by 300,000. It is important to consider this against the back to work plan that the Department for Work and Pensions is delivering to encourage more people to take on these roles domestically. She should be absolutely certain that we as a Government will deliver on these measures and will continue to keep them under review to see whether we can go further. That stands in stark contrast to those on the Opposition Front Bench, who have no plan at all.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
To cut a long story short, a constituent’s skilled work visa application was mistakenly withdrawn by the Home Office. The error has resulted in him no longer having the right to work in the UK, forcing him and his wife to leave their jobs. His wife is five months pregnant and, although they pay their NHS surcharge, the Home Office error means that they are again getting healthcare bills. The situation is increasingly desperate, so I ask the Minister to meet me to look into this case and ensure that this Home Office error does not do any more harm than it already has for this young couple.
Tom Pursglove
The hon. Lady will appreciate that I do not have the specifics of the case to hand, but if she kindly shares them with me, I will look into the case as a matter of urgency.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I hope the Minister will take this opportunity to recognise that the right to claim asylum is allowed under international law and that, therefore, there is no such thing as an illegal asylum seeker. On that basis, perhaps he can tell us whether he or any Minister has met people with lived experience of the system and whether he will meet the people at the Maryhill Integration Network in Glasgow North to discuss these issues.
Tom Pursglove
The hon. Member will recognise that, in an answer to one of his hon. Friends, I said that I would be willing to meet him and his Glasgow colleagues to discuss some of the challenges. I have made an undertaking to him that that meeting will happen, and I will make sure that it happens at the earliest possible opportunity. I am keen to understand what the challenges are and to make sure that the support that we are providing to help facilitate move-ons, for example, is meeting the needs that exist.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
Since our last Home Office questions, the list of Government failures on immigration has continued to grow relentlessly: 30,000 asylum seekers stuck in limbo, unable to be processed due to the Prime Minister’s legislative fiasco; 250 visas awarded to a care home that does not actually exist; net migration trebled; and criminals free to fly into our country undetected on private jets. Having just sacked the independent inspector of borders and immigration, is the Home Secretary sitting on 15 different reports by the inspector because he is checking for typos, or is it because he is utterly terrified of what those reports will tell us about this Government’s shambolic and failing immigration system?
Tom Pursglove
Let me answer that point very directly: having given proper consideration to those reports, we will be responding to them. As I said in the House last week, we will do so very soon. The shadow Minister mentioned the Government trying to dodge scrutiny. When it comes to the general aviation report, for example, it was our officials who asked the inspector to take it forward. Far from dodging scrutiny, we have invited it in that area. We will respond properly and thoroughly to that report in exactly the way that I undertook to do last week.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
People who come here to work, study and live make a significant impact on Scotland’s economy and society, so reducing their number is entirely self-defeating. Reunite Families UK has highlighted the disproportionate impact that Tory changes to visa income thresholds will have on women. I have asked the Minister this before, and I have yet to have an answer: when will he publish the full equality impact assessment on this damaging policy?
Tom Pursglove
We will publish the equality impact assessment associated with the policy in due course. The hon. Lady will appreciate that the Government’s position is clear that the current levels of net migration are not sustainable. We need to take forward a set of policy measures that deal with that and that promote domestic employment wherever possible. There is a strong moral case for the approach that we are taking. None of the measures being applied is retrospective, but we are convinced that this is the right thing to do. The British people think that action is needed, and action is what they are getting.
Alison Thewliss
I spent a lot of time this weekend with members of the Glasgow branch of the Association of Ukrainians in Great Britain, which put on a major demonstration and a service in Glasgow cathedral at the weekend to mark two years since the escalation of Russian aggression in Ukraine. The Government’s changes to the Ukraine scheme came with very little notice and caused a great deal of uncertainty and distress in that community. Will the Minister tell me whether, for example, a wife whose husband has been injured fighting on the frontline against Putin’s war machine will be able to sponsor her husband to come here under these restricted rules?
Tom Pursglove
As we said when we debated this issue in the House last week, the Government are very proud of the amazing response from people across this country who have opened their homes to Ukrainian refugees. There will continue to be an out-of-country route through the Homes for Ukraine scheme to facilitate people being able to come here from Ukraine. Ukrainian refugees here in the UK will be able to extend their visas. We gave that certainty way ahead of the curve, when compared with our international partners. Ukrainian nationals who would have qualified under the Ukraine family scheme will still be able to apply under Homes for Ukraine.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Security (Tom Tugendhat)
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. She is aware that the Government are continually assessing the potential threats to individual rights and freedoms and to safety across the United Kingdom. I thank her for the efforts she made to represent her views to me in a different forum.
Whenever we identify such threats, we will always use every measure at our disposal, including our intelligence services, to mitigate any threat to individuals. In the first instance, I urge anyone concerned for their safety to contact the police. The hon. Lady will no doubt be aware that the National Security Act 2023 includes measures to tackle foreign interference, including transnational repression. The defending democracy taskforce is reviewing the UK’s response to develop our understanding of the issue and ensure a system-wide response.
Preet Kaur Gill
Transnational repression to silence dissent in democracies is extremely serious. In recent months, Five Eyes nations have raised concerns about the actions of agents with links to India targeting Sikh activists in the United Kingdom. Most disturbingly, there have been alleged assassinations and foiled assassination plots. The US and Canadian authorities have taken the lead at senior levels to publicly call out this challenge to their sovereignty, the rule of law and their democratic values. Given the reports of British Sikhs facing similar threats, what steps are the Government taking to secure their safety? Will the Minister show the same strength as our partners do in publicly defending their democratic rights?
Tom Tugendhat
Let me be completely clear: if there are any specific threats against any British citizen by any foreign power, we will take immediate action. The Sikh community should be as safe as every other community in the United Kingdom. All British citizens are equal, whatever their colour, creed, faith or political allegiance. The reality is that we have taken all the action we believe is appropriate at this stage. We of course maintain a very close relationship with our Five Eyes partners, and we are absolutely clear that if the situation changes and we need to take action, we will do so.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
Russia’s deadly poison attack in Salisbury, Iran’s intimidation of Iran International journalists and China’s secret police stations have long showed the need for a robust strategy to counter transnational repression on British soil. The Minister mentioned that a review is under way into the UK’s approach to transnational repression. When will it be published, and will it be part of a wider strategy to counter hostile state activity in this country?
Tom Tugendhat
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. The review is under way, and it includes many different elements from communities from around the world who are now settled happily in the United Kingdom. He will understand why I will not go into individual details. Certain communities have been targeted, such as the Hong Kong Chinese community, which is now very welcome in the United Kingdom under a policy that this Government introduced—I am very proud of the number who have claimed asylum and taken the opportunity as British nationals overseas to settle here—and we are looking at others. We are open to any reports of transnational repression, and we are listening.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Laura Farris)
Since 2019, we have invested £160 million in 20 violence reduction units across England and Wales, and a further £55 million has been committed this year. Violence reduction units have reached more than 270,000 young people. They bring together specialists from health, the police, local government and community organisations not just to tackle violent crime, but to identify the young people who are most at risk of being drawn into it and provide evidence-based interventions to support them.
Alex Cunningham
I am grateful for that answer. Children as young as 12 are being recruited by local drug dealers in the central wards of Stockton, and are provided with pocket money—huge sums for them—to carry and deliver class A and class B drugs. Many of them are in thrall to their balaclava-wearing controllers, who largely act with impunity. Although the police and other agencies work hard to combat such organised crime, Cleveland has the highest crime rate in the country, and police and councils do not have the fair funding needed to deal with criminals or provide good diversionary activities for those vulnerable young people. What will the Minister do to sort that out?
Laura Farris
I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that, under our tackling organised exploitation programme, we are keenly aware of the difference between victims and criminals, and that children are being drawn into criminal enterprises and gangs at ever-younger ages. I want to provide reassurance that where we have evidence of that happening, the child should be referred through the national referral mechanism—the framework for identifying victims of exploitation by county lines groups and equivalents. That can be done with or without the child’s consent, and it provides the police with a vital tool not just to protect the child but to disrupt the criminal activity in which they are being enlisted.
Sarah Owen
Last week, Bedfordshire police reported that two drug dealers who had trafficked a vulnerable 15-year-old child from Luton to sell drugs were sentenced under modern slavery laws. Although that conviction is of course welcome, I think we can all agree that this is not just slavery; it is the despicable act of grooming children into a life of drugs, gangs and violence. Why do not the Government back our plans for a new specific offence to lock up such criminals for exactly what they are doing and stop them exploiting children and young people for a life of crime?
Laura Farris
I agree with much of what the hon. Lady says. The Prime Minister implemented new measures to deal with child sexual exploitation in April of last year, but part of that deals with organised exploitation, which goes wider. I am glad to hear that those two criminals were convicted under modern slavery laws. I want to reassure her that, under our Criminal Justice Bill, which is making its way through the House, grooming gangs will receive enhanced sentences.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
It is deeply disturbing when children and young people are involved in violent crime. Experience from around the world shows that a whole-of-Government approach is crucial in tackling the problem, as has been acknowledged in successive Government strategies. Will the Minister give us an update on how the Government are ensuring that that is delivered?
Laura Farris
If I have understood my right hon. Friend’s question correctly, I can tell her that we are doing a huge amount on child exploitation. Only last week, we implemented the No. 1 recommendation of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, for mandatory reporting, and we have more to come. This remains a Government priority.
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)
The Minister says that the Government are doing loads, but since 2018 there has been a huge increase in the number of weapons seized in schools in some areas of the country, with knives and Tasers found in some instances. Our young people continue to bear the brunt of the Tories’ decision to hollow out youth services and prevention work in our communities. Meanwhile, ninja swords and other weapons remain just a google search away. Parents should not fear for their children’s safety at school. When will the Government match Labour’s ambition for a Young Futures programme and prioritise the safety and opportunities of our young people?
Laura Farris
I make no apology for the success of our violence reduction units and the difference that they have made to young people’s lives since 2019. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire made the point that the crime survey for England and Wales shows that there has been a 51% fall in violent crime since 2010. More than that, our violence reduction units, working in conjunction with our Grip hotspot policing, have delivered a statistically significant fall in violent injuries. Hospital admissions for knife crime and equivalent have fallen by 25% since 2019, and overall knife crime has fallen nationally by 5% since 2019, all in the life in this Parliament. We have banned zombie knives and cyclone knives, and our Criminal Justice Bill will give the police more powers to make pre-emptive seizures.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
Decisions on bail conditions are set, enforced and monitored locally, but it is very important that where police bail conditions are set down, they are adhered to, in order to protect the public.
James Wild
Three members of my constituent’s family were killed in an appalling dangerous driving case. The offender was on police bail at the time, with curfew conditions, for a separate offence. Given that legislation does not allow for tagging in such cases to enforce those curfew conditions, will my right hon. Friend consider bringing forward changes to the law so that electronic monitoring can be used for offenders released on post-charge police bail?
Chris Philp
My hon. Friend raises a very important point, informed by a tragic case in his own constituency. He is right that, as it stands, the legislation does not allow for tagging of people who are simply on police bail—that is to say, before their first appearance in court. There are some considerations to do with whether tagging constitutes a form of punishment and whether that is appropriate prior to a court hearing. However, my hon. Friend raises a reasonable point informed by a constituency case, and I am happy to take it away and look at it with him.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for that response. Obviously, with a renewed and reinvigorated Northern Ireland Assembly and a Minister in place, we in Northern Ireland are very keen to work alongside the Minister on some of the suggestions he has referred to. Will he contact the policing and justice Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive to ensure that what is going to happen here can happen to us in Northern Ireland, and that we can all gain the advantage?
Chris Philp
I thank the hon. Member for his question. It is, of course, very good news that the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive have been restored. Policing is devolved, so the Assembly and Executive can set their own policy. However, if they would like any information about the policies we are pursuing in the England and Wales jurisdiction, I would be very happy to share that information and work constructively and collaboratively with all the devolved Administrations, including in Northern Ireland.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
We have very regular discussions with chief constables across the country about local policing—in fact, just this morning I had a discussion with the chief constable of Staffordshire Police about some local policing issues in that county. It is a dialogue that happens on a regular and ongoing basis. Police chief constables are, of course, operationally independent, but we work very closely in partnership with them.
Andrew Selous
Leighton Buzzard, Dunstable and Houghton Regis are the third, fourth and fifth largest towns in Bedfordshire, yet they have a fraction of the police officers that are based in Luton and Bedford. Will the Minister speak to the chief constable to ensure that we get a fairer allocation of the record number of police officers we have in Bedfordshire, spread across the county and with a 24/7 first responder presence?
Chris Philp
My hon. Friend is a doughty champion for his part of Bedfordshire. He is quite right to say that Bedfordshire, in common with many other parts of the country—and indeed with England and Wales as a whole —has a record number of police officers. In the case of Bedfordshire, the number is 1,456, and across England and Wales as a whole we now have over 149,000 officers: that is more than we have ever had before, and over 3,000 more than we had under the last Labour Government.
I speak regularly to Chief Constable Trevor Rodenhurst and the excellent police and crime commissioner in Bedfordshire, Festus Akinbusoye. Of course, how they deploy their record headcount is a matter for them, rather than for Government, but I will certainly mention the issues that my hon. Friend has raised when I next speak to them—I think we are having a meeting quite shortly—and I know that my hon. Friend will mention these issues as well.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
At the weekend I had to seek extra police support, due to the far-right abuse that I have suffered, which has been inspired and unleashed in part by the conspiracy theories and racist, Islamophobic, anti-Muslim hate peddled by the Members for Ashfield (Lee Anderson), for Fareham (Suella Braverman) and for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss). [Interruption.]
Dawn Butler
It was peddled by Members of the Government party. Does the Minister agree that there is no place in this House or society for such divisive language? One Member has had the Whip removed. Does the Minister agree that other Members should also have the Whip removed, or does he agree with the points that were made?
Chris Philp
This House as a whole should be clear that hatred based on religion or race has no part in a civilised country, whether it is directed towards the Jewish community, who have suffered a surge in antisemitism, or the Muslim community. The Conservative party is prepared to act extremely quickly, as we did at the weekend—a great deal faster than the Labour party when it had an issue in Rochdale.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
I am pleased that the Minister made reference to his meeting with the chief constable of Staffordshire Police after a disgusting hate mob appeared outside a Stoke-on-Trent Conservative fundraiser on Friday. It appears that a police officer allowed members of the public, who were spewing their hatred, into the venue’s private function room, where they sought to intimidate, harass and bully members old and young—some as young as 11 years old. One individual involved used to be a member of the now proscribed terrorist organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir. Is it not about time that we in this House stood up— because, I am sorry, Mr Speaker, but the actions of last week emboldened these individuals to take such action—and said with a clear voice that democracy will not be subdued in this way?
Chris Philp
Yes, that is important. We make it clear in this House that Members of Parliament, elected councillors or anyone engaging in political activity, including attending political events, should be able to do so without intimidation and without harassment. No one in this House should feel that they have to change their vote, or change procedure, as a result of external pressure.
What happened in Stoke city on Friday evening was completely unacceptable. A political meeting was disrupted, and indeed closed down by protest. That is unacceptable. This morning, I met the chief constable and the police and crime commissioner of Staffordshire to make that clear. I also spoke this morning to the chair of the National Police Chiefs’ Council, Chief Constable Gavin Stephens, to make the same point. I am pleased to report to the House that four people have now been arrested in relation to the incident in Stoke city—[Interruption.]—on charges under section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986 and section 68 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994—
Mr Speaker
Order. Sorry, Minister, but we cannot both be standing at the same time.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
Has the Minister had a chance recently to talk to the Conservative police and crime commissioner for Devon and Cornwall Police, which has been in special measures since 2022, and is now being sued by seven former and serving women police officers for failing to deal with rapes, emotional abuse and beatings over a number of years? What can he do to reassure the public in Devon and Cornwall that these allegations will be thoroughly independently investigated and any wrongdoing acted on?
Chris Philp
Of course, we have the Independent Office for Police Conduct to make sure that there is an independent body available to investigate serious allegations about police forces or their conduct of particular investigations. On the Engage process, the chief inspector of constabulary chairs regular meetings of the policing performance oversight group, where forces in Engage are looked at and overseen. Devon and Cornwall is one of those forces, along with the West Midlands and London.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
Local policing is really important. I have had some good news from my police and crime commissioner, Alison Hernandez, which is that Liskeard is to have a new police inquiry office. Would my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming this, and will he look at what further funding is available for this to happen in other towns?
Chris Philp
I pay tribute to the excellent police and crime commissioner, Alison Hernandez, for the work that she has done to get the Liskeard centre open, and of course I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her tireless work campaigning on behalf of Devon and Cornwall Police. Devon and Cornwall Police now has 3,718 officers, which is a record, and next year it will be receiving £28 million more funding compared with the current financial year, providing plenty of money to invest in services, as my hon. Friend quite rightly requests.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for everything you do to keep Members of Parliament safe. I know that so much of it goes unseen.
I know, from talking to residents in Hull West and Hessle, that they are deeply concerned about the rise in antisocial behaviour. Antisocial behaviour is not trivial; it has a huge impact on neighbourhoods and on the mental health of the people subjected to it. So why are the Government failing to take it seriously?
Chris Philp
With great respect, that is complete nonsense. The Government published an antisocial behaviour action plan just last year. From April of this year, in just a couple of months’ time, every single police area in England and Wales will have funding—£66 million in total—to run hotspot patrols in areas where there is antisocial behaviour or serious violence problems. We have 10 force areas running pilots for immediate justice, where people committing ASB have to do immediate reparations, and we banned nitrous oxide on 8 November last year. So an action plan is being implemented, and every single police force is having money to run hotspot patrols to combat ASB.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
The Minister for Legal Migration and the Border (Tom Pursglove)
We continue to provide safe, habitable and fit-for-purpose accommodation for asylum seekers who would otherwise be destitute. The Home Office has established procedures to hold contracted accommodation providers responsible for the provision of the safety, security and wellbeing of asylum seekers. In addition, asylum seekers have access to a 24/7 helpline to raise concerns and make formal complaints.
Olivia Blake
Recent tragic events demonstrate that even those who are at risk of suicide are ignored after repeatedly raising concerns about their mental health in asylum accommodation. Why have Ministers changed the allocation of asylum accommodation policy to make it harder for people to prove that they are at risk of harm at a particular site? Will they learn the lessons from December’s tragic incident?
Tom Pursglove
I do not accept the depiction that the hon. Lady paints of the situation. We of course make appropriate case-by-case decisions about accommodation arrangements for individuals, reflecting the needs they have and with proper referrals made, as one would rightly expect, to any other agencies that may be required to ensure somebody’s health or wellbeing, and that any safeguarding issues are properly addressed. Migrant Help support is of course available for people to access 24/7 and raise any issues.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
The Minister for Countering Illegal Migration (Michael Tomlinson)
Joint working with our French partners is crucial to stopping the boats. Thanks in no small part to that joint working, small boat crossings were down by 46% last year.
Michael Fabricant
My spies tell me that my hon. and learned Friend was in France just nine days ago. Were there any lessons to be learned from the French authorities about more co-operation that can go on to stop the boats even further?
Michael Tomlinson
My hon. Friend is right: I was in France nine days ago. Even while I was there, a boat was seized, but he is right to say that more needs to be done. Personnel, equipment and technology are key to breaking the business model of the criminal gangs. Having met the new Préfet du Nord, I am in no doubt that this is a joint mission.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Ind)
Will the Minister update the House on the number of illegal migrants who have crossed the channel and are currently being accommodated in hotels at the expense of the public purse? How does that compare with the number of UK nationals who are currently homeless or sleeping rough?
Michael Tomlinson
I can confirm that the Government have beaten our target of closing 50 hotels by the end of January, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman will want to welcome.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
The Minister for Legal Migration and the Border (Tom Pursglove)
The Home Office has been clear that the use of hotels was a temporary and short-term measure to ensure that we met our statutory obligation to accommodate destitute asylum seekers during a period of unprecedented numbers of small boat arrivals. We are making significant progress in closing hotels, with more than 64 closed by the end of January.
Daniel Kawczynski
I thank the Minister for that answer. Shrewsbury has more listed buildings than any other town in England, and we benefit from beautiful architecture that attracts a huge amount of tourism from across the United Kingdom and overseas. Our top hotel in the centre of Shrewsbury is being used to house illegal migrants. We were given an assurance that the hotel would be taken out of that use, yet we have heard nothing further from the Minister or his Department. When will the Lion Hotel in Shrewsbury revert back to its normal use, which is housing tourists?
Tom Pursglove
It is certainly the case that I have not given an assurance to that effect, but I know that my hon. Friend will welcome the fact that we are tracking ahead of profile when it comes to closing hotels, and the number of people accommodated in hotels is going down. We will continue to make progress in order to allow more closures. I hear his representations about the hotel in his constituency. We are committed to this. We are making progress and we will see it through.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Obviously the overwhelming majority of those seeking asylum here and who are in residential accommodation desperately do not want to be in that accommodation. They want their application to be heard and processed quickly. The Minister knows that around three quarters of those people will be granted asylum in this country. Does he agree that part of the process, while a person is waiting for their hearing and for their decision to be made, surely should be looking at integration? Given that, is not time to give asylum seekers the right to work in this country? That would be good for them morally, but also good for the Government and the taxpayer, because they would contribute to their own upkeep.
Tom Pursglove
It is fair to say that such an approach would make a mockery of our legal migration system and people playing by the rules, lodging applications and paying the appropriate fees. It is right that where people are granted asylum, we support them to be able to move on as quickly as possible. Work is a key part of that. I just wish the hon. Gentleman had the same energy to try to help more of our people domestically to be able to take on these roles, rather than saying that we should resort to migrant labour all the time.
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
Chris Philp
Figures for local policing started to be published in 2015, with 61,083 roles at the time. The most recent figures for March last year show that the number had increased by 6,000 to 67,785.
Sarah Edwards
With a growing number of my constituents not even reporting crimes because they do not have access to a public police station, will the Minister reconsider additional funds to ensure that local police stations, such as Tamworth’s, are reopening public-facing police desks?
Chris Philp
Staffordshire constabulary will receive an extra £16 million next year compared with the current financial year, which is a significant increase. They now have more than 2,000 police officers due to our uplift programme, which has seen record police numbers across England and Wales.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
One of the most commonly reported crimes in Rother Valley is burglary, either to rob homes or to break into homes and steal car keys. Does the Minister agree that every area, especially South Yorkshire, should have a dedicated burglary police team to deal with those particular issues and ensure we clamp down on those awful crimes?
Chris Philp
The previous Home Secretary, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fareham (Suella Braverman) was successful in securing a commitment from police to ensure that every residential burglary has a visit from the police, but my hon. Friend’s idea for a dedicated burglary taskforce is excellent, and I commend it to all police and crime commissioners.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
The Minister for Security (Tom Tugendhat)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a brief statement. Over the past few weeks, we have seen disgraceful attempts to intimidate this House, to undermine the democratic process and to spread fear among those who have been elected to represent our country. That is unacceptable. It must end.
To this House, I want to say clearly that the Government will defend our democracy. We are working with the police and with Parliament to ensure that disagreements are resolved in this House through debate, not outside with threats of violence. To those who seek to threaten this House, I say this: we will not be cowed; we will not be intimidated; and we will not be silenced. We will do whatever is necessary to protect those elected to represent us, to safeguard our freedoms and to protect our rights. I know I speak for colleagues across the whole House when I say we will always act in the interests of our constituents and our country.
Chris Stephens
I thank the Minister for that answer. He will be aware that there has been a 335% increase in Islamophobic hate cases in the UK since 7 October, and a 589% rise in antisemitic incidents compared with 2022. That is affecting our most marginalised and vulnerable groups. What steps is the Minister taking to protect worshippers and faith schools and to reduce unprecedented levels of hate across these islands?
Tom Tugendhat
Over the past year this Government have increased the funding to the Community Security Trust by around £3 million, taking the total to around £18 million. We have spent a similar amount on other places of worship—only last week I approved spending on security measures to mosques and churches around the country, exactly to counter the kind of hate crimes that the hon. Member described. We have engaged with not just the Community Security Trust but organisations such as Tell MAMA, which do a fantastic job of engaging with us on anti-Muslim hatred. It is extremely important that we all work together, not just to support and protect every religion and community in our country but to ensure that we lower the tension so that we can all be free to express our views.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
This is a very serious issue. The Government have a retail crime action plan agreed with police, which includes making sure that the police always attend when a suspect is detained, when police attendance is needed to secure evidence or when there has been an assault. It also includes always following up every single line of inquiry when retail crime occurs, including running footage of the offender through the facial recognition database, and identifying and going after the criminal gangs that often are behind shoplifting.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
Last week, Tell MAMA reported that anti-Muslim hate incidents have trebled. That follows recent reports that antisemitic incidents have hit a record high. We all must challenge all forms of threat, prejudice, racism and hate. Having heard the words from the former deputy chair of the Conservative party of a Muslim Mayor, who said that his “mates” are Islamist extremists and that he has been taken over by “Islamists”, is any Home Office Minister now prepared to stand up and say not only that those words about the London Mayor are wrong, but that they believe they were Islamophobic and should be condemned as such?
Tom Tugendhat
Within 24 hours of those words being used, this Prime Minister took immediate action by removing the Whip from that individual. If only all leaders of every political party were as quick to remove the Whip from those who spread hatred in our community. As Rochdale sadly demonstrates, they are not.
Yvette Cooper
I am sorry that the Minister, who I know takes issues seriously, chose not to respond to my question. Rightly, on all sides of the House we have called out and condemned antisemitism, and we must continue to do so. If Government Ministers cannot openly challenge Islamophobia, they play into the hands of extremists—both far right and Islamist. The Minister will know that hate crime fuels extremism. If the Government took any of this seriously, they would not have just ditched plans for a new hate crime strategy or left it nine years to update the countering extremism strategy. Does he agree that it is not just their inability to say the words but their failure to act that is leaving our communities exposed?
Tom Tugendhat
I am sorry that the right hon. Lady does not see the action as clearly as others in this House. The Whip was removed immediately because anti-Muslim hatred is wrong. There is no hierarchy in hatred or racism. It is all wrong. Anti-Muslim hatred is wrong. The support that some have given to Islamist communities in our country is tragic and this Government will work against it. That is exactly why we have proscribed Hizb ut-Tahrir—because we will work against hatred from whichever community, in whatever way it comes.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Laura Farris)
The Home Office explored whether a name-change ban should be extended to murderers and determined that the operational need did not exist. Anyone convicted of murder automatically receives a life sentence. If they are released from prison, they are managed by probation for the remainder of their life and they remain under an obligation to notify probation within 72 hours of any change of their name. Should they fail to do so, they face immediate recall to prison and up to an extra five years behind bars. So far, we feel that that is working adequately.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
Chris Philp
Perhaps I have not said often enough in this Chamber that we now have record numbers of police officers across England and Wales, including in the Metropolitan police area, which has the highest number of police officers per capita of any police force in the country. Despite that, I was disappointed to see in the recent figures published that, while across the rest of the country excluding London knife crime went down, on Sadiq Khan’s watch in London it went up.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
Chris Philp
Changes of this nature are generally not applied retrospectively. I will look at that matter again. Normally, when a length-of-service period has changed it applies prospectively rather than retrospectively, but I will look at the issue.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Chris Philp
I am sure that is a question the hon. Lady will be posing to London’s police and crime commissioner, Sadiq Khan, in the course of the upcoming mayoral election. Thanks to Government funding, the Metropolitan police, in common with England and Wales, now has record police numbers. In the case of the Met there are about 35,000, and in the rest of the country there are about 149,000. In fact, not only does London have the highest per capita funding of any force in the country, it has the highest number of officers per capita of any force in the country, so Sadiq Khan really has no excuse at all.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
Under the new changes, the minimum income threshold for family visas is being raised incrementally over the next year. However, the only date we have been given so far for that threshold increase is 11 April 2024. For people like my constituents who are planning to get married and are making wedding plans, will the Minister set out when we will have further clarity and an update on the timetable for announcing the future thresholds?
The Minister for Legal Migration and the Border (Tom Pursglove)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I recognise his desire for certainty. What I can say is that we expect to complete the reform in early 2025, with further staging posts to come. We are, of course, carefully monitoring the implementation through the period of delivering the initial increase. It is right that we go about it in that incremental way to give certainty to people.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Chris Philp
The Youth Endowment Fund, led by Jon Yates, has received a £200 million endowment. Its mission is to work with young people—and that includes working with schools in the way that the hon. Lady has described —to identify the most effective interventions that could stop young people getting on to the wrong track, a track that can often have tragic consequences. The youth endowment fund is working with violence reduction units in the 20 police force areas most affected, which are spending £55 million a year, to make the necessary interventions, for instance in schools, to keep our young people safe.
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
During a recent night out in Wrexham, where I am known as a nurse as well as the Member of Parliament, I was asked to help police with a man who had collapsed. As I was beginning cardiac resuscitation, the emergency call handler said that the first responder would be with us in an hour and 15 minutes. Fortunately the man was stabilised, but then came the wait. We are well used to the level of service provided by the Welsh Labour Government, but has the Minister made any assessment of how much time is lost by the police attending emergency services?
Chris Philp
I thank my hon. Friend for her work in helping the community: her service has been exemplary. The police will of course help when there is a threat to life or safety or when criminality is involved, but when the emergency is purely medical, for instance when someone is undergoing a mental health crisis, it is for the NHS to respond, and the nationwide roll-out of the Right Care, Right Person model across England—and soon, I hope, across Wales as well—will ensure that a medical response comes when it is needed.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Ind)
Tom Pursglove
The hon. Gentleman makes no mention of the fact that one of the hotels in his constituency is being closed, but he might like to welcome that. He should actually be backing the Government, because we are getting on with closing these hotels. We are tracking ahead of profile in that regard, and we also have a credible plan to reduce the inflow of people crossing the channel by illegal means.
Sir Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
In respect of the projection of an antisemitic, terrorist-originating slogan on to the Big Ben tower last week, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner claims that he is powerless. That is utter nonsense, Among other options, the police could use section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986, which refers to the use of
“threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour”
with
“intent to cause…harassment, alarm or distress”.
It was behaviour, and it was insulting to Jews and many others. The police could also have reasonably feared a breach of the peace, ordered the removal of the projection machine, and, if there was non-compliance, arrested the individual for obstructing a constable under the Police Act 1996. I have personally prosecuted people for these offences. Police who fail to do their duty can be disciplined for neglect of that duty. Will the Minister act?
Chris Philp
I am sure that all Members were horrified when those political statements, one of which, by implication, called for the destruction of Israel, were beamed on to the Big Ben tower. It was totally unacceptable, and, incidentally, it was also a breach of planning law. I do expect the police to take action; my right hon. and learned Friend, a former Attorney General, has set out a number of grounds on which it could have been taken, and he can rest assured that I have forcefully communicated that to the commissioner already.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Tom Pursglove
I know that the hon. Lady will welcome the improvements that we are making in the processing of asylum claims, which are reflected in the way in which the legacy backlog has been dealt with, but if she can give me some specific details, I will certainly ask the team to have a look at it as soon as possible.
Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
May I thank my hon. Friend for not only closing the four-star Newton Park asylum hotel at the beginning of February, but doing so 26 days early? The villagers and the people who use the V3 bus service are extremely grateful for this exceptionally good practice.
Tom Pursglove
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her work in representing the views of her constituents on this issue. She firmly backs the Government’s plan, which is allowing us to get on with closing hotels such as the one in her constituency, and we will continue to make progress to deliver on our commitments.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Banking protocols clearly state that banks should contact the police when they detect fraud. HSBC rightly prevented a vulnerable constituent of mine from conducting a bank transfer to fraudsters in South Africa. However, owing to a failure to notify the police, the fraud continued, and as a result my constituent lost more than £32,000, transferred with the use of Apple gift cards. What advice can the Minister give? What recourse has my constituent to recover the money from HSBC? If it had followed the protocols laid down, appropriate safeguards would have been put in place.
Tom Tugendhat
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue. Fraud is a blight on our society and leaves many people feeling vulnerable and extremely nervous about using online services and the wider economy. I am delighted to say that fraud is already down by 13%, and there is more we are doing on this issue. I urge his constituent to follow the advice of the advertising campaign we are launching, which is Stop! Think Fraud. This is a huge issue on which we are working with police forces around the country, which is why we have 400 new police officers in the national fraud service and the national fraud intelligence unit.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
Last September my private Member’s Bill, which made public sexual harassment a criminal offence, received Royal Assent. Will the Minister say when that Act of Parliament will be commenced and when guidance to police forces will be issued?
Laura Farris
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. It was a pleasure to support his Bill as it went through the House. I cannot say exactly when it will be commenced, but I hope he will be reassured to hear that I had a meeting with officials about commencement earlier this month.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Last week, the Home Secretary fired the Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration after losing confidence in him when he went public with his concerns. As the Home Office failed to publish 15 reports from the inspector despite an agreement that it would publish them within eight weeks of receipt, and with matters of border security at stake, is Mr David Neal actually a whistleblower?
The Minister for Countering Illegal Migration (Michael Tomlinson)
As the right hon. Lady knows, Mr Neal’s appointment was terminated after he breached the terms of his appointment and lost the trust of the Home Secretary in relation to the reports that she mentions. As she would expect, reports and recommendations are always considered carefully by Ministers, and they will be published in due course.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
The slogan that was projected on to Big Ben last Wednesday was extreme and antisemitic. To many, it calls for the destruction of Israel and is seen as a genocidal statement. Decent people around the country—not just Jews—find that appalling. Does the Minister agree that there are criminal offences that could be used for prosecutions, and will he reiterate his calls for the police to prosecute those responsible?
Chris Philp
I share my hon. Friend’s view. As the former Attorney General my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton North (Sir Michael Ellis) pointed out a few minutes ago, there were a number of bases on which the police could have acted to prevent that projection. Big Ben is not a canvas for political campaigning, particularly where the slogans are deeply offensive in nature, and that is a view I have made very clear to the commissioner.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Last week, I raised on a point of order the case of my constituent Marte Prenga and her two-year-old daughter, who are stuck overseas, and I was assured that those on the Treasury Bench would pass on to Home Office Ministers the details of their plight. Can I please have a meeting with an Immigration Minister, as this issue is still unresolved?
Tom Pursglove
I think the hon. Gentleman knows that we Ministers are always approachable and accessible, and I would be happy to speak to him about that matter.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
Thames Valley police have consistently set the pace on combating rural crime, and next year’s budget includes provisions to effectively double our rural crime taskforce. Will the Policing Minister join me in congratulating Thames Valley police on all they are doing and, more importantly, ensure that the Home Office learns from their best practice so that it can be applied across the country?
Chris Philp
I pay tribute to Thames Valley’s excellent police and crime commissioner, Matthew Barber, for the work he is doing in combating rural crime and crime more widely. We have funded a rural crime unit within the National Police Chiefs’ Council, but I am happy to look at the excellent work in Thames Valley to ensure that lessons are learned across the country.
Point of Order
(9 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Members from across the Chamber probably do not need reminding of events last week. On SNP Opposition day, we brought forward a motion seeking to ensure that this House spoke with one voice in favour of ensuring the release of the hostages currently under the control of Hamas, and to ensure that an immediate ceasefire took place to protect civilian life in Gaza. That SNP Opposition day turned into a Labour Opposition day. In that regard, Mr Speaker, you apologised to the SNP and this House. You said:
“I made a mistake: we do make mistakes and I own up to mine. We can have an SO24 to get an immediate debate because the debate is so important to the House.”—[Official Report, 22 February 2024; Vol. 745, c. 872.]
Those were your words, Mr Speaker.
In good faith, my colleagues and I sought to bring forward an SO24 debate, which, among other things, would have sought to end the sale of arms to Israel and call on the Government to use their voice at the United Nations to exercise our view in favour of an immediate ceasefire. It is my understanding that that SO24 application has not been accepted. Can you please advise me on when it will be accepted?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. The Standing Order says that I should not give the reasons for any decision regarding a Standing Order No. 24 application. Indeed, properly, we should not be discussing what is a private application to the Speaker. However, given the exceptional circumstances we find ourselves in today, my view is that I ought none the less to explain my reasoning.
In determining whether a matter is proper to be discussed under the Standing Order, I must have regard to two criteria. The first is the extent to which it concerns the administrative responsibilities of Ministers of the Crown or could come within the scope of ministerial action. I am satisfied that the matter does relate to areas of ministerial responsibility and falls within the scope of ministerial action. Secondly, in determining whether a matter is urgent, I must have regard to the probability of the matter being brought before the House in time by other means. The House came to a resolution on this matter on Wednesday last week. Further, I understand that the Government are ready to make a relevant statement tomorrow, so there is a very imminent opportunity for this important matter to come before the House.
That is why I decided that the application for an emergency debate should not proceed. That decision of course does not mean that Members cannot apply for a debate at a later stage, when circumstances might have changed. While the decision is mine to take, I have consulted my Deputies and the Clerks on this matter and we have agreed on this approach.
Situation in the Red Sea
(9 months, 4 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, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the recent response to Houthi aggression in the Red sea. Thirty years ago, the United Nations convention on the law of the sea came into force. That agreement was ratified by 168 nations and it states explicitly in article 17 that
“ships of all States, whether coastal or land-locked, enjoy the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea”.
Since 19 October the Houthis, aided and abetted by Iran, have launched a ruthless and reckless campaign of attacks against commercial shipping. These attacks are not solely limited to commerce; our military vessels are also in the Houthi crosshairs. The Royal Navy, the US Navy and most recently the French Navy have also been targets. Vessels owned by Chinese and Bulgarian companies and crews from India, Sri Lanka and Syria have been targeted indiscriminately, making a mockery of Houthi claims that this is all about Israel.
From the outset we have been clear that this cannot carry on. Freedom of navigation underpins not only our security but our prosperity. Around 80% of traded goods are carried over the seas, as are about 90% of the goods arriving in the United Kingdom. These necessities on which we depend arrive through a small number of critical waterways, so upholding these precious freedoms is essential for the preservation of life. This Government are determined to help restore the tranquillity of the Red sea. That is why the UK was one of the first members to join the US-led taskforce, Operation Prosperity Guardian, with HMS Richmond now taking over from HMS Diamond to patrol in the Red sea to help protect commercial shipping. It is why we are working in tandem with the US and other allies to reduce the Houthis’ capacity to harm our security and economic interest, to limit their impact on the flow of humanitarian aid, to prevent further regional escalation, and to show Iran in no uncertain terms that we will push back against its destabilising behaviour.
On occasion, in response to specific threats and in line with international law and the principle of self-defence, we have tackled the Houthi threat head-on. Since 11 January, we have conducted a number of precision strikes against Houthi targets. In these previous rounds of strikes, RAF aircraft successfully struck some 32 targets at six different locations, including drone ground control stations as well as other facilities directly involved in the Houthis’ drone and missile attacks on shipping. I am pleased to say that it remains the case that, to date, we have seen no evidence at all to indicate that the RAF strikes caused civilian casualties, and the UN has noted that it has observed no civilian impact arising from the RAF strikes.
Although we have eroded the Houthis’ capacity, their intent to prosecute indiscriminate attacks against innocent vessels remains undiminished. Just last week, MV Rubymar—a Belize-flagged, British-registered cargo vessel—was targeted in the gulf of Aden near the Bab al-Mandab strait. Hit by missiles, the crew were forced to abandon ship. An oil slick, caused entirely by damage sustained in the Houthi attack, now stretches many miles from the vessel. On Thursday, the British-registered MV Islander was similarly targeted. It was struck by two missiles, resulting in a fire on board. Fortunately, there was no loss of life.
This all comes not long after two US-registered bulk carriers, MV Navis Fortuna and MV Sea Champion, suffered minor damage from Houthi strikes. The attack on Sea Champion highlights the Houthis’ recklessness and near-sightedness, considering that Sea Champion has delivered humanitarian aid to Yemen 11 times in the past five years and was due to unload thousands of tonnes of much needed aid to the Yemeni people through the ports of Aden and Hodeidah. The Houthis’ attack was, quite simply, callous. As near-sighted as these attacks are, they continue to have serious and potentially long-term consequences across the region, as they cut off vital aid to civilians in Yemen and Syria, restrict crucial food imports to Djibouti and threaten significant impacts in Egypt.
Last time I spoke on this issue, I told the House that we will not hesitate to act again in self-defence. We have given the Houthis ample opportunity to de-escalate, but once again, the Houthi zealots have ignored our repeated warnings. As a result, we have once again taken action to defend ourselves against these intolerable attacks. On Saturday night, a Royal Air Force package of four Typhoons, supported by two Voyager tankers, joined US forces in a deliberate strike against Houthi military facilities in Yemen that have been conducting missile and drone attacks on commercial shipping and coalition naval forces in the Bab al-Mandab strait, the southern Red sea and the gulf of Aden. As the House knows, it was the fourth such operation to degrade the Houthi capabilities that are being used to threaten global trade in the Red sea.
Intelligence analysis indicates that the strikes were successful, and that the sites we attacked were being used by the long-range drones that the Houthis use for both reconnaissance and attack missions, including at a former surface-to-air missile battery site several miles north-east of Sana’a. Our aircraft used Paveway IV precision-guided munitions against the drones and their launchers. Assessment continues at this still early stage, but the analysis so far indicates that all eight RAF targets were successfully struck. Three buildings were hit at the Bani military site, and five one-way attack drones are assessed to have been destroyed at the Sana’a military site.
On planning these strikes, as is normal practice for the RAF, operations were carried out meticulously, and consideration was given to minimising any risk of causing civilian casualties. Assessments so far indicate that across the four sets of airstrikes, some 40 military targets have been hit, at seven different Houthi facilities. I pay tribute to the immense skill and tireless dedication of the men and women who made that possible.
Once again, I would like to make it clear that military action is only one aspect of our approach to the crisis in the Red sea. The whole international community has an interest in stopping these attacks, and we continue to work with it to turn that intent into action. The Prime Minister has engaged regional leaders, including the Sultan of Oman, as well as G7 partners. The Foreign Secretary and I have travelled repeatedly to the region in recent weeks to discuss regional security. We are determined to end the illegal flow of arms to the Houthis, using whatever levers are available, including enduring diplomatic engagement, and determined to continue to intercept illegal weapons and the shipping that helps to feed that supply. We are cutting off the Houthis’ financial resources, to further degrade their capacity to conduct attacks; for example, jointly with the US, we are sanctioning four Houthi leaders, and we will continue to work with the US to cut the flow of Houthi funds.
Despite the best efforts of the Houthis, we also continue to provide humanitarian help to people in the middle east. This year, we will send some £88 million of humanitarian support to Yemen, which will feed 100,000 Yeminis every month. The UK has recently worked closely with our Jordanian partners to airdrop life-saving supplies directly to the Tal al-Hawa Hospital in northern Gaza.
The Houthis could stop this barbaric behaviour any time they want. Instead, they callously choose to continue their reckless acts of aggression, causing harm not just to innocents, but to their own people in Yemen. Until they stop, we will continue to act, but consensus continues to grow that the Houthis’ violations simply cannot continue. That is why, recently, the European Union officially launched its Operation Aspides; Members will know that aspides meant “shield” in ancient Greek. We very much welcome the commitment of our EU partners to joining in the work that has been going on, because no nation should ever be able to threaten the arteries of global commerce.
Thirty years ago, nations of the world all came together to protect innocent passage on our high seas. Thirty years on, the House should be in no doubt whatsoever that we will continue to stand up for those rights, and do all that we can to defend life and limb of sailors everywhere, and to preserve their precious trading routes, on which we all depend. I commend this statement to the House.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
I thank the Defence Secretary for advance sight of his statement. We accept that the weekend’s airstrikes were legal, limited, and targeted to minimise the risk of civilian casualties. We pay tribute to the total professionalism of all forces personnel involved in the operations, which were conducted to protect shipping in the Red sea and uphold freedom of navigation for all nations. As the Defence Secretary said, the Houthis have been attacking ships of all nations: Chinese, Bulgarian and French ships have been targeted; Danish, Greek and UK ships have been hit; and even aid vessels destined for Yemen have been in the firing line. The UK and US Navies have been forced to shoot down drones in self-defence.
Today, the British Chambers of Commerce reports that more than half of British exporters are being hit by higher costs and delays because of the Houthi attacks. The Houthis are threatening international trade and maritime security, and putting civilian and military lives in serious danger. That is why the UN Security Council last month passed a resolution condemning the Houthis’ actions “in the strongest terms”, and demanding that their attacks cease.
We accept that the military action over the weekend was justified, but was it effective? What were the objectives for these latest strikes? Were they fully met? Were the targets at both Sana’a and Bani destroyed? Ministers have said that the aims of earlier strikes were, first, to deter Houthi attacks and, secondly, to degrade their capabilities, but deterrence does not feature in the weekend’s eight-nation joint statement in support of the strikes, and the Defence Secretary said this afternoon that “Houthi intent remains undiminished”. Has deterring attacks been dropped as one of the Government’s objectives for this military action?
As the Defence Secretary says, this was “the fourth such operation” since 11 January. When will the Government judge this to be a sustained campaign? At what stage do the Government think that Parliament needs a say? It is the Prime Minister’s responsibility to authorise UK military action and account for it to the public in this House. When will we hear from him?
Any military action against the Houthis must be reinforced by a diplomatic drive in the region aimed at stopping the flow of Iranian weapons, cutting off Houthi finances and settling the civil war in Yemen. What more can the Defence Secretary say about the Government’s wider action? We continue to back the Royal Navy’s role in defence of shipping from all nations through Operation Prosperity Guardian. How is that US-led taskforce co-ordinating with Operation Aspides, the European Union’s new naval presence in the Red sea?
Finally, I totally reject Houthi claims that firing missiles and drones at ships from around the world is somehow linked to the conflict in Gaza. Those attacks do absolutely nothing for the Palestinians, whose agonies are extreme. Last week, Parliament passed Labour’s motion calling for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire. We all want: an end to the fighting, now; no ground offensive in Rafah; all hostages released; and aid to Gaza ramped up greatly. Let us come together this week to work for a ceasefire that is observed by all sides, and that can build into the political process that is needed if we are to secure lasting peace, through a two-state solution, for both Palestine and Israel.
Grant Shapps
I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s comments. He asked a series of questions, and I will respond directly.
On effectiveness, we believe that this set of attacks was effective, and early reconnaissance shows as much, as I outlined in my statement. As ever, it will take a few days to get a full picture, but we have no reason to think that the action was not entirely successful.
We very much intend our attacks on Houthi infrastructure to be a deterrent. The Houthis think that they can continue their actions; our strikes will ensure that they understand the consequences of those actions and the price to pay for them, but perhaps other people, controlling other waterways, will also understand that the world will not simply stand back and allow those actions to take place.
The right hon. Gentleman asks about the Prime Minister coming to the House. I gently point out to him that, technically, he is wrong; the Defence Secretary has the legal authority to sign off actions, as part of royal prerogative. Legally, I have responsibility for the attacks, although, as he rightly points out, the Prime Minister came to the House to give the first two statements on them. As the message in each of those statements is similar and I have legal responsibility, it seems proper and right for me to come to the House and respond to questions. We have had very full statements after each round of attacks.
The shadow Defence Secretary is quite right to say that this sits within a much wider diplomatic context. I went into some detail in my comments, but I am happy to talk more about the wider work that is going on in the region to try to bring to a successful conclusion the wider conflict, which is, in my view—and I think I heard him say in his view—nothing to do with why the Houthis are attacking shipping in the Red sea.
Finally, I would just gently say—although many of the SNP are not here—that to claim that the House passed in full agreement a particular resolution last week is a little bit rich given the circumstances.
Sir Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
Open source information suggests that the strikes are diminishing the capability of the Houthis to attack international shipping. As that is both welcome and important, will the Secretary of State concur that that is also his assessment? It is welcome that Aspides and Prosperity Guardian are co-ordinating, but does that also include on the interdiction of weapons being smuggled from Iran into Yemen?
Grant Shapps
My right hon. Friend is right that we are degrading—attrited, as they say in military terms—that capability. However, it is still the case that the Houthis are capable of launching attacks. To what extent? Well, the House will come to its own conclusions, but it will note that the gap between the first three rounds of attacks was relatively short, and that the gap between that and this fourth round has been longer. Again, we will wait to see what the response is.
On interdictions: yes, we will certainly continue to try to ensure that Iran is not resupplying. The single best message to go out from this House is that Iran should stop that activity. It is worth noting that it has been only Britain and the US that have been doing interdictions in the past few years—and, of course, we will continue to do so.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
First, let me thank the Secretary of State for due sight of his statement. I think that, as an opposition party, we would give it our tentative support. What the shadow Defence Secretary said about possible mission creep does give us concern, but I am sure that it is the role of the Opposition to keep asking those questions.
The Secretary of State knows that my last question regarding this issue was on the position of the People’s Republic of China. Until recently, exports between Europe and China were in excess of £400 billion a year, and there is no doubt that they will suffer as a result of the extended time that it takes to travel between China and Europe, but what beggars belief is China’s utter silence in relation to what is going on—notably, given that it has a military naval capacity in Djibouti.
The Secretary of State and I will disagree on the issue of Gaza. If we had secured a real vote last week, we would probably have seen that recorded formally in the House. Gerald M. Feierstein, the former US diplomat, has said that
“the Houthis’ effort to insert themselves into the Gaza conflict”
is aimed at
“strengthening their support base in the country and cementing their movement more firmly in the… ‘axis of resistance’”.
I wonder whether, like me, the Secretary of State is concerned that we are not only strengthening that axis of resistance but, with illicit Chinese and Russian support, now broadening it in the Red sea.
Grant Shapps
I thank the hon. Member for his—as he has described it—tentative support. I have noted that the House has been largely unified on this issue during the past four statements, following previous attacks. He asks about the mission creep situation. I hope he feels reassured by the concept that we have waited longer, in part because the Houthis’ capabilities have been damaged, so that there is a longer gap and we do not see this thing speeding up. We have no intention or desire to see it increase, but we will act if there continue to be attacks on commercial and naval shipping.
The hon. Member asks about China and Russia and I have to say that I agree; it is important that countries that are impacted by this—the entire world, but perhaps China in particular—do speak up. We would welcome China being more vocal about the situation. As I mentioned in my comments, a Chinese vessel has been attacked, so this is of direct concern to the country. I call on China and, of course, Russia—for what it is worth—to be more vocal on these issues.
Lastly, I just do not accept this Gaza-Houthi connection. I remind the House that the Houthis were against Hamas until 2015, and now they arrive on the scene and pretend to support them. They are opportunist thugs taking advantage of the situation and of people’s lives and misery—not just in Gaza but in Yemen—and they should stop and desist immediately.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The Secretary of State will recall that, in handling this topic on 5 February, he strongly endorsed the suggestion that a lot of this trouble in the middle east was linked to tactics to divert from the war in Ukraine. Given that the route from what is happening in Ukraine to what is happening in the middle east is via Russia and Iran, is he satisfied that there is no inconsistency between the tough line being taken by the Ministry of Defence against the Houthis and the soft line being taken by the Foreign Office against their Iranian sponsors?
Grant Shapps
I somewhat reject that characterisation. To be absolutely clear, we are very much of the view that Iran is responsible; it funds, trains and provides equipment to the Houthis and many other Iranian-sponsored proxies in the region. It is also the case that it has probably lost control of some of them. It is important that we deliver those messages in many different ways to the Iranians. I have seen the read-outs of the ways they have been delivered, including directly, by the Foreign Secretary—and they were anything but weak.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
I put to the Secretary of State a similar question to the one that I put to the Prime Minister on 23 January: of course we want a diplomatic solution—any ramping up of a military solution has its consequences—but for how many more months are the Secretary of State and the Government going to allow this to continue? Do the Government and the allies have a plan B?
Grant Shapps
Of course, the whole world is working on the overall context of the middle east. I know the hon. Gentleman will have seen the reports over the weekend about the discussions taking place in relation to the hostages. We want a comprehensive settlement; the Government’s policy is, of course, a two-state solution. The middle east could be normalised in many ways, including through Saudi normalisation with Israel, as part of that broader package; the Government are working proactively on this. As I said, I am conscious that we should not link these thuggish pirates—
Grant Shapps
I am not saying the hon. Gentleman does that, but I am keen that we do not see the two issues as inextricably linked. I accept that the hon. Gentleman is not trying to do that. We are working very hard on the wider solution.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
I welcome this statement and the Defence Secretary’s leadership. It is clear that the Houthi threat may last months, and it is right that Britain plays our role in protecting international shipping, but Typhoons are tasked from Cyprus only because our surface fleet cannot hit targets at range on land. I know the Defence Secretary is looking at a new vertical launch system to rectify that, but does he agree that an urgent operational requirement to introduce guided multiple launch rocket systems with the new precision-strike missile would allow our Royal Navy, already tasked to the Red sea, to help eliminate the Houthi threat?
Grant Shapps
There are always good reasons to introduce new capabilities. In fact, I was recently down on HMS Somerset at Devonport, where a system is being fitted and trialled. It is not the case, as it is sometimes characterised, that we are using Typhoons because we do not have another option; our first preference is to work in this way for a range of reasons that I cannot enter into at the Dispatch Box. It is worth noting that when the US carried out actions in Iraq and Syria, its planes flew all the way from the United States, and I am not aware of anybody saying that that was because it did not have facilities closer to hand. We are using the correct facilities for the particular operation, notwithstanding the fact that it is always nice to have new facilities.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I agree with the Secretary of State that we must always think about our servicemen and women who carry out these tasks. As a former Defence Minister, it is news to me that it is up to the Defence Secretary to agree to any strikes, but perhaps this Defence Secretary has more power than his predecessors.
What is the policy and strategy behind this set of circumstances? I and a number of other Defence Committee members met the Defence Minister of Italy a few weeks ago in Rome. Italy is deploying to the region. How is it that this is now a US and UK-led operation? What are we doing to build alliances with Italy and other European nations that have an interest in doing so? As my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) asked, what ultimately is plan B and the long-term endgame?
Grant Shapps
I will avoid getting into the constitutional position of how that authority runs. It would be inconceivable to do that without the Prime Minister, but it is technically the case that the royal prerogative runs to the Defence Secretary, for what it is worth.
I am very familiar with my friend Minister Crosetto, whom the right hon. Gentleman met in Rome. The Italians have, as he knows, opted to join Aspides, the EU operation. We will work closely with our European friends and allies to ensure that that interacts properly with the wider Prosperity Guardian and the direct actions that we are taking. Of course, we welcome action from other friends and allies in that regard.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
I was very interested to hear the Secretary of State say that it is just the United Kingdom and the United States doing the interdiction to ensure that there is no rearmament of the Houthis, but what assessment has he made of the sources of that rearmament? What percentage does he think comes from Iran, through Syria, or through other agents?
Grant Shapps
We are pretty certain that it all originates in Iran—[Interruption.] Actually, I have just been informed by my Parliamentary Private Secretary that actually there was also a French interdiction of some weapons in 2023, so let me put that correction on the record. To answer the question, I believe that it all originates from Iran. Which routes it takes in is another matter, but much of it comes ultimately by sea, and we continue to work proactively to ensure that we prevent those shipments whenever we can.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State answer the question asked by the shadow Defence Secretary, which he avoided earlier: now that this appears to be sustained operation, might a vote in this House be appropriate?
Grant Shapps
We will continue to gauge the view of the House on these matters. I have noted that each party’s representative has—from tentatively to fully—supported these measured responses. If the rapidity or severity of the attacks increased, for example, my judgment at the moment would be that it is possible to read the mood of the House, but we will keep that under review and ensure that we continually come back to the House to provide defence intelligence briefings to Members who require them.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
According to a survey released by the British Chambers of Commerce, over half of British retailers and exporters have been impacted by the disruption in the Red sea, which is causing logistics delays, pushing up costs, and risking higher prices and fewer choices in British shops and elsewhere. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that our military action is consistent with the UK’s overarching aim of de-escalating tensions and restoring stability in the Red sea?
Grant Shapps
Yes, I can absolutely provide that reassurance. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that the situation is already having a cost for British consumers. As I mentioned in my comments, globally about 80% of goods move by sea; for the United Kingdom, it is about 90%, given that we are an island. It is very important therefore to show, both for the purposes of deterrence and to weaken the Houthis’ ability to attack shipping, that we mean business when we say that this cannot carry on.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
After four separate strikes in seven weeks, this appears to be a prolonged military campaign, so I ask the Minister again, as I did on 5 February: what is the long-term strategy, and how does this relate to the ongoing precarious situation in Yemen itself? If the Government’s plan is to sustain military action, will he speak to the Prime Minister to ensure that Parliament accordingly has a vote or a say, which is only right?
Grant Shapps
I hope the hon. Lady will join me in welcoming action against the Houthis, who have attacked a ship that—as I mentioned—has provided aid to the people of Yemen on multiple occasions. I know that she does not make this mistake, but some people think that the Houthis are somehow the Yemeni authorities. They are not; they are not the Government. They are destroying that country through their actions, and are actually preventing aid from getting to the people of Yemen, so it is absolutely right that we take this action.
To assure the hon. Lady, the previous three attacks were seven days apart or so; it has been a longer period this time. We have been able to wait longer, perhaps because the Houthis have fewer options to attack shipping, but I stress that we will continue if they carry on attacking shipping. The simplest thing for all of us to do is to send a clear, united message to the Houthis that they must stop attacking innocent shipping.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
The Secretary of State is absolutely right to say that military action is necessary but not sufficient to deal with the long-term problem of the Houthis. He has mentioned the necessity of tackling financing and the illegal shipping of weapons, but global shipping is peculiarly vulnerable to cyber-attack. What is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that the UK’s cyber-capabilities are shared with our international partners to protect our global shipping interests?
Grant Shapps
There are essentially two forms of warfare that my hon. Friend is pointing to: one is direct cyber-attack and the other is the use of electronic warfare to cause particular outcomes. I am afraid that we have seen a lot of that, particularly in the theatre in Ukraine, and we are very conscious of the way it is being used in the Red sea region as well. We will continue to do all we can to help through the Prosperity Guardian element of this operation, and to make sure that we are a step ahead of those who would, through preference, destroy the ability for world trade and good passage through open seas to take place.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I assure the Minister that he has the full—not tentative—support of DUP Members for the actions he has taken, because as he has pointed out, what is happening will affect businesses and consumers in the UK through inflation and the inability to get supplies. However, those effects are not limited to the UK; almost every European nation relies on those shipping lanes being kept open. Why is it that we are doing the heavy lifting when it comes to attacking the Houthis, and other nations are not joining in?
Grant Shapps
First, I am very grateful for the support of the right hon. Gentleman’s party. Secondly, two factors have to be in play in order to take action: the will to do it and the capability to do it. Quite a large number of nations are involved, either through Prosperity Guardian or direct support for the military action, which includes intelligence officers and other means of assistance—we are receiving support from a whole range of people. We now also have Operation Aspides, which the Europeans are launching. We look forward to seeing what they bring to this action, but I stress that it is our capability and willingness combined that means that the United Kingdom is able and willing to act when perhaps others are not.
Sir Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
Has my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary considered engaging with the currently unrecognised country of Somaliland? I visited it recently, as the Register of Members’ Financial Interests will show. As it has a border with the gulf of Aden, its port at Berbera might be useful to His Majesty’s Government.
Grant Shapps
I know that my right hon. and learned Friend is a big fan of Somaliland. I have visited it myself in the past, and I know that in a difficult environment, they do a very good job—administratively and otherwise —of trying to run their Government. I will take his comments away and confer with the Foreign Secretary.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
I appreciate that the Secretary of State has come to the House on several occasions to give an update on this situation, and that further actions continue to be taken to avoid the Houthis disrupting Red sea shipping. The difficulty is that they appear not to be deterred by what the Government are throwing at them, following on from many years of being undeterred by attacks on them from the Saudi Government. In fact, they are using this as part of their propaganda machine against the west. So can I ask the Secretary of State: how does he see this ending?
Grant Shapps
I would say two things to the hon. Lady. First, as I have tried to stress before, I do think that this operation is having an impact. We have seen longer periods between attacks, and we have seen the Houthis’ abilities attrited, so they have fewer capabilities. That is certainly the case.
The second thing I would say—perhaps I should have said it sooner—in answer to what might bring this to an end is that the Houthis do want to get the peace deal they have in place with the Saudis ratified by the United Nations, which clearly will not ratify a peace deal between the two parties until they stop shooting at international shipping. I do think that there is an endgame in the Saudi-Houthi peace deal being signed off by the United Nations, but the onus remains on the Houthis to stop shooting at international shipping and disrupting its flow before they can get that and, indeed, the financial improvement to their own situation that will come from the deal being signed.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
Al-Jazeera has reported that, according to its numbers, 37,000 Houthis have been recruited since the start of the airstrikes, and they are using the airstrikes as a recruiting tool. Al-Jazeera believes that this is for a push on Ma’rib, which is full of natural resources. As we know, Ma’rib became a world heritage site in 2023. It is home to the ancient kingdom of Sheba, or Saba’, and also of the famous dam, which is mentioned in the Koran. What steps are the Government taking to make sure that that world heritage site is protected, and if the Houthis were to move into that area, would they step in to stop them destroying these essential historical and religious sites?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend raises a very important point, and if he does not mind, I will confer with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on this issue. On the membership point, the Houthis are made up of a ragtag of people who are often quite desperate and those who are led into a particular way of life with the Houthis. We want to dismantle that, and the best way to do it is through the peace deal that has been agreed, but that cannot be enacted by the UN until they stop firing on commercial shipping. We would like to see that situation unwound. I will take his other point away and come back to him.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
On 6 February —20 days ago—I tabled written question 13372, asking
“for what reason Israeli military planes have used UK airports on each occasion since 7 October 2023.”
That may or may not be relevant to this statement, but I do not know, because I have not yet received an answer. Can the Secretary of State either answer the question now, or tell me when I will receive a written answer?
Grant Shapps
I will certainly look into that for the hon. Member, but I would have thought that Israel uses UK airports for the purposes of flying El Al and other airlines to this country.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, and I support the necessary actions of self-defence to secure freedom of navigation in the Red sea. However, to keep the whole country on the same page and to understand the importance of this, I note that while the purpose of the actions is first and foremost to protect the people—the seafarers and the military personnel—on those vessels, the economic impact globally is huge, as has been referenced. Businesses are reporting to me a threefold or fourfold increase in shipping costs, which of course we will all pay for at the tills. In conjunction with the Treasury and the Department for Business and Trade, has my right hon. Friend made an assessment of the magnitude of the figure that the challenge to freedom of navigation in the Red sea is causing to our economy and the global economy?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that this has a cost not just to business or industry, but to households in this country. It will come straight through to the bill for the weekly shop, which is why it is so important that we do not allow these attacks to go unchallenged and that we make sure we degrade the ability for them take place. He asked about the ongoing assessments by the Department for Business and Trade and the Treasury, and provided some data from his own knowledge about the increased shipping costs. Shipping is typically not an enormous part of the cost of each individual item people buy in the supermarket, but of course over a period time, that will have a negative impact, which is why it is important to make it clear that freedom of navigation is sacrosanct and that we will always take action if it is affected in any way, shape or form.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. I very much support what he is doing and his strength of character and purpose, and as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) said, we are very much on the same page. With joint strikes with our allies ongoing, it is clear that support for the Houthis is still making its way from the axis of evil to enable them to carry on with persistent threats and attacks. The Houthis continue their attacks, so what discussions have taken place with our allies to ascertain what the next steps to secure the route will be? How quickly can those steps be taken to secure the sea routes and trade for all countries across the world?
Grant Shapps
Again, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his party’s support on this. He will be interested to hear that I had extensive discussions last week both at NATO in Brussels and at the Munich security conference on exactly the issues he has raised. A broad range of international discussion is going on, and we all want to see the Houthis stop and to have a wider settlement with Saudi. There is no excuse that is plausible for the action being taken, and common sense would say that China, and even Russia, would be piling on the pressure to do that. We will carry on working internationally with our partners, and with those in the P5, to try to ensure that happens.
Patrick Grady
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The written question I referred to was about Israeli military aircraft—I think the Secretary of State might have misunderstood, or I might not have spoken clearly. I would appreciate an answer to that written question as soon as he can give it.
Post Office Horizon: Compensation and Legislation
(9 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a statement to update the House on the progress that has been made to support victims of the Horizon scandal.
Since this terrible miscarriage of justice was first exposed, the Government have been working tirelessly to put matters right for postmasters. We have set up an independent inquiry and funded various redress schemes that we have continuously improved to speed up compensation for all affected. That work has been taking place for many months, and long before ITV aired the excellent programme “Mr Bates vs The Post Office”. The work included our announcement last autumn of the optional £600,000 fixed-sum award for those who have been wrongfully convicted. We continue to develop our response to the scandal, and on Thursday I made a written statement detailing the way that we plan to legislate to overturn Horizon-related convictions en masse. We expect to introduce that legislation as soon as possible next month.
My statement set out that the new legislation will quash all convictions that are identified as being in scope, using clear and objective criteria on the face of the Bill. Convictions will be quashed at the point of commencement, without the need for people to apply to have their convictions overturned. The criteria will cover the prosecutors, extending to prosecutions undertaken by Post Office Ltd and the Crown Prosecution Service, as well as offence types, ensuring that those align with offences known to have been prosecuted by the Post Office. That means that only relevant offences such as theft and false accounting will be in scope. On offence dates, a set timeframe will ensure that convictions are quashed only where the offence took place during the period when the Horizon system and its pilots were in operation. The criteria will also cover the contractual or other relationship of the convicted individual to Post Office Ltd, so that only sub-postmasters, their employees, officers or family members, or direct employees of the Post Office will be within the defined class of convictions to be quashed. On the use of the Horizon system at the date of the offence, the convicted person will need to have been working, including in a voluntary capacity, in a post office that was using Horizon system software—including any relevant pilot schemes—at the time that the behaviour constituting the offence occurred.
Such legislation is unprecedented and constitutionally sensitive, but this scandal is unprecedented too. I am clear that this legislation does not set a precedent for the future, and nor is it a reflection on the actions of the courts and the judiciary, who have dealt swiftly with the cases before them. However, we are clear that the scale and circumstances of the miscarriage of justice demand an exceptional response. We are also receiving invaluable support from the Horizon compensation advisory board in this effort. Once again, I thank the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and his colleagues on the board, including Lord Arbuthnot. The board met on Thursday. We were joined by Sir Gary Hickinbottom and Sir Ross Cranston, who will be the final arbiters of claims in the overturned convictions and GLO schemes respectively. At the meeting, the board strongly supported the proposals in my written statement for legislating to overturn convictions. They also proposed sensible measures to accelerate compensation for those impacted.
One of the biggest constraints on the speed of redress for those who choose to take the full assessment route is that it takes time for claimants and their representatives to gather evidence and develop their claims. To encourage early submission of claims, once the Post Office receives a full claim from someone with an overturned conviction, it will forthwith top up their interim redress to £450,000. Of course, if they have opted for our £600,000 fixed-sum award, they will get that instead. Similarly, on the GLO scheme, where claims are typically smaller, we have implemented fixed-sum award offers of £75,000, helping claimants to move on with their lives. Those who are not satisfied with this fixed offer can continue to submit larger claims, and they will be assessed on a case-by-case basis. We have committed to provide offers on a fully completed claim within 40 working days in 90% of cases. If initial GLO offers are not accepted and independent facilitation is then entered, we shall forthwith pay postmasters 80% of our initial offer, to help ensure that they do not face hardship while those discussions are completed.
We have always been clear that our first offers of compensation should be full and fair. It is early days, but the numbers suggest that in the GLO scheme we are achieving that. More than 70% of our offers in that scheme are accepted by postmasters without reference to the independent panel. We will also ensure that postmasters are kept regularly up to date with the progress of their claims.
The advisory board has made a number of other helpful proposals. Those are set out in the report of the meeting, which my Department is publishing today. I have undertaken to give them serious consideration. I will advise the House when we reach decisions about those proposals, and I will doubtless return again with further updates as part of our unceasing determination to deliver justice for everyone caught up in this long-running and tragic scandal. I commend this statement to the House.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
May I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement? The Horizon scandal has rightly left the public outraged by the scale and shocking details of the injustice that has been committed. The scandal is one of the greatest miscarriages of justice in British history. It has robbed innocent people of their livelihoods, their liberty and, sadly, in numerous cases, their lives. More than 20 years on, the victims and their families are still suffering the consequences of the trauma of all that they have been put through. Until recently, there has been little progress and delays at every turn, which has caused even further distress.
Victims and their families have been trapped in a nightmare for too long. We all want to see the exoneration of all the remaining convictions, and the delivery of rightful compensation to all those affected sub-postmasters as quickly as possible. On the Opposition Benches, the Labour party has made it clear that we want to see a swift and comprehensive resolution to this insidious injustice, and we are committed to working with the Government to ensure that happens.
I recognise the important work that the Minister has done, both on the Back Benches and in his current role. The unprecedented scale of the legal work being carried out will be possible only with cross-party working and cross-party support. I want to take the opportunity to thank the advisory board for its tireless work in supporting the Government in getting this right, as well as hon. Members on both sides of the House and in the other House.
I welcome the Minister’s commitment to progressing the legislation. Labour is committed to working with the Government to deliver rightful exonerations, but I know that many Members will have had questions following last Thursday’s written ministerial statement, so I welcome the Minister returning to the House. I have a series of questions to pose to him. First, in the light of what he has said today, what further details can we expect on the legislation being tabled? Will he further clarify why convictions prosecuted by the Department for Work and Pensions are excluded from the legislation and what steps he will take to get the Department to deliver exonerations as soon as possible?
The Minister’s proposals set a very difficult precedent, as he said, on the relationship between the legislature and the judiciary. Will he outline what conversations he has had with the Lord Chancellor about this matter and his views on it, which might alleviate some people’s continued concerns?
As the Minister mentioned, there are also issues around precedent that could be exploited in the future for less appropriate purposes. Although I appreciate the assurances that he has provided on that, it would be helpful to understand and get clarification on what specific safeguards will be put in place to avoid this becoming a precedent. The cross-party nature of this work is critical to ensure that happens. However, some people are asking whether he considers that this particular example could be relevant in the future for other worthy causes.
May I also ask the Minister about the pre-Horizon system, Capture? Will he confirm whether prosecutions were made using Capture data and whether any sub-postmasters lost money due to Capture failings? If so, will he commit to those convictions being in the scope of the legislation and compensation schemes?
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank the hon. Member for her collaborative comments. I am keen to work with her going forward, as we have every step of the way on this issue. I do not accept that we have made little progress. Let us be clear that 78% of all full claims that have been submitted have been settled—that is 2,700 claims that have been settled. Nor do I accept that there have been delays at every turn. That is not a correct characterisation of the situation.
With regard to our next steps, as I said, we expect the legislation to be tabled next month, which is as quickly as possible. I am working on this on very much a daily basis. On the differences between Post Office and CPS cases—those we are seeking to overturn with this legislation—and DWP cases, I think it is fair to say there was a different standard of evidence. Those DWP cases relied on evidence independent of Horizon such as the surveillance of suspects, collation and examination of cashed orders from stolen benefit books and girocheques, handwriting comparisons and witness statements. Those cases were very much not simply relying on Horizon evidence.
My engagement with the Lord Chancellor has been extensive, and our engagement with other stakeholders—including the hon. Member’s shadow Front-Bench colleagues—has also been extensive. We decided that was the right thing to do. Having said that, these are unprecedented steps. I think that again speaks to the fact that we are keen to make as much progress as possible, rather than as little.
The hon. Lady mentioned safeguards. The standard of evidence is critical to get to this point. It is fair to say that the trailblazing 555, who successfully took their case to the courts in the first place, set a high bar for anyone to emulate or replicate. We will be clear in the legislation that convictions will be overturned based on objective criteria, as another way to deal with this. That speaks to the hon. Lady’s last point on Capture, which I am very aware of and I have discussed with the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) on several occasions, including immediately prior to this statement. We need to ensure that we have the right evidence base. I am happy to continue the dialogue on that, but it is important that we do not include cohorts where we do not have the evidence base, as we have for the cohorts that we have set out—where the CPS and the Post Office prosecuted cases. We are taking very serious measures to overturn the convictions. We should never resort to this kind of approach lightly.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Will the Minister take UK Government Investments out of its role of controlling and supervising the Post Office? It has allowed these gross injustices to go on for too long, allowed the Post Office senior managers to rack up huge losses of £1,391 million to last March, with more to come this year, and given the executives bonuses for losing us that much money. It has left the Government with a great financial black hole. Would it not be better to change the Post Office management, to have it report directly to the Minister, and to make its No. 1 task giving justice to the sub-postmasters?
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. He and I have had serious conversations about the future of the Post Office, which I am keen to continue to engage on. The current UKGI representative who sits on the Post Office board is Lorna Gratton, for whom I have a great deal of time and respect. Clearly it is important that the inquiry does its work to determine who did what in the past. As we look to the future, there are different opinions on how the Post Office should be governed. I am happy to keep those discussions ongoing with my right hon. Friend.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. Under successive Labour, Tory and Liberal Ministers, Post Office Ltd has overseen the largest miscarriage of justice in UK history. The Horizon scandal is just appalling. Unusually, both the Scottish and Northern Irish Governments have written to the UK Government, calling on them to rule on devolved affairs. It is vital that the UK Government work to ensure that exonerations in Scotland and Northern Ireland take place at the same time as those in England and Wales. [Interruption.] I do not find this amusing at all, but obviously the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) does.
Marion Fellows
The devolved Governments have no power or locus in the UK Post Office, so we really need to get this together. When will the legislation for both the exoneration and the redress schemes be published? The Scottish and Northern Irish Governments have written to ask for UK-wide legislation. We need the UK Government to act, because otherwise we cannot guarantee simultaneous legislation that is compatible and comparable with UK Government schemes. When will there be a response to the Scottish Government? This is really important.
There were reports yesterday that Post Office Ltd has only now brought in external investigators to investigate its internal investigators. Does that not seem quite late to the Minister? Why was that not done earlier? Is it just to avoid the appearance of continued cover-ups in Post Office Ltd?
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank the hon. Lady for her work and for her points, including on the devolved issues around Scotland and Northern Ireland which she is right to raise. We considered that very carefully. When we originally set out to legislate, we were very clear that it would be for England and Wales only, but that we would work with our counterparts in the other parts of the United Kingdom on what they might do. Indeed, we have responded to them already. We met them last week before we announced the legislation in this statement to the House. We decided to legislate for England and Wales only, because justice is a devolved matter. As she said, the Post Office is UK-wide, but justice is a devolved matter in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and of course they have different legal systems in those areas and different prosecutors. Taking action to interfere with the independent judiciary is a very, very serious thing to do, of course, but we believe that it is the right way. We are working closely with our counterparts in the devolved Administrations to ensure they understand our legal approach and we are very happy to assist with any legislation they may seek to undertake in their own Parliaments.
On redress, there is a single UK-wide scheme, so once somebody’s conviction is overturned they can access redress in exactly the same way as anybody in England and Wales. On the investigation or investigators, that is initially a matter for the Post Office but also for the inquiry to see what happened in the past. There is little point in the huge expense of setting up a public inquiry, as Members called for, and then seeking to do the inquiry’s work ourselves. We need to see exactly what the inquiry makes of that and of many other issues.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
I commend the Minister and the Secretary of State for the firm and consistent approach the Government are taking to getting justice for the affected sub-postmasters. We heard earlier about precedent. The Minister will know that many of us have concerns about precedent in bringing forward special legislation in this case, although we know, of course, that many hundreds of innocent sub-postmasters have suffered the most serious miscarriage of justice. The Minister just said that the scale and circumstances of the Post Office’s actions in this case rightly require an exceptional response. Will he set out how using that mechanism will ensure that the people we are bothered about, the sub-postmasters, benefit speedily and accurately from those measures?
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank my hon. Friend for his point and for his work on the Select Committee. He is right that we will take those steps very carefully and very much as a last resort. He concluded his question on exactly the right point. This is about sub-postmasters and the speed of overturning those convictions: the speed to justice. We looked at doing that through other means, but did not feel that they would achieve the same level of speed. He may be aware that hundreds of people have passed away—there was a report in the newspapers over the weekend—waiting for compensation and justice. That is just not acceptable. We made the difficult decision to deal with this situation in this particular way. As we have often described it, this is the least-worst option but it is still the right option.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
I call the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
May I put on record my gratitude to the Minister for the speed and attention he is paying to this issue? The bottom line, however, is that redress is too slow and the offers are too low. Papers that the Select Committee is publishing this afternoon show that at the core of the problem is a toxic culture of disbelief of sub-postmasters, which still persists at the top of the Post Office. Indeed, the board minutes for March last year show that board members lamented that the board was tired and constantly distracted by historical issues and short-term crises. I am afraid that that is not good enough when only 40% of the allocated budget for the Horizon scheme has been paid out and only 4% of the budget for the overturned conviction scheme has been paid out. When the Minister brings forward his Bill, will he make sure that the Post Office is now taken out of every single one of the compensation schemes, and that a hardwired instruction to deliver, with a fixed, legally binding timetable to deliver compensation agreements, is written on the face of the Bill?
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his points, his kind words earlier, and his work on this matter. I know that he will be chairing a Select Committee session on it tomorrow, and I look forward to his recommendations.
I agree that compensation has been delivered too slowly. We are trying to accelerate its delivery every single day, and we are, I think, doing good work with the advisory board to ensure that that happens. I do not accept that the offers are too low, although I am not saying that there are no exceptions; no compensation scheme will be 100% perfect. In respect of the GLO scheme, for example, 58 full claims have been submitted and 41 have been accepted without reference to the next stage of the process, involving the independent panel, which would seem to indicate that the offers that have been made are fair. Of course people will not take my word for it—they will only accept it when those cases have been resolved—and there are bound to be high-profile cases, as indeed there have been, in which people say that the offers are too low. However, we are determined to ensure that everyone has full compensation that is also fair to the individual, fair to the other individuals within the schemes and, of course, fair to the taxpayer.
As for the people who are running the scheme, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Horizon shortfall scheme was set up as a scheme run by the Post Office, with an independent panel including eminent KCs such as Lord Garnier. I have met its members, as has the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), and we have confidence in it. Nevertheless, we are looking at recommendations from the advisory board for an independent appeal process. The GLO scheme is independent of the Post Office; it is within our Department, and we are working to ensure that the offers are fair. As the right hon. Gentleman suggested, we are considering bringing the overturned conviction scheme back in-house, and we will have more to say about that in due course.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned 40% of the budget. We set a maximum budget of £1 billion—not a cap, but a maximum budget at this point. Part of the reason why only 4% of overturned convictions claims have been settled is the fact that the convictions have not in fact been overturned, which is why we are legislating in this way. Once those hundreds of convictions have been overturned, en masse, people will have access to rapid compensation via either the fixed-sum award, whereby compensation takes only days, or the full-assessment route, which takes longer.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke about a legally binding route, and of course we will look at all the various suggestions that are made. We have just legislated to extend the timescale for GLO compensation because we did not want to be bound by an arbitrary date, and I think he supported our legislation. I would therefore caution him against suggesting a legally binding date, because not everything is in our gift, in terms of when we receive a claim and how fast it can then be processed.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
The Minister will be aware from my correspondence of the case of my constituent Mr Graham Ward—one of the 555 in the GLO. He has been in touch with me in the last week, and I think it fair to say that he has expressed his deep frustration about the processes that the House is currently discussing in respect of redress and access to compensation. The £75,000 fixed-sum offer is less than the impact that he has experienced. In his statement, the Minister referred to the 40-day process that people might wish to go through rather than accepting the lump sum. May I suggest to him that that should be looked into? Graham is having to undergo medical assessments and various doctors’ appointments, and all this is a terrible ordeal that continues for him, but so many others have also been part of this. I urge the Minister to bring a human element to his considerations, and to recognise that £75,000 does not even scratch the surface when someone has lost their business, their livelihood, the goodwill and their reputation. That is what we must restore sooner rather than later.
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank my right hon. Friend for her constant correspondence and engagement with Mr Ward. I wrote to her recently about the case, and asked to be kept updated on his progress.
The £75,000 is one of two routes that people can take. If they feel that their claim is below £75,000, they do not have to submit any evidence and can simply opt for the £75,000, take that money off the table, and move on with their lives. If they feel that their claim is significantly higher than that, they can opt for the full-assessment route, which inevitably takes more time because assessing someone’s loss is a complex process. The submission of a claim for financial loss will require forensic accountants on behalf of the claimant, and other assessments of the type that my right hon. Friend mentioned will also be needed. All the compensation schemes with which I have been involved during my time in this place have been complicated, but we are trying to simplify this one. Only last week we discussed with the advisory board measures to accelerate the process, but the fundamental principle is that claimants such as Mr Ward should always be given the benefit of the doubt.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I declare my interest as a member of the Horizon compensation board, and I thank the Minister for his statement. It is welcome to see him, rather than the Secretary of State, present today’s statement. I welcome the approach that the Government are taking on overturned convictions, but I note that it includes pilots.
I have given evidence to the Minister and the public inquiry about the Capture system. Those affected need to be included in any overturned convictions and to get compensation. I am slowly getting the evidence out of the Post Office and from individual cases, and it comes back to a point that the Chair of the Select Committee just made about the role of the Post Office. The Minister wrote a letter at the weekend to the Select Committee, saying that the culture at the Post Office has changed, but it clearly has not; the toxic culture is still there. Until the Post Office is taken out of this process altogether and forced to regurgitate the information, nothing will change. The Minister knows that one of the advisory board’s recommendations is to do exactly that. Until we do it, postmasters will not have any faith in the process.
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank the right hon. Gentleman again for his tireless work over the years and, indeed, for his work in recent months on the advisory board. It is hugely important for accelerating this process.
We have discussed Capture on a number of occasions. It is important that we have the right body of evidence on that, and I am keen to work with the right hon. Gentleman to make sure that we do. Clearly, intervening in matters that were independently decided by the courts is a step we take very rarely—it is unprecedented in this context—but I am happy to discuss that further with him and to help him seek evidence from the Post Office where he needs more evidence on this issue. We discussed it last week, and I am keen to make sure that we have the process running as independently as possible.
I can assure colleagues, any claimants out there and the wider public that every single process—not least the GLO scheme and the overturned convictions scheme—has an independent reviewer. It is Sir Gary Hickinbottom for the overturned convictions scheme and Sir Ross Cranston for the GLO scheme. These are very highly regarded individuals, who will make sure that postmasters who come forward are fairly treated and get the redress they deserve.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
I welcome the care that has been taken to set out how extraordinary this circumstance is and the fact that we are not leading ourselves into setting any precedents. I also welcome scrutiny of the Bill as it comes forward.
On compensation, it is right that evidence is checked and that we are thorough, but I am concerned that the Government’s payment clock will start to run only when they are satisfied that they have all the information on individual cases. It is very difficult for some postmasters to collate documents covering 20 years, some of which have been destroyed or damaged. This is causing a lot of stress, in a similar way to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) described. Will the Minister explain the Government’s position regarding evidence? Given the process of trying to speed up the payments, are we able to get to the point at which we are taking a view on claims, so that we can kickstart the 40-day process and get the money out the door?
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank my hon. Friend for her engagement with this issue and for her work on behalf of her constituent, whose case I am very aware of. Yes, we absolutely should be taking a view where evidence is impossible to obtain. Of course, it is fair to request certain bits of information to support a claim, but where such information is not available because it pertains to 20 or 25 years ago, it would be unreasonable to expect that as the basis for a claim. As I said earlier, where there is an absence of evidence but a broader claim that is compelling, there is no doubt that the claimant should get the benefit of the doubt, and I am very keen to make sure that her constituent gets compensation as quickly as possible.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Ind)
I thank the Minister and his predecessor for their work on this. I know that he has been paying a lot of attention to it. On the issue of full and fair compensation, may I express a worry about the £600,000 option? It has been said that this is a complicated process, but it does not have to be. Schedules of past and future loss are regular events when calculating these matters, and if ever there were a case for aggravated and exemplary damages, surely this is it. My fear is that people who are up against time limits and perhaps getting older will want to accept the £600,000, which will be a vast undersell of the true value of their claim. What mechanisms is the Minister putting in place to ensure that people do not undervalue their claim and take that easy option to bring the matter to a close?
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. Full and fair compensation lies at the heart of this matter, and we do not want people to feel that the £600,000 is the only option for getting compensation in quick time. It is there for those who want to take the money, walk away and draw a line under the matter, particularly where they think their claim is below that figure. As the hon. Gentleman might have heard me say earlier, on the recommendation of the advisory board and others involved in the process, as soon as a full claim is received, individuals in the overturned conviction cohort will get their interim compensation of £163,000 topped up immediately to £450,000. That will ease the financial pressure and reduce what he suggests might be an incentive for people to take a lower amount than they deserve. A significant amount of money will be paid forward on that basis while the remainder of the compensation claim can be properly assessed.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
I echo some of the words of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali). I had an email overnight from a lady in Australia whose father was prosecuted by the DWP. He had been extremely ill, and he was given a six-month prison sentence for a crime he did not commit. From the statement this afternoon it is clear that the scope of the Bill will apply only to prosecutions from the CPS and Post Office Ltd. Those who received a sentence from the DWP will therefore be outside the scope of the new law. That cannot be right, Minister.
Kevin Hollinrake
We have looked at this very carefully. In all the appeals based on DWP cases, the convictions have been upheld thus far. Clearly it is rare that we take the kind of route that we are taking now, in summarily overturning convictions. We see that the evidence bar was much higher in those cases. As I said earlier, there was surveillance of suspects and collation and examination of cash orders from stolen benefit books and girocheques, so there is a significant evidence base for these convictions. I would point out that people can still technically appeal their convictions. They can go through the normal Court of Appeal route. I would be happy to have a discussion with my hon. Friend afterwards to discuss this further if that would be helpful.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Ind)
After 14 years of campaigning on behalf of my constituents, Mr and Mrs Rudkin, and the other sub-postmasters who were victims, I welcome our now having almost a weekly update on the compensation scheme. I also welcome the Minister’s announcement of more generous interim payments for the victims, but I have to disagree when he says that the sub-postmasters Horizon scandal is unprecedented. I am thinking of the infected blood scandal, the so-called Gulf war syndrome repayment scandal and the banking fraud scandal, and of course the House will have the vaccine deaths and vaccine harms scandal to look forward to, which will overshadow everything that has come before. Does the Minister think that those would benefit from a docudrama?
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Gentleman outlines particular scandals, but my responsibility extends only as far as the Post Office in that regard. As he knows, I come to the House quite often and I probably have enough on my plate in dealing with this issue right now. I thank him for all the campaigning he has done from the Back Benches on this issue and I very much hope that Mr and Mrs Rudkin get the compensation they deserve as soon as possible.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The Minister often comes to the Chamber to discuss this scandal, and I just wish that Ministers in other Departments, dealing with other scandals, came as often as he does, for which I compliment him. Will he Minister confirm that all those with overturned convictions will be compensated before the general election?
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank the right hon. Lady for all her work on this subject and on the infected blood scandal. I contributed to that work as a Back Bencher, and I understand that £400 million has been paid out in interim compensation, but I know she will not rest until all the people she represents get full and final compensation.
On overturned convictions, not everything is within our gift. We are summarily overturning convictions en masse, and we hope to do that very quickly. We plan to table legislation next month, and we hope to overturn all the convictions by July. That will open the door to compensation through the two different routes. We are somewhat at the mercy of claims being submitted, which can take time. The £600,000 route is much quicker. I cannot say when the general election will be, so I cannot answer yes to the right hon. Lady’s specific question, but I very much hope we will do so. Our original date was August, and we hope to get everybody compensated by the end of this year. We will do everything we can to ensure that is the case.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
We understand why the legislation to overturn convictions must be limited, but we have heard today from the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) about convictions that were secured through other systems and other prosecutors. What assessment has been made of the likely number of people who have been wrongfully convicted outside the boundaries that have been set? What might be made available for people who want to bring their own appeals against wrongful convictions but who cannot make use of the forthcoming legislation?
Kevin Hollinrake
It is fair to say that we can all now see a significant body of evidence showing that these were wrongful convictions, which is why we are acting in this unprecedented way. If the hon. Lady is referring to the Capture cases, we do not have that body of evidence thus far. We think the DWP cases are a different cohort because of the evidential standard. We are acting in this way because we do not think the evidential standard for Horizon was of the right level, and clearly a number of different factors were involved in these convictions. The DWP cases are different. There are around 70 to 100 cases in the DWP cohort, which means that the vast majority of the 983 convictions will be overturned by this legislation.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
I want to raise again with the Minister the shortcomings of the Horizon shortfall scheme. My constituent, Mr Pennington, was a sub-postmaster for over 20 years, and for 11 of those years he had the stress and worry of continually having to pay back shortfalls generated in error by the Horizon system. He has not received back all that he was forced to pay in, and he was offered only a derisory £1,500 for 11 years of stress and financial distress. I wrote to the Minister about this case five weeks ago, and I have still not received a response. Last week, the Business Secretary said that I will receive a letter very soon. How long will Mr Pennington have to wait for answers to his questions after so many years of financial stress and worry?
Kevin Hollinrake
I will chase that correspondence as soon as I leave the Chamber. I thought I had signed the correspondence, and I apologise if the hon. Lady has not received it. I will ensure that she receives it at the earliest possible opportunity.
I am familiar with the hon. Lady’s case, having read about it and about the times she has raised it in the House and elsewhere. I am keen to look at this. The advisory board made recommendations about how we can make sure everyone feels that their settlement is fair. We are looking at those recommendations, and I will get the letter to her as soon as I can.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for the urgency he has brought to trying to resolve this terrible injustice. It seems that this has been against resistance from within the Post Office, where an attempt is still being made to cover up the negligence and incompetence of the management. May I take him back to the points he has made about this legislation applying to Northern Ireland? I am not convinced of the reasons he has given: first, that this is a devolved issue; secondly, that the justice system is different in Northern Ireland; and, thirdly, that he does not want to step on the feet of the judges in Northern Ireland. In the past, legislation has gone through this House that has related to the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland, with Northern Ireland being included as the result of a legislative consent motion. Has he explored that opportunity with the Minister and the Executive in Northern Ireland? Has there been resistance from the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland or is it willing to co-operate if Northern Ireland were to be included?
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his points. I believe he has contributed to every debate in which I have been involved in this House on this matter, so I thank him for his work. Clearly, justice and the judicial system are devolved to Northern Ireland. The difference here is that this is not simply legislating for general matters across the piece; it is about overturning individual cases, which I understand is unprecedented—it certainly is in my experience. We have engaged with the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland, and I am happy to continue to do so and to talk to the right hon. Gentleman about the points he has raised. These are difficult decisions to make. This was the decision we have taken but, as I say, I am happy to have a further conversation with him.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
The sub-postmasters have no trust or faith in the compensation processes being handled by the Post Office or the Government. Today’s commitments will still not deal with all the inequalities in the schemes or the undue influence that the Post Office still has on the process. Echoing the sentiments of some of my hon. Friends, may I ask the Minister to agree to place the compensation schemes into an external independent body, completely outside the influence of the Post Office? I asked the Prime Minister, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) has asked, about the timescales for the legislation to overturn the convictions, but we still have not got an answer. If it is not before the general election, will it be before the summer recess? Finally, when will people be held to account for this miscarriage of justice, be it within the Government, the Post Office or Fujitsu?
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank the hon. Lady for her campaigning on this issue. Again, she has been a key part of the campaign to ensure that people receive justice. Let me deal with the point about fair compensation. As I say, on the GLO scheme, 41 of the 58 full claims that have been submitted have been accepted without even going to the next stage. That would tend to indicate that those first offers are fair. I am aware of some people who feel that their offers are not fair, but I think it is wrong to look at individual cases in this context; it is right that we look to make all the schemes fair. As for undue influence, let me be clear that every part of this process has an independent element to it. Under the GLO scheme and the overturned convictions schemes, that is provided by retired judges, Sir Ross Cranston and Sir Gary Hickinbottom, in order to ensure that those schemes are independent of any “undue influence”, as she puts it. Clearly, the GLO scheme is not being run by the Post Office; it is run by my Department. We are looking at recommendations from the advisory board about what we do with new cases of overturned convictions. On timescales, we have been clear today that we will table the legislation in March and we hope it completes its passage through both Houses by July at the latest. Again, that is not entirely within our gift.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
Around this time last week, I reiterated my call on the Government to include Northern Ireland in this legislation, so I was disappointed to see that it applies only to England and Wales. There is a cross-party consensus in Northern Ireland for this House to take the legislation forward, and that includes my colleague the Justice Minister, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. The Executive has just been restored and they have a large work programme to get through. We have a small number of cases in Northern Ireland. Doing our own legislation would require disproportionate effort and would involve considerable delay, which would remove equity across the UK. Let me reinforce the points made by my colleague the Justice Minister and ask: will the Minister reconsider the position as regards Northern Ireland and include it in the legislation? I understand that that is relatively straightforward to do.
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his points and I am sorry to disappoint him. I understood last week that he might be disappointed in what we were about to announce later that day. I spoke to the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland that day, as I wanted to talk to her before I informed the House of our intention. I will continue to engage with the hon. Gentleman and the Justice Minister, as will my colleagues and officials, to ensure there is no delay for the people affected in Northern Ireland. Of course I am happy to have a continued conversation with him about that.
Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
I thank the Minister for his statement and his continued dedication to the victims of Horizon. Will he apologise to my constituent Louise Dar, former sub-postmistress in Lenzie, for the devastating damage that Post Office Ltd and Horizon did to her and her family’s life and livelihood? Will he ensure compensation is swiftly given to Louise and all other sub-postmasters?
Kevin Hollinrake
I apologise without hesitation. What happened to Louise and her family is a disgrace. It should never have happened, and we should not be in this situation, but we are where we find ourselves. We now need to do exactly what the hon. Lady has set out: seek to deliver compensation as quickly as possible. If she would like a conversation about that case, I am happy to help where I can.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
I come to the House virtually every time we have questions on this subject, or it is before the House, and I am taken in by the Minister’s mellifluous bromides about the compensation scheme. However, a letter from the chief executive of the Post Office, Nick Read, suggests that over half the convictions are safe and that the Post Office would defend them. Furthermore, he says that the Post Office is taking on expert police investigators to investigate the investigators, which is pouring even more good money after bad. How can the sub-postmasters who have been convicted and those who have been wronged by the Horizon scandal have any confidence in a scheme that is influenced by the Post Office in any way? In making decisions, how much are the Government relying on information from investigations by the Post Office?
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Gentleman does contribute virtually every single time the issue is discussed, and I thank him for that. It is hugely important for postmasters in his constituency and further afield that his voice is contributing to those calling for the remedies needed. I am aware of the letter on this issue from the Post Office’s chief executive officer, and what he says; it was his choice to write that letter. Today’s statement, and the one on Thursday, illustrate that the letter had no influence on us; we think that introducing legislation is the right thing to do. We have always been clear that some guilty people will be made innocent through the process. We think that is a risk worth taking—the least worst option. As for the influence on compensation and other matters for individuals, we have ensured that there are independent processes running right through the compensation schemes. The advisory board is holding our feet to the fire very effectively, and I welcome its work.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his statement and his efforts. He will be aware of correspondence from the Northern Ireland Executive and the Department of Justice; my Northern Ireland colleagues have alluded to it. It is a rarity for three parties in Northern Ireland to agree on something, but I believe it is outrageous that Northern Ireland is being excluded from the legislation. Will the Minister redouble his efforts and rethink that? This Parliament is sovereign. Time and again, this Parliament has intervened with laws and legislation on devolved matters in Northern Ireland, so will he go away and urgently relook at this situation?
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I can assure her that I will continue to engage with her on this matter, along with the relevant representatives from the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland, as will our officials. I understand her disappointment. I understand her preference, and the preference of some Ministers in the Justice Department, but we will continue that engagement and try to make sure that compensation in Northern Ireland is not denied or delayed; we do not want that in England and Wales, either.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for the update. He referred to officers, family members and direct employees. I wish to ask this on behalf of family members. The news over the weekend indicated that 250 victims of the Post Office Horizon scandal have passed away; some of them had no knowledge whatsoever that their name would ever be cleared, or that compensation would come. Will the Minister say that every one of those people will have their family members compensated, that help and advice will be available, that they will receive an apology on behalf of their loved ones, and that this will be done as soon as possible?
Kevin Hollinrake
I certainly apologise to all those people to whom the hon. Member refers. I read the reports this weekend about the number of people who have passed away. Indeed, one of my constituents, Sam Harrison of Nawton in Helmsley—one of the original 555—passed away last May prior to receiving compensation, which was devastating for the family. Just to be clear, those claims can still go forward and their estates will be compensated to the same degree. Nevertheless, that is slim comfort in that situation. “Family members” are those who have been directly affected by someone being convicted or prosecuted by the Post Office or the Crown Prosecution Service. Other family members can be compensated under the wider process—for example, where a house has been lost or a bankruptcy has happened. They can benefit through routes for compensation to the family in general. I am happy to have a discussion about everything that we need to look at in that area.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. The hon. Gentleman will find out that I like to observe the courtesies of the House.
That concludes the proceedings on the statement. I thank the Minister and those on the Opposition Front Bench for their attendance.
Points of Order
(9 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. On 22 February, at 10.56 pm, in response to an accusation that Labour MPs had slowed down the day’s proceedings last Wednesday, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant) posted this statement on social media:
“Labour did not slow it down.”
In an interview with Cathy Newman published on YouTube yesterday, he was asked:
“Were you put up to that filibuster, or did you take it upon yourself?”.
He responded:
“A bit of both if I’m honest.”
Mr Deputy Speaker, as you will know, the hon. Member for Rhondda was, until recently, the Chair of the Committee on Standards, and must surely be expected to hold himself to the highest standard of behaviour, including in relation to honesty. He even wrote a book called “Code of Conduct: Why We Need to Fix Parliament–and How to Do It”. Well, he certainly showed us how to do it last week. Can you advise me on what mechanisms are available for an immediate investigation of the hon. Member for Rhondda for bringing this House into disrepute?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of this point of order. The ten-minute rule, giving Members leave to introduce a Bill, limits speeches for and against to 10 minutes each, and those speeches are normally heard without interruption. It is not in order for Members of this House to act in an obstructive manner by speaking at inordinate length, which is what filibustering means. According to Hansard, the speech by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant) took no more than seven minutes. As is clear from column 720, the Chair was, as always, listening carefully to that speech to make sure that it was in order—and for verification, I was the Chair. It is not for the Chair to go into Member’s motives for speaking in the House, or the motives behind when and for how long they choose to speak, as long as when they do, they remain within the rules.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Shell plc, a British company, has proposed the sale of its Nigerian subsidiary, the Shell Petroleum Development Company, SPDC, raising serious concerns that its environmental responsibilities and obligations in the Niger delta could be evaded. This is one of the most significant business and human rights issues of our generation. Shell is responsible for some of the most brutal, violent, and repressive actions by a company, in this case against communities in the Niger delta. This includes complicity in the execution of the Ogoni nine, including writer and human rights activist Ken Saro-Wiwa. Shell’s exit from the Niger delta could set a precedent for other British multinationals operating in the global south that may be seeking to evade responsibility for environmental destruction, leaving communities with little recourse to justice. In 2013, the UK committed to enforcing the United Nations principles on business and human rights. I ask your advice about how this House can ensure that the Government do not allow Shell to leave behind an environmental catastrophe as it seeks to exit the Niger delta.
Mr Deputy Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving notice of his point of order. As he will be aware, that is not a matter for the Chair. He has until 12.30 pm on Wednesday next week to table an oral question to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office for Tuesday 11 March, and of course, as an experienced Member, he knows how to table an early-day motion, and how to apply for a general debate in Westminster Hall, a half-hour Adjournment debate or a Backbench Business debate. The Table Office will be pleased to advise him on other options.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. On 29 November 2023, I wrote to the Prime Minister asking him to correct an oversight in the autumn statement. Although it included welcome additional funding to tackle antisemitism, it did not include an announcement of additional funding to tackle Islamophobia. Three months later, I have yet to receive a response. The Government seem to have a blind spot when it comes to Islamophobia—they cannot even mention the word—and what happened at the weekend makes that especially concerning. They have still not filled the role of independent adviser on Islamophobia, and they refuse to say the word. May I have your guidance on how I might secure a reply from the Prime Minister, so that we can all work urgently to stamp out Islamophobia, antisemitism and all forms of hate speech?
Mr Deputy Speaker
The hon. Lady will be well aware that the Chair is not responsible for ministerial correspondence or responses. I seem to recall that in the dim and distant past, when I was on the Back Benches, I waited quite a long time for ministerial replies myself. I am quite sure that the usual channels will have heard what she had to say. If she wishes for further advice, I am sure that the Table Office will be most willing to help.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. My parliamentary assistant, Jill Brown, has just completed 50 years of continuous service to Members of this House. She joined the House in 1974, in the service of John MacGregor, and subsequently worked for Angela Watkinson and Nick Hurd, my predecessor. I seek your guidance on how the House may best acknowledge that exemplary record of service.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Yet again, that is not a point of order for the Chair. However, I am sure that the whole House will wish to join in congratulating and thanking Jill Brown for her long and distinguished service to several Members of this House.
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Following the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis), the hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant) not only said,
“A bit of both if I’m honest”,
but,
“I think the whole day was grubby and we need a system which doesn’t allow people to manipulate the rules to be able to get what they want.”
The host of “Channel 4 News” then said that that was exactly what Labour did, to which the hon. Member for Rhondda simply laughed, without adding anything further. We all saw in this Chamber a number of spurious points of order, and the hon. Gentleman’s response to the ten-minute rule motion. The Leader of the Opposition denied that any parliamentary chicanery took place. That is clearly not true, so how do I urge the Leader of the Opposition or the hon. Member for Rhondda to come back to the House and correct the record to journalists relating to statements that the hon. Gentleman made outside this House?
Mr Deputy Speaker
I will go out on a limb and say that we probably all agree that the House did not cover itself in glory in that debate last week. That said, the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Paul Holmes) is well aware that the Chair, and indeed officers of the House, are not responsible for remarks made in the media outside the House, so I am afraid that on that score, I cannot assist him further.
Business of the House
(9 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Northern Ireland
(9 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Steve Baker)
I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty welcoming the return of the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland, re-affirming the importance of upholding the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement 1998 in all its strands, acknowledging the foundational importance of the Acts of Union 1800, including the economic provisions under Article 6 of those Acts, and recognising that, consistent with section 23(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, executive power in Northern Ireland shall continue to be vested in His Majesty, and that joint authority is not provided for in the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement 1998 in respect of the UK and Irish Governments.
I say to the House, and particularly to the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would have wanted to be here to move the motion, but he is travelling as he returns from a regional Cabinet meeting, and he sends his apologies.
We have now seen the return of the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland following the publication of the “Safeguarding the Union” Command Paper last month. I believe that I speak for the whole House in welcoming those extremely positive developments, as Northern Ireland had been without a devolved Government for two years. I take this opportunity to congratulate the First Minister, Michelle O’Neill, and, if I may, especially the Deputy First Minister, Emma Little-Pengelly, who, of course, we all know from her time in this House. I wish them both every success. If I may say so, I think the whole nation, which has been paying attention, will be astonished by the brilliance with which they are working together despite their differences on the constitutional question; I, for one, am absolutely delighted.
We have already seen what can be done when the political parties are back in government, working together to deliver for those who elect them. Aided by the £3.3 billion funding package from the UK Government, the Executive have already decided to allocated over £685 million to allow conversations to commence between employers and trade unions. The UK Government’s significant, fair and generous spending settlement will also allow the Northern Ireland Executive to stabilise public services, better manage public finances, increase opportunities for improved infrastructure and investment, and pave the way for the transformation of public services.
I very much look forward to working with the new First Minister, Deputy First Minister and all their ministerial colleagues to deliver those shared objectives, and I eagerly await the Executive’s sustainability plan for Northern Ireland’s finances, including proposals for revenue raising, following the Secretary of State’s discussions with the political parties on those issues at Hillsborough Castle before Christmas.
I move this Humble Address to welcome the return of devolution and further honour the Government’s commitment in the Command Paper to provide a mechanism for Parliament to affirm its commitment to the Acts of Union, and to outline that there is no basis in the Belfast agreement for joint authority arrangements with the Government of Ireland. The UK Government’s commitment to the Belfast agreement, in its totality and all its facets, is resolute and unfaltering.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
This Humble Address reads like a love letter to the DUP—I just caution the DUP not to get too comfortable, because I am not sure that it will be a forever love. A couple of weeks ago, the Secretary of State said in this House that we needed the majority “consent of both” the Unionist community and the nationalist community to achieve constitutional change in Ireland. I wrote to him after that asking him to correct the record, because, of course, we only need a simple majority to see constitutional change in Ireland. He wrote back to me correcting what he had said, but he has not corrected the record in this House. Will the Minister take this opportunity to do so, please?
Mr Baker
I will correct the record: all that is required is a simple majority, just as the hon. Gentleman says. I am sure that we all regret the confusion that has arisen. I will later in my speech address specifically some of the points that he has raised, but I will return them in due course if he will allow me.
The restoration of the strand 1 institutions is welcome news. I am hopeful that we will soon also see the North South Ministerial Council and other strand 2 implementation bodies returned to full operation, alongside the meetings of the British-Irish Council and the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference that are already scheduled to take place in the coming months and which I have attended in the past. That three-stranded approach—that delicate and careful balance—honours the spirit and letter of the agreement, providing a fitting tribute to those brave men and women who, some 26 years ago, helped to deliver the agreement that is the bedrock of so much peace, stability and progress in Northern Ireland.
This Humble Address also rightly acknowledges the foundational importance of the Acts of Union 1800, including the economic provisions under article 6 of those Acts. The Government are clear that the new arrangements committed to in the Command Paper, including the UK internal market system, ensure the smooth flow of trade across the UK. As the House knows, we have already legislated to those ends.
The final part of this Humble Address relates to the constitutional status of Northern Ireland. As Unionists, it is important that this Government emphasise how much Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom is valued and respected, both in law and in practice. Nevertheless, our appreciation of Northern Ireland within the UK is set in the context of respecting the core principles and relationships at the heart of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. At the heart of that agreement is the principle of consent. That means that Northern Ireland will remain an integral part of the United Kingdom, with the Acts of Union and the economic rights under article 6 properly respected and protected in law and with the sovereignty of Parliament undiminished, ruling out joint authority between London and Dublin, which we will not countenance.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
When I last asked him in the House, the Secretary of State assured us that this House can now legislate for VAT in Northern Ireland, which was a very welcome assurance. Can the Minister explain how far the EU can go in legislating for Northern Ireland if we in the Unionist community are not very happy with that?
Mr Baker
I refer my right hon. Friend to the table on page 4 of the Command Paper, which answers his question somewhat more broadly. That table compares Northern Ireland to Ireland as an illustrative member state and Norway as a European economic area state, and goes through the ways in which the status of Northern Ireland, EU membership and EEA membership differ. Anyone looking at that table can see that Northern Ireland is in a completely different place.
When it comes to the specific issue of the extent to which Northern Ireland can be legislated for by the EU, I refer my right hon. Friend to the democratic consent mechanism for the overall arrangement—the first vote on which will take place later in the year—and also to the Stormont brake, to which we could return but which we have covered in previous debates. I have known my right hon. Friend very well for a number of years; I have followed his thoughts on this issue since some years before I was a Member, and I am reluctant to give him a very specific answer on the issue of VAT. I know he will have followed the details, and the last thing I want to do is give him an incorrect answer.
Mr Baker
If my right hon. Friend will agree, I would like to have a meeting with him, because I am very clear that the scope of law that can apply in Northern Ireland is that which is necessary to ensure the smooth flow of goods.
I have said before at this Dispatch Box that we were always going to have special arrangements for Northern Ireland. When I resigned from the then Government in 2018, the issue that I forced among our colleagues in the European Research Group was that of Northern Ireland. We wrote a paper that said that there would need to be alternative administrative and technical arrangements so that there could be an open border with the Republic of Ireland. We understood that there would be special arrangements. There was never going to be an open border with no arrangements to deal with it, and there was never going to be a hard border; it was always going to be necessary to do something unique and special in Northern Ireland.
As I have also said at this Dispatch Box, had this country gone forward with one united voice in accepting the referendum result, and had this country enjoyed the good quality of relations with Ireland and the EU that we enjoy today, we might have done better than leaving in place some EU law in Northern Ireland. I wish we had, but after all we have been through and the eight years it has taken to do it, I think that this settlement taken overall—the Windsor framework plus the Command Paper, including the Humble Address we are debating today—represents the moment to bank what I regard as a win and move forward constructively in the best interests of all the people of the UK, but also the people of the Republic of Ireland.
John Redwood
Let me reassure the Minister that the Secretary of State gave me a very clear assurance in this House that we can legislate for VAT for Northern Ireland —so I am not quite sure why he was querying that.
Mr Baker
The Secretary of State has made that clear, but I have some nervousness when talking to my right hon. Friend because of the extent and difficulty of the walk he and I have had together; I know how powerfully he feels about these issues. I am very clear that the EU can only legislate in relation to the goods law that remains in place and we have had the very clear assurance on VAT, but if he has any further doubts or concerns about this, I would appreciate the opportunity to sit down with him, go through it in great detail and answer all his questions, even if he is not 100% satisfied. As I have said—I think now for the fifth or sixth time—I know that leaving in place some EU law in Northern Ireland is a hard compromise for Unionists and Eurosceptics. It is a hard compromise for me, as I know it is a hard compromise for him. Nevertheless, eight years on, we have delivered what I would regard as alternative arrangements in Northern Ireland—something we were once told was magical thinking and worthy of unicorns.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
Does the Minister of State join me in welcoming the fact that we currently have the first applicability motion being brought before the Assembly? It is a change to the previous arrangements and enables the Assembly to vote on whether a change to an EU law can apply in Northern Ireland. Furthermore, under the auspices of the Assembly’s newly established Democratic Scrutiny Committee, the Assembly will be able to block the application of new EU law and refer it to the UK Government for further consideration, and that ultimately the UK Government can veto that law being applied in Northern Ireland. While imperfect, these arrangements represent very substantial progress from where we were, which was an automatic pipeline of EU law, with no opportunity for scrutiny, and no opportunity to block or veto such a law. We are certainly in a better place than we were before these new arrangements.
Mr Baker
I am most grateful to the right hon. Member. Of course I welcome these arrangements. I was very pleased to give instruction to my officials that the Assembly should be notified. Beyond that, on the particular measure, I do not wish to go any further at all, because I am absolutely determined that this should be a matter for the Assembly, with the UK Government stepping back and leaving it to the democratic consent of MLAs.
Ian Paisley
The Minister does not want to be in a position where he is the gift that keeps on giving to certain people. I would like clarity on this issue of VAT, because it was cleared up from the Dispatch Box before that the EU would have no say on VAT matters. A Minister of the Crown should be able to say, from the Dispatch Box, that the EU has no impact and no say whatsoever on the issue of VAT. I come to this very directly on behalf of a constituent who has already written to me. In the last two weeks, he has received notification that, before he can purchase machinery, he has to provide an EORI—economic operators registration and identification —number, which is a Republic of Ireland VAT mechanism. He does not trade in the Republic of Ireland and he has nothing to do with the Republic of Ireland, yet he has been asked by our authorities to provide an EORI before he purchases equipment in the United Kingdom for trade within the United Kingdom. This has to be cleared up, and it has to be cleared up pretty fast.
Mr Baker
The assurance was given on VAT, and I stand by that assurance. Before this moment, I was not aware of the particular circumstances that the hon. Member has just shared with me. I encourage him either to write to me or to come to see me—perhaps to do both—and let us get to the bottom of it. One thing I am sure of is that we want to get through all these tricky issues as smoothly, transparently and effectively as possible in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland, because it really is time to move on, get public services reformed, get the Government there on to a sustainable basis and allow people to get on with life as usual.
Colum Eastwood
The point is actually in the Humble Address—and the Government seem to be going out of their way both in the Command Paper and the Humble Address to make the point—that, in the Good Friday agreement and the Northern Ireland Act 1998, there is no provision for joint authority. Of course, we all know—those of us who have been around long enough—that many things have changed since then, not least at St Andrews. But, that aside, would the Minister confirm to this House that there is also no provision in the Good Friday agreement or the 1998 Act for direct rule from London?
Mr Baker
Strand 1 is of course a matter for the United Kingdom, and while Northern Ireland is within the United Kingdom, everyone would expect us to make Northern Ireland work within the UK. Although there is no provision for direct rule, I gently point out to the hon. Gentleman that we went to some lengths, and at some cost, not to return to direct rule at this time. We have allowed events to evolve as they have precisely because we did not wish to return to direct rule. We are extremely grateful that there is a returned Executive in Northern Ireland, but we have a responsibility to all citizens of Northern Ireland to ensure that they are governed effectively. That is why we have put in place the arrangements that we made, and I for one am grateful that we did not have to go any further.
Stephen Farry
I am grateful to the Minister. His remark about ensuring that this works for all our citizens has sparked me to life. Will he set out the Government’s approach to reform of the institutions? As he knows, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee produced a comprehensive report on the issue, which to date the Government have simply said that they “note”. There is still a risk that the institutions will collapse, and the same reasons that allowed them to collapse in the past are still there. Hopefully they will not collapse, but that is the danger. Will he assure us that he and his colleagues will work closely with the Irish Government and the parties in Northern Ireland to ensure a proper examination of the rules on the institutions, to ensure that we do not end up in the same mess that we have had twice over the past seven years?
Mr Baker
I am most grateful—although after this I will plunge further into my speech, because I want to conclude it. Our position is very clear that any change must come from the parties in Northern Ireland. That is not to say we are uninterested—I have personally been through an exercise of considering all the possible reforms that there could be. At the end of that lengthy exercise, I concluded that no plan for reform of the institutions and their operation would work if it was driven by yours truly. It is essential that this conversation comes from the parties in Northern Ireland. I do not doubt that we will wish to note and take interest in such a conversation, but it is for the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, who are well represented on the opposition Benches, to move such a conversation forward. That is not something that the UK Government will be driving forward. It is vital that the new Executive now have the space to get on with governing Northern Ireland and doing what is very much needed.
Richard Graham
I am grateful to the Minister. The hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) earlier described the statement as a “love letter to the DUP”, but I saw it more as a love letter to Northern Ireland, and the huge opportunities that can be seized from realising what he and his colleagues, working with all parties in Northern Ireland, have managed to pull together. Does he agree that an interesting statistic about Northern Ireland this year is the huge increase in the number of businesses registered there? I think it is up by 60% in the last year alone. Surely that is a great sign of the confidence that people and businesses now have in the opportunities in Northern Ireland.
Mr Baker
I certainly agree about the extraordinary opportunity before Northern Ireland.
The Belfast/Good Friday agreement and the Northern Ireland Act 1998 are explicit that any change to the constitutional status of Northern Ireland would require the consent of a simple majority of its people. The UK Government are absolutely clear that there is no basis to suggest that at present a majority of people in Northern Ireland wish to separate from the UK. Our position is therefore straightforward: Northern Ireland has a bright and prosperous future within the Union, for as long as the people of Northern Ireland wish it. That position does not diminish the right of others to pursue through democratic and peaceful means their aspiration for other outcomes.
We all remain committed to building and strengthening the three sets of relationships at the heart of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. The restoration of the political institutions at Stormont will enable critical relationships across and between communities in Northern Ireland to be strengthened, with vital work on building reconciliation to be taken forward in the months and years ahead. There are new opportunities to strengthen co-operation in the relationship between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland from outside the EU. This co-operation does not threaten Northern Ireland’s constitutional status, but it can help to build economic prosperity and deliver vital investment in infrastructure. As a UK Government, we also recognise the need to invest in east-west relationships, not only within the United Kingdom, as with the new UK East-West Council, but through the other institutions, such as the British-Irish Council and the intergovernmental conference.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I am heartened to hear what the Minister has said about the importance of the east-west connections. Sometimes there is not enough emphasis on those, so I am keen to hear what the Minister will do to ensure that those happen with a much more concrete attitude, as well as what he will do on Ulster Scots and the culture. It is not only east-west in the UK that is important, but east-west to the USA. Those are some of the things I feel we should be doing.
Mr Baker
I know we will hear from my hon. Friend many times on these issues, and he has a great deal to contribute. I will see to it, particularly with this new role I have jointly with the Cabinet Office, that the Command Paper is vigorously implemented with all the strength I can muster to get it done at a speed that suits him and me. I will update the House in due course as we make progress. I certainly want the whole House and all the people of Northern Ireland to know what we are doing and when we are doing it, and to see that we are making progress with vigour. I certainly commit to doing that. I have had this joint role with the Windsor framework taskforce for a week, and I have made some progress, but I hope he will understand that I am not ready today to commit to a timeline to all the institutions being up and running. We certainly will proceed with vigour.
Our exit from the EU should not mean that co-operation and friendship are diminished. Rather, it compels us all to work harder to invest in and strengthen all the relationships that are important to the peoples within these islands and across Europe. Our independent status should in no way diminish our friendship. I commend this Humble Address to the House.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
Whether this Humble Address is or is not a love letter to anyone, I will leave for others to debate, but it certainly can be described as a coda to the recent restoration of the institutions in Northern Ireland. As we have heard from the Minister, it addresses a number of matters that I shall briefly touch upon, but may I make it clear at the beginning that the Opposition will be supporting it?
This is our first opportunity as a House to welcome the return of devolved government, and I wish to acknowledge the leadership of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) in recognising that, for the sake of Northern Ireland and its people, the DUP needed to return to government, and in arguing the case for that course of action so persuasively. The Secretary of State and I have both had the pleasure of meeting the new First Minister and Deputy First Minister. I must say that I agree with the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), that they have made a positive start and have set the tone for what we all hope will be a constructive and productive Administration. I join him in wishing both of them, together with the other members of the Executive and indeed the whole Assembly, every success in their responsibilities, because their task—our task, collectively—is to ensure that this restoration endures. Let us be frank, however. I hope people will also recognise that never again should Northern Ireland find itself without its Assembly and its devolved Government.
It is also right that we reaffirm our support for the Good Friday agreement in all its strands and dimensions. It is important for us to do so, because the agreement made possible the considerable progress we have seen in Northern Ireland, including the establishment of power sharing. That reaffirming is also needed because there was a perception that some of the language in the recent Command Paper was not wholly in keeping with the spirit of shared commitment.
I will raise one section of the Command Paper that I found genuinely puzzling, which is what it said about the all-island economy and the Government’s commitment to remove the legal duties to have regard to the all-island economy in section 10(1)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. That section of the withdrawal Act actually refers to having
“due regard to the joint report from the negotiators of the EU and the United Kingdom Government on progress during phase 1 of negotiations under Article 50”
on the United Kingdom’s orderly withdrawal from the EU. The report runs to 15 pages, but there appears, as far as I can see, to be only one reference in it to the all-island economy, in the last two lines of paragraph 49.
In responding, can the Minister explain what the effect would be of repealing section 10(1)(b) of the 2018 Act, given that it refers to the whole of the joint report, and not just to the reference in paragraph 49 to the all-island economy? Does that mean Ministers would no longer have to have regard to anything at all in the joint report —surely that cannot be the case—or are the Government saying that they wish to remove the reference to the all-island economy in paragraph 49? In that case, given that it was a joint report agreed between the United Kingdom and the European Union, have Ministers told the EU of their intentions? To follow up, when might we see the legislation and the new statutory guidance?
No one is in any doubt that Northern Ireland does far more trade with the UK internal market than it does with Ireland, and that will continue to be the case, but it is also evident that trade between Northern Ireland and the Republic has increased since we left the European Union. That tells us that the all-island economy is both a fact and greatly to the benefit of businesses and people in Northern Ireland, whether that is milk from Northern Ireland going south to be processed, or Coca-Cola produced in the firm’s flagship plant in Lisburn being sold all over Ireland and beyond, or Guinness coming north from Dublin.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The right hon. Gentleman has rightly identified one of the impacts of the Windsor framework and the Northern Ireland protocol: namely, that trade is now being diverted to the Irish Republic, as firms in Northern Ireland find it more difficult to link with their supply chains in GB and are forced to look at supplies from the Irish Republic. Some of the people who are now purchasing from the Republic tell me that those supplies are more expensive and of lower quality.
Hilary Benn
The first point I would make to the right hon. Gentleman is that the three examples I have just given have nothing at all to do with the Northern Ireland protocol or the Windsor framework; they were all pre-existing facts of the all-island economy, which those businesses welcomed because it is about the ability to trade, find markets, sell their goods and make a return. Secondly, he returns, understandably, to the essential problem that the protocol and the Windsor framework have been trying to address, and it is the point that the Minister made openly in his speech, which is that once we left the EU, there was an issue about the border. One way or another, a way had to be found to ensure that goods moving across that non-existent border complied with the rules of the single market. The current Government under a previous Prime Minister made a choice as to how it was going to be done. I strongly support the Windsor framework, precisely because it is an important step forward in trying to make that trade, as the Minister referred to, as easy as possible for businesses. I make that point because many businesses do not really understand why the phrase “all-island economy” should provoke such strong feelings, especially when there has recently been a warm welcome to the allocations from the shared island fund for cross-community projects that will strengthen the all-island economy, including the much-needed improvement to the A5, a more regular train service between Belfast and Dublin, the Narrow Water bridge connecting the counties of Down and Meath, and a contribution to the building of Casement Park so that, in four years, we can all celebrate Northern Ireland helping to host the European football championship. I make that point because many businesses do not really understand why the phrase “all-island economy” should provoke such strong feelings, especially when there has recently been a warm welcome to the allocations from the shared island fund for cross-community projects that will strengthen the all-island economy, including the much-needed improvement to the A5, a more regular train service between Belfast and Dublin, the Narrow Water bridge connecting the counties of Down and Meath, and a contribution to the building of Casement Park so that, in four years, we can all celebrate Northern Ireland helping to host the European football championship.
Nevertheless, we warmly endorse the renewed commitment to the Good Friday agreement contained in the Humble Address, which of course was the then Government’s extraordinary achievement with all the parties involved in the negotiation almost 26 years ago. It is only right that we should remind ourselves as a country of the peace that it has created and of the obligations we took on when we signed it. That includes, as the Minister said, recognition that the future constitutional status of Northern Ireland is a matter for the people of Northern Ireland alone, and that with our co-guarantor, the Irish Government, we have a shared interest in continuing to promote peace, prosperity and progress north and south.
On the next section, when I read the Humble Address I wondered in passing when the Acts of Union 1800 were last referred to in a motion tabled by the Government. In the light of recent events, I felt that I should familiarise myself with the original Acts, although they have, of course, been considerably amended since. The Act of Union (Ireland) 1800 is short by modern standards—they knew how to say things much more briefly than we seem to manage these days—and contains a number of interesting provisions, including the application of tariffs and excise on certain categories of goods moving between Great Britain and Ireland. The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley raised that point with me when we debated the matter recently.
Now, I do not think anyone wants to restore tariffs and excise on certain categories of goods moving, and I do not think anyone wants to restore section 21 of the Government of Ireland Act 1920, which required that movement of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland be treated as imports and exports for the purposes of forms to be used and the information to be furnished. As we were told, customs officers were instructed to conduct physical inspections of ships with daily sailings twice weekly. How many people even recall that, in 1947, the Stormont Parliament introduced a requirement that workers from Great Britain would need a work permit to go and work in Northern Ireland?
Those are not just interesting historical facts. As the Command Paper’s informative annex pointed out—congratulations to the civil servants who did the research and drafted that—the Acts of Union have not been a guarantor at all times of free and unfettered movements of goods and people over the centuries. Instead, they have framed a slightly more complex relationship than is sometimes suggested.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
The shadow Secretary of State is absolutely right. That is why, in our seven tests, we talked about fulfilling the Acts of Union, while others—those who had not bothered to read the original Acts of Union, who did not know what they were talking about, who seek to rewrite history and who declare themselves as the champions of Unionism but do not know their facts—talked about restoring something, which would mean customs checks on goods moving between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, and tariffs on goods manufactured in Northern Ireland being sold in Great Britain. That is the kind of nonsense that our detractors daily pump out. They should check their facts, know their history and understand what they are talking about.
Hilary Benn
May I say to the right hon. Gentleman that we have just had a wonderful example of the persuasive power of his argument? Whoever we are, and whatever view we hold, getting the facts right is really quite basic to doing our job in this place. That is why it is important—especially in the context of Northern Ireland—to get those facts right.
I turn to the last part of the Humble Address, which is simply talking about facts. It states the fact that this House retains the right to legislate in respect of Northern Ireland, and it is simply a fact that the Good Friday agreement and the Northern Ireland Act 1998 do not provide for joint authority with the Irish Government over what happens inside Northern Ireland. That is also acknowledged by the Irish Government. But, at the same time—I welcome what the Minister said—we must do all we can to foster and strengthen the shared institutions established under strand 3 of the Good Friday agreement, not least because we have made most progress on this difficult matter when we have had a close working relationship with the Irish Government.
In conclusion, returning to the first section of the Humble Address, may I simply say that I look forward to working with all—and I mean all—Members of the House and of the Northern Ireland Assembly, and also with the Executive, as together we turn our minds to the task in hand, which is now simply to build a brighter and a better future for the people of Northern Ireland?
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
I have almost lost count of the number of times I have taken to my feet in this Chamber to say that Northern Ireland is governed best when it is governed locally. At last, we can now say that will be the case. No doubt, in terms of the agreement—the settlement that has been reached—there will be imperfections, compromises and asymmetries, and elements that are not for the self-appointed purists. However, there is certainly enough there for the pragmatists to allow for the progress that needs to be made.
Over the course of my time speaking for the Scottish National party on Northern Irish issues, I have had the great pleasure of serving as a member of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly. Understandably, much bandwidth in that organisation has been taken up with Brexit and its aftermath, the resulting fallout—and indeed many of the occasional fallings out that have resulted. However, when my committee met in Edinburgh last week, there was a definite change in the tone of conversations outside the formal business. I hope I am not putting words in any Members’ mouths by saying that there was a pleasure, a realism, certainly an optimism, and definitely a realism about recent developments, but the key thing was that nobody was any longer asking about when might Stormont return; rather, it was what would now be done by Stormont to improve the lot of people in Northern Ireland now that it had returned.
Within the agreement, one of the areas that leaps out—I hope that, in time, Ministers will expand on their vision for it—is the East-West Council to deal with matters of business, education and culture across that east-west axis. Even from the perspective of a hard-bitten Scottish nationalist much like myself, that opens up a great deal of useful space potentially to share and develop all that we have in common, all that we continue to have in common, and all that we will have in common and which will endure regardless of wherever our respective constitutional journeys happen to conclude in future.
Jim Shannon
Part of the engagement that the hon. Gentleman and I have had together was on his visit to my constituency of Strangford, where he had the opportunity to look at joint matters that we could agree on, such as fishing issues including visas for fishermen, and cultural issues. We took him to meet many community groups and other organisations as well. Does he agree that one of the important things for him and I was that, although we have different opinions on the constitution, we can agree on many things?
Richard Thomson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Yes, when we put the constitution to one side, there are indeed many issues that can be agreed on or worked on together. That is why I find that the space that that council might offer quite compelling. It is certainly something of great interest. Now that politics in Northern Ireland has indeed moved on, it is perhaps time for me to hop once again on the Loganair flight from Aberdeen and perhaps renew some acquaintances.
In the many words we heard throughout the Brexit debate on where Northern Ireland found itself snagged, we often heard a rather boilerplate expression about a “precious Union”. That struck my ears. Those words were easy—perhaps too easy at times—for many in this place to pay lip service to without actually following through on them in practice. Sometimes it is easy to say things, but it is much harder to reflect. It seemed to us that the desire for a particular form of Brexit—favoured only by a small minority hiding behind a small majority in one part of the Union—was given primacy and priority, and was allowed to prevail over the clear wishes of other constituent parts of the Union. For many, however they voted in the Scottish independence referendum in 2014, that reopened that debate and encouraged them to reappraise the position that they might have taken at that time.
I can certainly understand why the Humble Address before us is worded in this manner. The key word that the Minister has, in effect, conceded was implied but left unspoken was consent, where it applies to the executive power being vested in His Majesty. That is interesting to me for a number of reasons. Union by consent is how many of us in Scotland understand our position in the Union to work. But unlike Northern Ireland, we have nothing similar in statute to the wording of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, explaining what happens if a majority of those voting in Scotland were to express a wish to cease to be part of the UK. I would contend that in all parts of the Union there should be a way to demonstrate how consent has been withdrawn by the people, if it is being withdrawn. Following the events of the last few days, just like this Parliament, maintaining that consent will be judged by how the institution of the Union treats its minorities and is seen to act with integrity in all that it does.
In conclusion, we on the SNP Benches wish the people of Northern Ireland and their institutions well. We look forward to seeing their politicians and those institutions playing a full role in those bodies, be they north, south, east or west, and to seeing the Good Friday agreement move forward in all its strands, as we always hoped it would, to allow a peaceful, prosperous Northern Ireland to continue to come to terms with its past and be at ease in building its shared future, whatever its people decide that future ought to look like.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
I thank the Minister of State for leading this debate today and for his words. I also thank the Shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn). It is good to hear that common approach to recognising the settled will of the people of Northern Ireland, which is that we should remain part of the United Kingdom. That does not prevent others from pursuing their aspirations by peaceful and democratic means.
This Parliament is reflecting the settled will of the people of Northern Ireland. It is the first time in almost 27 years in this House that I have heard great clarity spoken about the Government’s approach to Northern Ireland and their desire to value Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom and, for as long as it is the will of the people of Northern Ireland, about binding our Union together more strongly so that it delivers for everyone. That is what we are in the business of doing, and it is delivering for all the people of Northern Ireland.
I welcome the motion before us this evening and its reaffirmation of the constitutional basis for Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom, whether that be the Acts of Union or the Northern Ireland Act 1998, enshrining within it the principle of consent, which was long fought for by Unionists in Northern Ireland but was undermined by the Northern Ireland protocol. It is important for people in Northern Ireland to hear that reasserted and reaffirmed, and to understand that this is the position not only of the Government of the United Kingdom, but of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. It is important to preserve those core principles at the heart of the Belfast agreement. It was frustrating for us when the European Union claimed that the protocol was designed to safeguard the Belfast or Good Friday agreement and the political institutions when, in fact, it had the opposite effect because it did not have the support or consent of the Unionist community.
I welcome the return of devolution in Northern Ireland. I am a committed devolutionist. I believe that a properly functioning devolved Government, delivering for all our people, will cement Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom because people will be comfortable living, working and raising their family in the place that we call home.
I believe that the decision to foist the protocol on Northern Ireland, which had been rejected by every single Unionist Member of the Legislative Assembly, was a mistake. I am glad that we have gone a long way towards correcting the harm done by the protocol to Northern Ireland and to the very delicate political balances at the heart of how Northern Ireland operates, underpinning once again the principles—such as consent—which ensure that Northern Ireland moves forward on the basis of a cross-community consensus. That is how power sharing operates. That is how devolution can deliver for people in Northern Ireland.
The lesson from Northern Ireland over the past 25 years is the need for that consensus from both Unionists and nationalists at every major juncture. This is a universal lesson in any divided society. In 2019 in this House, the former Member for North Belfast, now the noble Lord Dodds, stood in this House and warned us that to proceed with the deal with only the support of one side would be a short-term fix and would undermine devolution in the long term. He was right. That is why it is important that we all commit ourselves today never to do this again, and always to do what we can to underpin and strengthen the need for that cross-community consensus in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland will move forward only when we move forward together. Leaving one side behind only stores up problems for the future.
Many believed that we would not succeed in renegotiating the protocol. At times we were warned—not least by the Irish Government and others—that that would simply not happen. I am pleased that, thanks to the decisive action taken by my party, we got to a point where the EU came back to the negotiating table and progress was made. We have built upon that progress through the measures that have been set forward in the Command Paper “Safeguarding the Union”. Our objective was to remove the border in the UK internal market—those unnecessary checks on goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland and remaining within the United Kingdom. There was no need for the checks and the customs procedures that were imposed under the protocol because those goods were not leaving the United Kingdom. They did not present a risk to the European Union and its single market.
The desire and the objective of removing those internal barriers to trade within the United Kingdom internal market was also a desire to ensure that we continued to have our privileged access to the EU single market. The shadow Secretary of State was right to say that our biggest market is Great Britain. We sell £12 billion worth of goods each year, manufactured in Northern Ireland, to Great Britain. We sell £8 billion a year to the European Union. It is an important market for us. It is an important market for businesses in my constituency and in all the constituencies of my right hon. and hon. Friends. Maintaining access to that market is, therefore, important, but we were always clear that it should not be on the basis of restricting access to our biggest market, the rest of the United Kingdom.
I welcome the legislation that was introduced and has now been passed by both Houses of Parliament to strengthen our unfettered access to the market in Great Britain, and to safeguard our supply chains from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, ensuring that where goods stay within the UK internal market, they flow freely. We look forward to the further measures and legislation under the Command Paper proposals to deliver on the Government’s commitments to restore Northern Ireland’s place within the UK internal market.
I will not go into the detail, as we have rehearsed well what the Command Paper proposes, but I recognise that concerns remain within Unionist ranks about how it will operate in practice. There is more work to be done. I acknowledge that and we acknowledge that as a party. We will continue to work together with the Government to ensure that where more work is needed, it is taken forward and completed. That includes on areas such as veterinary medicines, in which my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) has taken a particular interest. He will be involved in working with the Government to take forward a piece of work to ensure Northern Ireland’s access to veterinary medicines is protected for the future.
There is more work to be done on the so-called red lane, which deals with goods travelling in transit from Great Britain via Northern Ireland into the European Union, or goods that are deemed at risk, for example intermediate goods used in manufacturing where the product is sold to the European Union. We need to ensure that goods travelling into the red lane are only those required for the purpose of satisfying the requirements and standards that the EU sets for entry to its single market. There is more work to be done on that. The Minister will work with us—he has already committed to do that.
We welcome the fact that already, as a result of the recent agreement reached between the UK Government and the European Union, Northern Ireland will benefit from free trade agreements that the UK enters into with other countries, so that goods entering the UK and travelling into Northern Ireland will not have to go through the red lane, and will not be subject to checks and customs procedures. That represents over 12,500 tonnes of goods moving across the Irish sea; some 4 million goods movements that have been removed from the red lane and going into the UK internal market system. That is the kind of progress we can make and will continue to make to address the outstanding issues.
Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman knows how much I value his work and the leadership he has shown. On changes at EU level, the announcement by Maroš Šefčovič in the Joint Committee about goods at risk demonstrates the point he makes so well. This is not just some internal reorganisation; it has international ramifications. That really should demonstrate to businesses in Northern Ireland that this is a serious change that will benefit them. As he says, we can work through the problems and work out some of the other glitches to get them resolved as well. I commend him on that point.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
I thank the Chairman of the Select Committee for his comments. I believe the challenges we faced as a result of the measures imposed under the protocol are now being properly and adequately addressed. For example, many goods made to British standards in Great Britain were banned from our supermarket shelves in Northern Ireland. That is no longer the case. British goods made to British standards are now available on our supermarket shelves. There is more work to be done and more progress to be made in that respect. This is ongoing work that we will build on.
Jim Shannon
My right hon. Friend is talking about specific cases in relation to goods. Will he confirm that the intention behind the legislation is for the Government to make a positive case to companies that have stopped selling to Northern Ireland for whatever reason—whether green lanes or red lanes—to re-engage and trade with Northern Ireland again?
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
My hon. Friend makes an important point, which I was coming on to but is worth mentioning now. Not only does the Command Paper set out the practical and legal changes that will occur to restore Northern Ireland’s place within the UK internal market, but the establishment of the UK East-West Council will also help to bind Northern Ireland more closely to the rest of the United Kingdom. I welcome the comments by the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson), who takes a keen interest in Northern Ireland. In fairness to him he recognises, notwithstanding his aspirations in relation to Scotland’s future, that there is real value in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England working more closely together, whether on trade, sharing our experiences on education, or sharing the richness of our heritage and our culture. Those things are important. The new UK East-West Council will ensure a more joined-up approach, so that there is more working together and more co-operation across the whole United Kingdom.
On the specific point my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) makes, the establishment of the new Intertrade UK body will ensure that a proactive approach is taken in instances where businesses in Great Britain have decided that making their goods available to customers in Northern Ireland is not worth the hassle. Those businesses will be approached. Intertrade UK will seek to understand why they are no longer doing business in Northern Ireland, and assist them to restore their trading arrangements with consumers and customers in Northern Ireland.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
The Essex constituency that I represent has a vast horticultural industry that has been prevented from sending its products—seeds and all the other goods that people in Northern Ireland would love to purchase—to Northern Ireland. This is a new opportunity for those businesses. I praise the Department for its engagement with Kings Seeds, based in Kelvedon in my constituency. We have to work through many of the practical issues that have put up barriers. People to people, we can facilitate trade flows that benefit everyone.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
I thank the right hon. Lady for her intervention and for her ongoing interest in Northern Ireland, which is always great to see. She is right. Intertrade UK will cover not just issues related to the availability of goods in Northern Ireland, but trade across the UK, between Scotland and England, England and Wales, and so on. It is designed, in the new environment we find ourselves in, to encourage greater trade within the United Kingdom. We have a market in the United Kingdom in the region of 60 million people. It is the second-biggest market in Europe and we should be selling more of our own goods to our own people. The purpose of Intertrade UK is to encourage those enhanced, stronger trading links across all of the United Kingdom. Of course, the Union is not just a political union; it is an economic union. It was the economic union in particular that was harmed by the protocol. The new measures are designed to restore those trading relationships to a more healthy place.
In welcoming the restoration of the devolved institutions, it is important to recognise that one key difficulty with the protocol was the lack of democratic input for the political institutions in Northern Ireland. Laws were being applied automatically to Northern Ireland—new laws and changes to the law—on which Northern Ireland had no say whatever. We welcome the establishment of the Democratic Scrutiny Committee in the Northern Ireland Assembly, which will now have the function to scrutinise laws that are coming forward. It will have the power to stop those laws applying, as I said earlier. The UK Government ultimately have the power of veto if laws are deemed to be harmful to Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom and its internal market. That is all progress.
I note that some who were critical of the new arrangements and said that the new Democratic Scrutiny Committee was powerless now complain that they are unable to obtain membership of it. Furthermore, I note that some of our detractors now talk about the risk of what they call “trivergence” whereby if the Assembly, exercising its power, vetoes a new law being applied to Northern Ireland, all of a sudden that might create a problem in so far as Northern Ireland will have different law from the EU and, potentially, different law from Great Britain. But in the new arrangements put in place as a result of the Command Paper, Northern Ireland goods will be available for sale in Great Britain regardless of the circumstances. There is a goods guarantee built into the legislation that this House has approved, which means that Northern Ireland goods, in all circumstances, can be sold in Great Britain. However, I note that those who said the new arrangements would be ineffective now complain that they will be so effective that they might be counterproductive when it comes to Northern Ireland’s interests. Which is it? Either they are effective or they are not. We believe that they can be effective, and we are prepared to test the new mechanisms to ensure that they protect the interests of everyone in Northern Ireland.
Let me make a few general points. We welcome the commitments that the UK Government have given about Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom, including those given from the Dispatch Box this evening, but I also note that we hear much talk about border polls, and much talk, particularly from Sinn Féin, about the need for such a poll. It is worth recalling the history of Sinn Féin’s approach to border polls. As long ago as 2011, Gerry Adams told us that by 2016, Northern Ireland would leave the United Kingdom. We are almost 10 years on from 2016, and we are still in the UK. By August 2021, Gerry had changed 2016 to 2024; well, 2024 has arrived, and we are still in the UK. In May 2022, Mary Lou McDonald called for a border poll by 2027, but then she changed that to 2030, and just this month Michelle O’Neill shifted the Sinn Féin goalposts once again to call for a border poll by 2034. But they recognise the reality—that it is the settled will of the people of Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom—and all this talk of divisive border polls is designed simply to reassure the Sinn Féin base.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
On our constitutional future, does my right hon. Friend agree that in the changed Northern Ireland that now exists, there are many of us who are proud of our British nationality and will never yield on that, while others are proud of their Irishness? Also, many do not share either constitutional identity. Only membership of the United Kingdom allows people to cherish all three.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
I thank my hon. Friend for making that powerful point. The beauty of Northern Ireland today is that each of us has the right to identify ourselves in whatever way we deem appropriate, but it is evident that the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland continue to accept that the settled will of the people is to remain in the United Kingdom, and that should be respected by everyone, regardless of how they identify themselves. It is clear to me, however, that Unionists, myself included, have a job to do in continuing to persuade people that the Union is best for all. This debate is welcome, but neither Parliament nor the courts will ultimately decide Northern Ireland’s future. It is the people of Northern Ireland who will decide our future in the United Kingdom, and our job as Unionists is to continue to persuade the majority that they are better off in the United Kingdom.
Let me say this, with great respect, to my colleagues, not on these Benches but out there in wider Unionism, many of them detractors of us in the DUP—those who attack my party and the stand that we are taking, because we recognise that building a prosperous Northern Ireland that works for everyone is the key to securing the Union for the future. Let me say to those who are a minority in Unionism, but who still live in the days of the 1970s when Unionism had an inbuilt majority, that Northern Ireland is changing. Its demographics are changing. We need only look at the results of recent polling to see that.
Unionism has to recognise that among younger people, support for the Union is not as strong as it is among more senior citizens in Northern Ireland. Our task is to persuade our young people, the next generation, that the Union works for them The way we did it in 1970 is not the way we will do it now in 2024, or in 2030, or in 2034. It is a prosperous Northern Ireland—a Northern Ireland that delivers jobs for our young people, and ensures that they have the best education and the best start in life—that will deliver support for the Union. That is fundamentally and vitally important.
The signs are good in that regard. Today Northern Ireland has less unemployment than any other region in the United Kingdom outside London, which is an impressive indicator of the extent to which it has moved forward from the days when unemployment was beyond 12% and we had the highest unemployment in the United Kingdom. That is what making Northern Ireland work looks like. Making Northern Ireland work looks like delivering jobs for our young people, driving down unemployment, improving our economy, creating jobs and attracting investment, and the new arrangements that we are introducing give us an opportunity to do that even better in the future.
Those are the arguments that will secure the Union for the future, and Unionism needs to do better. We can be proud of a Northern Ireland that is delivering in terms of its manufacturing industry. One in three aircraft seats in every aircraft across the world is manufactured in Northern Ireland. Every Airbus wing includes components manufactured in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson). We have a world-class creative industry, as is clear from the number of new films being produced in Northern Ireland. We have a talented workforce, and the costs of establishing a business in Northern Ireland are 40% lower than those elsewhere. We have unfettered access to the UK internal market, and we have privileged access to the EU single market.
I therefore believe that there is a bright future for Northern Ireland, one in which our economy grows—and as it grows, support for the Union will grow, because who wants to disrupt what is successful? Who wants to move away from what makes Northern Ireland work for all its people? I stand here today with optimism for Northern Ireland, the place that I call home and am proud to come from. Its people have so much potential, and we have an opportunity now to demonstrate potential for all our people.
Jim Shannon
May I reinforce what my right hon. Friend has just said? In the constituency of North Down, which is next to mine and is covered by Ards and North Down Borough Council, there have been 160 business start-ups in the last year. That is an indication of how good our people are, given the opportunity.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
My hon. Friend has made a powerful point. I want to see that prosperity spread across Northern Ireland—to the constituency of the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood), to West Tyrone, to Mid Ulster, to Fermanagh and South Tyrone, to Newry and Armagh, and to South Down—so that Northern Ireland works for everyone.
Another significant point is that 2023 was the first year in my lifetime when no one was recorded as having been murdered in a troubles-related crime. Progress is not just measured in jobs; it is measured in lives—in the lives of our young people who do not today run the risk of being murdered because of their political aspiration or their political perspective. That, too, is a mark of the progress we have made, but we do not take our peace for granted. Cementing the peace also means building prosperity, because a Northern Ireland that works for everyone is a Northern Ireland that will succeed and prosper.
As a confident Unionist, I am very much at home working on matters of mutual concern with our friends and neighbours across the United Kingdom. I am willing to go on co-operating with our neighbours on the island that we share, our neighbours in the Republic of Ireland. I simply ask of them that they too respect the settled will of the people of Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom, and recognise that our co-operation is about working together, so we both an benefit from the prosperity that I believe can come. As a Unionist by conviction, I want to see Northern Ireland playing its full part in the economic life and the economic success of this United Kingdom. I believe in this United Kingdom, and I believe that Northern Ireland has a bright place and a bright future in the Union.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
I apologise for my voice being a bit croaky; I might have to give up slightly earlier than planned. We will see how it goes.
I want to stress that a lot of people in Northern Ireland, including members of my party, have shown enormous patience and pragmatism, especially over the past two years, during which the Assembly has not met. I recognise the efforts made by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) to get his party back into institutions, but we have to recognise that enormous damage was done during the two-year suspension, as it was whenever Sinn Féin took the institutions down previously. We have a lot of work to do to undo the damage that has been done, as well as build for the future. Hopefully, we can find consensus tonight on the importance of Northern Ireland having a prosperous future.
I do not want to linger on this point, but Brexit is the original sin behind the problems that Northern Ireland has had over the past seven or eight years. We have had the common theme of trying to find various mechanisms through which we can address the particular challenges posed in Northern Ireland, and of putting in place special arrangements. I hope that the Windsor framework, albeit with modifications in its implementation, can provide a degree of stability, but there is a wider point to be made about the future: the closer the UK and the European Union are aligned with each other, the less the impact of difference will be across the Irish Sea, whether we are talking about any residual checks that take place or tensions that arise about standards and regulation. Although I hope that we are closing this phase of the Brexit wars, particularly as applied to Northern Ireland, we still need to address how the UK and the European Union can find a better working relationship over the coming years. I say that while maintaining my own and my party’s aspiration that one day we will return to the European Union—and, perhaps even before that, the single market and the customs union.
As for our approach to what has happened, we have given the DUP and the Government a considerable amount of space, and recognised that there were issues that they had to work through to get to this point. Equally, we have to recognise that we have had a one-sided political negotiation in Northern Ireland, which is at odds with practice over the 25 years since the Good Friday agreement and, indeed, before that. We were pragmatic in that regard, provided we saw a situation that would not damage the Good Friday agreement, that no damage would be done to Northern Ireland’s dual-market access to both the UK and wider EU markets, and that the parties were kept informed. On all three of those tests, there are some issues that we need to air, which arise from the Command Paper.
We have been careful not to destabilise the restoration of the Good Friday institutions earlier this month, and tonight is perhaps a better opportunity to articulate some of the relevant points, rather than our rocking the boat at an earlier stage. In many respects, the Command Paper has no legal effect, and we are careful not to get too wound up about it. For some, it could be characterised as a glorified press release, but there are measures in it that may cause us all concern, and their implementation will be critical. Aspects of the language are one-sided and loaded, which perhaps points to wider issues of mindset that pose some concerns. Let me give the House a few examples.
Like the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), I am concerned about the marginalisation of the duty to have due regard to the all-island economy in legislation. Removing those words from law does not, in itself, erase the reality of an all-island economy, but there is the danger of a change of mindset leading to missed opportunities. I would be very wary of a situation whereby we falsely set the UK economy against the all-island economy; the two can operate in perfect harmony and complement each other. Of course, the all-island economy is different from the UK economy, because there are separate jurisdictions in the all-island economy. Obviously, there are differences around tax, regulation and governance—just to give a few examples. However, Northern Ireland is in a situation where sales and supply chains operate on both an east-west and a north-south basis, and the all-island economy exists as a concept above and beyond Northern Ireland’s access to the EU single market.
A clear example of that is the existence of InterTradeIreland, which the Command Paper mirrors with the creation of Intertrade UK. Another is the fact that we have the single electricity market on the island, which has been one of the great success stories of north-south co-operation. That was not even envisaged in the Good Friday agreement, but happened afterwards through sheer pragmatism and the recognition of reality, including by DUP Economy Ministers at the time. We also have the reality of agrifood movements; we have some highly intricate arrangements on the island in that regard. If we end up in a situation where we do not give due regard to the all-island economy, we may end up missing opportunities to drive Northern Ireland’s prosperity, because we have to be open to all economic opportunities that come our way, irrespective of their characteristics. That is a particular danger in relation to the Stormont brake, which I will come to in a moment.
I recognise that European Union law is an issue of contention for many people in this House. For me, it is not remotely threatening whatsoever. I want to actively embrace it, because it is key to Northern Ireland’s access to the EU single market. We should not be running away from EU law, which is there to safeguard labour rights, consumer protection, environmental protection and other related areas. Companies want to have certainty on those issues for the environment in which they are operating, and those that export in particular want to have the ability to operate to the standards of their largest export markets in any event—so this is not a matter that the business community is raising concerns about.
I appreciate that in the long run, the Stormont brake may not actually change that much about Northern Ireland’s adherence to EU law. If, however, we find ourselves in a situation whereby there is either a delay or some other form of uncertainty in the applicability of updated EU law in Northern Ireland, it may create an issue for some inward investors into Northern Ireland, who rely on certainty about regulations, particularly in highly regulated areas—for example, pharmaceuticals. If we want to fully capitalise on our dual market access, we need to be very careful not to hollow that out from within by playing political games around the Stormont brake. We will reserve judgment to see how that works in practice but, on paper, it causes us some considerable concerns at this stage.
Going forward, it is important that we see a change of gear from the Government in how they engage with all the political parties in Northern Ireland, and that they try to address some of the friction that has built up with the Irish Government in recent months. I appreciate that there are two sides to every argument, but those issues need to be overcome if we are to make the most of this new beginning for Northern Ireland.
A greater level of transparency and co-operation with all the political parties will be crucial for the implementation of any measures that arise from the Command Paper. In that regard, not every item mentioned in the Command Paper directly relates to the seven tests that the DUP set out in its reasons for not being part of the Executive. We have seen some mission creep in some of the commitments that have been made. We have touched on a broad spectrum of issues in Northern Ireland on which there has not been proper engagement with all the political parties, but the Government are under a duty to ensure proper fairness in that regard.
Regarding some of the constitutional stuff that has been mentioned, I too am happy to put on record that I do not believe that joint authority is part of the Good Friday agreement. It is a choice between Northern Ireland being a part of a single UK or part of a single united Ireland. Within those structures we can come up with different arrangements, including a federal Ireland or devolution within the context of the UK, but those are the two choices available. That does not mean that the Irish Government are not a partner in the peace process. Indeed, they need to be an active participant in some aspects of the discussions relating to Northern Ireland. There are also issues in relation to the East-West Council and how that is going to be reconciled with the British-Irish Council. That is an institution under the Good Friday agreement, whereas the East-West Council is not. How will that be reconciled? The Government need to clarify some of these points.
The point has been made that if people want to secure the Union—that may well be the intention of a majority of people in Northern Ireland at present—the best way of doing so is to ensure that Northern Ireland works. That mean having functioning and effective political institutions. It also means equality within Northern Ireland and respect for all traditions. At the moment the jury is out in that regard. Over the past six or seven years, Brexit has resulted in a major reassessment of people’s identities and potential aspirations, and while opinion polls are pointing in a clear direction at present, I think people would be overly complacent not to read beneath the surface and see the degree of concern about the things have happened in recent times and the reactions to them.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
The hon. Member has spoken for over 10 minutes and he has raised concern after concern about the content of the “Safeguarding the Union” document, but not once has he reflected on the concerns of Unionists about the encroachment on our place within this United Kingdom as a result of what he was asking to be rigorously implemented. I am hoping that at some stage there will be space for that in this debate. Does he recognise that the wrong choice over the last number of years was to dismiss and demean the concerns raised by his neighbours and that if he and his colleagues had not done that, there might have been a more rational, sensible and pragmatic recognition of the problems and of the collective desire to address them? The only reason that the product of what we are debating this evening was not agreed collectively was that for too many years he and his colleagues dismissed those of us who raised legitimate concerns.
Stephen Farry
I am grateful to the Member for his intervention because it has allowed me to have a good drink to ease my throat. He raises some interesting questions which will allow me to clarify those points. I was not going to rake over old coals too much this evening but he invites me to do so.
Let me be clear: my party has always taken a pragmatic approach to special arrangements within Northern Ireland. We recognised, whenever Brexit was imposed on a society that already works through sharing and interdependence, that that situation was going to have to be carefully managed. I did not want to see any checks introduced anywhere on these islands as a consequence of that, but that was always going to be a reality in the context of a hard Brexit. Hopefully the current hard Brexit can be softened over time, which will help in that respect. In so far as those checks can be minimised, I am all for that. Our party has never stood in the way of that particular outcome.
The hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) made reference to the phrase “rigorous implementation”, although we have now heard about the vigorous implementation of the Command Paper from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). That phrase relates to a letter that was signed by four parties in September 2021 in the context of attempts by the UK Government to unilaterally breach international law. Our position all along has been that modifications to the protocol, right through to what we have today in the Windsor framework, need to be negotiated, where appropriate, between the UK Government and the European Union as the signatories to the new arrangements, and that they have to be legal.
In that context our position has always been consistent. We are a party of law. We are committed to implementing the law where we are required to implement the law, but where the law can be changed through proper process, we are all for that. What we were always against—and remain against—is unilateral action that puts Northern Ireland in a worse position because it undermines trust. The big game changer was when we had a change of Government in the autumn of 2022. All of a sudden the European Union and the UK Government started talking to each other and things started moving really quickly.
I would say that the result that we have today could have been found much earlier if we had had a lot more trust in the process between the European Union and the UK Government—and I certainly did not justify or require the Assembly to be down for two years, causing chaos in Northern Ireland’s public services and a huge number of missed opportunities. My party has always been clear that we want to see things such as the red and green lanes introduced, which was achieved through the Windsor framework. We have also consistently proposed a veterinary agreement, which I would remind the hon. Member for Belfast East that his party initially opposed whenever we put it forward.
Stephen Farry
Questions were asked in the Northern Ireland Assembly and DUP Ministers said they were opposed, including the former leader of the DUP. I am happy to give way to the Member again so I can have another drink.
Gavin Robinson
The hon. Member should have another sip from that cup, although I am not sure it is working. What we did oppose was the understanding that all veterinary medicines would be available in Northern Ireland through an EU prism—an EU regime. What we have proposed—and what continues to be a part of this Command Paper with the Government’s indication that they will publish unilateral action come the springtime should agreement not be reached—is a recognition of mutual standards: mutual recognition. The hon. Member should recognise the statutory instruments that this House and the other place passed three weeks ago on a goods guarantee and mutual recognition—two things that I believe he and his colleagues might have described as unicorns.
Stephen Farry
The Member is conflating a veterinary agreement with the issue of veterinary medicines. There is an issue with veterinary medicines that needs to be properly addressed, but the issue of a wider veterinary agreement was something that the DUP opposed—a wider sanitary and phytosanitary agreement between the UK and the European Union that would free up bureaucracy relating to the movement of agrifood products. That would obviously have a direct benefit in terms of the Irish sea, but it is fundamentally in the interests of the whole UK agrifood sector to address some of the bureaucracy that is increasingly coming to the fore and causing frustration for many businesses. Indeed, perhaps at some point we will have a discussion around the “not for EU” labelling issue, which is also causing major concerns for businesses across the UK but is being driven by this particular process.
I appreciate that the Member and his party are keen to have this narrative about “We have achieved this and we have achieved that”, and I am not to trying to burst their bubble too much, but the reality is that there will still be a degree of checks across the Irish sea. Whether they are done on a risk basis or whether we have a red channel for that, the reality is that there will have to be some management of that Irish sea interface, including the registration of the businesses involved. Those are all products of the fact that we have a hard Brexit, and that we have to manage those tensions. I am delighted that we have got them down as far as we have but, equally, we need to be frank and honest that there are certain parameters beyond which people cannot go.
I was not necessarily planning to have as big a row with the DUP as has unfolded tonight, but I have some comments for the Government on the way forward. We are getting a clear narrative that the Government are committed to making Northern Ireland work. We all share that commitment, and we want to see prosperity.
I have three points for the Government, and hopefully the DUP will agree with some of what I say. First, revenue raising was clearly meant to be part of the wider transformation plan required for the Executive to pay off what was packaged as their debt. Of course, that debt would not have arisen if we had a proper fiscal flow. I freely acknowledge that the Executive will have to address revenue raising, but there is a danger that they will rush to address revenue raising in the coming months while they are still trying to find their feet and address wider financial issues, which could cause difficulties within the Executive. Of course, we should address revenue raising, but let us not rush headlong into it. A figure of £113 million is not insignificant, but it is a drop in the ocean compared with a £14 billion-plus revenue budget. There are much bigger decisions to be made on health and education reform, which the Executive need to be encouraged to address, rather than clashing over £113 million.
Secondly, Casement Park is an important issue for the Euros in 2028, but it is a wider, totemic issue for a section of the community in Northern Ireland. I will not go into exactly what the UK Government have to do, but they are a player. Commitments have been made on their support for this overall project. The clock is clearly ticking, so there is a degree of urgency. The issue is now being escalated as a potential political confrontation point, which may pose problems to the restored Executive. With all the caveats about value for money that the Government have to consider, they should be clear, as soon as possible, about what they can do so that the project can move ahead.
Thirdly, the repackaged Fresh Start money is above and beyond the £3.3 billion package for the restored Executive. That fund was already part of the transformation fund for shared and, in particular, integrated education. We now have a situation in which 10 schools, at different levels of development, for integrated education—which, to be fair, the Government have embraced over many years—are now placed in jeopardy. To me, that is not only a step back from integration and reconciliation in Northern Ireland, but it is at odds with the objective of transformation. I urge the Government to reconsider how the Executive handle the £150 million of repurposed Fresh Start funding. Again, the Government agreed the package during a previous political crisis in Northern Ireland.
I have spoken for far longer than I anticipated. I recognise that Northern Ireland is in a much better place with a restored Executive and a restored Assembly, and I recognise that a lot of good work has been done to address a number of critical issues, but there are still bumps on the road ahead. My central appeal is that the Government work more closely with all the political parties to ensure that what they have set out is implemented fairly and transparently, and to ensure that all concerns and input are fully taken into account.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I think many people in North Down, a Unionist constituency, will be wondering what kind of representative they have. The hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) was probably a good proxy for a Sinn Féin representative in his disregard for Unionists’ concerns about the protocol and in his unwillingness to apologise for the fact that he and his party wanted the Government to double down on the protocol, despite the damage it was causing. His party said during the negotiations that they had negotiated a wonderful package. There is still underfunding because of how the funding formula is applied in Northern Ireland, yet the only plea he made for additional funding this evening was to pay for Casement Park. The Gaelic Athletic Association has said that it will not give one penny more to that stadium. The GAA expects the UK Government to divvy up for its state-of-the-art stadium.
The Humble Address tells His Majesty of this Parliament’s commitments in respect of a number of issues. Significantly, it has been brought forward because of the way in which successive Prime Ministers from the Conservative and Unionist party have betrayed Northern Ireland by choosing to side with the EU, and not to annoy the EU, even if that means weakening the Union of the United Kingdom. The sad reality is that these reassuring words, which the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) described as a “love letter” to Unionists—when we look at it, we will see that it is not such a love letter—are essential because of the trust that has been broken by a Government who were quite happy to hand Northern Ireland over to the European Union as a vassal state, to use the term of the former Prime Minister who was responsible for some of the damage done.
A number of issues are addressed in the Humble Address, and the first is to affirm the importance of upholding all the strands of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. Why is that necessary? The reason, of course, is because this Government acted at the behest of the European Union, which required that the position of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom be weakened, with any attempt to address that situation being thwarted by changing the voting arrangements in the Assembly.
We already knew that Northern Ireland was not all that important to this Government, because the whole principle of consent to change Northern Ireland’s position within the United Kingdom was simply ignored. The damage has been done, and there has been no attempt to undo that damage. The Belfast agreement made it clear that any change—any change—to Northern Ireland’s position within the United Kingdom could happen only with the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. That change took place when the UK Government agreed that the EU would have the ability, in 300 areas of law, to make laws for Northern Ireland, and that Northern Ireland’s representatives would have no say in the making of those laws.
In fact, the only country on the island of Ireland that would have a say is the Republic of Ireland, because of its membership of the EU. The EU and the Irish Republic would have the ability to make laws in relation to Northern Ireland in 300 areas of law and Northern Ireland politicians elected to the Assembly would have no say. The hon. Member for North Down might be happy that his party members are elected to an Assembly and have no say on a raft of areas of law.
Stephen Farry
We are relaxed about EU law, but the thing we were certainly not relaxed about was not having an Assembly whatsoever for the past two years. Anyone who wants to talk about democratic deficits needs to refocus away from the technicalities of EU law and on the fact that no one was in charge of health, education and the economy for the past two years and on the damage that has been done. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will show some humility and recognise his role and that of his party in the chaos that has been forced upon Northern Ireland in the past two years, when they have taken their time negotiating this new arrangement with the Government.
Sammy Wilson
Is the hon. Gentleman’s stance not amazing? He talks about the democratic deficit that existed for two years while the Assembly was not operating, but he is happy to have a democratic deficit that will last for decades as a result of the arrangement in place now. So he cannot now get concerned about the inability of politicians in Northern Ireland to do something. We had the two years of Stormont not operating because the principle on which it was bound to operate—that there had to be consent and the views of nationalists and Unionists had to be taken into consideration—had been simply wiped aside; it could not have worked anyway because the very foundation of the Belfast agreement had been removed.
I have to ask the Minister: how can the Government affirm the Belfast agreement when we have in place today arrangements that came about only because one of the central principles of the agreement had been removed? Of course, this is about looking at not just the past, but the future. The Assembly will have a decision to make and it will have a vote at the end of this year on the arrangements that are in place. That vote will be very controversial, because it looks both back and forward. First, were the arrangements put in place acceptable? Far more importantly, will the arrangements going forward be acceptable? The vote will not simply be about EU law, because in four years’ time nobody who is taking part in this vote will even know about the EU laws; this vote will be about whether the Assembly is going to continue having the Republic of Ireland and the EU making laws that are unknown and that we will have no say in formulating in the future. There can be no more controversial vote than that, yet the Belfast agreement says that a vote of that nature should not be made on a majority basis.
Since 1972, votes and issues that were controversial could not be made on a majority basis in Northern Ireland. Yet here is one of the most controversial votes that the Northern Ireland Assembly will be involved in, and the Government, at the behest or demand of the Irish Republic and the EU, set aside the requirement for cross-community support in that vote. So the Minister is today proposing a motion that affirms
“the importance of upholding the Belfast…Agreement”,
knowing full well that he has agreed to and defended, and will continue to put in place, arrangements that undermine the very principle of consent for a most controversial issue, on which a vote will take place at the end of this year. So when we address His Majesty and say that we are affirming the Belfast agreement, we have to look at the way we have dispensed with its central provision in the past and the way we are going to remove the ability to use the consent principle in the future on one of the most controversial issues.
Secondly, the Humble Address acknowledges
“the foundational importance of the Acts of Union”.
I find it strange that it acknowledges not just the Acts of Union but their “foundational importance”, because in the court case taken against the Northern Ireland protocol, the Government’s lawyers said that when the House voted for the withdrawal agreement, we had implied the disapplication of article VI of the Act of Union. The courts ruled that article VI, which contains the foundational economic rights, had been suspended, and they have not been unsuspended. Why were they suspended? It was because, as a result of the EU being given the say to make laws in respect of Northern Ireland, there had to be some impediments to trade between GB and Northern Ireland.
The shadow spokesman talked about how even under the Act of Union there were impediments to trade, and he is right. However, there is one fundamental difference: those impediments were put in place and were decided upon by Administrations within the UK, because they saw that an advantage was created. The difference now is that the Act of Union and its foundational economic rights have been suspended because the EU demands that that is the case. Now, as Northern Ireland is part of the single market, the EU requires certain restrictions and checks to be put in place. A further irony is that those restrictions in place, even with the new arrangements, are far more intrusive and far more difficult hurdles to overcome when it comes to trade between GB and Northern Ireland than they would be for trade between France and GB or Germany and GB. That is what has put so many people off trading with Northern Ireland. The Government are now going to say to them all that they should come back to the Northern Ireland market—the shadow spokesman talked about the way in which trade had been diverted—but that is a conscious decision that firms have made because of the difficulties in bringing goods into Northern Ireland from GB.
Hilary Benn
On the issues about which the right hon. Gentleman complains, it pains me to say it but they were put in place because the House of Commons voted to pass the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. It is not correct to say that they are enforced upon Northern Ireland by the EU of its own volition; they were arrangements that the House decided should be put in place because the people of the UK had voted to leave the European Union. That, too, is a fact.
Sammy Wilson
That vote was made in this House on two grounds. First, the EU made its terms clear and we had a spineless Government that were prepared to bow to it, saying that if those arrangements were not put in place, there would be no deal. Weighing up the impact that might have on the rest of the United Kingdom and the impact it would have on Northern Ireland, the Government decided that Northern Ireland would be the sacrificial lamb. Secondly, we were told at that time, as was this House and businesses in Northern Ireland, “Don’t worry,” and were promised, “You’ll get some bits of paper but just tear them up, or give the Prime Minister a ring and he’ll make sure you don’t have to worry about them.” I accept that the decision was made by this House, but it was made on that basis, and the fact is it still had a detrimental impact on Northern Ireland.
Changes have been made by the Windsor framework, the Northern Ireland protocol and the “Safeguarding the Union” document, but the economic foundational importance of the Act of Union is still being undermined. We are told that 20% of goods still have to go through a red lane. Most of those goods go to manufacturing businesses or distributors in Northern Ireland, in many cases because they are parts of products that will eventually be sold. The businesses will still be subject to checks because the product has not been made—it is only parts coming in—and because of the eventual destination of the products, even though most businesses can say, “Look, we sell in Northern Ireland, outside EU or to GB”.
I spoke to a businessman this morning who informed me that the situation is going to get worse. The paperwork for the last order he got for goods coming through the red lane took six hours. When people are working on very thin margins, that additional work makes them question whether to invest further in Northern Ireland or to jump over the border to the Irish Republic, so the red lane requirements have a huge economic impact.
Even the UK internal market requirements are at the gift of the EU, because the EU still has control of trade that comes from GB into Northern Ireland through regulations 2023/1231 and 2023/1128. If the EU deems at any stage that the arrangements for the internal market lane do not meet its requirements, the ultimate say as to what happens to those movements of trade will remain with the EU and it can go back to the default position with 100% checks. I note that those two regulations have not been removed by the EU as a result of “Safeguarding the Union”. The EU still holds that control, which is worrying for businesses in Northern Ireland. The Humble Address is all about telling His Majesty that the foundational importance of the Act of Union will be respected and is being respected by the Government, but that is just not true.
My final point is about the part of the Humble Address that says that
“executive power in Northern Ireland shall continue to be vested in His Majesty, and that joint authority is not provided for in the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement 1998 in respect of the UK and Irish Governments.”
There is no definition of “joint authority”. In the past, Ministers have stood at the Dispatch Box and told us there has been no change in the constitutional position of Northern Ireland as a result of the protocol and the Windsor framework, and Northern Ireland was still fully part of the United Kingdom. Words can mean whatever they want, it seems, when the Government find themselves challenged by the agreement they have made with the EU.
I trust that the Government will not accede to some of the demands that have been made. In his intervention, the hon. Member for North Down said that he wanted a review of the Belfast agreement. That would open all kinds of doors. If he had his way, the review would be based on a majority view of what should happen in the future. The removal of the consent principle and the majority vote in the Assembly is what he and his friends in Sinn Féin and the SDLP are aiming for now. Unionists are now a minority, so majoritarianism is no longer a problem.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
I have listened with great interest to many of the points made. I am particularly taken by the attention the hon. Gentleman has given to the foundational importance of constitutional matters, which exercises many hon. Members on the Government Benches. Does he agree that it seems incongruous that changes to constitutional law—not primary legislation, but constitutional law—were made in this Chamber through the use of statutory instruments? We had to seek an extension to secure 180 minutes of debate on those measures. Does he agree with many Conservative Members that matters of constitutional law should be treated with proper respect and subjected to proper debate and scrutiny by this House before they are changed?
Sammy Wilson
The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. When we agreed to the withdrawal agreement and legislation, the Act of Union was changed without Ministers even mentioning that that was happening. They used that defence in court later on. A couple of weeks ago, when we discussed protecting Northern Ireland-GB trade and protecting against the threat of a further wedge being driven between Northern Ireland and GB as a result of changes in the law made in this place, we got 90 minutes to discuss those changes and not a great deal of time to scrutinise them. At the end of the debate the Minister had about three minutes to sum up, which did not give him time to answer any of the questions that had been asked.
Gavin Robinson
I agree with my hon. Friend that that is not right. The Government did not make the argument after the fact that article 6 had been impliedly repealed or subsequently found by the court to be temporarily suspended—I raised the question in the House of the Minister before the legislation passed and they had not a clue what was being asked of them. The notion that this Parliament chose to proceed along a path that was encroaching on article 6 is not right because it was asked and it was answered negatively by Ministers at the time. We scrutinised. We raised the constitutional importance of the actions they were taking. It was the Government who denied that was the case.
Sammy Wilson
I thank my hon. Friend for that clarification. In all the discussions he has used his knowledge of the issues. If we have a Government who simply ignored the points that he made, either because they did not know or did not want others to know, that makes it even more disgraceful. That is why when we have a Humble Address, it is right that we scrutinise, ask questions and raise issues about what exactly is meant by the promises made to His Majesty and the people of Northern Ireland. Sadly, I do not believe that what has been said or the promises that have already been made address the issues. If we are going to address the issue of keeping Northern Ireland firmly within the United Kingdom, the Windsor framework has to go and the principle of consent has to be restored. The people of Northern Ireland and elected representatives in Northern Ireland must have the ability to make the laws that they are elected to make.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. As Members know, we had two significant statements after departmental questions, and it is likely that this debate will go for another hour. A significant number of people put their name down for the general debate on farming that was to follow. That will now be rescheduled, and Members will be told in the usual manner when that debate will take place.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
The hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) says that a glorified press release is in front of us tonight. The hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood), who is no longer in his place, said that a love letter to the Democratic Unionist party has been penned. They say that is all it is, yet they still protest. They protest if Unionists get as much as a nod and a wink. They still object to it. It should not have been done, they say. Unionists should get nothing out of this place. That is the import of their comments. Or perhaps the hon. Members for North Down and for Foyle protest too much. Perhaps the real issue is that they do not like anything done that gives Unionism a nod or a wink, an advantage, or recognition of our rights. Their objections are perhaps strongest to the latter.
Points have been raised this evening about the future of Casement Park. I was not going to mention it, but as it has been put on the agenda, I think I will. Most people listened with consternation this morning to the words of Jarlath Burns, the leader of the Gaelic Athletic Association, who said, “Not a penny more will come from the GAA for Casement Park”—not even on grounds of inflation. It is £15 million or nothing from the GAA. That has to be a significant body blow to the future of Casement Park. The Northern Ireland Executive may indicate that they will give an inflation-related piece of money—significant money—to that project. The Government of Dublin may indicate that they will give multiples of millions to that project. Yet the GAA will not even give the project an inflation-linked amount. That suggests to me that perhaps the GAA does not want Casement Park to go ahead, and that it is looking for someone or for some group to blame. [Interruption.] I hear the giggles and fits coming from the SNP Benches, but of course it is very easy to spend other people’s money. This project now looks as if it will be short by about £100 million.
Tonight, I have heard that we should really be able to wipe out the “not insignificant”—I think that was the comment—£113 million in Executive funding that has been asked for, yet the big ask is: “We’d better have this money made available for Casement Park,” no matter what the amount is. That is amazing. Not only do we have a demand for this money, but it is almost as if the point being made is, “If you don’t give us that money, there will be a crisis.” That seems to be the way that the comment was framed to the House this evening. Most people will reflect very sombrely on the comments made by Jarlath Burns, and by others inside and outside this House who have made it clear that the money must be made available or else. But things can no longer work that way. Difficult decisions need to be made, and I suspect that the decisions that will be made very soon about Casement Park will be incredibly difficult. The way the parties respond to those difficult decisions will be the measure of those parties.
The Minister was taken down a rabbit hole tonight by the hon. Member for Foyle, who, again, is no longer in his place. Perhaps he has decided to go back to Foyle, given the terrible issue at Seagate and the loss of 300 jobs. I hope that he is working hard to get those jobs back, because they are very significant. Perhaps Mr Kennedy, the envoy, will turn up with a cheque book and the trillions of pounds that he said were available for Northern Ireland—it would be amazing if he did. Perhaps that money from America will arrive and those jobs, which are very important to the area, will be saved.
To return to my point, the Minister was taken down a rabbit hole and was asked to confirm whether, in line with the terms of the Belfast agreement and the Northern Ireland Act 1998, there would be a simple majority vote for the future of Northern Ireland, but of course that is not in the Act. It talks about a majority vote; it does not define what that majority is—if it is a majority of the people, or a majority of the people who vote. In fact, I believe that the definition has been left open purposefully, so that Parliament will have a say on the terms and conditions. The Minister, referring to previous referendums in this country, has already conceded that a small majority is not the way to make major constitutional change in this nation. If he believes that, he will certainly believe that for the outworkings of the Belfast agreement. He shares the position of the late Seamus Mallon, one of the negotiators of the Belfast agreement, who made it clear that there had to be a “clear majority”, in his words, for a change to the constitutional position of Northern Ireland. We should avoid going down these rabbit holes; we need to recognise the importance of what this House is debating tonight, and why we are debating it.
The objective of every Unionist is to undo the damage done by the great betrayal made by the Government of a former Prime Minister when they agreed the protocol on Northern Ireland. That was done against the advice of the Unionists. Unionists on these Benches, myself included, met the then Prime Minister and implored him not to go down the road of a protocol. He said that things would all be sorted out. He came to County Antrim and told farmers not to worry, “because all this can be shredded.” He told them that we can ignore it, and that we can throw the bits of paper in the bin. Of course, as it transpired, the Prime Minister’s betrayal of Northern Ireland has left us still debating this issue two years later. Untold damage has been done to the psychological view of where those in the Union are, as a people. Responsibility for the economic position of the kingdom lies four-square at that Government’s feet, and it is important that they undo that damage.
I agree with the leader of our party that, after much diligence, we have before us a work in progress. Yes, much more must be done. Today’s Humble Address must be seen in the context of more needing to be done, but the fact is that whenever we give a hint that we want more progress and more stability, we cannot even have that. That seems to be the cry from the nationalists. Nationalism has to grow up and recognise that it cannot go on baiting and pushing at Unionism, because that is wrong.
Until the laws promised by this strengthening of the Union are operational in Northern Ireland, problems will remain for Northern Ireland trade. That is why I urge the Government to hurry up, and get on with implementing the changes that they have said are coming; otherwise more divergence is threatened. We must avoid divergence. It remains a threat and an ever-present danger to the Union, which is why the sooner the Government legislate and move on these issues, the better. Unionists have a history that means that we always have to remain vigilant.
As this is a work in progress, and as the Government, in previous utterances from the Dispatch Box, have conceded that more legislation is to follow, it would be worth while for them to state that again from the Dispatch Box this evening. They cannot expect one party in Northern Ireland to do all the heavy lifting. Will the Government therefore spell out when further actions will be put on the calendar? When will we see those further actions? In conversations with my party colleagues and party leader, we have already discussed the necessity of implementing what has been promised, and the need to make more progress. It is okay us talking about it, but the Government have to take action.
Our constituents already feel the vice-like pinch of the protocol and the framework on their businesses, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) outlined. I intend to put on the record some examples that really perplex me and should have been resolved by the Government, and which underline the ongoing damage to our UK single market trade—our largest market by far.
My party leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson), and I have challenged senior civil servants in Northern Ireland over why the frictions continue when this place has spelled out that they ought to have been removed. Northern Ireland businesses are right to be impatient. We demand progress. We cannot live on the promise that a change is coming—the promise of jam tomorrow. We and this House demand actions now.
We urge the Government not to lose the momentum for change, and I therefore ask the following questions. When will the veterinary medicines working group be established, and when will it commence work? That is an urgent priority for our single largest sector. When will the plant working group be established? The right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) raised that urgent matter. When will InterTradeIreland be established? What date is pencilled in and calendared for that important body to start operations?
What instructions have been given to the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs of Northern Ireland to progress the changes for goods flowing from GB to Northern Ireland? I ask because I know of several companies in my constituency and elsewhere in Northern Ireland that are being held back by these frictions. A constituent with a very small businesses that orders plants from an English wholesaler came to my office this week and said that she has been told, “Go elsewhere. Try somewhere else. Don’t buy from the United Kingdom.” As her MP, I volunteered to bring that stock—those samples and seeds—over in my hand luggage if she so requires, and dear help the official who tries to stop me.
Mr Gregory Campbell
My hon. Friend talks about bringing material over himself. Can he imagine the incredulity of citizens of Northern Ireland who hear about the situation? They will say, “What possible risk could that pose to the EU internal market?”.
Ian Paisley
My hon. Friend makes his point well; there is zero risk to the European single market. In the same way, there is zero risk with veterinary medicines—the Secretary of State knows that well, because I have discussed the matter with him—because we are talking about the same medicine as before. Europe does not want the medicines changed—shock, horror. It just wants the label changed, but for that to happen, it is demanding that the pharmaceutical companies rescale and re-examine what is in every product, which would costs millions of pounds, and would not be worth it for the companies. It is the same with biscuits. The leader of my party today met a company that has been required to do certain labelling. The EU is not trying to change the content or recipe of the biscuits; it is trying to change the label, because the single market might be damaged by the wrong label. That is how “bent bananas”, “squared cucumbers”, this argument is. We should have left that behind long ago.
The owner of a haulage business in my constituency has had the number of checks on his consignments go from nine per month in August last year to—wait for it—27 in the last two weeks of this month, and we are still moving towards the last couple of days of February. That is the record for the number of checks he has undergone since the protocol was put in place. Once again, will the Government look at this over-zealous Department, DAERA, which looks like it will not undo what this House said has is to be undone, as was outlined in a previous debate?
I mentioned a constituent who is trying to buy scanners for a service sector industry. He has always bought the scanners from GB, and he has been told that he must have an economic operators registration and identification number. That number means that VAT is paid in the Republic of Ireland, but my constituent does not trade in the Republic of Ireland. He is being denied the ability to buy equipment from GB because some official here is saying, “No, you must have an EROI number, and you must put GB in front of it.” That does not exist, and it is appalling that he has been put in that position.
Mr Baker
I cannot wait for my closing speech so I can say to the hon. Gentleman, “Please, give us all these examples in full detail in writing.” I will be very pleased indeed to have my officials go through them with a fine-toothed comb and see what can be done in absolutely every case. As has been said time and again, work will continue to be done to improve matters. I am yearning for the full detail so that we can work on it.
Ian Paisley
I like the Minister’s enthusiasm, but may I say that I am ahead of him? The leader of my party and I have already met officials and discussed these issues with them. We have put them to the Cabinet Office, which I understand is the proper channel. I hope the Cabinet Office includes the Minister so he can get his teeth into these matters and deliver for me, my party leader and my colleagues on the issues that perplex us so much.
Ian Paisley
Minister, I congratulate you on your promotion, but I commiserate with you because you will be dealing more and more with me and my colleagues. We will test you to the nth degree—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. Obviously, the hon. Gentleman is not testing me.
Ian Paisley
I apologise for my enthusiasm, Madam Deputy Speaker; we will test the Minister to the nth degree.
I want to make a point about whiskey, not because the hour is late but because it is an important point. A point was made about tariffs, and a certain whiskey company in my constituency was mentioned—I think it probably dreads being mentioned, because it just wants to get on with trade. Any tariffs of the sort that came into effect in 1801, imposed on Bushmills whiskey by the Acts of Union, were actually removed at a very important historical juncture for this nation. They were removed in 1879 during—guess what?—the great home rule debates, in order to calm things down. Maybe, just maybe, we need to learn that lesson from history, and remove these borders and the problems that have been put in place, in order to calm things down. If we learn that lesson from history, that whiskey company in my constituency—the premier whiskey constituency and whiskey company in the whole British Isles—will continue to do exceptionally well.
I should say for the record that not a single additional tariff has been placed on whiskey throughout the whole period of the protocol, so there is nothing to be removed. The history is incredibly interesting. Tariffs on Irish whiskey were brought in in the 1600s because it was the most successful product made on the entire island of Ireland. Then there was the introduction of what was called the whiskey tax, which became known as the Parliament tax of 1661. Only companies that paid the tax were registered, so the 1,200 whiskey distilleries across Ireland suddenly became 40. I am not saying the others ceased to exist; they just did the Irish thing of not paying their tax. That was a very important distinction.
Of course, the tax on Irish whiskey was brought in to protect the Scottish market. The fledgling whisky market developed about 40 or 50 years after the Irish whiskey market in the early 1400s. In order to protect the Scottish whisky market, the Parliament here decided to engage in protectionism of its Scottish market. I am glad that that was removed—it ought to have been—allowing the Northern Irish whiskey trade to continue to flourish, particularly given that it is a much better product and is spelled correctly.
I look forward to the Minister’s responses to the several questions that I have asked. I urge him to deliver action, not just big words.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Before I bring in the next speaker, I should say that I want to ensure that the Minister has at least 10 minutes to wind up. If the remaining speakers kept to about 10 minutes each, that would do the trick. I call Carla Lockhart.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
In my approach to the Humble Address, I hope it is in order, by way of introduction, to comment on the “Safeguarding the Union” Command Paper. It has been a very wide-ranging debate, so I assume that that is appropriate.
I acknowledge those within my party who have worked hard to improve the unacceptable situation that we found ourselves in. I welcome provisions including, among other things, the monitoring committee, the East-West Council, the new provisions on rest-of-world products, and the UK Government’s commitment to stand by Northern Ireland in the absence of a resolution on veterinary medicines. The DUP has unfortunately had to take steps, for which it is often criticised, to address the far-reaching implications of the protocol. We have often been blamed for many of the problems that have flowed from that unforgivable move on the part of our Government back when the iniquitous protocol was implemented. I welcome the improvements but, as has been said, there remains much work to be done. I, along with colleagues on the DUP Bench, am all too aware of the work that lies ahead.
I, too, take this opportunity to raise issues of which the Secretary of State will be very aware, including horse movements from GB to Northern Ireland and vice-versa, rare breeds and plants, and so on. All those issues have been raised with me in my role as agriculture spokesperson. I look forward to the engagement that has been promised and to getting results on those issues.
Part of the answer lies in the text of the Humble Address, which tells us that the economic provisions provided by article 6 of the Acts of Union are of “foundational importance”. That is absolutely correct. In the 21st century, being part of the same country means being part of the same internal market, which means that goods can flow freely within it without encountering border control posts, demanding customs, and SPS paperwork and checks that increase costs and can make the difference between whether a domestic economic venture is viable or has to fall by the wayside. Having the right to border-free access within the internal market of the country of which we are a part is certainly, from the vantage point of today, a basic right of economic citizenship.
The really odd thing about today is that although we are gathered here to affirm that article 6 and the rights that it confers are not only important but are, in the words of the Humble Address, of “foundational importance”, on 8 February 2023, paragraph 68 of the Supreme Court judgment ruled that they are in part suspended. We cannot withdraw, even temporarily, anything that is foundational without inviting the structure that it supports to topple, or ensuring that it does so. Part of the partial suspension of the economics provisions under article 6 results in Northern Ireland being cut off from the rest of the UK through a customs border that has to be crossed, whether it is approached through the red lane or the internal market system.
The alternative border experience for customs that constitutes the UK internal market system is actually defined by the Commission delegated regulation EU 2023/1128, which my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) referred to earlier. The formal EU description of that regulation is:
“amending Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 to provide for simplified customs formalities for trusted traders and for sending parcels into Northern Ireland from another part of the United Kingdom”.
The provisions thus simplify customs formalities, but do not remove them. Rather than removing those movements from the remit of the EU customs code, they have the effect of amending how the EU customs code deals with them.
It is quite extraordinary that the UK Government agree that movements of goods within the United Kingdom should be subject to a border imposed by 27 other states that regulate movements from one part of our country to another through their customs code, regardless of how demanding or undemanding that code is.
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting that point. Many goods ordered online and delivered from a GB company make their way into Northern Ireland after being shipped into Dublin at night, so the members of the public who order them have to pay customs to the Republic of Ireland for goods that are to be used within the United Kingdom. That is another area that has not yet been addressed and needs serious consideration.
Carla Lockhart
I thank my hon. Friend for making that valid point. The Minister will, in his new role, be extremely busy in dealing with the many remaining issues.
Some might say, “Well, if the EU sought to change the customs code to increase the demands on trusted traders, we could refuse to accept the change.” That goes to the heart of the matter. If we were prepared to refuse such a change from the EU under those circumstances, why would we accept them under the current circumstances, through arrangements that involve the partial disenfranchisement of 1.9 million UK citizens who can no longer stand for election to make all the laws to which they are subject and, under the brake, must instead make do with the right to stand for election to try to stop laws already made for us by a foreign Parliament?
The truth, as was pointed out in the other place, is that the Windsor framework is an invalid treaty. There are rules about what makes a treaty valid or invalid, and one of the most basic is respect for the territorial integrity of states, which involves states renouncing claims to make the laws of other states. The Windsor framework involves 27 states refusing to recognise the territorial integrity of the UK, seeking to divide our country in two, and then claiming the right to make some of the laws for part of our country. In that context, the UK Government should declare the treaty void, and, acting on the determination set out in this Humble Address, declare that article 6 is of foundational importance, and look for the earliest opportunity for Parliament to un-suspend—and thus fully restore— article 6, so that the people of Northern Ireland are not alienated, however temporarily, from any aspect of this provision, which is, as the Humble Address rightly acknowledges, of “foundational importance”.
Many in Northern Ireland have welcomed the restoration of the Northern Ireland Assembly and its ability to deal with health, education and infrastructure. I, for one, will raise many of those issues with our colleagues in the Assembly. I trust that we will see much change in those issues, which have a daily impact. However, we must not paper over the cracks. There remains much work to do. This has been a sensible debate that has allowed many issues to be raised constructively. I look forward to engaging with the Minister on many of these matters.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in the debate. I thank all those who have made significant contributions. As a Northern Ireland MP, I am delighted that the position that Northern Ireland is in has been made clear in this House.
Let me make a quick comment about Casement Park—I cannot let it pass by without commenting. As I mentioned to the Secretary of State last week at the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, the cost is now some £225 million. I understand that about £70 million or £75 million was originally allocated. I suggest that, rather than pursuing a white elephant, for which those who should be making bigger contributions are not doing so, it would be better to disburse that original £70 million across the whole of Northern Ireland, to ensure that all clubs, in whatever sport, get the benefits. That decision will be made by the Assembly, not in this place; I understand that, but we have to look at the bigger picture as well. David Jeffrey had a very interesting article in the newspaper last Saturday in which he suggested that what was before us at Casement Park could not work, because the benefits for all the people would only happen if the funding was disbursed in the way I have described. When it comes to Casement Park, big decisions are being made, and if the GAA is not prepared to go beyond its €17 million or thereabouts, I think it is time that the GAA catches itself on and realises that everybody else would get the benefit. That is what I would like to see.
From the point of view of the party I represent, there was no alternative to bringing down a devolved Administration in order to push for necessary changes to the Northern Ireland protocol. We did so with a heavy heart, because we believe in devolution. We did so because we felt a huge step was necessary to bring attention to the economic and constitutional damage that was being wrought on Northern Ireland due to the punishing intentions of the EU. We did so knowing that there were many who did not grasp the rationale, and many would refuse to attempt to grasp that rationale. We did it despite the calls of many others who said that the deal was done and could not be altered. We did it, and we proved them wrong. Our leader and deputy leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), did that very directly, and we see the benefits of that—there are negatives, yes, but there are benefits too. Let us focus on those benefits.
The deal could be altered, and it was. The EU could come to terms with the changes, and they did. Our Government could achieve more than the Windsor framework, and they did. Those three things have happened. Let me be entirely clear: the work is not yet achieved. This House will be the place to make those changes. Our leader and other Members who have spoken have said that we will be making changes, and I look forward to working alongside the Secretary of State and Minister of State for Northern Ireland to ensure that the changes that we collectively wish to see can be made, right here in this place. My colleagues in the Assembly will be working to ensure that there are no restrictions to trade within this United Kingdom and that our businesses can operate—that we can receive Amazon deliveries and get our veterinary medication through the committee that is going to be set up for that purpose. My hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) will be actively involved in that.
Turning to our trees and seeds, I understand that 11 of those products have already been agreed. A further 21 are in the pipeline to be agreed, and others will follow, so things are happening. There has also been a very significant reduction in the number of products that will be in the green lane. At the minute, it is 20%; I understand that by September of this year, that figure will drop to 5%, so there are constructive and positive ways forward. I will give the example of a company in Newtownards. The day that our party executive accepted that we would go with the deal, a gentleman who has two shops—one in Ards, one in Bangor—and employs 12 people told me that a company in Manchester supplied him with 300 products for which he had to do over 200 pieces of paperwork. That meant almost 6,000 paper transactions. On the day that our party agreed and the Bill went through here in Westminster, all of that paperwork disappeared, and he can now bring in 300 products without the paperwork. Another person contacted me about pet food: they were told that in three weeks’ time, which is now a week away, all of that pet food will be able to come in. Those are examples of how the deal is working, so let us look at the positives.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
Will my hon. Friend join me in also welcoming the communication that both the Secretary of State and myself have received from a very prominent nursery selling plants, trees and shrubs in Northern Ireland? That nursery was at the forefront of the campaign to have the issues and problems recognised, and since our agreement—since the publication of the Command Paper—it is seeing real improvements in its access to plants, shrubs and trees. Its supply chains have already improved, even before the new measures have been fully implemented.
Jim Shannon
I thank my right hon. Friend for that point. He is absolutely right: without mentioning them in the House, we all know who that person is and what their company is. They have a number of nurseries, and other nurseries, including those in my constituency of Strangford, will also feel the benefits. We have to look at those positives.
In this House, the voice of Northern Ireland will not be silent when it comes to trying to find a way forward to improve things yet again, and to get more for the people of Northern Ireland from all communities. We need to achieve more in terms of economic drive, an entirely new funding mechanism, and numerous other interventions. At the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee last week, the Secretary of State very helpfully referred to the review of the Barnett consequential and a better way of doing that, so that all the people of Northern Ireland can access those moneys.
Those are the facts of the case. Today’s Humble Address does not deal with them, but with an issue that is equally important to many people in Northern Ireland: our constitutional position. For many months, some in the Irish Government and, indeed, on these Benches who tried to browbeat us with the threat of joint authority from Dublin. Newspaper headlines screamed that steps were being taken to ensure that decisions concerning Northern Ireland were made in co-ordination with the Irish Government, all stirring up a people who have never felt more unwelcome within our own nation and, indeed, began to feel unwanted within this Union—if you listen to the hype.
Today’s motion is not to inform our King of anything that he does not know. He understands the constitutional position as well as his mother, Queen Elizabeth the faithful, did as a Queen who served her God and her people so well. The reason for today’s motion is to make clear to those who have felt a disconnect from the Government that there can be no joint authority and no movement without consent. It is really important that we make that clear. Of course, we hear the ramblings of a determined Sinn Féin—the same absentee MPs who do not turn up here, who do not take any decisions or get involved in any Select Committees to discuss ways forward—that a united Ireland is on the horizon. That may be the case, but it will not be because the people of this nation do not want us; it will be because the people of Northern Ireland have decided. That is where the consent principle lies.
This Humble Address underlines the position of this Government—a position that many have questioned. As the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said to me recently, a rebuilding of trust is needed among the Unionist people, and this is merely one step in that journey. I welcome the fact that the Minister of State and Secretary of State have committed to that principle of building trust.
I have heard many people talking about how their identity was not wrapped in a flag. It is entirely their right to say so, yet within that statement is a disparaging inference that our identity is so fragile. I know that Members have heard this before, but I seek to remind people of what has been whitewashed and sought to be rewritten: people from every community faced horrific grief and pain. We lived a life of checking under cars, of seeing blue lights and frantically trying to think of where your family were when you heard news on TV that a bomb had gone off or something else had happened. We lived a life of heading to church and having men stationed at the doors to protect the congregation after Sunday services—of children seeing gunmen indiscriminately spraying a building, reloading and spraying their bullets once again, killing and wounding as people sought to pray. We lived a life of going to get meat from the butchers on a Saturday afternoon and having a bomb go off, or having dinner at a local restaurant where you could be set alight by napalm. Those are the lives that we from Northern Ireland all lived.
These things are important, because we are trying to find a new future and a new way forward. My right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley referred to a future that involves all of the community. The past year was the first year in which someone was not killed by terrorists—I had not realised that until my right hon. Friend said it, but that is an indication of where we are going. Our identity is not fragile, but our history is, and what kept many of us going through that time was the knowledge that we would not bow to the terrorists: we would not cower before their demands, and we would stay standing. We have done that, and today we are doing so again in this Chamber—collectively, and from all political parties.
As someone who has lost loved ones to the troubles, as many of us on this side of the House have—we all know these cases—the constitutional issue is not about the colour of a passport, but about whether the shedding of blood and the grief of a mother was of worth or was in vain. For me, that is the key issue as I try to build a future for my children and grandchildren, and for everybody else’s children and grandchildren, whatever side of the community they come from. That is the future I want to see, and I believe it is the future my people want to see. It is about whether standing against evil is honoured by this place, or forgotten by this place.
That is why today’s Humble Address is so important: it reminds the Unionist people who feel so down-trodden, unwanted and forgotten that this Union has not forsaken them, and that the Government of this great nation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are prepared to stand against the tide of unification by stealth and uphold the principle of consent. For that reason, I and my party very much welcome the Humble Address. It is the right thing to do, and it is what we want. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.
Mr Steve Baker
With the leave of the House, I rise to close the debate on this Humble Address, and I am very grateful to everyone who has participated in it.
This is a Unionist Government, and we are steadfast in our belief that the best future for Northern Ireland will always be as an integral part of a strong and prosperous United Kingdom, even as we respect the legitimate rights of others to pursue another outcome. We are the most successful political and economic Union in the world, something with which a majority of Members of this House would agree. This debate has reiterated the unwavering support for the Union across the House. We have reaffirmed the importance of upholding the Belfast/Good Friday agreement in all its strands. We have acknowledged the foundational importance of the Acts of Union 1800, including the economic provisions under article 6—much as I listened to the words of some Members opposite—and we have recognised that joint authority is not provided for in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement in respect of the UK and Irish Governments.
I am most grateful to the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), for his speech. We are united in congratulating the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson), and we are absolutely united in wishing the First Minister and Deputy First Minister every success in their endeavours. It has been said several times by the shadow Secretary of State and others, but “never again”, and I think we are all united in our hope that never again will Northern Ireland go without an Executive.
The shadow Secretary of State mentioned the all-island economy, which is a matter that has particular sensitivity for DUP Members, and made reference to the joint report. He asked about the effect of repealing the relevant section. As he knows, the joint report and its provisions predated our departure from the EU. Now that we have left the EU, the withdrawal agreement makes provision in fulfilment of many of those matters. The joint report to which the shadow Secretary of State referred has been superseded by the withdrawal agreement and by the trade and co-operation agreement. Of course, I know I have not taught him anything he did not know already. At the moment, we are of course in regular dialogue with the EU, and as far as we are aware, the EU is satisfied with the way we are proceeding. What I would say to him is that, at the moment, I have no reason to believe there will be any significant consequences of the repeal of that section.
Hilary Benn
I am very grateful to the Minister for that explanation, and of course I am aware that the joint report predated the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, but if it was in effect rendered redundant by that Act, why did that Act make specific provision to have regard to the joint report?
Mr Baker
Elements were relevant at the time, as the Secretary of State has just mentioned to me, but, alas, I was not the relevant Minister at the time. I did the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, not the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. However, if I am advised otherwise by officials after this debate, I shall certainly write to the shadow Secretary of State and place a copy of the letter in the Library of the House. I am not expecting to be advised that there would be significant consequences, but I shall certainly take advice.
I particularly appreciated the shadow Secretary of State’s exegesis of the Acts of Union. I am not a great historian, and I appreciated his running through those things. We are of course all absolutely united in our desire for a better future for Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson) welcomed the compromise and the pragmatism of everyone involved. I do not think I will tease him, as he has teased me, on that particular point. He made a very thoughtful speech about people’s ability to indicate their consent or otherwise to membership of a particular state, and he raises some important matters that I will not have time to go into.
I particularly appreciated, of course, the leader of the DUP’s speech. I think this is a very good day for Unionism. Speaking as an English MP, even though I have been choosing to go to Northern Island since 2013, it is very easy as an English MP to neglect the Union. What we have seen through this process is that the whole Government and the whole House have come far more deeply to appreciate the need to nurture the Union. I think today is a good day for the Union, and I think the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends have done a service to the whole Union by highlighting these issues and forcing us all to confront the need to nurture the Union, even if, as I think it is fair to say, it is not one of the most prominent issues in English constituencies. I certainly pay tribute to him and his DUP colleagues for what they have achieved.
As the right hon. Gentleman made a point about the red lane, and the need to improve further and move more goods out of it, which I am absolutely all for doing, I think it is worth reminding everyone of who voted for the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill. I believe everyone in the DUP voted for the Bill.
Mr Baker
There are nods of assent. The Northern Ireland Protocol Bill established the principle that there should be a red lane, and we do need to remember that the red lane is therefore legitimate. It is something that we should all have expected. On the issues that have been invented, I think we have enough practical problems in this life without inventing additional ones.
I want to turn to the remarks of the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry), because he said that Brexit is the original sin. I am going to accept the temptation that he put before me to respond on this point. Occasionally, we get the opportunity to comment on matters of historical sin, and I hope the House will forgive me if I say that to me the original sin was proceeding with the Maastricht treaty and all it meant without getting consent. It was compounded by the mortal sin of proceeding with the Lisbon treaty positively against the expressed wishes of a number of populations. That is what brought me into politics—positively establishing the European constitution by another name against the expressed wishes of populations in referenda.
I take the hon. Gentleman’s point about Brexit being the original sin. Although I am tempted to say that I am an unapologetic Unionist, a waggish official reminded me earlier, “But, Minister, you’ve made a number of apologies”—apologies notably in relation to Ireland, but I do not mind sharing with the House and the public that, during the early days of my appointment to this role, I said to a number of stakeholder groups in Northern Ireland, particularly in the area of Derry/Londonderry, “Yes, I am sorry that you have been put to as much trouble as you have through this withdrawal process.” I have great sympathy with what he says, but if we can step back a little, out of this whole process, there is a lesson for those who wish to make great constitutional changes, and that is to take the public with them at all times, but I am certainly not perfect in that regard. I for one, however, wish to put all that behind us and to move forward.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the all-Ireland economy and talked about the need for east-west and north-south to operate in harmony, and I am of one mind with him. I am absolutely all for free trade and removing all barriers to free trade wherever that can be done consistently with democratic consent.
Casement Park came up a couple of times, and we need to see a proper business case with a full statement of the costs involved. Clearly, there has been inflation in the costs, and we need to see what the full bill would be.
Revenue raising was part of the financial settlement tabled in December. The Government’s primary objective is to support stability and fiscal sustainability through a restored Executive who have the tools to deliver better outcomes for the people of Northern Ireland in an affordable way. That is why a condition of this package—specifically, the quantum of debt to be written off—will be agreed on a proportionate basis to locally raised revenue generated from the implementation of the Executive’s fiscal sustainability plan.
The right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) made a very interesting speech. I do not doubt that we have arrived where we are by a circuitous route, but here we are, and I think this is a happy day for Unionism overall. As the right hon. Gentleman the leader of the DUP said, we have a great opportunity to go forward now and make Northern Ireland work for all the people and to persuade them, in the context of those changing demographics, that they would be well placed to continue to choose to remain within the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) set me a number of questions, and I do not wish to further return to the rabbit hole he mentioned on border polls. I think I will just refer to my opening remarks, which were crafted to avoid any kind of ambiguity. He asked: when will we see action? We have seen action: we have legislated twice already, we are here for this Humble Address and we will continue to take action.
On the veterinary medicines working group, I will undertake to write to the hon. Gentleman before the week is out on the progress in establishing it, and I will place that letter in the Library so that others can see it, because I know it is a subject of the first importance, particularly to him. I shall write to him to set out our progress towards establishing that working group. I gave officials very clear instructions that we were to proceed with great haste, as swiftly as possible, to the establishment of that group and the horticulture working group. The horticulture working group is already established, and we will have further communication to do on that point.
Intertrade is dependent on the East-West Council, and we will need to work through those issues, including across Government. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that for east-west work to be effective we must properly engage, particularly with our colleagues in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, and with the other devolved Administrations. Let us get this thing right. That means it will take just a little time, and I hope he can bear with me. As I said in my opening remarks, I am determined to proceed as swiftly as possible and to keep the House informed, including on the point about the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. The hon. Gentleman has already undertaken to give me the examples he mentioned, and I look forward to processing those. His history is better than mine. He referred to the Home Rule debate in 1879, and let us hope that we continue to do better than they did. They took 78 years to resolve some of those matters. We have already made swifter progress, and I am proud of it.
Ian Paisley
I thank the Minister for that. Of course, the Home Rule debates were brought to a cataclysmic end—we see on the walls of this Chamber the testament to that end and to the great war of 1914.
Has the Minister made any progress on farm machinery? That was promised during the last legislative process that we went through. Can he confirm tonight that there has been a breakthrough on the sale of eggs? People might think this is cracking, but it is not. It is important, because 80% of all eggs hatched in Northern Ireland are sold on the mainland.
Ian Paisley
It is eggs-cellent. If that was not the case, and if there was a problem due to veterinary medicines, or salmonella, that matter of sales would be brought to an immediate end. Will the Minister confirm that there has been a derogation this evening for Northern Ireland with regard to the sale of eggs across the United Kingdom? [Interruption.]
Mr Baker
I do not have any “breaking” news to share with the hon. Gentleman tonight—but I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for that joke, which people will recognise as being characteristic of him.
I have slightly exceeded the time that I intended to take. I listened carefully to the speech from the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart), and I have considerable sympathy with the points she makes. I think I accepted in my opening remarks that this is a hard compromise for Unionists and Eurosceptics, but I remain convinced and resolute that we have taken forward measures that respect the legitimate interests of Unionism in Northern Ireland and across the whole UK, and that move matters forward.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), as always, made a great speech. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) caused me in his challenge to doubt myself on the issue of VAT, so I want to affirm the position. The position on VAT is clear: the framework secured legally binding changes so that Northern Ireland benefits from the same VAT and alcohol taxes as in the rest of the UK. Those have been used to introduce reliefs on energy saving materials, to apply alcohol duty reforms UK wide, and to ensure that draught relief applies for beer sold in all UK pubs. Those benefits are being felt now in Northern Ireland and across the UK.
The hon. Member for North Antrim raised EORIs and I will be glad to return to that issue. My right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) mentioned plant trade, and I am pleased that, like her, businesses have welcomed measures in the Command Paper. Earlier this month my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State received a letter from prominent Northern Ireland horticultural businesses stating that, thankfully, with the restauration of the Executive they are already experiencing positive feedback from their suppliers in Great Britain, who are “optimistic” about trading with them without any challenges.
Let me be expressly clear once again: Northern Ireland’s position is based on consent. The task for those of us who want the Union to prosper is to consider how we broaden support for Northern Ireland’s constitutional position in a world that is very different from the one in which the agreement was reached in 1998. No one could really add to the speech made with great skill by my right hon. Friend the leader of the Democratic Unionist party. Central to that approach has to be to make Northern Ireland work and flourish, and to do so for everyone, regardless of their community background or political aspirations, which we absolutely respect. The Government will continue to work to deliver the suite of commitments made under the “Safeguarding the Union” Command Paper, and continue to work with the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly Members to improve the lives of people living in Northern Ireland. Once again, I commend the Humble Address to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That an Humble Address be presented to His Majesty welcoming the return of the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland, re-affirming the importance of upholding the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement 1998 in all its strands, acknowledging the foundational importance of the Acts of Union 1800, including the economic provisions under Article 6 of those Acts, and recognising that, consistent with section 23(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, executive power in Northern Ireland shall continue to be vested in His Majesty, and that joint authority is not provided for in the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement 1998 in respect of the UK and Irish Governments.
Social Media Access in Prisons
(9 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
Why am I here talking about social media in prisons? One of my usual expressions for describing what it is like to be an MP is “push and pull”, meaning that I push my experience and knowledge into this place, but I am pulled by the issues that affect my constituents. I bring my life experience and business background, and I react to issues that arise, particularly those from my constituents. That is why I have been engaged on issues as diverse as left-behind neighbourhoods, Ferryhill station and female hormone deficiency.
Today I take the opportunity to discuss two of the most challenging issues facing young people: knife crime, and the damage done by social media. Those problems were horrifically exemplified by the case of my constituent Zoey McGill, and her son Jack Woodley, who was tragically stabbed to death in 2021. The past few years have been incredibly challenging for Zoey. Although her son’s murderers were jailed for between eight and 17 years, one can imagine her horror when she discovered that one of them had made a TikTok video in which he raps about his sentence, implying that it is not serious, and he boasts of having a phone while wearing a designer T-shirt.
As a result of my work with Zoey I became involved in The Northern Echo’s North East Knife Crime Taskforce. It was launched last year as a way to co-ordinate the efforts of individuals and groups who want to address the causes of knife crime and change the culture and mindset of young people who carry those weapons. Zoey has been involved in that from the start, along with other parents who also lost their children. We are seeing far too many examples of young people being stabbed, and leaving behind relatives fighting for a cause. As was said at the last session of the North East Knife Crime Taskforce, those parents and families did not sign up for that job, but they have absolutely no choice but to do it. One of those is Theresa Cave, whose son Chris was stabbed to death in Redcar in 2003. Chris’s mother, Theresa, launched the POINT 7 anti-gun and knife crime programme for young people aged 11 to 25.
In 2007, Samantha Jane Madgin was 18 years old and on her first night out with friends after the birth of her son only weeks before. She was brutally stabbed to death by a 15-year-old girl. Samantha’s friends and family created Samantha’s Legacy, and their mission is to prevent knife crime, raise awareness and engagement, and support other families who have been affected by that atrocious crime. In 2019, 18-year-old Connor Brown, who was on a night out in Sunderland, tragically lost his life trying to prevent other people from getting hurt in a knife attack. Connor’s mother, Tanya, and family and friends created the Connor Brown Trust in order to provide young people with a bespoke youth work programme that benefits them and the wider community. There are too many families like them, and it is imperative that we in this place do all we can to help.
Social media is well identified as a source of information in prisons. The term “fake news” is well known, and it is imperative that those who have been influenced or radicalised by false agendas are not further influenced in that way during their time in prison. For that reason alone, access to social media platforms in prison should be frustrated. I am concerned enough about what inmates could see and hear on social media, but giving them the opportunity to broadcast is even more disturbing. It is incumbent on us all in this place to do everything we can to stop this cancer.
Zoey recently said that people sometimes ask how she manages to do her campaigning, and she said that it gives her strength and comfort. I admire that attitude enormously, but neither Zoey nor any of the other parents I have mentioned, or any other parent that is affected, should be in this position in the first place. As gov.uk states, for anyone who cares to check, it is a criminal offence to give a prisoner a mobile phone—or other items such as illegal drugs, alcohol and weapons. The rules around access to social media in prison are likewise clear: prisoners are not allowed to access social networking sites while in custody. In fact, it is not even possible to email prisoners directly.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. I did some research in this area, as he has. Does he agree that there is no human right allowing access to social media in prison? We should encourage rehabilitation—that is the right thing to do—rather than social media engagement. Although access to the internet, and training in understanding how to use media successfully in the outside world, are of use, the ability to post a Facebook status should never be facilitated in prison.
Paul Howell
I could not agree more, and I will cover some of those points as I continue. The closest those inside are meant to come to electronic communication is the Email a Prisoner service, which allows those outside prison to send a prisoner an email; it is printed out and delivered on paper. Some prisons will allow photos to be attached, but that is all. I suspect that if prisoners were actually limited to that form of communication, prisons and the wider community would be better for it.
Nevertheless, as a Ministry of Justice report from 2018 recognised,
“Mobile phones in prisons are used for a range of purposes, both social and criminal, and would appear to have become a significant feature of prison life.”
Since that report, the Prison Service has undertaken the long-term project of installing landlines in cells in closed public-sector prisons. That began before the pandemic. The last installations are due to be completed shortly. These phones work the same way as the payphones on landings that were previously used by prisoners. The prisoner uses a PIN to access their account, and must purchase credit. The calls are restricted to cleared numbers and are outgoing only.
This innovation prevents the issues that often occurred with landing payphones, such as a lack of privacy and fights breaking out in the queue. As Julie Brett, deputy director of innovation and business change at His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service, told Inside Time:
“Feedback from people in prison has consistently identified that in-cell PIN phones improve the quantity and quality of contact with their family and friends thanks to the opportunities they provide. These include being able to make calls at a time to suit everyone in a more private setting away from busy landings, and removing the need to queue to use a phone during brief unlock periods.”
That seems to me to be well in excess of what prisoners should have, but it also removes any argument about the need for them to have access to a mobile phone. I therefore believe that prisoners have no legitimate reason to possess a mobile phone, since a desire to contact their family is probably the only reason for a prisoner having a phone that most people could possibly sympathise with. Instead, prisoners look for mobile phones to continue their criminal activity, to harass victims and their families, or to remain in connection with the lifestyle that got them into prison in the first place. It must stop.
I draw attention to the work that my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher) has done on phones in prison, particularly though her private Member’s Bill. It is already an offence to make video recordings in prison, but the Prison Media Bill seeks to close a loophole that allows third parties outside a prison to upload an illegal recording made inside a prison, or of prison workers on prison land. The Bill also specifies that the location of a recording device is not relevant, so recording a prison from a drone outside would still be an offence. The Bill will clarify existing legislation, which makes no specific provision for drones flying above prison land or recording images of the inside of an open prison. It is hoped that it will increase the security of prisons and those who work there; they would also be protected from unauthorised recordings. Moreover, the Bill would likely cause social media companies to remove images and videos that violate those conditions. Such a step would make all the difference to people like Zoey, who continues to be harassed by her son’s murderers and their families via social media and images taken in prison.
One can debate whether the primary purpose of prison sentences is to rehabilitate the prisoner with a view to reintegrating them in society, or to punish them for their crimes, but a denial of liberty, and therefore of social media, is necessary in both cases.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for securing this Adjournment debate. It is awful to hear about the appalling experience of his constituent, a victim of knife crime. Her campaign on access to social media is brave. In 2013, the Government sought to take from prisoners the right to access and read books. The Howard League for Penal Reform fought against that in its successful 2014 campaign, which was all about education and rehabilitation. Does the hon. Member believe as I do that prisoners ought to have access to books?
Paul Howell
It is like anything else: it depends which books we are talking about. If it is books about how to develop a new gun, the answer is no, but if you are talking about—[Interruption.] My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. We could, however, be talking about educational books about the world prisoners want to go into. As with everything else in this place, the devil is in the detail of what we do.
A question in this case is: how can a person be rehabilitated if they still participate in the same social groups as before? They may do so virtually, but for many young people, their virtual activities are as real and meaningful as their physical ones. We would not allow prisoners serving time for murder to leave for the evening and have a drink with their friends, so why should we tolerate them having unmonitored video calls with the same people?
The purpose of prison—especially for serious crimes—ought to be punishment. It is no bad thing if prisoners are sat in their cells, sadly wondering what is going on with their old friends and feeling out of touch with the outside world. The denial of liberty and restricted access to the world outside prison is exactly the point of being locked up. The rules are clear: mobile phones are not allowed among prisoners. Jack’s killer should never have been able to make or post a video. I also question why the murderer should be dressed in a designer T-shirt, looking to all and sundry as though he is about to go on a night out.
In response to Zoey’s complaint, the Prison Service said that mobile phones are not tolerated, and that those who have them face extra time in prison. May I ask the Minister what is happening in this case, and what steps are being taken to prevent something like this from happening again? What repercussions have followed for this individual? We must demonstrate that actions have consequences; otherwise, we give the impression that the justice system thinks it is acceptable to show off contraband such as mobile phones in prison, and to use it to harass a victim’s family.
Steps such as airport-style security are taken to prevent contraband, but whatever the current approach is, it needs more energy, because this is not an isolated case of a prisoner possessing a phone. I acknowledge that we are taking steps in the right direction. Legislation was passed last October to crack down on the use of drones in prison. Previously, bizarrely, police could act on drone sightings near prisons only if there was evidence that drones were being used to smuggle contraband. Why else would a person fly a drone above a prison? To admire the architecture? I think not.
Since last month, it has become an offence to fly a drone within 400 metres of closed prisons and young offenders’ institutes in England and Wales. A fine of £2,500 could be issued for flying a drone, but, importantly, for those who deliver the goods, the punishment could be up to 10 years in prison. We have seen intercepted drone deliveries carrying more than £35,000 of banned goods, but some of that was before the law changed. I am delighted to see that change in law.
On contraband in prison, it seems to me that mobile phones should be the easiest to find and remove from the prison estate. The technology to find them exists, and it would make a significant difference in the behaviour of prisoners if used widely. For example, the company Unify offers a “detect” service that provides constant mobile detection and sends real-time alerts when it picks up unauthorised use of mobile phones. Using Bluetooth and wi-fi signals, it can locate the precise location of the phone, down to the cell. Can the Minister tell me how widely such technology is used in prisons to combat the use of mobile phones? Would his Department consider expanding its use?
With phones come social media. I do not need to tell hon. Members about the harm that social media can cause, even among users who have not been convicted of murder. In a place like prison, social media can be even more influential, as it is one of the few forms of contact used to get to the outside world. We know that it amplifies the peer pressure that young people already face, and it has been linked to poor mental health in teenagers.
Technology and social media can also be used positively to address issues such as knife crime. We have seen many examples of social media pressure being a key part of driving young people to action that results in them being in prison. Some exciting technology is being worked on—particularly in virtual reality—which could help. The EdTech company Round Midnight has done pioneering work, using art and technology, to engage young people in discussions on many sensitive topics. It offers a range of virtual reality workshops, and creates curriculums designed to transform students’ learning experience while tackling important social issues.
The company’s youth engagement programmes promote mental wellbeing and social responsibility, and address critical issues such as knife crime. I have seen an example of its work, in which it uses people who have been involved in knife crime as actors, and the person having the virtual experience is left to make decisions at various stages, based on questions they are asked. It is interactive, and something that they can learn from; they can see the consequences without being in a real world scenario.
The pressure that social media can put on people absorbed in that world is intense. The company I mentioned is the leading provider of virtual reality workshops. It creates bespoke programmes and trains teachers in schools across the country. Most importantly, its approach works, because it focuses on areas that the target audience cares about. The recent North East Knife Crime Taskforce event, led by The Northern Echo, allowed participants to use a virtual reality headset to explore the potential consequences of carrying a knife. The video was created with funding from the Home Office and West Midlands police, based on a similar tool that focused on gangs. They believe that it can be an important preventive tool for people who are not involved in crime but could be pressured into it or tempted by it.
The headset demonstrates how social media is used to pressure people to commit crime. I am interested in whether it can be developed as a tool for people who are in prison to understand how they got there, and how the outcome could have been different for them and their family. The virtual reality video is followed by a creative workshop that encourages participants to explore the issues in more depth. Young people can reflect on their journey through the video, and compare their experience with that of other participants. The session is not a lecture about the dangers of carrying a knife but a user-led experience.
When I was working on left-behind neighbourhoods, we talked initially about trying to help communities, then about helping them to help themselves, and finally about enabling them to help themselves without us being there in any way, shape or from. The same applies here: we are trying to create a situation in which the people who are engaging in the process feel that it is their space and they can learn from it.
Innovative approaches involving virtual reality could be used to prepare inmates for reintegration in society, with a view to reducing reoffending. There are examples around the world: in the United States, Colorado has implemented a three-year juveniles and young adults convicted as adults programme, for those who committed serious offences at a young age. Since those people often entered prison before they developed life skills such as shopping for food, the virtual reality programme allows them to practise tasks in a safe and controlled environment. Knife crime is a much bigger issue, but the principle is the same. Other states use virtual reality to help offenders develop empathy for their victims or to reduce aggressive behaviour. A pilot programme in Alaska used virtual reality to incorporate mindfulness practices; the pilot resulted in a decrease in disciplinary write-ups and fewer reports of depression and anxiety. Those processes can move people to a better place.
We know that employment can be a problem. In Michigan, there is a virtual reality programme that helps people practise for a job interview. There are many examples of people running prisons and similar services using the tool to get people to a better place. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) mentioned the opportunity for books; I want people to get to a better place by the time they are released, but if they are not, they must understand that there are consequences of what they have done.
The professor who led the study I just referred to commented:
“Above just the employment rate, those that interviewed with Molly”—
the virtual hiring manager—
“had stronger interview skills…greater reductions in interview anxiety”.
I am absolutely sure that such organisations can develop programmes that will deliver much better outcomes for repeat offenders and an appreciation of the impact of social media on others. Social media can be such a positive or negative experience, depending on how people engage with it, and such tools can get us to that place.
Music videos on social media can also influence people in a way that is difficult to imagine for those of us who did not grow up with social media. Many videos glamorise a life of crime, treating serious offences as proof of strength and encouraging others to follow suit. It is the lyrics of these songs that are the problem, not the music style itself. A number of organisations have used the same type of music, such as rap and hip-hop, as a way to access young people and give them a positive message. For example, Scotland’s largest prison, Barlinnie, has begun offering a programme that gives inmates an opportunity to change their lives through hip-hop music. The label Conviction Records supports ex-offenders by running a programme that culminates in a performance of their pieces. The workshops allow prisoners to express themselves and envisage a better life outside, at the end of their sentence. One participant said that it had given him such a sense of purpose it motivated him to avoid reoffending. That is what we want for people coming out—we do not want them to reoffend. The programme was funded by Creative Scotland. Does the Minister know of any similar plans for prisons in England and Wales, and, if not, whether we could look at similar initiatives?
Speaking with Zoey recently, she was quick to emphasise the benefits of social media, along with the horrendous damage it can do. She spoke about how last week would have been Jack’s 21st birthday. In honour of him—how brave is this?—she posted a video of their final moments together, when it was clear he was about to pass away. She said it has since been viewed nearly 2 million times and the feedback has been almost universally positive. In particular, a man contacted her to say that he used to be in a gang and had lost his best friend to knife crime. He now educates young people about the dangers of that life to help them to make better decisions. It is about getting the tools that have been used against people turned around and moving in the right direction. If rap is the thing that people engage with, then fine—but let us find rap people who are positive to this agenda. Zoey has found people like that, and I really do applaud them.
The problem we have is that the work of people involved in The Northern Echo’s North East Knife Crime Taskforce can so easily be undermined by posts such as the one by Jack’s killer, which give the impression that knife crime is not serious and prison is not a punishment. That is just so wrong. We cannot force a person to feel remorse for what they have done—that man clearly does not—but we can take steps to prevent them from influencing others to do the same. To do that effectively, crimes involving social media have to be taken more seriously. Zoey is still trying to get the police to deal with her son’s murderers and their families, who have been posting confidential documents about Jack on TikTok and Facebook which they obtained during the trial. She has found the process to be tortuously slow.
I would like the Minister to affirm that prison needs to be a deterrent and needs to be seen to be so. We need consequences of actions to be publicised, not hidden. We need education for those in prison on how they could react differently given their time again. We need victims like Zoey, Theresa, Samantha, Tanya, and the far too many others impacted, to have the protection of the system to prevent further distress from those convicted, and the belief that the lessons from each of their experiences are being applied far and wide to reduce occurrences of these shattering crimes.
I would like to understand what is being done to frustrate access to tools that enable social media access. What is being done to stop victims like Zoey suffering further? I would like to see that we can use tools to educate and inform those who have made mistakes, but we must also ensure that those who do not recognise their errors are not given platforms to promote their actions.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Edward Argar)
As ever, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair. You will be reassured to know that I do not intend to take all the time available and speak until 10.30 pm, but I am genuinely pleased that in a debate of such significance we have enough time to address the issues that have been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell), whom I congratulate on securing it.
I want to take this opportunity to express my deepest sympathies for my hon. Friend’s constituent Zoey McGill, the bereaved mother of Jack. For Jack’s murderer to have been allegedly using TikTok in prison is sickening, and no parent should have to suffer in this way. That is one of the reasons I stand at the Dispatch Box this evening to respond to my hon. Friend and explain how the Government plan to prevent such incidents from happening in the future.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell) said that the video had been made in prison, and the other people involved were in prison. Surely, given the clear evidential base, there must be a methodology enabling the governor to take this person to task and impose sanctions to ensure that he spends a longer time in prison.
Edward Argar
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear with me for a moment, because I will turn to that specific point. However, I want to begin by highlighting the close interest that my hon. Friend has taken in this horrific case on behalf of his constituent. As we all know, he is unfailingly courteous, diligent and passionate as a constituency Member, when acting and speaking on behalf of his constituents, but I think he would acknowledge that however diligent he is in relation to all cases, some cases have a real impact on an individual Member of Parliament, and I suspect that this is one of them. He and I have spoken about this case on a number of occasions, and I pay tribute to his work on behalf of his constituent, but I can reassure the House that no sooner did it hit his desk than it hit my own desk and my mobile phone.
I also thank my hon. Friend for raising the extremely important and challenging issue of knife crime—a crime that destroys lives and, so often, not just the lives of those who are not carrying knives and who end up as innocent victims. We also need to remember, and to remind people, that those who carry knives are at serious risk of being victims themselves. The Government take the threat posed by knife crime incredibly seriously, as has been demonstrated by our investment of £170 million since 2019 alone on prevention and enforcement initiatives in the 20 policing areas where violent crime is most prominent. That includes Northumbria, which covers Newcastle, Sunderland, and the surrounding area. Through those initiatives, an estimated 136,000 violent offences across the country have been prevented in the first three years of their operation. As a result of these efforts, together with the broader Home Office serious violence strategy, 120,000 weapons have been removed from Britain’s streets, and knife crime is now 7% below pre-pandemic levels.
I also want to acknowledge the important work of the North East Knife Crime Taskforce. I am aware of the vital work that it does—not least from the representations made to me by my hon. Friend—and of how it brings together victims’ families, representatives of sports clubs, teachers and people from across the criminal justice system to share ideas and forward-thinking strategies to help prevent lives from being lost on our streets. This relatively new organisation, founded last year, has been set up and driven by that national institution The Northern Echo and by brave local parents, including Zoey McGill. Let me take a moment to pay tribute to her for her dignity in the face of a terrible tragedy, and her willingness to put herself out there to try to make a difference and prevent this from happening to other families. In that vein, I should recognise, as my hon. Friend did, Theresa on behalf of Chris, Samantha’s family and friends, and Tanya on behalf of Connor.
As constituency Members of Parliament and as a House, we owe a huge debt to those who have suffered the most unthinkable things, but who want to make a difference and prevent them from happening to anyone else. Tackling knife crime and preventing future victims is a policy area led by my colleagues in the Home Office, but I will be very happy to work with my hon. Friend and Home Office colleagues to see what can be done to work with the taskforce.
My hon. Friend rightly mentioned that Jack Woodley’s murderer allegedly being able to access social media potentially undermines the criminal justice system and, of course, torments the families of victims. That is clearly unacceptable, which is why my Department has invested in the digital media investigations unit. As soon as it spots or is alerted to prisoner misuse of social media, it acts swiftly to work with social media companies to have the content taken down. In the case of Jack’s murderer, the team did just that: they quickly and thoroughly investigated that social media misuse, and successfully worked with TikTok to remove the content—and, indeed, the account—within three hours of it coming to our attention. I appreciate that this will frustrate my hon. Friend, but I must be a bit cautious about speaking about the details of that specific case in the public forum of the Floor of the House.
We are clear that there are robust systems in place to prevent and address poor behaviour in prisons, including serious rule breaking. Under section 40D(3A) of the Prison Act 1952, those caught with a mobile phone can face referral to the police and extra custodial time for the offence of possessing a communications device in a prison without authorisation, while those who are caught smuggling in phones can face the same consequences under section 40B(1)(a) of the same Act. As the Minister responsible for prisons, I am increasingly concerned by photos and videos from custody being shared on social media. Such content traumatises victims, can intimidate prison staff and threatens the security of our prisons. It is indeed a critical issue, and I recognise the impact that this type of online material can have on victims of crime and their families.
In separate cases from those mentioned by my hon. Friend, I was made aware that a parent whose son had been murdered contacted His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service after seeing photos on social media that were posted from prison by their son’s murderer. HMPPS reported the content to the platform in question but, regrettably, it remained online. In another example, the victim of an assault contacted HMPPS about a video of their attacker in prison, who talked for almost 15 minutes about the offence and was disparaging about the victim. Again, HMPPS reported the video to the platform on which it was hosted but, regrettably, it remained online. I cannot imagine the distress that seeing those posts must have caused.
As my hon. Friend stated, we cannot allow prisoners to use illegal phones to engage in criminality from behind bars. The Ministry of Justice has a zero-tolerance approach to illegal phones, and prisoners caught smuggling illicit items can and, rightly, do face extra time behind bars, a loss of privileges and other sanctions. The most serious crimes, including those where a mobile phone has been used for criminal activity or identified as belonging to a prisoner who is a high-risk offender, are also referred to the police, in line with the crime in prison referral agreement. We have a commitment from the Crown Prosecution Service that it will always seek to prosecute in serious cases. Moreover, prisoners are not permitted to have unsupervised access to the internet or any access to social media. Again, they can be punished if they access the internet without authorisation. Under national policy, prisoners can only access the internet in a supervised environment, and only for rehabilitative purposes.
We are clear that harmful social media content posted from prison should not have a home online and that we need to take effective action to remove it. Clearly, the current legislation does not quite go far enough, which is why the Government are committed to supporting the Prison Media Bill, which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher). The Bill tackles the issue of harmful media, such as videos and images created within, or showing the inside of, prisons, being uploaded to social media platforms by strengthening existing legislation—namely, the Prison Act 1952. Crucially, the Bill would close existing loopholes, because although it is currently illegal for a person to upload content from inside a prison, it is not yet illegal for a person in the community to upload media that they have been sent by someone in custody. This means that social media companies need to try to establish whether content was uploaded from inside a prison, to determine whether it is unlawful.
The Bill would make the uploading of all unauthorised prison content illegal, regardless of whether it is uploaded from within a prison or from within the community. The Bill will also address loopholes around the creation of prison content. While it is currently illegal to film inside a prison, the law is not clear that it is illegal to film the inside of a prison from the outside—for example, by drone—or to film staff from outside the prison walls. For example, videos taken from above by drone can pose security risks by showing the lay-out of buildings in detail as well as the movement of staff and prisoners, thereby helping prisoners to smuggle in drugs or weapons. The Bill provides a solution to these issues by making it an offence to create or upload unauthorised media of the inside of a prison from outside or of prison workers on prison land. These measures will remove any ambiguity and bring the law up to date.
This is a wide-ranging problem with real-world impacts. I have mentioned a just few examples today, but in 2022 and 2023 combined, HMPPS identified and reported over 1,200 pieces of harmful prison content. The Bill will support the work of HMPPS’s specialist digital media investigations unit that I have already referenced. Last year this Government passed the Online Safety Act 2023, placing world-first legal duties on social media platforms to protect the public from harmful online material. If this additional Bill passes, we will explore how content created of or inside prisons could be added to the list of priority illegal content in the Online Safety Act, meaning that social media companies would be required by law to proactively remove it.
My hon. Friend touched on the significant investment already made by the Department in stopping mobile phones being smuggled into the prison estate. We finished delivering our £100 million security investment programme in March 2022. We continue to adapt and develop our countermeasures to tackle new methods as they emerge. That investment included the deployment of 75 additional X-ray body scanners, allowing staff to see whether prisoners are smuggling illegal contraband, including phones, internally. This means that we have the ability in every single closed adult male prison to detect illicit items via X-ray. This is particularly important as some phones, known as micro-mobiles, are no bigger than a matchbox. They are small, easily concealed and hard to detect. Between July 2020 and October 2023, the X-ray body scanners have recorded 46,925 positive indications, helping to tackle the supply of mobile phones and drugs into prisons.
The programme also delivered airport-style enhanced gate security at 42 high-risk prison sites across the private and public prison estate, implementing routine searching of staff and visitors. This investment paid for 659 specialist staff, 154 drugs dogs and more than 200 pieces of equipment, including archway and handheld metal detectors. These are vital tools in stopping mobile phones and SIM cards circulating in our prisons. We have procured, developed and installed a variety of detection and other mobile phone technologies across the estate, targeting prisoners that represent the highest risk of harm through illicit phone use.
I am sure my hon. Friend will appreciate that I always try to be as open as I can in this public forum, but I cannot go into in as much detail as he would wish about the specifics of what the equipment does, where it is deployed or the extent of its capability, or disclose suppliers due to security and commercial sensitivities and to protect the tactics involved. It is vital that those seeking to undermine our defences are not given any information that helps them to do so, but I am more than happy to meet my hon. Friend separately and privately to discuss this area in more detail and hopefully provide him with further reassurance about our capabilities in this respect. He mentioned virtual reality, and that is an area I will look into further. We will consider the merits of potential options that would allow for VR delivery in regard to the training and rehabilitation of prisoners.
As my hon. Friend highlighted, in October 2023 we also introduced new legislation to crack down on criminals using drones to deliver contraband including mobile phones into prisons. The new airspace restrictions make it an automatic offence to fly drones within 400 metres of any closed prison or young offender institution in England and Wales. Drone operators who break the rules could face fines of up to £2,500, while those found smuggling illicit items will face up to 10 years in prison. These restrictions mean that police and prison staff can quickly identify suspicious drones and take action against suspected criminal activity, including the illegal filming of prison establishments. We are also investing in a new digital forensics unit to interrogate devices smuggled into jails, to produce improved evidence that is more likely to bring a successful prosecution in court.
Of course, as my hon. Friend said, there is fundamentally no need for a prisoner to be in possession of a mobile phone. The last installations of landlines across all closed public sector prisons in England and Wales are due to be completed this month. These phones are installed in prisoners’ cells to enable closer family ties and to improve safety on wings where payphones on landings were previously used. A PIN is used to access a prisoner’s account, and credit must be purchased in advance. The calls are restricted to security-cleared numbers and are outgoing only. Furthermore, since 2020, all prisons across England and Wales are able to offer social video calls with approved family members and friends, in addition to existing means of contact including social visits, phone calls and letters.
I commend my hon. Friend for raising the important issue of how young offenders can engage positively with a wide range of rehabilitative endeavours, such as music, helping them to move away from criminality and to rebuild their lives.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) mentioned books, and he alluded to an example from when our parties were in coalition in 2014. He is right to highlight the importance of books but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield said, we need to exercise a degree of caution. I had the privilege of visiting HMP Leicester last week, and I saw its amazing prison library and the work it does with the Shannon Trust and the National Literacy Trust. I have about 2,000 books cluttering my house, but we all know the power of books to give people new ideas and new opportunities to make a positive start.
I echo the views of my hon. Friend: sentencing has five objectives, one of which is to deter people from committing crime, and depriving people of their liberty represents a significant deterrent. Of course, those sentenced to custody are paying a debt to society and to the people they offended against. Prison also protects the public by keeping in custody those convicted by the courts.
The core role of protecting the public from serious offenders should also extend to giving those in custody a positive choice not to pursue a lawless life but to set out on the straight and narrow. This means that they do not reoffend, which means fewer victims of crime in all the communities we represent. It is important that we recognise that creating and uploading social media content from within prison does not form part of that rehabilitative journey. I urge colleagues across the House to close the loophole by supporting the Prison Media Bill’s Second Reading on Friday.
I pay tribute to Zoey and others who have seen their families ripped apart by the horror of knife crime and other violent crime. They will know that, in my hon. Friend, they have a fantastic champion and a genuinely caring and dogged advocate in this House. I believe we have made significant progress, but there is always more to do, and we are determined to do it.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft West Midlands Combined Authority (Transfer of Police and Crime Commissioner Functions) Order 2024
(9 months, 4 weeks ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft West Midlands Combined Authority (Transfer of Police and Crime Commissioner Functions) Order 2024.
As always, it is a huge pleasure to serve under your august and benign chairmanship, Sir Graham—I trust it will be benign, although perhaps I should not speak too soon. The draft order was laid before the House on 7 February. If approved, it will transfer the police and crime commissioner functions from the current west midlands PCC to the Mayor of the West Midlands. That would happen following the next mayoral election in the west midlands, which is scheduled for Thursday 2 May 2024, and maintain direct democratic accountability for policing and crime in the west midlands.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
On a point of order, Sir Graham. Could you give the Committee your guidance on the validity and timing of this measure? My understanding is that the west midlands police and crime commissioner has applied for a judicial review, which will not be determined until 7 March. Is it therefore appropriate that we consider this matter in advance of that judicial review?
The Chair
I cannot comment from the Chair on the judicial review but, as far as I am concerned, it is entirely in order for the Government to bring this matter before the House and the Committee.
Chris Philp
Thank you, Sir Graham. The incumbent PCC for the west midlands will continue to exercise his functions until his elected term of office ends, serving his term of office in full. The Mayor, from the point of taking office on 7 May, following the mayoral election, will act as the single, directly elected individual responsible for holding the chief constable and the police force to account, and will be directly accountable to the people of the west midlands.
The Mayor of the West Midlands will be responsible for holding the chief constable to account in the way a PCC ordinarily would. Their functions will include issuing a police and crime plan; setting the police budget, including the PCC council tax precept requirements; appointing and, if necessary, suspending or dismissing the chief constable; addressing complaints about policing services; providing and commissioning services for victims and vulnerable people; and working in partnership across the whole system, just as a number of Mayors of combined authorities do, including the Mayor of Greater Manchester, which you will be very familiar with, Sir Graham.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Thank you, Sir Graham, for allowing a Member of Parliament from the west midlands to speak. Further to the point of order made by my hon. Friend the Member for Easington, could I ask the Minister what legal advice has been taken on whether the Government are acting ultra vires, if the court decides that the consultation process the Government have belatedly undertaken has not been followed correctly?
Chris Philp
The question of ultra vires relates to whether the Government have a statutory power to act in a particular situation. The Government quite clearly do have a statutory power to act by bringing forward this order. The judicial review concerns the nature of the consultation, which is a separate question. I can tell the right hon. Lady that the Government believe that the consultation was properly conducted, and we will vigorously and robustly defend the judicial review.
Valerie Vaz
The issue of whether the Government are acting lawfully is a very serious one. My question was whether the Government had taken legal advice on that point, given that judicial review proceedings are pending and the court will hear the whole case on 7 March. The Minister talks about consultation, but could he say whether the people of the west midlands actually wanted this process and what the results of the consultation were?
Chris Philp
I have already answered the right hon. Lady’s first question: the Government are very clear that there is a lawful basis on which to bring forward this order in statute. We will also robustly—and, I trust, successfully—defend the judicial review relating to the consultation, which is a separate question. On the outcome of the consultation, about 7,000 replies were received, which is of course a tiny fraction of the population of the west midlands. The responses were fairly evenly split: I think it was 50% against, 46% in favour and 4% undecided, so it was pretty even. However, as the right hon. Lady will know from her long experience in the House, the Government will take the consultation responses into account when they make their decisions. This is not a vote or a referendum, and it is not that the largest number of responses wins; the quality of the responses and the arguments advanced in them will be carefully considered before the Government—in this case, the Home Secretary—take their carefully considered decision.
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
On the quality of the responses, the Minister will know, as I do as a west midlands MP, that one quite concerning thing was the number of copy-and-paste responses that seem to have come out of the consultation—as if someone was trying to tee it one way. Will my right hon. Friend reiterate the point he made about the quality of the responses to the consultation and ensuring that they are dealt with in an accurate way?
Chris Philp
Yes, absolutely. We take into account the quality and weight of the arguments, rather than just the number. A number of copy-and-paste responses appear to have been organised, and that is something we were aware of in considering the responses.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
On that point, will my right hon. Friend give way?
Valerie Vaz
On a point of order, Sir Graham. I understand that the hon. Member for Lichfield has a connection to the Mayor, and I wish that he could state what that is. Should he or should he not be taking part in the proceedings?
Michael Fabricant
Further to that point of order, Sir Graham. I am really grateful to the right hon. Lady for pointing that out. Legally, I am under no obligation, as I understand it—perhaps you can clarify this, Sir Graham —to declare an interest, because there is no pecuniary interest whatever. I am more than happy to say that Andy Street is a friend of mine, and I am sure he is a friend of many others. Indeed, I like to think I am a special friend of Andy Street’s, and I simply state that for the record.
The Chair
The point of order and the point raised further to it are not a matter for the Chair. It is for every Member of Parliament to reach a decision on what should and should not be declared in debates or elsewhere under the code of conduct. Any Member is, of course, at liberty to consult the Registrar of Members’ Financial Interests if they have any questions about that, but the points raised are not a matter for the Chair on this occasion.
Michael Fabricant
On the number of cut-and-paste responses, it might be helpful to point out that, of the responses from the few people who actually took part in the consultation, over 900 were duplicates, and all of them said they did not want Andy Street. It was interesting that there seemed to be an assumption—I cannot think why—that Andy Street would be the Mayor after the election.
Chris Philp
Indeed. The copy-and-paste responses were on the negative side. Of course, if one discounted those, the balance of replies would have been different, wouldn’t it? It is important to stress that we do not know who the Mayor will be after the election. The election will take place, and the people of the west midlands will decide who will be the Mayor, exercising mayoral functions and, if the order is successful, PCC functions as well.
That is important, because the West Midlands police force is one of only a small handful of police forces across England and Wales in so-called special measures—it is called “formally engage”, but in substance it is special measures. I would also add that West Midlands police force is, I think, the second worst-performing police force in the country when it comes to detecting and clearing up crime. It strikes me that there is a great opportunity to improve the performance of West Midlands police force under new management, whoever the Mayor may be following the election on 2 May.
Let me make some more progress.
Valerie Vaz
Will the Minister give way on the consultation, because it is important?
Valerie Vaz
The Minister really is, but this is important, and it is our job to question him—I thought that was what we were here for. The consultation took place over Christmas. Those are never good consultations, because people have other things to do. The Minister says there were just 7,000 responses, but I think that is quite a lot. Could he clarify what he means by “cut and paste”? If the question is, “Do you want this to happen?”, the answer is going to be only either yes or no. By “cut and paste” does he mean just a yes or a no? Lastly, there was a referendum on this very proposition in 2021 and the people of the west midlands decided against it.
Michael Fabricant
I understand that the last time the consultation was done, they were strongly supportive of the Mayor. They thought it was a waste of money, actually.
Michael Fabricant
No, I am intervening. The right hon. Lady keeps intervening, so I am sure she is not saying that I should not intervene, with the Minister’s permission. Am I not correct that, in fact, people were overwhelmingly supportive? Labour Mayor Sadiq Khan, Labour Mayor Andy Burnham and Labour Mayor Tracy Brabin all have control over the police, too. It saves money. It is not meant to be a job-creation scheme.
Chris Philp
My hon. Friend is quite right. Let me turn to some of those questions. The consultation period ran from 20 December to 31 January. It will not escape eagle-eyed Committee members that that encompasses the entire month of January, which by no stretch of the imagination can be described as “over Christmas”.
The right hon. Member for Walsall South referred to a referendum. I do not know if she was referring, perhaps, to the previous police and crime commissioner election—
Chris Philp
I am glad that the right hon. Lady, from a sedentary position, has clarified that. So when she referred to a referendum in her intervention a moment or two ago, she was in fact referring to the previous police and crime commissioner election. That was, of course, appointing an individual to the position of police and crime commissioner. He may have had a number of things in his manifesto, but I do not think we can in any way construe that as a referendum. There was certainly no question on the ballot paper about transferring, or not transferring, PCC powers. I do not think describing a PCC election as a referendum on this matter is an accurate representation of what occurred.
Let me return to the substance of the issue. Part 1 of the Government’s review of the role of PCCs cemented the Government’s view that bringing public safety functions together under the leadership of a combined authority Mayor has the potential to offer wider levers and a more joined-up approach to preventing crime. Our levelling-up White Paper reinforced that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield pointed to a number of other large cities around the country where police and crime commissioner functions are already exercised by the Mayor—with varying degrees of competence, I would add—and there are good reasons for that. There are efficiencies. The Mayor tends to be a higher-profile figure than the police and crime commissioner. The Mayor can exercise systems-wide leadership over a variety of things that are relevant to fighting crime. Typically, they can offer more effective leadership than a PCC can in the urban area concerned. I am an MP in London. While Sadiq Khan does not do a very good job as Mayor of London in general, he does have a wide range of powers, and the position has the potential to provide wider leadership on issues of crime and public safety than someone acting as a police and crime commissioner alone. We believe that that applies here as much as it does in those other cities.
Chris Philp
I will. Perhaps the hon. Member is going to suggest that we transfer the PCC powers exercised by the Mayor of Greater Manchester and the Mayor of London back to a PCC. Perhaps that is what he thinks.
Grahame Morris
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, but I will think of my own questions, if that is okay. I would like to ask about consistency. He is making quite a robust argument about efficiency and lack of duplication. Was it not the Conservatives who introduced police and crime commissioners in the first place? Why is it that in my part of the country there is no attempt to consolidate the elected Mayors and the police and crime commissioners? They are quite separate positions, and I am not aware of any move locally or by the Government to merge them.
Chris Philp
Yes, the Government did introduce police and crime commissioners in about 2014, I think, to replace the previous police authorities, and we have introduced a number of directly elected Mayors as well. However, over time, we have consistently tried, where possible, to merge those directly elected functions, and the fact that a directly elected Mayor of Greater Manchester exercises police and crime commissioner powers is an example of that. In this cycle, we are about to have a directly elected executive Mayor of York and North Yorkshire, who will exercise police and crime commissioner powers as well, and we have the Mayor of London doing that too. There is a very clear direction of policy travel to have a directly elected Mayor also exercise PCC powers. I do not hear a single Member in this House suggesting we take the PCC powers off the Mayor of London and have a PCC for London. I do not hear a single Member saying we should take the PCC powers off Andy Burnham in Greater Manchester and have a separate PCC in Greater Manchester—quite the reverse. The direction of travel is the same: to try to consolidate these powers into a single elected individual.
Indeed, we are doing that beyond Mayors. Where we can and where the geography allows, we are trying to merge police and crime commissioner powers with the old fire authorities. To give the hon. Gentleman a recent example, when there was a change to the arrangements in Cumbria County Council, which was previously the fire and rescue authority, we took the opportunity to transfer the fire and rescue authority powers to the police and crime commissioner of Cumbria to make that individual the police, fire and crime commissioner. We have done that in other areas as well, including in Essex, Staffordshire, Northamptonshire and North Yorkshire—so the directly elected Mayor will be the combined authority Mayor and the police and crime commissioner and will also exercise fire authority powers.
The Committee and anyone looking at these proceedings, potentially including the court in a few days’ time, will see that a clear and consistent policy approach is being taken across the whole of England and Wales in consolidating these powers in directly elected Mayors and, analogously, if that is a word, in police, fire and crime commissioners. That is extremely consistent, and I trust that all Members will see that and support it.
In conclusion, although I may of course reply to any points that are raised, the Government are of the very clear, considered view, as part of a long-standing direction of travel—I have mentioned all the other examples—that the exercise of PCC functions by the Mayor of the West Midlands is a significant step forward towards realising our ambition for more combined authority Mayors to take on PCC functions. We think it is more organisationally and operationally efficient. We think it is better value for the taxpayer. We think the Mayor is a higher-profile public figure, whom the public can hold to account better than a PCC—they have a much higher profile. And we think the Mayor can provide much more effective cross-systems leadership on issues concerning police and crime, delivering better outcomes for the public in fighting crime.
The proposed arrangement is more efficient. The Mayor will have a higher public profile, be more readily held accountable and deliver better outcomes. That is why it is our policy not just in the west midlands but across the whole of England and Wales to pursue this approach. That is why I commend the order to the Committee.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I start by confirming that we do not intend to divide the Committee on this statutory instrument, but that is because we agree with the principle and not the way the Government in which have carried out the process, and I will go into some detail on that. Today’s debate has not covered the Government in glory, and there remain some significant questions for them to answer.
The Minister was very robust in his response, but I do not think that that energy was particularly matched with substance when he was answering Members’ questions, and he might reflect on that when he responds, because there are legitimate concerns. I have been to many of these Committees, and perhaps those on the Home Office Front Bench are a bit more energetic than those on the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Front Bench, but this has been one of the most engaged Committees I have been to, because of the process and the way it has been handled, and I will go into some details on that.
Labour is consistent in its support for directly elected Mayors for our combined authorities, and it has long supported aligning the powers where they are coterminous with those of the police and crime commissioner. We supported it for the Mayors of Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire, and although the model is different in London, we see similar powers there. We have supported the same for York and North Yorkshire, and we supported the proposal for South Yorkshire too. So there has been consistent support for bringing those powers together over a number of SIs.
Chris Philp
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has found the debate energising and engaging—we aim to keep him entertained. He mentioned South Yorkshire, and I should have said that it is the Government’s intention to bring forward a statutory instrument rather like this one in the very near future to do the same for South Yorkshire as we are doing for the west midlands. It is only right to put that on the record, because we are taking a consistent approach.
Jim McMahon
On the basis of today’s exchanges, I hope that lessons are learned from the consultation and public engagement in the west midlands and that those are applied to the South Yorkshire consultation before that SI comes forward. It is important that we bring the public with us. Let us not fool ourselves: not every member of the public talks about these issues over their cornflakes, but those who are interested will want to know that, where they have expressed concerns, those have been taken on board. I heard the exchange earlier about “copy-and-paste responses”. We should not discount those. If people have taken the time to submit a view, it cannot be discounted. I heard the Minister—perhaps I misheard him—saying, “Well, if you discount all the negative views, what was left was quite positive.” Well, of course, that would be the case in every consultation, but I am not sure that it is quite in the spirit of—
Chris Philp
For the record, I did not quite say that. I did not talk about disregarding all the negative responses; I referred specifically to the copy-and-paste ones. However, I would like to make it clear for the record—
Chris Philp
There were more negative responses than just the copy-and-paste ones. I would like to make it clear for the record that the Government carefully considered all the responses, regardless of whether they were copy-and-paste ones or not. It is very important that anyone reading the report of our proceedings understands that.
Jim McMahon
I appreciate that clarification, but I think we all got the gist of where the mood was on that. I do think that this is a problem with how Governments, not just in Westminster but more generally, do politics in the UK. We start off with a predetermined view, or even a predetermined outcome, we go out to consultation, which is a paper exercise, and we do not adequately change our position when new evidence comes to the light. Politics needs to learn that listening and acting are not always the same as an embarrassing U-turn. I say that as a point of principle rather than about anything in particular, but I thought it was worth raising.
It is pretty clear that the Government have not brought on board widespread support on this issue in the way we have on other areas, and there are a number of questions that fall from that. Devolution is not just about doing things to people or imposing the will of central Government, based on what they already believed to be the outcome; it is about the Government working with local people to co-produce the outcome that is right for their area. So my questions for the Minister are as follows. What plans do the Government have to consult local authorities further, or do they conclude that the matter is now done and dusted? Before pressing ahead, will the Minister commit to a further formal consultation that commands the confidence of the west midlands region?
As the police and crime commissioner for the west midlands has pointed out, the Government have made a complete mess of the whole process, and I understand that an application for a judicial review has been submitted that will be considered next week. I know that that is a separate process, and I do not intend to go into the legalities, but the situation as it stands is remarkable, and not one I have faced in previous SIs on devolution matters.
Despite failing to secure the mandates needed in ’19 and ’21, the Conservatives decided to legislate to remove the requirement for democratic approval in 2023. On 6 December 2023, the Home Secretary approved the transfer without the lawfully required public consultation. The Home Secretary subsequently and retrospectively decided to launch a public consultation, which went against the outcome that the Government wanted, yet they decided to press ahead anyway. We are nine weeks before the mayoral and PCC elections and the administrators, the candidates and the parties still have no idea what is going to take place. They just feel very much as though it has been rushed to try to meet the deadline of the election for political purposes, rather than it genuinely being about due process and public engagement in a meaningful way. What legal advice have the Minister or his colleagues in the Home Office sought regarding the approach taken by the Government? Will they publish the legal advice in full? This whole discussion feels quite symbolic of the Government’s limited approach in general, tinkering with the structures and shifting significant powers between existing bodies, rather than away from Westminster or Whitehall down to communities at a closer level. It stands as a matter of fact that devolution under this Government is fragmented, piecemeal and has not gone far or fast enough. The powers and resources do not touch the sides of what is required for communities to have control over their own areas and futures.
Labour would push power out of Westminster with a take back control Act that gives communities a direct say in their future. It would start by giving all Mayors the powers and flexibility to turbocharge growth in their areas, including over planning and housing, transport, net zero and adult education and skills.
Grahame Morris
I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend’s flow, but will he give an opinion? There is a plethora of different arrangements; apart from my own region, I was just looking at Liverpool. There is Greater Manchester and Merseyside, which has a separate police and crime commissioner, as well as Steve Rotheram, the elected Mayor. There are issues with the consultation, and the members of the combined authority who were asked did not support merging the two. In the circumstances, would it not be sensible for the Committee to defer making a decision until after the judicial review has been considered on or after 7 January? Does my hon. Friend support that request for a deferral?
Jim McMahon
There are two separate points there. The first is on whether there ought to be uniformity or it should be accepted that there are different powers in different places. The Labour Front-Bench position is that where boundaries are coterminous in a place with a police and crime commissioner and a directly elected Mayor of a combined authority, both powers should be brought together with local support and consent. Where they are not coterminous, it would not be right for a Mayor in one area to take on political powers that transcend the boundaries of the combined authority in that respect. That is certainly the issue in Merseyside.
The other, separate issue, which I touched on, is a fair one: given the judicial review, should the Government press ahead or not? Certainly, the advice that we have taken is that they are two linked but separate processes. Parliament and the Government will carry on with their process, and the courts will make a judgment on the JR and its merits. It will or will not have an implication, but that is no reason not to progress at this point given the advice we have had.
I certainly take the power of the objection and the concern about the way in which things have been done, because it is a unique situation in which there are such legitimate concerns. There is a danger that the concerns raised are dismissed because the Government have the votes to get the change through regardless, which would be a mistake. If we do not bring people with us and convince them that it is the right thing for their area and can make a positive difference, and it is done despite, not with, the will of local people, that is not the road to empower people to make a change for their area.
Michael Fabricant
I am listening to the argument presented by the hon. Gentleman. He says there is a will against it locally and so on and so forth; how can he say that? We have the objection of some politicos who do not like the idea that perhaps they may lose their job. We have 7,000 people out of 3 million—I will repeat that: 7,000 people out of 3 million—who responded. That is hardly a majority at all saying that they do not agree with it. The majority of people just want us to get on with the job.
Jim McMahon
With respect, as I touched on previously, although these are not the types of issues that dominate household conversations and inspire people—they have other things to get on with—I suggest that the hon. Gentleman looks at the responses to the consultation on the creation of the West Midlands Mayor in the first place, to which I say there would have been a comparable number. That is not a reason to do it or not to do it; my point is that when people make a representation, it should be taken in good faith. Whether they are for or against, if people make substantively fair points, they should be taken on board. The point about due process, local engagement and bringing people with us on that journey has been made, and it is a fair one. Without pre-empting or getting ahead of the judicial review, there is a reason why it was brought about: because there are concerns about that process.
Labour would offer all places the right power in the right places to negotiate with Government for powers that have been devolved elsewhere. We of course recognise that local government—the building blocks on which devolution is built—is in a fragile state, and its funding settlement has given rise to a number of concerns on that front, but we believe that devolution is the way forward and that it really does answer the question of how people can feel far more power and agency in the places where they live and that they care about.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I rise to support the legislation because I firmly believe that it is consistent with the Government’s policy. The merger will improve standards and efficiency, and I believe it will also help to cut crime in the west midlands. Crucially, it will enable the Mayor—whoever that is after the May elections—to set the West Midlands police budget, to appoint chief constables and to issue a policing plan.
In constituencies like mine, Aldridge-Brownhills, things like this really do matter to our residents. The elected Mayor currently has devolved powers in areas such as transport, regeneration, housing and skills, which are all very much about people, place and communities, so it absolutely makes sense to combine the role with that of the PCC. At the end of the day, if it is good enough for London, Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire, why is it not good enough for the west midlands? Particularly given the size of the west midlands region, it just no longer works to have a separate PCC.
We often talk in this place about the really complex issues that need to be tackled, such as knife crime and violent crime, which need a much more joined-up approach. That is a further reason why combining the two roles would enable much more joined-up thinking at a regional level. I have to say that we currently have a PCC who is acting with very little regard to communities, certainly in areas such as mine, on the periphery of the west midlands—I sometimes wonder whether he actually knows where Aldridge-Brownhills is, but never mind—as demonstrated by his determination to push ahead with the closure of the Aldridge police station, putting politics before people and communities. I believe that combining the role of the Mayor and the PCC will result in a much more holistic, community-focused approach.
Jim McMahon
As a matter of principle, the police and crime commissioner is not here to defend himself against or rebut the argument that is being put forward against him. We can of course make the point on policy, and have a difference where differences exist, but let us not make it too personal by criticising an individual—from any party—who is not here to defend themselves.
Wendy Morton
With all due respect, I think that others in the room have made things personal, perhaps without mentioning a name. I am standing here to defend my constituency and to make sure that I get the best for Aldridge-Brownhills.
Fundamentally, I come back to my point that combining both roles under the leadership of one person—we do not know who that will be after the May elections, and I am not being presumptuous at all—will enable a greater, more joined-up approach that will benefit communities and our constituents, with a much greater focus on them. We need this to happen and to get on with it. Let us get this done. We have the opportunity to see that happen and to deliver for our constituents.
Shaun Bailey
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I start by commending some of the comments and the tone of the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton. He took a measured approach to this issue. I appreciate that we are not discussing his geographic area, but he can see how this merger can work. Greater Manchester has gone on a journey, and we have seen consistency there. I appreciate the fact that Greater Manchester has had its issues—we know that and it has been excepted—but I think the hon. Gentleman would agree that, as he touched on to a degree, if we are to see the real genesis of some of these areas, devolution requires more responsibility to come down. We can go back and forth over what that looks like, but granting powers such as those in the legislation before us is a really important part of that.
I must say that the opposition to this change from colleagues in the west midlands just sounds like people trying to save a comrade. That is the brutal part of it. I ask colleagues from the west midlands whether they voted for Comrade Foster in the mayoral candidacy selection last year—the contest in which he came third. That in itself is an indictment of where we are. I have seen exactly what the opposition to the change comes down to: it feels to me, and to many of us across the west midlands, that it is to try and save a mate, and nothing more.
We talk about consistency and the evolution of our areas. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills and my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield touched on, the west midlands is a region of 3 million people. It is the second largest urban conurbation in England and Wales—probably in the United Kingdom—and rightfully wants to evolve to the next level of what devolution looks like, so the opposition seems completely out of sorts. The contrast is also quite stark because, as I say, the shadow Minister gave a perfectly reasonable speech and made some really salient points. From his experience in local government, he knows the importance of managing these processes. Some of the opposition I have seen locally just seems like trying to keep the establishment going.
To touch on the points my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills made, I too have been a victim of this police station closure programme. We stopped one closure—we prevented Tipton police station from closing—but had this structure been in place, with a high-profile Mayor who was actually able to have the community cut-through my right hon. Friend the Minister alluded to, we could perhaps have sorted this situation out sooner. However, what I would say, particularly to Labour politicians locally in Sandwell, is this: shame on you for trying to take any sort of credit for saving that police station. It was not politicians who saved that; it was the community campaign that saved that. Shame on you, because you were not there when your comrade in the PCC’s office was absolutely adamant that that station had to go.
This is what we are on about: lining up responsibilities to enable us to have a more streamlined approach, to stop ridiculous situations such as the one I described and to take a more circumspect view, taking into account not just operational policing matters, which are of course important, but the broader community links that matter within our region. I think that that is what this comes down to.
I and, I think, many in the west midlands want to see our region move on. In the past 10 years, we have seen the way in which our region has evolved and developed, and it continues to do so. Why should we miss out, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield said, on the opportunities that London and Greater Manchester have had? Do not get me wrong; with Greater Manchester as an example, it is not this land of milk and honey, and things do not always go right along the way. But having that accountability—the ability to hold that person to account—but in a broader, community, contextualised way, is absolutely the key pillar behind this change.
We can go back and forth on the responses around this measure; my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield made a valuable point about the engagement on this. The hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton also touched on that when he said that this is not what people talk about over their cornflakes in the morning. However, on the democratic engagement point, I think it is incumbent on all of us in this room to ensure that there is democratic engagement on these issues.
To close, I might put one challenge to the Minister. We know that funds are stretched at the moment, and I will not go too much into the judicial review, but I would be keen to understand what advice he has taken about recovering the costs personally from the PCC. The PCC has used public money for this judicial review, when it could have been given to police officers on the beat or used to keep police stations such as that in Wednesbury in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills open. I would be very grateful for that information. I appreciate that some of the advice may be privileged but, from within the realms of what the Minister can share, what advice has he taken on recovering some of those costs? It is an outrage to my constituents that they have had to foot the bill for, as far as I am concerned, saving a mate.
I welcome this measure, as I am sure Members on both sides of the House do. It has opened a broad debate, and I am particularly interested in what the shadow Minister said, because I think this opens up a lot of rabbit holes that we could go down today, although we are not going to. Ultimately, I support this measure. It is the right move for the west midlands—a west midlands that is moving forward in the right direction—and it is putting us on a par with everyone else.
The Chair
Before I call the Minister, I would just say that it is always my intention to allow a reasonably wide-ranging debate, with points made in illustration of arguments as long as that is done briefly. However, I would advise the Minister to perhaps respond to the final point about the cost of the judicial review on another occasion, rather than this afternoon.
Chris Philp
Sir Graham, I will of course follow your advice, or perhaps your instruction, and reply to that another time. We have had a wide-ranging debate, and I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton, for the considered manner in which he made his remarks and for his commitment not to divide the Committee.
There was just one question I wanted to answer, which related to whether there is to be further consultation. There are no plans to consult any further. We have conducted the public consultation. The Government’s position on this question was categorically not predetermined. The Government did not have a fixed view of the matter during the consultation and took their decision quickly but only after carefully considering all the consultation responses.
Chris Philp
We have discussed it extensively already.
We very carefully considered all the responses, and only after considering them very carefully was a decision reached. In terms of local democratic consent, this transfer was possible only following a request by the Mayor of the West Midlands, who has by far the largest democratic mandate of any politician in the west midlands. On that basis, Sir Graham, I commend this order to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft West Midlands Combined Authority (Transfer of Police and Crime Commissioner Functions) Order 2024.
Westminster Hall
(9 months, 4 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Financial Risk Checks for Gambling
(9 months, 4 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 649894 relating to financial risk checks for gambling.
It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward.
The petitioners ask the Government specifically to stop the implementation of affordability and financial risk checks, saying:
“We want the Government to abandon the planned implementation of affordability checks for some people who want to place a bet. We believe such checks—which could include assessing whether people are ‘at risk of harm’ based on their postcode or job title—are inappropriate and discriminatory.”
The Government have responded:
“We are committed to a proportionate, frictionless system of financial risk checks, to protect those at risk of harm without over regulating. The Gambling Commission will set out plans in due course.”
There are, however, a number of perspectives on the purpose and delivery of such checks. I will do my best to present those to the Chamber today.
For context, the Gambling Act 2005 regulates gambling in Britain. On 8 December 2020, the Government published a review whose purpose was to examine whether the Act provided the right balance of regulation in the digital age. The review had about 16,000 responses. The Government response, in the form of the White Paper, “High stakes: gambling reform for the digital age”, was published on 27 April 2023. The proposals for the reform of online gambling included new obligations on operators to perform financial risk checks
“if a customer’s gambling is likely to be unaffordable and harmful.”
The documented stated that three types of risk would be targeted: binge gambling, significant unaffordable losses over time, and financially vulnerable customers.
The arguments for and against the implementation of the checks can be categorised according to three stakeholder groups: industry, reformers and consumers. I will present the case of each in turn, following several extensive evidence sessions with a range of individuals and organisations including the petition creators, the Jockey Club, the Betting and Gaming Council, Charlie Ritchie from Gambling with Lives, Dr James Noyes and the Gambling Commission.
Taking the gambling industry first, I understand the concerns that operators might have about the impact of checks on profits, not least because the top 10% of gamblers deliver 80% of operator revenue. In horseracing, the numbers are even more stark, with 85% of operator income coming from about 5% of online betting accounts. Operators argue that affordability checks are inappropriate and discriminatory, that in theory punters would be prevented from betting more than £1.37 per day, and that such checks push vulnerable gamblers into the black market. It has been suggested that online turnover is down 20% since non-statutory checks have been in place.
The issue of affordability is not a new one, though. The industry itself pushed for measures back in 2019 and has continued to recognise the need for regulation and markers of harm. The Government flagged an affordability check as a priority long before the White Paper, and the Gambling Commission has already consulted on it and accommodated it within changes to regulation. What is new is that since the White Paper was published, the Government and the Gambling Commission have proposed actual figures for such checks. Affordability is no longer abstract; it is tied to precise thresholds.
What are those thresholds? The Gambling Commission has consulted on two forms of check: first, background checks for financial vulnerability at moderate levels of spend, with proposed thresholds of £125 net loss within a month or £500 net loss within a year; and secondly, checks for harmful binge gambling or sustained unaffordable losses at higher levels of spend, with proposed thresholds of £1,000 net loss within 24 hours or £2,000 net loss within 90 days. In other words, the checks are threefold: for financial vulnerability, for significant losses over a short time, and for significant losses over a long time.
Background checks for financial vulnerability will be frictionless, using publicly available information such as credit reference data and negative indicators such as county court judgments or insolvency notices, while higher risk accounts will have enhanced checks using open banking and other options, with increasing degrees of intrusion the further into the journey that someone goes. It is said that the enhanced checks will be narrowly targeted, with only around 3% of online gambling accounts being affected; the vast majority of these checks will be frictionless, with the Gambling Commission advocating light-touch assessment, applying the data minimisation principle and focusing on publicly available data. Only 0.3% of account holders would be expected to hand over additional financial information. Industry bodies and operators point to checks that are already happening and suggest that they are far from frictionless, but these checks were introduced voluntarily by individual operators, and tare not necessarily the frictionless procedures being developed by the Government.
The second group of stakeholders are reformers, and they include researchers, campaign groups and the Government themselves. They have long supported the call for affordability checks on the most vulnerable gamblers and harmful betting, saying they are needed. The reformers point to the research showing the disproportionate nature of gambling, whereby 80% of profits come from 10% of accounts, and highlight the well-accepted belief that disproportionate profits lead to harmful losses. In addition, campaign groups are keen to point out that different forms of gambling carry different risks. Activities such as playing bingo or the national lottery, or even the vast majority of horserace betting, are vastly different from activities such as gambling in online casinos in terms of the experience and potential for harm.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this significant debate; she can tell from the number of Members here in Westminster Hall today that there is a great deal of interest in the subject from across the House.
The hon. Member just mentioned horseracing. Will she press the Minister to give what reassurances he can to the horseracing community—I speak for Ludlow racecourse, which is an important employer and source of entertainment in my constituency, well known to Opposition Members—that this industry will not inadvertently be threatened by measures to introduce the affordability checks for vulnerable gamblers that I think we all want?
Christina Rees
I thank the right hon. Member for making that very valid point. I am sure that the Minister is listening, as he always does.
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way and allowing me to reinforce the point just made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne). I represent Epsom Downs racecourse and more particularly the training industry in Epsom. In a smaller centre, in which the owners are not wealthy Arabs but simply people who enjoy participating in racing, the impact on the trainers of measures that really damage the industry would be enormous. It is not just about the racecourse; it is about the livelihoods of the people who do the training and who operate the training stables. Will the hon. Member impress on the Minister that there are genuine problems around things like online casinos, but tackling those must not come at the expense of the racing industry, which is so important to so many communities across the country?
Christina Rees
I thank the right hon. Member for making another valid point. I am sure the Minister listened and will respond in due course. The number of hon. Members who have turned up to speak is an indication of how important this topic is to our constituents and constituencies.
As I was saying, activities like playing bingo or the national lottery, and even the vast majority of horseracing betting, are vastly different from online casinos and fruit machines in terms of the experience and potential for harm. Researchers understand the importance of carefully considering the figures around the threshold for checks. They need to be appropriate, but also meaningful and preventative. Campaigners rebut the claim that such checks are inappropriate by pointing out that checks that reduce harm are highly appropriate. An example often cited is that people would not want to produce documentation to purchase a gin and tonic; that is true, of course, but there are many examples where the family of a harmful drinker might ask their local shop not to sell alcohol to them or, indeed, where someone is refused another drink because they are drunk. Nor are the checks discriminatory: they are no different from the checks undertaken almost instantly when a consumer clicks to purchase a product online using the Klarna three-payments procedure.
Finally, we must consider the voice of the consumer—the punter. Most gambling is not harmful and most bets are small, proportionate and affordable, such as a lucky dip on the lotto, a lucky 15 on the horses or a flutter once a year on the grand national.
Kate Kniveton (Burton) (Con)
Many of my constituents enjoy the time-honoured tradition of having a bet at the races at the fantastic Uttoxeter racecourse in my patch. They are concerned that the proposals for an annual £500 net loss threshold, which, as the hon. Lady has already said, equates to just £1.37 a day, will lead to intrusive checks, limiting their freedom to spend their money on an activity of their choosing. Does she agree that if affordability checks are to be implemented, they should be carefully and deliberately targeted at those who are most at risk of harm?
Christina Rees
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. I am getting a tour of constituency racecourses—this little woman from Wales is learning all about geography today. I agree that the proposals should be measured.
The proposed checks will not affect such customers at all. It is important not to conflate the views of industry with the views of consumers. Affordability checks are not about attacking consumer rights or curbing individual liberties, but about upholding consumer protections and curbing operator excess.
Sir Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
The hon. Lady says it is not about anything other than protecting consumers, but can she think of any other activity where the Government check how much money someone has?
Christina Rees
Payday loan sharks might be an example, but I am sure the Minister will respond in due course—I think I slipped out of that one, or I tried to. The responsibility lies with industry and operators, not customers.
In summary, it is understandable that industry bodies, operators and the horseracing community have concerns about the introduction of financial risk checks, but the idea of introducing checks is not new, and the need for regulation against harmful betting is supported by industry and consumers alike. The issue seems to be that such checks need to be frictionless, without negative impact on punters or operator revenue, and without pushing vulnerable gamblers into the black market. It would be useful if the Minister took this opportunity to outline how frictionless checks will work and when pilot schemes will be introduced.
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called. We have three hours, which is quite a long time, but I want to get everybody in and I do not want to impose a time limit at the moment. Perhaps, those who are called early can look around them, see that a lot of people are trying to take part in this debate, and keep their speeches brisk, which is always the best policy, and certainly not take more than 10 minutes. I am sure that I can rely on the first Member I call, Philip Davies, to give a brisk speech.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Edward. I am not renowned for brisk speeches, but I will try my best. I am sure the people of Market Rasen are delighted to see you taking such an interest in this debate.
I start by referring people to my entry in the Register of Member’s Financial Interests: I have occasionally accepted hospitality from the betting industry and the horseracing industry; I am an unpaid board member of the Racehorse Owners Association; and as I always mention on these occasions, I am the modest owner of racehorses and the owner of modest racehorses.
I thank the hon. Member for Neath (Christina Rees) for opening the debate and the Petitions Committee as a whole for allowing it to take place. I particularly thank Nevin Truesdale from the Jockey Club for launching this petition and everyone who signed it, enabling this debate to take place. I the Racing Post, which not only did a tremendous job getting behind the petition but has done sterling work in highlighting the damage that the proposed affordability checks could do to punters and the sport of horseracing. I also commend the Minister, my constituency neighbour, who inherited this policy and whose engagement with all stakeholders has been exemplary.
Let me make it clear at the outset that I am speaking up for two groups today: one is the horseracing industry, but first and foremost I am speaking up for punters—the people who have been largely ignored in this long-running debate and tug-of-war over affordability checks. They often get caught up in the crossfire of the arguments between the well-funded betting industry and the well-funded anti-gambling campaigners.
I have no intention of speaking up for bookmakers, partly because most of them in the industry are big enough to speak up for themselves, and partly because their position on stake restrictions is inconsistent—that is the kindest word I can use. On the one hand, bookmakers say it is wrong for the state to restrict how much people can gamble; on the other hand, though, they are the most guilty of all of restricting the stakes of punters who have the audacity to back too many winners, often to pennies rather than pounds. I have warned them time and again that trying to have their cake and eat it on punter restrictions would backfire. Until they abandon that anti-punter mentality, what they say on this issue will always be subject to some level of ridicule.
The principle that people should only bet what they can afford is not a controversial one. It is the first piece of advice that any of us would give to anyone who starts betting. However, what the Government and the Gambling Commission are proposing is completely unacceptable. They propose frictionless checks for people who have a net spend of just £125 over a rolling 30-day period, or £500 in a year, with enhanced checks taking place for anyone with a net loss of £1,000 in 24 hours or £2,000 over 90 days.
I have a number of concerns about that approach, both practically and in principle. I find it somewhat offensive that the Government and the Gambling Commission believe that there is something inherently distasteful about betting. If that is not the case, why are the Government proposing that type of affordability check just on gambling? Why do they not ask every retailer in the country to carry out similar checks on customers to ensure that they can afford to buy whatever they come to the counter with? Is the Minister really claiming that nobody spends more on alcohol than is good for them, more on shoes than they should, or more on holidays than they can actually afford?
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
My hon. Friend does not even need to talk about products that are that addictive. As one of my constituents has pointed out, no one checks on him if he spends £150 on a dinner for two people. Would he accept that, even if the principle is conceded that there should be some checks, the level at which this has been set is far too low?
Philip Davies
I very much agree with my right hon. Friend, as I happily do on most things. Of course people spend more than they should on all those other things, but the Government are snobbishly only treating punters as some kind of pariah, which I do not appreciate.
In Parliament, we should stand up for people’s freedoms. I was not elected to Parliament to stop everyone else doing all the things I do not happen to like myself, but some Members seem to think their job is to do nothing other than that. It is unacceptable that the Government, the Gambling Commission and the bookmakers will basically, between them, decide how much each individual punter can afford to spend on their betting, and the punter gets virtually no say whatsoever. It is completely outrageous. The Conservative party used to believe in individual freedom and individual responsibility, and some of us still do.
If we asked how much responsibility each group should take for determining how much somebody can afford to spend on betting, I doubt anyone would say that the individual concerned should have 0% responsibility, but that is the route down which we are in danger of going. It is absurd to think that bookmakers and regulators should be able to decide how much each individual person in the country should be allowed to spend on betting. When people open an online betting account or the next time they log in, perhaps they should be forced to enter how much they want to limit their spend over a fixed period. The responsibility for ensuring that they do not go over that should rest with the bookmaker, but not the decision as to how much they can afford in the first place.
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)
Does it not strike my hon. Friend that there is a degree of hypocrisy, when a large proportion of problem gamblers who really are in great difficulty are just using national lottery scratchcards? The figure is about four times higher than that for those who gamble on horseracing.
Philip Davies
I know that my hon. Friend is a big supporter of Windsor racecourse in his constituency. I will come on to that later. I hope you will think about the interventions I am taking, Sir Edward. I do not want to get in trouble.
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
You can have injury time if you want, Mr Davies.
Philip Davies
Thanks.
Thankfully, readers of the Racing Post and punters still believe in the timeless Conservative principle of individual responsibility. In a recent poll of punters carried out by the Racing Post, when asked who they thought was best placed to assess whether their betting is affordable, 96.6% said that they were, 1.8% said the Gambling Commission, 1% said bookmakers and 0.6% said the Government. If that is not a giant raspberry to the proposed affordability checks, I do not know what is.
Everyone knows that the problem gambling rates in the UK are extremely low, and certainly do not justify anything remotely close to what is being proposed. However, it is also pretty obvious to most people with common sense that the affordability checks are likely to make things worse for people with a gambling addiction, rather than better. Does anyone seriously think that anyone who has a serious gambling addiction, if and when they are told by online bookmakers that they are no longer allowed to bet with them, will just stop betting completely? It is pretty obvious that those people will do all they can to carry on with their addiction, and that will mean going to the black market where there are no controls on people’s behaviour.
Philip Davies
The hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to have his say later, and I am anxious about Sir Edward’s strictures.
The Gambling Commission has always said that the threat from the black market is overstated, while at the same time, like most quangos, telling the Government that it needs more money to tackle it. I hope the Minister will make it clear that he does not underestimate the threat from the black market. Only today, the front page of the Racing Post shows the results of a special investigation into The Post Bookmakers—an unregulated firm with 1,300 customers—which said it was expecting a ridiculously busy Cheltenham and recommended that a customer deposited as much as they could. How on earth can making it more likely for people to go to firms like that possibly help to tackle problem gambling?
The wonderful sport of horseracing derives much of its income from the gambling industry, so the more people go to the black market, the less money there is for the sport of horseracing. British racing is the best and most prestigious in the world. It is the second biggest spectator sport in the UK after football, brings a huge amount of foreign investment into the country and is a huge part of the rural economy. It also provides a huge amount of pleasure to millions of people across the country. The Government cannot possibly allow themselves to introduce measures—however well meaning —that will have a devastating effect on this great sport.
Some 24,000 racehorse owners in the UK invest more than £500 million into the rural economy. They pay £32 million a month in training fees, employing over 350 racehorse trainers who employ some 80,000 people. The least they should be allowed is to have a bet on their own horses as well. We cannot allow decisions to be made that put that investment at risk.
However much I would like the Government and the Gambling Commission to abandon the affordability check policy, I have not been here so long without accepting that some battles are impossible to win. I therefore accept that the Government may feel that they have invested too much in the affordability check debate to be able to abandon it completely. I have suggestions for the Minister that might help make the policy less bad, and I hope he will consider them.
The Government have said that they want financial checks to be frictionless, but as envisaged the checks would be anything but. First of all, will the Minister pledge to ensure that any checks will be based on net deposits, not gross deposits? That would make a material difference. Secondly, it is envisaged that enhanced affordability checks will be based on current account turnover, or CATO, data. That is used primarily by loan industries to determine whether a customer can afford a loan. It focuses on money flowing in and money flowing out of an individual’s account. That is precisely the wrong kind of test, as it second-guesses in a subjective manner what someone can afford.
CATO does not consider financial vulnerability and is extremely unhelpful when it comes to people with irregular money flows such as the self-employed, entrepreneurs and individuals with high wealth but low income. Will the Minister pledge not to use CATO data for those reasons? If he insists on going ahead with affordability checks, will he use SCOR data instead, from the Steering Committee on Reciprocity? SCOR data is much more appropriate as it shows if someone is showing signs of financial vulnerability and distress. It flags people who are falling behind on the rent or those with missed mortgage payments, defaults on loans and so on. Crucially, the checks are entirely frictionless and do not discriminate against any group, such as the self-employed.
When the Government envisaged affordability checks, surely that is what they had in mind—checking that people were not resorting to gambling to try to win the mortgage payment that they had fallen behind on, rather than trying to second-guess what each individual could afford to spend on gambling. I look forward to the Minister’s response to that suggestion. Will he also make clear where anti-money laundering checks will fit in with the affordability check regime?
If the Government insist on affordability checks, I have another suggestion: to differentiate between games of skill and games of chance—that is, to separate sports betting from online slots and roulette. Horseracing is not a game of chance and in my view should not be treated as such. Incredibly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) made clear, the Government envisage that some games of chance will be treated more favourably than games of skill. I do not think that the national lottery will be subject to affordability checks—it cannot possibly be right that people who bet on horseracing will but people who bet on the lottery will not. Will the Minister confirm that that will not be the case or give an explanation of why it will?
Not including the national lottery in such measures would indicate a disregard for the people losing money and an interest only in the people winning money. If the concern is about problem gamblers, why is it okay if they have lost all their money to the lottery, just because that money goes to good causes rather than bookmakers? The national lottery must be included in all the measures in the White Paper.
I end, Sir Edward, where I began: by urging the Minister to look after the interests of all punters to ensure that nothing is done to threaten the horseracing industry, which will never forgive the Government otherwise, and to stand up for the key Conservative principle of individual freedom and individual responsibility. It is not too late to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Christina Rees) on leading this petition debate.
It is an honour to speak about a topic that I am truly passionate about: reducing gambling harm and protecting the most vulnerable. According to the Gambling Commission, 22.5 million people in this country gamble, which equates to about 44% of the adult population. The overwhelming majority do so without any issue, but not everyone. When it comes to those for whom gambling is an addiction, the Gambling Commission and the Government have a duty to act responsibly and protect them from harm. The publication of the long overdue gambling White Paper last April was therefore widely welcomed by the all-party parliamentary group on gambling related harm, which I chair, as well as by a growing community of organisations, charities, academics and clinicians, all intent on reducing gambling harm, protecting the vulnerable and saving lives.
While concerns remain about the consultation times on the proposals in the White Paper and how long it will subsequently take us to get where we need to be, what is important today is that we lay out why the changes are so critical—specifically, the positive impact that affordability checks will have in reducing harm and saving lives.
In its patterns of play research, the Gambling Commission identified that the most profitable 1% of accounts make up 70.4% of the gross gambling yield, echoing previous research from the University of Liverpool. The gambling industry relies on a hugely disproportionate percentage of its profits coming from those affected by gambling addiction, who are subsequently harmed by unaffordable losses.
Historically, the industry has recognised the need for responsible gambling and ensuring that customers spend within their means. In 2018—that seems a life-time ago—the Senet Group, the industry standards body that was later absorbed into the Betting and Gaming Council, set out three steps that responsible gamblers should adhere to: only gamble what you can afford, set limits and do not chase losses. Suggesting that someone gripped by addiction would be able to make rational decisions on what is affordable is naive. Nobody would even contemplate that for any other addiction. The logical way forward would be to proactively introduce affordability checks on anyone gambling larger sums.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and congratulate her on the work that she does on this matter. Does she agree that primarily the focus should be on protecting the most vulnerable people in our communities? It is not about being anti-gambling per se. The industry has failed to act, which is why measures are needed to protect the most vulnerable in our communities. It is a small price to pay to protect those people.
Carolyn Harris
I totally agree. Anti-gambling is one thing that I am not. I am very fond of visiting the racetrack, as I am the bingo hall. My motive does not come from being anti-gambling. I want to protect vulnerable people.
The logical way forward would be to protect and proactively introduce affordability checks on anyone gambling larger sums. Those would not stop anyone who can afford it betting as much as they choose, but it would stop those who cannot. After carefully considering the evidence, the Government included a consultation on two forms of affordability checks in their proposals in the White Paper. The first would consist of background checks on those spending moderate levels, which would look at financial vulnerability. The proposed limits for the checks to be triggered would be a net loss of £125 within a month or £500 within a year.
The second would be a more enhanced check for those regularly spending higher levels, which might indicate a binge gambling problem. The proposed thresholds for them would be a £1,000 net loss within 24 hours and £2,000 within 90 days—halved for those aged between 18 and 24, given that that group has already been identified as being at greater risk of harm.
Although many have jumped to condemn the checks, it is important to be clear about who would be impacted by them. Recent research conducted by Dr Philip Newall from the University of Bristol and Dr David Zendle from the University of York using open banking data found that the unharmed gamblers have an average monthly spend of £16.41, compared with £208.91 for the highest risk group. That suggests that risk-free gamblers would very rarely trigger any affordability checks. If anything, the figures highlight the fact that the proposed thresholds are far too high and could be set at a lower level. To be clear, the initial background checks of financial vulnerability would be frictionless, using publicly available information such as credit reference data alongside negative indicators such as county court judgments and insolvency checks. The enhanced checks would initially use open banking, with more intrusive checks only being triggered further down the line.
It must also be put into perspective that the enhanced checks would be narrowly targeted to around 3% of the online gambling accounts affected. I can say at this point that it is the online accounts that are key. Online is where the most harm is taking place. It is where people—incredibly vulnerable people—can spend money they just do not have, with no intervention, with no contact with anyone that might notice a problem, and, until last week’s announcement, without limits. Online is causing harm at rates far in excess of any land-based venue, and it is important that we keep that in mind. The APPG’s focus has always been on that, and we have continually called for the likes of horseracing tracks and bingo halls to be considered separately in legislation.
For the 3% of affected online gambling accounts, the vast majority of checks would be frictionless. The Gambling Commission has already advocated for the focus of checks to be on publicly available data. Research suggests that only 0.3% of account holders would be subject to the level of checks that would require them to hand over any additional financial information. However, it seems that the smaller number of enhanced checks that would require consent on the part of the individual are being used as a scaremongering tactic to turn the debate on affordability into a controversial topic. Given that those checks have such a minimal impact, it is difficult to see why they have been contested so vehemently.
We know that the industry has stirred up the controversy by exaggerating the levels of intrusion and suggesting that the checks would drive gamblers to the black market. That loses sight of the whole point of the checks, which is to protect gamblers from harm by ensuring that they are spending within their means. Surely that is in the interest of the industry, which currently has a reputation for allowing those unable to control their gambling to gamble far in excess of what they can afford to spend.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
The hon. Lady is making some strong points, and she has done some excellent work on this issue. When one talks to people who have lived and are living with serious gambling addictions, what comes across very strongly is the way they alter their behaviours to avoid accountability and scrutiny, to the point of using multiple identities. That being the case, is the hon. Lady confident that these kinds of checks, some of which will be intrusive, as she said herself, will drive the better outcomes we all hope to see?
Carolyn Harris
While we do not have all the answers now, that does not mean we should not do anything to protect those who are vulnerable. It is our responsibility to make sure that the system works to protect vulnerable gamblers.
It is ironic that this is the same industry that just a few years ago set out the three steps for responsible gambling, which included only gambling what is affordable —the same industry that still spends big bucks on “Safer Gambling” logos and promoting safer gambling week. It seems to be a case of talking the talk, but being totally unwilling to walk the walk and actually implement the measures that could protect the most vulnerable customers.
As I said at the beginning, we know that the vast majority of the 22.5 million people gambling in this country enjoy doing so safely and within their own limits. Nobody, least of all me, wants to prevent them from being able to do that. We have already established that the number of people who could trigger a check as a result of their spending, even if it is money they can afford to spend, is negligible. The argument against affordability checks is therefore very difficult to grasp, when a slight inconvenience for a very small number of people will protect many more.
The argument for affordability checks is comprehensive. It will stop those gripped by addiction from gambling more than they can afford. It will reduce the levels of harm we are seeing. It will protect the industry’s most vulnerable customers. Most importantly—and I say this because there are people in this room today who have lost children because of this addiction—it will save lives.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
It is a privilege to speak in this debate under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I apologise if I have to disappear briefly at 6 o’clock for a charity meeting, but I pledge to be back before the wind-ups.
The hon. Member—in this case, my hon. Friend—for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) has made most of the strong case that exists, but I want to touch on a few particular points. It seems to me that this debate should not be for or against affordability checks, and I do not think it really is. In fact, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) invariably ends up being in the right place on some of these points. He made the case, rightly, for a debate about what levels there should be, how this all works, and who should and should not be in. I thought that was quite interesting.
I want to come back to my hon. Friend’s point about the need for checks to be frictionless. I agree. If there are to be checks, they need to be as frictionless and as unobtrusive as possible, because they are about the early onset of issues and problems. They should act as flags and be the nudge that says, “Something isn’t right here”, rather than an absolute shutting down, as it were.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley made three points, including whether net deposits should be used or not, that CATO checks will not work—I completely agree—and that score data is an issue here; I also agree. All those points are really important, and I recommend them to the Minister.
It is important to understand that I was never really in favour of these checks originally, when I first started. However, having spent time with the charities and people who have lost members of their family, I think one point comes across time and again: if there had been an early moment in the process when either the people concerned had realised what they were up to or others had been able to say, “Stop, stop! Where are you going with this?”, many of those disasters would not have happened.
We need to look at the issue in the context of how we can stop the early onset of addiction and the process that takes place, as we would do with anything else. It is a human issue; it is not a principle of freedom versus non-freedom. During many hundreds of years in this place, we have dealt many times with issues where absolute freedoms have had to be constrained to some degree, but we limit that as much as we possibly can be. That is the case in this process, which is why I think we should be able to settle on that here.
First of all, I do not have a racecourse in my constituency, but I used to have a dog track. It was a very famous dog track, but it closed because the owners decided that they could make more money through online gambling rather than allowing people to come to the stadium and bet, which I had done in the past. I have to say, I, like anybody—well, perhaps not everybody—like to go to race meets, and I like to bet on horses because it makes it more exciting. I always try and go to the ring to do that. Racecourse owners have done no good to the ring, which is really proper betting; in many cases, they have pushed it further and further away from the smart stadiums. The people there were the ones who would occasionally say to someone, “You know you’ve already bet on this. Are you sure you want to put this bet?” I have had that happen—no, I haven’t, but I have seen others get it on a number of occasions, and I have stood up for them when they have had these problems.
This is not about being against gambling; it is about being against the untrammelled levels that affect those who are most vulnerable. That is the key. Let us make very clear what is not on the table. As things stand, there are no checks for on-course bookmakers, and none are planned. I would be against that should we decide to go down that road. This is important, and the same point exists for land gambling. We are not planning to check or stop that in the same way as online, which I will come back to in a second.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
My right hon. Friend makes an important point about the need for balance in this policy. Having spoken to a lot of the breeders and trainers in my constituency in Wiltshire, I think there is a very strong argument against these proposals. We have also heard the case for them.
The fact that this debate is so well attended and that there is so much controversy about these proposals suggests to me there is a problem with the policy-making process. When I was a civil servant at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport—in fact when my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock) was Secretary of State—I saw how policy making is done, and I think there is a problem with it.
The people who are the experts or are most likely to be affected by the policies that we make here are not properly involved in the deliberations that go into policy making. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend agrees. Could he make the point to the Minister that, given the degree of controversy over these proposals, we need to delay the implementation and involve a wider group of stakeholders and experts in the consultation, which should have happened before now?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
My hon. Friend has made his point through me to the Minister, who I am sure will deal with it. I will say that the consultation did not happen overnight—it has been going on for some time—but I accept that others may think that they have not had enough time. In fact, the gambling industry could have made a bigger impact by taking full part, rather than not always wanting to be intruded on by questions. As has happened with the group on many occasions, many chose to stay away.
I also make the point that few people will be impacted by the checks. Many of the concerns set out by punters involve the checks that the industry is already carrying out. It intrudes like mad on behaviour—that is the biggest area. It wants to deal with the behaviour of punters because, as we have heard, the gambling industry makes the vast majority of its money from those who are losing money at a rate of knots.
In fact, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley made an interesting point, which I agreed with: often, those gamblers who have been successful end up being blocked. That information travels across the gambling companies, so a gambler who happens to be moderately or very successful finds themselves taken off the list of all those companies. They are not about openness, freedom and choice; they are the last people to be interested in that. We may be debating this, but they are not, because they do not want to lose money themselves.
The important point is that the gambling industry itself has not shown a huge amount of respect for the horseracing industry. Many betting shops are encouraged to cross over to FOBTs, or fixed-odds betting terminals, which are now B3s, and to SSBTs, or self-service betting terminals, which allow cash remote betting inside shops. The remote sector has long looked to cross-sell away from horserace betting to betting on other sports.
One thing that I want to make absolutely clear is that the gambling companies are not that interested in the success or the future of horseracing per se, but just in how much money they can take out of it. I am desperately keen that the horseracing industry should thrive. I absolutely believe it offers huge prospects for those in rural areas. It is a hugely successful and now global industry, and no one supports it more than I do.
I will end this by saying simply that the debate should not be about the absolute purity of no checks. We are here to look at, first, what the levels are and, secondly, how intrusive they will be. If we could achieve that and the right decision is made finally by the Minister, that will mean that the situation will be much better and, at the end of the day, that fewer people will lose their lives or become so addicted because of the desperate nature of what they have been doing in darkened rooms and behind closed doors. We want to stop that and to save lives.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Sir Edward.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Neath (Christina Rees) on introducing the debate, which has already shown that this is very much a question of balance. We recognise the problem of gambling and gambling addiction, but we also understand that there are many forms of gambling, and the majority of people speaking today are here because we support horseracing and racecourses. We must ensure that we try to stop harm, which we are all absolutely in favour of doing, but do not put the baby out with the bathwater by putting out of business the wonderful facilities in our communities that enjoy so much support.
If affordability checks are to be implemented, they should be carefully and deliberately targeted at those most at risk of harm. We have already heard that exact sentence this afternoon. We need to ensure that problem gambling does not ruin more lives. We all believe in the need to protect people from gambling harms, and reforms are overdue: the UK has 400,000 problem gamblers, including some 60,000 children aged 11 to 16. Those figures are stark.
My constituency, however, is lucky to enjoy an active and vibrant horseracing scene. Bath is Britain’s highest flat racecourse, with a distinguished history of racing going back to 1811. Racing was first recorded in Bath in 1728, which is a reminder that people did not go to Bath just to take the waters. Bath racecourse is an incredibly important venue for the city. It hosts more than 20 races each season but, much more, it is also a venue for family days, live music and many other large-scale events. It was also a vaccination hub during the pandemic. It is an important employer and welcomes thousands of visitors.
Not surprisingly, many of my constituents have signed the petition. British racing is particularly vulnerable to changes made to gambling regulations and, as we have already heard many times this afternoon, we must ensure that we get this right. The racecourse has expressed concerns to me about proposed affordability checks. It believes that a one-size-fits-all approach will not work, and I echo that. Proposed affordability checks currently will be the same for everyone, no matter how much they can earn or what their disposable betting income is.
Bath racecourse has welcomed Government assurances that most consumers will not actively notice checks taking place. It is right that checks will be frictionless, but Bath racecourse is concerned that intrusive checks could put off punters, as we have heard. I am not an expert—I do not own any moderately successful racehorses—but occasionally I go to a race, and it is absolutely true that it is fun to put a bet on a horse, because we are invested in that horse. That is fine for most people. We should absolutely ensure that that sort of betting is not intrusively checked; that if somebody wins, they can bet and try their luck again; and that we are not stopping all those types of betting or the fun that people have at racecourses—the majority of people have harmless fun.
The majority of gambling problems stem from people chasing their losses and spending more than they can afford; I think I have heard that about gambling addiction, although I am not an expert. Ultimately, people get most excited by betting more if they have lost something. In fact, we have also heard that when people are winning, they are sometimes excluded from betting more. That is absolutely not right.
We Liberal Democrats are adding something to this debate: we would adopt a public health approach to gambling legislation. We propose that there should be a soft cap on gambling losses set at £100 per month. That proposed cap is much higher than the vast majority of gamblers lose in a month, so occasional gamblers would not be affected in any way and would not appear on any database. As I have said, many gambling companies already require financial data for gamblers to be able to open an account, so for many who reach the £100 cap no additional information would be required. If someone wished to bet beyond that loss limit, they would be required to provide financial data to show that they can afford to do so.
The affordability checks would be run separately from any individual gambling company. There would be confidential sharing of data between different gambling companies so that an individual could not get close to the cap with several companies at the same time. We need a single, independently run system of affordability checks that treats people with dignity. Data collected for that purpose would be held securely and confidentially and solely for that purpose. The affordability checks would not apply to cash gambling, for example, at horseracing. Those are some proposals that the Minister might have a look at.
It is important that there should be reform, but it is also important that we get this right. It is particularly important to me that such a wonderful facility as Bath racecourse is not affected by a hammer approach to tackle the problem. That would have unintended consequences and put wonderful community facilities such as Bath racecourse out of business.
Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to be able to speak in this debate, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Neath (Christina Rees) for introducing it. I am even more grateful to the more than 100,000 people who signed the petition; it reached 100,000 people calling for the debate in only 27 days. Some 1,200 of the signatures are from Newmarket in my constituency—my constituency is called West Suffolk, but the vast majority of the signatures are from Newmarket. Being here feels like the start of a horse race as I am surrounded by so many colleagues and it is so busy in here today. I have been contacted by other Members, including two Ministers, who wanted to speak in this debate but cannot, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), the former Chancellor. This issue is huge and I do not want to leave the Minister with the impression that affordability checks are a side issue; they are absolutely central to the future of horseracing. We are making a mistake, so we must stop and start again, and I will set out why.
I bow to no one in caring about and paying regard to the problems of gambling harms. I have seen them for myself; I have spoken to those who have lost children to gambling. As the Culture Secretary, I introduced the limits on fixed-odds betting terminals, or FOBTs, which were far below the recommended rate. I overruled the official advice to bring in the £2 limit, with the support of the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). We worked together on that.
I care deeply about gambling harms and as both a former Culture Secretary and a former Health Secretary, I understand them. However, these proposals, as they are being introduced, will make the gambling harms worse. The PwC report published recently showed that the amount staked by UK online gamblers on the unregulated market in 2020 had doubled to £2.8 billion in the previous one to two years. In December 2022, more than 250,000 people visited unregulated black market sites, compared with only 80,000 during the same month the previous year. That has a huge impact on horseracing, which I will come on to, but also on gambling-related harm. Online casinos—games of chance rather than games of skill—are a serious problem that need addressing. I would recommend that the limit of £5 being proposed by some is reduced to £2. We should be extremely tough on games of chance, which are programmed algorithmically to ensure that people lose money. I do not think anybody in this debate would oppose the introduction of measures to resist those types of addictions, for addictions they are.
As I say, I bow to nobody in my support for measures to tackle problem gambling, but I am afraid to say that, having examined the evidence, I am convinced that introducing these measures—not just as they are being proposed, but as they are actually being brought in—is increasing gambling harms and not decreasing them. We should not fall for the old adage of, “We have a problem, and we must do something; this is something, therefore we must do it.” I am afraid to say that the current proposals will make problems worse rather than reducing them.
Many of the offshore gambling firms explicitly target those signed up to the GAMSTOP service and there is a grim irony that the regulator and the Government are, unfortunately, making the problem worse.
A couple of Members have said that the checks have already been introduced by the industry; the hon. Member for Neath said that they had already been introduced “voluntarily”. I am afraid to say that I do not think that is true. The gambling industry, for which I have absolutely no regard, is introducing checks now in the shadow of expected future regulation, because it knows about the Gambling Commission—indeed, it is regulated by the Gambling Commission. These things are not being introduced “voluntarily”; they are being brought in because the gambling companies think that further regulation is coming down the track. We are already seeing the negative impact in the uptake of black market offshore gambling, as I have already said, and we are already seeing the impact on the horseracing industry.
I am incredibly lucky to represent Newmarket. Horseracing is the UK’s second largest sport, with 5 million racegoers annually, generating over £4 billion for the economy and untold soft power. In Newmarket, 7,000 people are employed in or around horseracing, which puts a quarter of a billion pounds into the local economy. In addition to all of that, it creates the joy that so many of us have spoken about.
We know that 26% of bettors have already experienced an affordability check, ahead of the proposals officially coming in. We have seen that the betting turnover on racing fell by £900 million in 2022-23. The financial impact on the horseracing industry is already happening. Prize money is going up in the rest of the world but is incredibly tight in the United Kingdom. The impact is biggest on the small racecourses, but there is even an impact on Newmarket, which hosts the two finest racecourses in the world.
Sir Bill Wiggin
The industry estimates that this will cost it £50 million. Does the right hon. Member agree that if we can separate the challenges of problem gambling from the joy and importance of horseracing, which employs 80,000 people, perhaps progress is possible? However, at the moment that is not clear.
Matt Hancock
Absolutely. Horseracing already has its own legislative framework; it has had it since Churchill introduced the Tote. There is already in law a definition of and a separation of horseracing. I recommend that the Government separate games of chance, in which there is no skill and there are guaranteed losses, from horseracing, which is one of this country’s finest achievements and brings joy to so many.
Let me turn to “frictionless”, which we have heard a lot about. I was thrilled when the Minister said at the Dispatch Box that checks would be frictionless; he has said it here and he said it in the White Paper. Here we come to something of a constitutional point, if I may say so. The Gambling Commission has interpreted the Minister saying checks will be frictionless as meaning “frictionless for the vast majority”, which is different. These checks, if they are to happen at all, should be frictionless. The Minister has committed to that and it is Government policy, yet we have a regulator wrongly misinterpreting “frictionless” as “frictionless for the vast majority”. It is a distinct problem. Also, if checks are frictionless, they have to be based on data that people have already consented to make publicly available. If somebody looks at one’s bank account details, there has to be friction, because they will need permission to look at those details, so there is already a problem with implementing frictionless checks.
The hon. Member for Swansea East made the point that it is difficult to see why people would worry about these checks or why they would go to unregulated online sites. There are two responses to that. The first is that people fear the Government looking into their financial affairs. The second is a practical point: it is happening. That is how people are responding to these proposals. I know it is happening among my constituents, because they tell me on the doorsteps. They are changing the way they place bets, because of fears about what the Government are going to look at. We need to recognise reality in this place. We cannot just wish away people’s behavioural response, which is making the tackling of problem gambling worse rather than better.
Any jockey knows when a race is going wrong. I surely do. With this one, I say to the Minister that it is time to return to the stalls and start again.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I join others in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Christina Rees) on her thoughtful and balanced introduction to the debate. I find it fascinating that so many of the contributions to it have been about the horseracing industry. I had to check the petition again, because it mentions the horseracing industry only in the last sentence, as an afterthought. We would all want to defend and protect the horseracing industry, but I fear that in this debate it is being used as a wedge by a gambling industry that is using something for which there is great affection in order to prevent something that is doing much wider harm.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I apologise for intervening on the hon. Member, but this has been the case all along and in all the inquiries. The real damage lies in the slots, the fast gambling and the speed of all those chases, not in something that takes about four or five minutes to finish. This is all about the speed of gambling and the incentive to gamble quickly, quietly and in the darkness of one’s own room.
Paul Blomfield
I thank the right hon. Member, my friend in this context, for his intervention. He has done such good work on this issue, and on this point he is absolutely right.
I have become involved in gambling reform only in the past six years or so, following the death of one of my constituents, Jack Ritchie, as a result of gambling addiction. What I learned from the tragedy of Jack’s death was that often when people take their own lives it is because they are overwhelmed not by gambling debt, but by the addiction itself. When I talked to Jack’s parents, they were very clear—this echoes a point that the right hon. Member has made—that if there had been checks, balances and preventive measures in place at an early stage of Jack’s journey into addiction, it could have transformed the tragic outcome when he took his life.
Jack is not alone. According to Public Health England, over 400 people take their lives each year as a result of gambling. A recent Gambling Commission survey, which I think has been mentioned, found that 2.5% of the population—over 1.5 million people—score over eight on the problem gambling severity index.
Philip Davies
The hon. Gentleman has repeated this line that over 400 people a year die of suicide as a result of gambling—a figure that has been discredited many times and with which the Gambling Commission certainly would not align itself. Can he tell us how he has arrived at that figure? What methodology has he gone through? I think that when he does explain it, he will realise that it is a discredited figure.
Paul Blomfield
I was happy to take an intervention, in contrast with the hon. Member’s approach earlier, but I was simply citing the figures provided by Public Health England. I respect Public Health England, as I am sure—
Philip Davies
The figures have been discredited, and it does not accept them any more.
Paul Blomfield
I am prepared to accept the figures from an established, respectable national body.
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
Order. Let’s not have a private bit. Let’s get on with it.
Paul Blomfield
I am very happy to get on with it. The point I was seeking to make is that gambling addiction is a health issue. The NHS will very shortly be opening a gambling harms clinic in my constituency. It will join a network of 15 across the country that are tackling the serious problem of gambling addiction. Hon. Members have asked, “What requires an intervention? What is the difference between gambling and going out and spending £150 on a meal, shopping and other leisure activities?”, butI do not see the NHS treating those activities as a serious health issue, as it does with gambling addiction.
Matt Hancock
Will the hon. Gentleman give way? I am a former Health Secretary.
Paul Blomfield
I know that the right hon. Member is a former Health Secretary.
Matt Hancock
I was the Secretary of State who introduced those gambling clinics.
Matt Hancock
There was one beforehand. Will the hon. Gentleman address the question of the extent to which we know that those gambling harms are related to betting on horseracing—as opposed to these games of chance, which are so aggressive and have algorithms designed to promote addiction?
Paul Blomfield
I am happy to have taken that intervention, because I was not seeking to make that point. I was recognising the way in which horseracing is being used as a wedge issue to tackle a different problem, as has been echoed by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris). There is a distinction, and we should not let horseracing be used to undermine the affordability checks that are needed in a different context.
The point I was making is that if this is a health issue, we need to have a prevention strategy, just as we do with other health problems. I commend the Government for the prevention strategy that they have developed with the gambling White Paper. Affordability checks are an important part of that strategy, but it is regrettable that the debate around them is generating more heat than light, as it has done today.
I can understand why, beyond racing, the gambling industry is keen to avoid checks. As my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East pointed out, Gambling Commission research using the “Patterns of Play” data confirms that the most profitable 1% of accounts make 70.4% of gross gambling yield. Those are disproportionate profits derived from small numbers of players, who in many cases are gambling much more than they can afford to lose. Those people need to be protected. We know that harm can happen at relatively low levels of spend, so it is important that affordability checks be set low enough to prevent harm.
I understand the fears behind the petition. It is important that we spend time, as other colleagues have done, underlining how unobtrusive checks can be and, I am confident, will be. Affordability checks are nothing new, and contrary to suggestions from the industry, background checks on financial vulnerability could be frictionless, making use of already available data—data that we should remember is already used by the industry itself to monitor accounts and, in some cases, withhold winnings from players to regulate their losses. The data is there, and the industry is willing to use it in one context. Why not in this context, too?
We know that in the case of enhanced checks, only 0.3% of account holders would be expected to provide additional information—I think that point was made earlier. That is a tiny number in relation to the benefit that could be achieved through introducing the checks. The vast majority of checks can be done passively, using information that is in the public domain or required for registering an account. My hon. Friend the Member for Neath made the same point in her speech. It is also important that checks be done by independent, reputable third parties regulated by the FCA. We should bear that in mind, too.
I want to make a brief comment on the black market argument that has started to come up. This is the last refuge of rogues, really. When the tobacco industry had run out of every other argument to stop regulation, it said, “But what about the black market? Don’t do anything to us: it will force people to turn into black market smokers”—and they did not. We saw a successful public health strategy on tobacco. Payday lenders made the same argument when affordability checks were introduced in their sector, and we have not seen a significant movement from payday lenders to black market loan sharks.
Claims about the potential growth of the black market following more stringent regulations have been successfully challenged, including by the Gambling Commission, whose powers to address the issue of illegal sites will be further strengthened by provisions in the Criminal Justice Bill. I understand the difficulties in regulating the online world. We face rogue operators across the online world, but if we are prepared to tackle them in other spheres, why not in online gambling?
Affordability checks will play an important role. They must be set independently rather than by the industry, and set at a level that will protect those who need them most. I recognise that many people enjoy betting safely and without harm, and we can and should ensure that affordability checks are frictionless except in the most extreme circumstances. We cannot lose sight of the fact that affordability checks are about protecting people from harm and ensuring that the gambling industry is regulated in the right way.
I note the points made about things that have already been happening. Those things are happening because the industry knows that change is coming. If the industry had been left to its own devices, we would never have seen those sorts of measures.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; I am also proud to be the Member of Parliament for Cheltenham racecourse and—with the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn)—the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on racing and bloodstock.
I am afraid that I will have to disappoint the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), because I am going to speak mainly about horseracing. I think the most recent estimate is that Cheltenham racecourse brings in £278 million to the local economy in just four days. Those four days are coming up very soon, so I would be neglecting my duties if I did not speak from a horseracing point of view.
May I thank the Minister for being always available for a meeting to discuss the issue, and always willing to come to these debates? I do not think he particularly enjoys them any more, but he always turns up and listens. I thank him for everything he is doing. I recognise that this issue was dropped on him by previous Ministers; for that, he has my deepest sympathy.
I want to point out the relationship between betting and horseracing, which is not always obvious. The figure varies, but something like 40% of racing’s income comes from betting companies through the levy, media rights and sponsorship. I also want to explode the myth that horseracing is a rich sport; it is referred to as the sport of kings, and several monarchs have indeed taken a deep interest, but it is very poorly funded. If we look at the top 1%, there may be a lot of money there, but if we look at the whole pyramid, we find that it is not well funded at all. Racehorse owners—I am not one of them—are the unsung heroes of racing. They lose so much money that I am surprised that they continue at all, but they do.
Let me cite some figures from yesterday’s racing. At Hereford, the average prize money was £4,342. Not many miles away, at Naas in Ireland, the average was £12,479. Two races in France yesterday averaged £27,000. Hong Kong was almost off the scale: the average was £154,620. We can see from that how very poorly horseracing is funded in this country. That has a knock-on effect on stable staff, jockeys and trainers, who are all far from rich—quite the reverse, believe me. Although British racing is the best in the world, it is probably almost the most poorly funded.
Racing cannot take any more financial setbacks. Racing and betting have come together on this issue like never before, because they know that they face the greatest ever threat to their existence. I am not exaggerating when I say that. Imagine the UK without the Grand National, the Derby, Royal Ascot or the Cheltenham Gold Cup: they are magnificent, iconic races and the UK would not be the same without them. I have to say that the changes to the levy that are being discussed would not compensate for the losses that racing could face as a result of the affordability checks. Quite the reverse: to use an old political phrase, it would be a double whammy.
Ronnie Cowan
The hon. Gentleman is talking about industry funding, but what about the boat race, Wimbledon or—I have to mention it—the Calcutta Cup? None of them is funded by the gambling industry, yet they survive.
Mr Robertson
They are very different. Someone with more experience may correct me, but I think I am right in saying that across the world, horseracing is funded by gambling companies. I am not fully aware of how other sports are funded, so I will have to ask the hon. Gentleman to excuse me in that respect. I have always been in favour of racing expanding its income stream and getting more sponsorship. It does a lot of work on that, and I would be happy to see it going down that path, but it is nowhere near it yet—not by any means.
There is also the philosophical aspect to this, as we have heard. A Conservative Government should not be telling people how much money they should spend. I am keen to recognise that we need to help problem gamblers, but we should be targeting people who may be liable to become addicted to gambling, rather than people who spend too much on gambling. If we try to stop people who spend too much on gambling, we enter the philosophy of it. What about people who spend too much on alcohol? What about people who get addicted to shopping? It was said earlier that we do not see the health service dealing with those people, but perhaps it should, rather than just focusing on one aspect of society —in other words, gambling. Perhaps that is a criticism of the health service, because that is not something to be proud of. We should be looking at people who have other addictions. People with addictions often have other problems as well, and I speak with some knowledge on the matter. Saying, “You can spend £100 a month, but not £200 a month” does not help people with addictions. We should be creating systems that help those who are in real danger.
I am not going to speak for very long, and I will respect your 10-minute guidance, Sir Edward. I suggest that we should halt this process. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) suggested that the Government have invested too much capital in it. Well, they have not invested as much capital as they did in High Speed 2, and they managed to pull that—eventually, but quite rightly. I suggest that we should take a step back, because we risk destroying not only the betting industry, but, far more importantly from my point of view, the second most popular sport in the United Kingdom.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a fantastic speech. I am one of the few Members in the Chamber who does not have a horse track in their constituency, but my constituents are passionate about this issue. Like me, they believe in personal responsibility and freedom, and they like a day at the races. We should not apologise for those things. As my hon. Friend represents Cheltenham, does he agree that the checks, as they are designed and as they are being used voluntarily, are deeply flawed and that they could see people forced into the black market on the first day of weeks like Cheltenham if they have had a bad day’s betting?
Mr Robertson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the black market is a real threat. The tobacco industry may have made a lot of it, but it was because people were turning to the black market. That cannot be denied. A committee I chaired years ago looked into that in some detail. Of course, people did go to the black market, and they are likely to go to the black market because they want to have a frictionless bet that does not cause them a load of trouble. They are already doing it, and we are getting evidence of that regularly.
Philip Davies
As ever, my hon. Friend speaks up very well for the racing industry. Was he, like me, surprised to hear the SNP appear to argue that it does not want any income for racecourses from the gambling industry? Does he agree that people at Perth, Musselburgh, Hamilton, Ayr and Kelso will be very interested to hear that that seems to be the view of the SNP?
Mr Robertson
My hon. Friend tempts me to go down a road that I am not quite sure I want to go down. The SNP is capable of speaking for itself.
Ronnie Cowan
I was not saying that it should be stopped; I was saying that there has to be equitable funding for all other sports. It cannot focus just on horseracing as the only one to benefit. There are other sports enjoyed throughout the United Kingdom.
Mr Robertson
Okay. I think I answered that earlier.
Look, we all want to protect vulnerable people. The analogy I always use is that a pub makes its money from selling alcoholic drinks to people, but it does not want alcoholics or people who are drunk in there. It wants people who enjoy a drink without causing any problems to themselves or anybody else. The proposals are deeply unpopular in the racing and betting industries, and many colleagues in my party and other parties are concerned about them. We are not saying, “Let’s not take measures to help vulnerable people.” Of course we should, but this is not the way to do it.
I ask the Minister to have a word with the Gambling Commission and put a halt to the pressure it appears to be putting on companies, which are already taking steps, and we are already seeing the loss of income to horseracing. The Minister should say, “Hold it for a minute”—or perhaps, “Hold your horses”—“and let’s have a rethink.” Let us get interested parties around the table—I think that suggestion was made earlier. Let us not rush this; let us think about how we do it properly. As I say, the Minister is not to blame; he has had this dumped on him, but I ask him to please go back to the people who are pressing this policy, wherever in the Conservative party they are, and say, “This is a dangerous policy. It will not work. There is a lot of opposition within our own party to it.” Let us get people who know what they are talking about around a table, talk about it and see what progress we can make working together.
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I was worried that I was going to be declared a non-runner, but I am glad to get under starter’s orders, having listened to numerous colleagues.
Let me say at the outset that those of us with an interest in this topic, from whatever perspective—and, indeed, those of us with a wider interest in sport—are very fortunate that we have, in the Minister and the shadow Minister, two people who are engaged, open to discussion and involved in every aspect of their brief. In fact, I saw the Minister yesterday, and I thought to myself, “He is the great white hope for the Conservative party.” He appeared on our television screens and received rapturous applause, foot-stomping and acclamation on Merseyside. I am sure that it was coincidental that it was when he was at Wembley as a member of the presentation party presenting Jürgen Klopp and Virgil van Dijk with the league cup.
[Sir George Howarth in the Chair]
I draw attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I always say at this point that, having owned horses and gambled on horses, I have given a lot more to racing and betting than it will ever give me, but I am happy to draw—
Matt Hancock
The hon. Gentleman reminds me to draw the House’s attention to my entry in the register. I am lucky to have been strongly supported by those in Newmarket.
Conor McGinn
I am delighted to have given the right hon. Gentleman that opportunity.
I want to be emphatic about this so that we are very clear: I am here to speak on behalf of Haydock Park racecourse in my constituency in St Helens; I am here to speak up for the 100,000 people who signed this petition—decent, honourable, good taxpayers in this country who have a concern about this issue and a love for horseracing; and I am here to say emphatically that the whole of the horseracing industry, which, if I might cheekily say so, is not widely known for its unanimity on issues, speaks with one voice about its concerns on this issue. I am co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group with the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), and this is an interest and an issue that unites people in all parties and across the House.
I want to step back a little and look at the bigger issues. Many of the points that I wish to make have been made already. I furiously agree with the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) on this—as I do, I fear, on too many issues—and he made a lot of the points that I wish to make.
Philip Davies
That admission is far more damaging to the hon. Gentleman’s reputation than it is to mine.
Conor McGinn
Indeed, I fear it was mutually assured destruction.
I want to say three things. First, this is bad policy, in terms of the concept and the philosophy behind it, its purpose, and indeed its efficacy in addressing that purported purpose. Secondly, it will have a detrimental, disproportionate and, frankly, existential impact on British horseracing. Thirdly, I will address what the Government, racing and betting can do to try to fix the situation, work together and address their respective challenges.
Having praised the Minister, I do not wish to bury him, but this is not racing’s fault, it is not betting’s fault, and it is not even the Gambling Commission’s fault. They have not led us to this situation; it is the Government that have led us to this situation. It is bad policy by any objective measure—and it is hard to find any objective measure, because it is not evidence based. It is incoherent, and on many levels it is a response to anecdote and emotion. I find it incredible that I say this as an old-fashioned, working-class Labour man, but this is massive Government overreach and an infringement on the right of the individual. On no other legal leisure activity in the UK have the Government set out spending limits in this fashion.
Net loss is a terrible barometer. It takes no account of the hugely different ranges of disposable income that individuals have. The floated £500 trigger per 365 rolling days a year is equivalent to £1.37 a day. I think the hon. Member for Burton (Kate Kniveton) mentioned that figure earlier. That is the equivalent of doing the English lotto, the Euromillions and a scratchcard a week. If the purpose is to tackle problem gambling, it is an odd solution. Tools that already exist, such as self-exclusion and deposit limits, are more effective. If necessary, a conversation can take place with betting about how those measures can be strengthened. I speak with experience of friends and family whose lives have been devastated by addiction, but ultimately it is about the individual and their behaviour, and it is about responsibility. If you want to gamble, you will find a way to gamble.
The point about the black market is, I respectfully say, an important one. If someone wants to gamble a lot, they will be able to gamble a lot. We are not talking about the old fella in the pub who takes a friendly bet on a Saturday; this is about organised crime and national security. It is about the use of technology through drones flying over our racecourses, manipulation of data and all those things that the sport has to work 24 hours a day, seven days a week to stop becoming out of control. We are warning about this issue. The front page of the Racing Post today made the potential consequences very clear. We are talking about a scale of thousands of people and millions of pounds.
That leads me to the point about racing having a specific problem. We do not have to imagine the impact of the policy, because de facto checks are having an impact now. Racing has a specific problem because of the unique, inextricable relationship that we have with betting through the levy, and it is creating a funding crisis for our sport. Like all sports, racing is facing difficult economic headwinds, but the decision to hurt betting revenue, as set out in black and white in the Government’s White Paper, was certainly careless, if not deliberate. The £900 million reduction in horseracing betting revenue will mean a direct hit of £50 million to racing. That is the genesis of the problem.
The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who is no longer in his place, pleaded in aid of the rail men—the course bookies. I have been a great defender of theirs, along with so many others. There is nothing better than being on a racecourse, having a bet in the ring, looking at the various odds and enjoying the fun spectacle. We do not have the tic-tac any more, but we certainly enjoy the theatre of on-course betting. It generated £120 million in turnover last year, and off-course betting generated £3 billion in revenue. We are talking about a £5 billion industry. If we are going to come to a debate like this and propose solutions, they have to be serious ones based on numbers and figures.
The reduction in the levy that will result from less betting on racing, and the resultant loss in the value of media rights, will have a consequential impact on prize money. Racecourses face a very difficult environment already, and participants, owners and trainers feel frustrated about the level of prize money. It risks the sustainability of our courses and racing yards. That will mean closures and job losses, and will very quickly put racing in a death spiral. We have already seen the impact on punters; I can attest to that. Racing has become a less attractive product. Bookies have removed best odds guaranteed and people can hardly get a bet on. Racing is part of a delicate ecosystem. We are not quite an endangered species, but this measure puts a motorway through our habitat.
It is funny how sometimes I hear, when I take part in these debates, that somehow one has a pro-bookie approach or is in the pocket of the gambling industry. The shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock), represents a proud working-class constituency like mine. She is from the same bit of the Labour party as me—the sensible bit of it that is rooted in communities. My relationship with the bookies is adversarial. I want to beat the bookies—that is the whole point of gambling. I want to take money from them. As the hon. Member for Shipley says, I sometimes rail against the bookies, but that does not mean that I do not understand the vital contribution that they make to horseracing.
What is it that the Government, racing and gambling can do together? The Government should bin this idea, preferably permanently but certainly until the promised frictionless element is proven to be just that. Generally, the Government should ensure that racing and betting are well run, well regulated and fair, and that they continue providing jobs and contributing to the economy. On racing specifically, they should recognise its huge impact in communities and the wonderful enhancement that it is to the UK, at home and abroad. Other than that, they should butt out. The Minister should enjoy the odd day at the racing, but other than that, the Government should let the two industries get on with it.
I have heard some of the contributions and, well intentioned and from people with a genuine love of horseracing though they are, they need to be challenged. Racing and betting have to work together. They have on this issue, and they need to do so on others. Racing needs to recognise that it receives more now from betting than ever before through the levy, media rights, sponsorship and advertising.
I will add a note of caution. Seeking more from levy reform when turnover on betting on racing is reducing, even if one were to incorporate international racing, is arguably a short-term fix that is not sustainable in the long term. We do not want to be penny wise and pound foolish, taking money in the front door but losing it out the back. For its part, betting needs to continue to enhance and help promote racing. It needs to recognise and support the sport’s unique position and the skill, talent and people that make it a special and precious product. It needs to give the punter a fair price, give us a chance to beat them now and then, and pay us out when we do.
We talk a lot about the provider in terms of the bookies and about the recipient in terms of horseracing, but what about the benefactor? That is the punter—the men and women I consider myself very much a part of and a spokesperson for. Racing should never be afraid to say that gambling is a huge and enjoyable part of our sport. People like me love the mechanics of it, the breeding, the form, the going, the word that we get from Ireland on a big day, but others come for the name, the colours, the numbers, so we need to be careful about putting forward the argument about chance as well.
There is a reason we are the second biggest spectator sport. We need to be confident and clear about that. We need to be strategic and sensible. In this House, like in the country as a whole, we need to win friends and fans and exert influence. I do not think that is beyond us. As you know, Sir George, racing is simultaneously the sport of kings and the pursuit of the masses. Who else can claim that?
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn), who is a much greater expert on this issue than I am. I make no apology for speaking up for horseracing and the equestrian industry more generally in this debate, because it is extremely important to the local economy in constituencies such as mine. I represent the largest rural constituency in the United Kingdom outside the highlands. It does not have a functioning racecourse, but it does border courses in Hexham, Carlisle, Hamilton, Kelso and Ayr. It therefore has many training yards, breeders, vets, farriers and jockeys—all the people connected with an equestrian sport.
Those people are extremely concerned about this proposal and the impact it will have on the industry. This debate is an opportunity to air those concerns. Like those fellow Members who have already set out some very important points, I think that is what we should be doing this evening.
The first of the two points that I want to focus on is the inappropriateness of any one-size-fits-all approach. I think there is a consensus, or at least a consensus is emerging, that the approach towards games of chance should be different from the approach towards games of skill. It is not appropriate to treat them the same. Going to a racecourse is not the same as playing a game of roulette on a phone. My second point is about the reality of frictionless checks and how possible they actually are.
It has already been said how helpful the Minister has been in meeting MPs with concerns. I have already drawn the Minister’s attention to a book—indeed, volume one of a series of books—written by my constituent William Morgan called “Strongholds of Satan”. It is from a series that sets out to detail every racecourse that has previously existed in the UK. The title, “Strongholds of Satan”, comes from how racecourses were previously described; before the rise of football, racing was a potent combination of national sport, fair, local holiday and gambling opportunity. Therefore, religious leaders were outraged and politicians were constantly trying to restrain all the shenanigans among the crowds, the gamblers and the horse-owners.
I particularly commended the Minister to the chapter that is called “The regulation of racing”. In that chapter, Mr Morgan sets out how, from 1654, Government have sought to regulate and interfere with racing. In fact, the first act by the Cromwellian Government was to ban racing completely, not because they had any moral concern or other concern, but because they did not want crowds of people to be brought together who could foment against the Government. The book goes on to describe other pieces of legislation. For example, in 1740, there was:
“An Act to restrain and prevent the excessive Increase of Horse-races; and…more effectual preventing of excessive and deceitful Gaming”.
And so it goes on, through the next three centuries.
I will not set it out in full, but that chapter shows that many of the measures that were introduced had completely unintended consequences. What happened, as we have speculated on already in this debate, is that the owners, the punters, the racecourse proprietors and the nefarious elements changed their practices to accommodate legislative proposals. That is a significant concern about what is being proposed now. The right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), the former Culture Secretary, set out the concerns about illegal betting—black market betting—taking place. We should consider very clearly the possibility of such unintended consequences and in particular, as the British Horseracing Association has set out, the proportionality of what is being proposed.
It is also clear that many people, including the many constituents who have been in touch with me, do not have confidence in the concept of the frictionless check. I would be grateful if the Minister set out in closing how people can have confidence that these checks will not intrude into their affairs.
Mr French
One of the potential consequences of this is the impact on the elderly and on isolation in particular. When I was a student, I worked part-time for a bookmaker to help to pay for my fees and upkeep. It helped me to fall in love with horseracing. One of the things that I used to see day in, day out was elderly people who would bet very small stakes, who would very much fear the intrusiveness of the checks and of being caught up in the trap. That might fuel some kind of isolation in their day-to-day experiences.
David Mundell
I very much take that on board. To quote my constituent Alexander McLean:
“I bet on sport and I find it extremely offensive that someone should dictate how I should spend the money that I have already paid tax on. I am 71 years old. I have no dependants. My bills have been paid. I have enough money stashed away to pay for my funeral. Why are the Government subjecting me to this?”
He goes on to say that he agrees, of course, that there are people who find themselves in “tragic” situations with a gambling addiction, but as the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) also said, this is using
“a sledgehammer to crack a nut”.
I am sure that Mr McLean will have been pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) speak up for punters and my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) speak up in particular for older punters who take a responsible attitude.
That does not mean that the issues and concerns expressed so eloquently by the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) should not be considered. Of course they should be, but clearly for the whole horseracing industry and the equestrian community the Government have got it wrong. They need to take a step back and review how they can continue to support the industry and the sector effectively, while at the same time taking on board the serious concerns about the regulation and operation of certain games of chance. That is my message to the Government.
Many people may think that this estate is a stronghold of Satan, but many people here clearly have genuine concern and support for the industry. They know how important it is to their local economies and communities. We should do everything to support it, not bring in measures that potentially completely and utterly undermine it.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George.
As is clear from the speeches that have been made so far, there are two aspects to this debate: the question of the regulation of gambling, and the question of the protection of horseracing. The first, I think, requires action, because there is a significant social problem, which is a point that I will come on to and that others, especially the hon. Member for Neath (Christina Rees), made so eloquently.
The second question is that of a debate between the gambling industry and horseracing. We have to differentiate there. After all, the gambling industry, or much of it, is now online, and much of it is now based in Gibraltar, so it is not even paying taxes, whereas the horseracing industry is indigenous, although it is also partly—this inference was made about horseracing—funded by the gambling industry. Yes, that is to some extent a historical anachronism, but it was no doubt done deliberately so that people would not see gambling going to the black market, with other unregulated aspects, whether that was pitch and toss, dogfights or illegal boxing matches. That ensured that a revenue stream went from gambling into horseracing, and that is fundamental.
As the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) said correctly, people might think that horseracing is flush. It is not. I, along with others, declare an interest in having horseracing within my constituency, because I represent Musselburgh. Musselburgh has had its challenges, Musselburgh had to be sold and has now been bought by Chester.
At one stage, it even looked like there might not be a buyer, because it is not as if people are lining up as they are for English Premier League—or even Scottish Premiership—football teams. There were redundancies there—I had to intervene and speak to the management about them—but they were done reluctantly, and we have had to accord to that. There are challenges in that sector. Some of this—this is the subliminal aspect—is about the gambling industry reducing the amount of money that it puts into horseracing, because it does not have the same involvement in funding football or anything else, other than the money that it makes from it.
Returning to the primary issue, there is a problem with gambling. We must recognise that people suffer. I am not some libertarian who thinks it is all just free market, with people deciding according to their free will. It is a social problem, exactly the same as alcohol and drugs. We do not un-regulate them and say, “Consume what you like.” We ensure that we know what the product is, and supervise, tax and regulate it. We can argue—I certainly do—that we sometimes go too far on drugs and not far enough on alcohol, but we must ensure that we regulate.
We must recognise that gambling has transformed. I am a child of the ’60s, when gambling was basically done in a bookies. They were foreboding and intimidating places where working men—perhaps in a flat cap—went, where women would not be seen, and that respectable men would probably not wish to be seen going into. They kept very limited hours. When I was young, they always seemed quite intimidatory. I now have a flat in Dunbar, and I can look across the high street and see a bookies. It is open early in the morning until late at night. People of all ages, genders, ethnicities go in—far too many, I must say, much as I am not opposed to people enjoying a flutter.
The whole nature of the industry has changed. As Justice Secretary in Scotland, I remember being briefed by Dr Reith from Glasgow, a world expert in gambling and how gambling has changed. People can now literally lose not just their shirt, but their house overnight if they have multiple credit cards, so there must be regulation. The nature of who gambles has also changed, because ethnic minorities who might not have gone into the working-class, working man’s bookies are now going elsewhere. I remember hearing that in Scotland we had significant difficulties with Polish people and eastern Europeans who were working in the casinos. They socialised in the casinos and therefore developed a gambling problem, because that was where they hung about. Since women and other people who would not have otherwise have gone into a bookies are doing so, we must target and address gambling. We must address the demand, which is why we must look at regulating the sponsorship of football teams and some of the television advertisements that are basically pushed in our faces—we want to watch the football but are inconvenienced by being told to to cash in by betting on the number of corners, and all these things.
That is entirely separate from horseracing. Yes, gambling is an inextricable part of horseracing. If people go to a horserace, they wish to gamble. Some will probably gamble too much and regret it, but most will not. It is a day out in Musselburgh, much as it is in other constituencies. It is an event for people; the ladies day at all racecourses is very colourful, with all hats, dresses and whatever else. People come from far and wide, and it is part of the local economy. I said there had been redundancies, but it still provides employment there and for the hotels, guesthouses and hostelries on race days. People make money, and there is a supply chain of those who provide for the horseracing industry. If we cripple it, we face not only the risk that the likes of Musselburgh will close, but the risk that people will continue to watch and bet on races, albeit those in Ireland, France, Hong Kong or wherever else, as I think the hon. Member for Tewkesbury said. That is why we must protect it and get the balance right.
As Justice Secretary in Scotland, I remember bringing in quite firm legislation on the sale of alcohol. I think it was correctly done. Equally, I remember being criticised at some stage because I gave the licence back to Murrayfield stadium. People asked, “How can you be cracking down on alcohol and yet allow an alcohol licence in Murrayfield?” I answered that we are not against alcohol, in exactly the same way that we are not against gambling; we are about ensuring that it is carried out in a safe and secure manner, that it is regulated, and that people can be protected—sometimes even from themselves. That is why I believe action has to be taken on these social problems. We are our brother’s and our sister’s keeper.
The result on Saturday may not have gone the way most Members here, other than the two of us from Scotland, wanted, but the match will have been enjoyed. It was better that people went to the stadium and had a few drinks consumed safely and under supervision, rather than sitting in a park drinking cans or bottles and then rushing to the game late. That is why, in alcohol legislation in Scotland, when I was Justice Secretary we were always very supportive of the on-trade. We much preferred people to go to a public house where the alcohol industry wants to sell a premium product—at a premium price for them—in a manner that is safe and secure and from which they can benefit. That is much better than people being sold almost unlimited supplies of high-strength, low-price alcohol from supermarkets or elsewhere.
There are corollaries with gambling. What we have to do is stop people losing their shirt, never mind their home, through games of chance or puggy machines—or whatever sophisticated name they have now—sitting in betting shops. People can go online and, as I said, get a credit card and literally see their savings disappear. What we cannot do is undermine where people can go and have a flutter and enjoy themselves as part of a day out.
Philip Davies
The hon. Gentleman is making a very interesting speech. May I refer him to the comments made by the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn)? He made it clear that without the levy income that horseracing generates from online betting, Musselburgh and other racecourses would not exist for having a nice day out and a bet at the ring. The income the horseracing industry gets from online gambling is absolutely critical for horseracing to continue in this country.
Kenny MacAskill
I said at the outset that I am conscious that Musselburgh and other racecourses have to get income from the gambling industry. If people now gamble more online as opposed to going to the betting shop, even the one opposite me in Dunbar, that has to be accepted. We have to separate the gambling that is being sold in every shape or form, as it is, and entertainment, because that is what horseracing is. Gambling is a legitimate part of it and sustains it. Obviously, the industry seeks to make more money out of encouraging people to bet and gamble on football; it does not put the same money in, except in terms of shirt advertising or whatever else, and it does not benefit the grassroots game or any club. The Government have to make sure they take the necessary action against gambling, not those who are at the turf in such places.
I fully accept the point made by the hon. Member for Shipley that people now place bets not by going into a betting shop, but on their phone—not even on their computer. However, we should provide protection for what is an industry. It may be an anachronism; one could argue that other sports should get the benefit, but we are where we are, and we have to recognise that as a society. On that basis, we have to differentiate horseracing, which needs to be protected and which we want to encourage people to participate in because their gambling will be supervised, moderated and part of a culture, and other gambling—as I said, it is like drinking in a pub as opposed to drinking in a public park.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir George.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Neath (Christina Rees) on leading this debate. She and I usually have discussions about squash, but I am here to talk about another of my hobbies: horseracing. I have a lifelong interest in and passion for racing. In the past, I have owned legs and hairs of racehorses—not very successfully. At the moment on the farm at home we have a brood mare and we have youngstock, and my ambition—as crazy as it may sound—is to get those horses on to the racecourse. At the moment, the greater problem than affordability checks is dealing with mud fever, but affordability checks are very important. Like everyone else, I know that problem gambling is a major problem, but there is concern that there will be a severe unintended impact on the funding of horseracing if the affordability checks go forward in their existing form.
Horseracing is largely funded through the levy. In recent years additional funding has come in through media rights and sponsorship, but largely it comes from the horserace betting levy, which came in in the early 1960s. I personally think that the Government went down the wrong road with horseracing. It would have been better if we had what is known as a parimutuel form of gambling. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), that is why the prize money is so much higher in places like Hong Kong and Japan, which have incredibly well-regulated industries too.
Horseracing depends to a dramatic extent on the levy. It is quite clear from what I see and the feedback I get that the affordability checks in their current form will have a serious impact on the takings from the levy. Looking at the prize money, horseracing and its funding is facing a real crisis in the UK. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) said that we have the best horseracing in the world, and we do, but that is increasing in risk and becoming an anachronism. There is a real worry that if we let this go on horseracing, will wither on the vine in this country.
Look at the horses in training sales from Tattersalls at Newmarket last autumn. A lot of those horses would have traditionally come out of flat racing, gone into national hunt racing and remained in the UK for racing. They are now going all around the world, to the US or Australia, and there are emerging new industries—in Dubai with the Meydan, and in places such as Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, which are making a real impact. A lot of horses are going to those places and a lot of British owners are racing out there. Members may have watched the racing on Saturday afternoon. The very well-known racing figure Sir Alex Ferguson—where was he? He was at Meydan, not watching his horses run at Kempton. I am worried that that is where we may be heading.
We have heard great stories today; everyone has plugged the racecourses we have all around the UK, and we have heard how important they are for their local economies. That is very true, but there is one point I would highlight, which I picked up in the Racing Post over the weekend. An article said that the Grand National meeting every year puts more money into the Liverpool economy than the Eurovision song contest did last year. We see that repeated at Cheltenham, York and Goodwood and at the festivals that take place all around the country. That is at risk.
The racing supply chain extends far beyond that. It extends into the training centres and into the countryside and on to the studs. There are places where horses are pre-trained, and, importantly, there are places where horses are retrained. When horses have finished their racing lives, they are retrained for alternative uses and activities. The tentacles of racing extend a long way, not just into the countryside but into the towns and the licensed betting offices on the high street. I know that the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) has a concern about those, but certainly in the town that I represent, there has not been a dramatic increase in LBOs. They are a very important part—
Peter Aldous
If I have misinterpreted the hon. Lady, I apologise profusely. LBOs are very important on the high streets. They also tend to have a family feel about them in that the staff, many of whom now are women, have a good family relationship with the punters. If people start getting out of control, they very quickly say, “Hang on, do you know where you are going on that?” There is a long supply chain.
We have also heard about unintrusive and frictionless checks. The feedback that I get is that they are very difficult to put into practice. We will either see the rise of the black market—the large article on the front of the Racing Post indicates that that is a reality—or a lot of small punters will say, “Well, I give up. I’m not going to do it.” That then impacts on the levy and it spirals down to the impact on racing.
Finally, there is an element of hypocrisy about this in that the lottery is not included. The lottery is great and it is probably one of the best legacies of the Major Government. Its impact has been profound and positive. When I was growing up, very rarely did we win Olympic gold medals. I remember listening to David Hemery when he won in 1968 in Mexico. We now win in so many different sports, and that is the direct result of the lottery. The lottery is a great thing, but it is a game of chance rather than a game of skill. It is random betting and it can take over people’s lives. I remember one statistic put to me that if I gambled on the national lottery every year since Moses was pulled out of the bulrushes, I still would not have won. We need to look at all forms of gambling and betting together.
In conclusion, I was reading the Racing Post a few months ago. One of its leading journalists, Chris Cook, son of the former Labour Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, made a comment that left me thinking. He said that you would not have expected a Conservative Government to do this to horseracing. I agree with him. On that point, I urge the Minister, who is listening very intently to the great speeches that we have had—
Wera Hobhouse
I have followed the whole of the debate, and I want to say quickly that this is not a party political issue. It is an issue for all those who feel that horseracing gives us so much across all communities. I sincerely hope that the Minister believes it is a cross-party issue that we all must address.
Peter Aldous
The hon. Lady is right that it is not party political, but it is a point that Chris Cook made. If we look back, we all remember seeing Robin Cook at the racecourse in his Barbour jacket, down by the final fence. Alex Salmond is actually a great punter as well. It is not party political but at the moment, we have a Conservative Government, so I urge the Minister to take on board what he is hearing this afternoon.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
They say that all good things come to those who wait, so I hope the Minister will listen to my words and then reassure me that I have not waited in vain. I am grateful for the chance to speak in this debate. When more than 40 or 50 colleagues turn up to Westminster Hall—for those listening, and who are not aware—we clearly have a problem. Actually, I suggest we have two problems that the Minister present has the great honour of helping us to deal with.
The first is the very serious problem of the increasing number of people in this country who find themselves in the turmoil of addictive online gambling. That is a real problem. The second is the fragility of the finances of racing, a sport that we all love. We need to be clear about those two problems and not to conflate them too much, as has been done, and to work out how to deal with them both, because both problems are real.
I have no particular interest in racing, other than a long family history and connection. I have been to the races many times, both before my time here and as a Member of Parliament, and occasionally as a guest of the BHA, which supported the work I did to create the Bridge of Hope charity. I was, with pride, closely involved with the 2013 Offshore Gambling Bill, promoted by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), who represents Newmarket, to bring offshore betting within the purview of the levy to give racing a serious boost. I do not have a racetrack in my constituency yet; I have waited for the Boundary Commission to put Fakenham in my patch for many years, but it has refused to do so. I enjoy the little tracks as much as the big—a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) has just made. It is a great pleasure to follow him. My brother trains in California, and I have spent many hours as an underpaid hot walker, walking his hots around the track in both California and, in rather cooler weather, at Woodbine in the winter. I am a happy and assiduous attendee at Fakenham races, one of the country’s great regional tracks
I think the House will be aware that I really stand this afternoon because of my own family experience. My father was a jump jockey who rode through the ’40s and ’50s. He rode for Sir Peter Cazalet and rode Her late Majesty the Queen Mother’s horses. In 1958, he won the grand national on Mr What and the King George on Lochroe. With my mother, he bred Specify, who went on to win the national in ’71. However, my father’s is a tragic story. After many head injuries, head injury-induced depression and psychosis, alcohol addiction, gambling and bankruptcy, his life—indeed, that of my family—collapsed in 1967. It is a familiar tale for many sporting heroes, but a story that, thanks to the great work of the racing industry, we do not see any more because we are better at looking after jockeys and better at detecting head injuries.
It is in that context that I want to make clear that I rise today because I take the unintended consequences very seriously—the damage of great sport when not properly regulated, and the damage of gambling and bankruptcy. I am not at all relaxed about those dangers. I hope it is, therefore, all the more powerful when I join colleagues who have spoken today in saying how seriously I worry that this well-intended measure, designed to tackle the curse of online gambling, is in danger of not solving that problem, but exacerbating another: the deeply fragile finances of a great sport that all Members present, across all parties, have expressed our love for.
I am fearful that we are in danger of making a mistake that, in 15 years in Parliament and 30 years of watching, I have seen all too often, which is the mistake of do-somethingery: “Something must be done. This is something—let’s do it.” It is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, with the law of unintended consequences, punishing the innocent and doing very little to tackle the real problem, and seriously damaging the financial resilience of this great industry. I think it would be a huge mistake, and a great shame on us as a generation and on the Government who allowed it to happen. In that spirit, I am here to try to give the Minister some helpful tips on how we might find the right way through this.
I thank the petitioners who brought us here today, as well as the Racing Post and the British Horseracing Authority, which have done such good work to raise the issues. I will highlight three important pieces of data shared in the British Horseracing Authority brief. The first relates to the impact of these measures. More than 15,000 horserace bettors took part in the Right to Bet survey in the autumn. Of those, more than half said they will stop betting, or bet less, if new checks are introduced, while one in 10 bettors is already using a black market bookmaker. Some 40% are prepared to use the black market if clunky enforcement affordability checks are implemented, 90% oppose postcodes or job titles being used to determine their ability to bet, and 26% have already experienced an affordability check ahead of the passing of any legislation.
Secondly, the briefing makes clear the full impact of these reforms if introduced as they stand. There will potentially be a £50 million cost to this industry, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney has just made clear, is already struggling. That is not something that we should accept lightly.
Thirdly, the briefing points out that a £500 a year upper threshold for frictionless checks works out at a net spend of just £1.37 a day. Are we seriously intending to damage the viability of this great sport and this great industry in order to look busy in monitoring a £1.37 risk? This is a disproportionate measure and I fear that it will have major unintended consequences.
I will not repeat or rehearse the arguments that have been made very eloquently by many colleagues. I will just highlight the fact that there are many who are not able to speak here today, including many peers in the upper House, whom I will not name but who have taken a very strong interest in the issue, and my right hon. Friends the Members for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) and for Witham (Priti Patel), and my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), who is a Minister. He is also a distinguished amateur jockey who would have spoken today had he been allowed to do so. Many people from across the House have not been able to speak in this debate but would have done so very forcefully.
I will make one or two points that perhaps have not been made as fully as they might have been. First, as has been said, racing is a vital mainstay of the decentralised rural economy all round this country, and it is absolutely key to the levelling-up mission that the Government have set out. Yes, it is the sport of kings, as others have said, but it is also the sport of stable lads and ladesses, and the sport of small businesses all around the country. It is the sport that provides the pyramid at the bottom of which are the point to point races, the pony clubs and all the grassroots equestrian activity that we love and rely on.
From Yarmouth to Chepstow, from Wincanton to Kelso and from Cartmel to Catterick, many tracks are integral to their local economy. Horseracing touches on and is instrumental in 60 marginal seats, which is not a small number in an election year, creates 80,000 jobs directly and 100,000 indirectly, and 8,000 small and medium-sized enterprises are involved with it. This is not a fringe activity; it is a very key activity at the heart of our decentralised economy.
I will just make another point. An earlier speaker suggested that we do not need betting to support the boat race or one-off events. Horses are not machines and we cannot have an industry based on one race a year. The reason we can have the Derby is that we have all the other races that build up to it, and it is the same with the grand national. Those two races are the pinnacles of great pyramids of activity that start at small, windy tracks all around the country. Also, horses cannot just be parked for 364 days a year and then asked to run; the training and the conditioning of horses requires activity all through the year.
Wera Hobhouse
Throughout this debate, we have not really mentioned these beautiful creatures, the joy we get from watching them race, or all those people who work with, train and look after them. That is really important to all of us who have spoken today.
George Freeman
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who makes a good point. They are beautiful and what a joy it is to watch them exercising, whether in Malton in Yorkshire or wherever else around the country. The sight of horses exercising in preparation for racing is part of the rural economy.
Secondly, I want to make the point that horseracing, as an activity and an industry, is a jewel in the crown of our global soft power. The truth is that, having grown up in Newmarket as a child, I have watched as that town and its horseracing have become very reliant—over-reliant, I would suggest—on a few very wealthy families. Those families have done an amazing service to our sport, but we have to make sure that we are not reliant on a very small number of individuals to maintain the viability of an entire industry. That point puts this debate in a wider context.
Crucially, I also want to highlight that there is a very serious problem in our society of addiction to gambling, particularly online gambling, and there is a growing body of evidence—I say this as the former Minister for Life Sciences and as somebody who has had a career in medical research—that the causes of such addictive behaviour and cycles of addiction are not simply based on repeat activity. They are a symptom of much deeper underlying causes, which are often genetic and nearly always neurological. There are a whole series of conditions that drive that underlying cycle of addictive behaviour. It is not that someone has a bet on a horse, then a second bet and it is entirely addictive. Indeed, in my own experience, betting on horses is quite the opposite; I have very seldom made much money doing it and I very seldom carry on doing it with that in mind. No, that is not what drives the addictive behaviour; it is underpinning neuroscience and wider conditions. As a society we really need to take those factors very seriously.
Matt Hancock
Is there not the more specific distinction, which the hon. Gentleman almost drew out, that the placing of a bet and then waiting many minutes as a minimum for a result is neurologically distinct from a bet that gives an immediate hit? Where the repeat bet would be based on the physiological immediacy of the previous result, horseracing breaks that and therefore has a different neurological impact in relation to addiction. Would it therefore not be right in law and in policy to completely separate the proposals for online games of chance from the wonderful sport of horseracing? It would be easy to do in law—let’s just split the two.
George Freeman
The right hon. Gentleman anticipates the logic of the argument I was building towards—he is exactly right. That is why if we are seriously thinking of tackling this curse of addictive online gambling, surely we should be looking at a whole range of other behaviours and products. The proposal seems to be a disproportionate way of tackling a real problem, if indeed that is what it is. Others have mentioned the logical consistency of extending these checks on alcohol, tobacco, car hire purchases and—dare I say it—mortgages, and all sorts of things that we might say people cannot afford. I worry that this could be the thin end of a very big wedge in which the state decides that it is its job not to regulate properly, but to start asking whether people can afford to do something. That is an Orwellian dystopia that I do not want to live in.
The truth is we have to think properly about the sustainable resilience of racing. I absolutely echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson): prize money is falling fast, costs have risen fast and are stubbornly high, and competition is eating our lunch. If we look to Irish and French racing, we see that we are haemorrhaging from a serious industry. This proposal would not make a small reform to a healthy industry—the industry is struggling and it needs our help, but I am worried that the law of unintended consequences will make the situation worse.
I want to make a point about technology. It has often been asserted that we do not have the technology to do these checks properly. That is right at the moment, but would it not be an amazing thing if we decided to use technology properly—we are already an AI powerhouse—to start to analyse addictive behaviour and look at the trades on digital betting that indicate such behaviour? Over 70 markers of harmful gambling have been identified in studies, 16 of which really drive this activity. I suggest there might be an opportunity for us to use technology better to tackle those behaviours online that drive the problem we are trying to solve.
I echo the comments of the right hon. Member for West Suffolk on track racing, which I would go so far as to say is one of the best ways to introduce people to responsible gambling. I remember taking my two children to the 2000 Guineas and giving them £5 each, and they decided to put it together on an each-way bet. It was a smart move; they are clever children. Even more clever, my son decided to take my daughter’s advice, because she knows about horses, and he looked at the odds, because he knows about numbers, and they put £5 each way on Galileo Gold, who stormed to victory. They learned a lot that day about gambling. They saw people who had drunk too much and who were losing too much. They didn’t. I took the money and gave it to them. They discovered a lot, and on-track gambling is a fabulous way of getting people to realise that most of the decisions we take in life are a gamble one way or another, and it is how we deal with them that really matters.
I am not here in any way for the health of the gambling industry. I am interested in the health of UK racing and the real identification of the at-risk addiction that we see cursing so much of our society, in particular those games of chance that have driven such addiction. I simply say to the Minister that I know he has a difficult job on his hands. I have sat at that Dispatch Box with a packed Westminster Hall calling for reform. The Prime Minister, in North Yorkshire, understands the importance of the industry. The Secretary of State’s constituency is next to Newmarket—in fact, she has the breeder of Galileo Gold in her constituency—and understands it. It is not too late to change tact and come back with a serious package of measures designed for the twin problems of the sustainability of racing’s finances and the genuine opportunity for this country to lead in harnessing technology and smart regulation for the tackling of gambling addiction. If not, I urge the Minister to look seriously at the net loss provisions, which are too low. When an industry warns that something will cost it £50 million, we have a duty to listen.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Member for Neath (Christina Rees) for leading this debate. Let me say briefly to the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) that if horseracing were even partially responsible for fomenting an uprising against the UK Government, I would be leading the charge—but it is not. It is a terrific sport, which people gamble on and enjoy. This petition is a tiny bit about horseracing and a lot about the black market and affordability checks, but we have spent nearly two and a half hours talking about the horseracing industry.
Before anyone puts me down, I am delighted that so many MPs here today have recognised the fact that online gambling and online casinos are a dangerous thing and that we have to be on top of that to help people away from the course of addiction. I have not seen many of those Members sitting in front of grieving parents whose child has been driven to complete suicide. I have, however, seen them on the racecourses. I have seen them back up their racecourses. It is understandable: if I had a racecourse in my constituency, I would think that it was a hugely important part of my constituency that generated money and had an important supply chain around it.
Ronnie Cowan
Not right now.
It is hugely important. If we look at the sort of money that the gambling industry feeds into the industry—
Conor McGinn
On a point of order, Sir George. The hon. Gentleman has asserted that Members who spoke in favour of racing or who have racecourses in their constituency have never sat in front of grieving parents, do not know anything about addiction and have never comforted those affected by addiction. The hon. Gentleman knows nothing about me, and he knows nothing about many other colleagues who have spoken. I ask him to be very careful about how he approaches what he says, and to have sensitivity before making assertions about any Member here or their motivations, their families or their experience of addiction.
Sir George Howarth (in the Chair)
That is not a point of order, but the hon. Gentleman has managed to get it off his chest.
Ronnie Cowan
I absolutely take on board what the hon. Gentleman says. I apologise if I worded that wrongly; I was talking about the sessions that we had at the APPG for gambling-related harm. I appreciate that, as was pointed out earlier, many people have been touched by the curse of gambling addiction.
The point is that it is understandable that so many people have raced to sign e-petition 649894, which calls on the UK Government not to implement the proposed financial risk checks for online gambling. The gambling industry has led and paid for this lobbying and has been hellbent on spreading disinformation that is designed to create uncertainty and raise concerns among people who enjoy the occasional gamble. I understand the punters’ point of view. They feel the fear behind this, because it is a message that they have been fed.
The truth about affordability checks is more complicated, however. I am not a prohibitionist. How many times have I had to say that? I am not trying to ban gambling, but I do want to create a safe environment for it. It may come as a surprise that affordability checks were not the invention of the APPG for gambling-related harm. This is not some mendacious ploy that the group is using; the idea was mooted in 2019 by Tom Watson, when I believe he was still the MP for West Bromwich East. Industry leader Richard Flint, who was at Sky Bet, supported Mr Watson by saying that too many people were losing money that they could not afford online. We need to work together with the industry and the Government to limit that harm.
I think that limits on spend, rather than on stakes, are the right way to go, and those limits should be based on affordability. Richard Flint acknowledged that such limits could lead to a drop in operator revenue. He clarified:
“There will be some online firms in the short term that…make less money as a consequence”.
Getting straight to the point, he added:
“but then…that spend shouldn’t happen anyway.”
That is a point that the Jockey Club should have considered when its chief executive officer launched this petition. It has cited a potential loss of £5 million on the horseracing betting levy, which according to its own board’s annual report was worth £100 million. But what price a life? What price the number of people who have been driven to complete suicide?
I return to the need for affordability checks. A year later, at the 2020 Lords Committee, the UK’s biggest operators—the chief executive officers of the big five—spoke enthusiastically about the need for affordability checks as a key mechanism to reduce harm. An industry CEO said that
“the way to go is affordability and to ensure that, when people come to our sites, they can only afford to lose or bet an amount that, quite frankly, they can afford and were comfortable with.”
So what is new? What is new is that, since the White Paper, the Government and the Gambling Commission have proposed threshold figures for the checks. Affordability is no longer an abstract concept; it is tied to precise thresholds.
The industry does not like the fact that the White Paper has called its bluff, so it is kicking up a storm. It is clear that those who might be categorised as the pro-gambling lobby and those such as myself, who could be described as the safer gambling lobby, agree that if we are to create a safe environment, affordability is an area that needs tightening up. I wonder whether that was explained to everyone who signed the petition.
The petition states:
“The proposed checks could see bettors having to prove they can afford their hobby if they sustain losses as low as £1.37 per day.”
That figure has been scoffed at a few times in this debate, but it is £500 a year. It may mean nothing to us as MPs on 86 grand a year, but that £500 a year could be the difference for some poor people who are trying to put money in the meter or food on the table. What we are trying to do is to stop them getting to the point at which they lose that money in the first place. Please do not belittle that. If the checks say people can afford it, they can afford it. We are trying to help those at risk. Surely all gamblers can see that, because they understand risk.
The UK Government have already said that
“the proposed checks are only on the very highest spending online customers”.
The Gambling Commission estimates that
“approximately 20% of customer accounts will meet the threshold required for a financial vulnerability check”.
The next line of the petition is about the black market. The Gambling Commission has already reported to us that the size of the online black market has been overstated by the industry and must be kept in proportion. It follows that if we want to prevent the growth of the black market, the solution is regulation to prevent harm that leads to addiction. It will eliminate demand for a black market, not cause it. Harm prevention will mean fewer addicts, fewer self-exclusions and fewer attempts to circumvent the regulated market in the first place.
The key is in the last line of the petition:
“We are concerned there will also be a negative impact on British horseracing’s finances due to a reduction in betting turnover and resulting fall in Levy yield.”
That is a Trojan horse if ever I have seen one.
Matt Hancock
I have been listening with increasing disappointment to the tone that the hon. Member has taken. Given the importance of tackling problem gambling, does he recognise, like the 7,000 people who live in my constituency, the importance of horseracing? Does he recognise that horseracing betting has an equally low rate of associated problem gambling as betting on the national lottery? The national lottery is carved out of this proposal. Should not horseracing betting also be carved out, so we can all concentrate on tackling gambling harms, exactly as the hon. Member would like us to?
Ronnie Cowan
I was bringing attention to the message that has clearly been given out by the UK Government. The Government are keen to ensure that the measures such as the proposed changes do not adversely affect racing or interrupt the customer journey. They also cannot push away high net worth individuals such as the owners and trainers who invest in the sport. I would suggest that it is not for me to say this; the Government are all over it. The Government understand the difference between online gambling, casino gambling and horseracing.
The key to the problem is that people are spending more than they can afford. As a result, some are dying. That is the human cost, and that cost is completely unacceptable.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir George. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
The fact that over 100,000 people have signed the petition on financial risk checks in less than a month shows the strength of feeling on the topic. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Christina Rees) for leading this important debate. This issue is important to everyone who offered their signature, as well as to the gambling and racing industries, which want to be sure that the checks are truly frictionless before they are rolled out. It is also crucial for organisations and families who are concerned about gambling harms and want confirmation that the updated regulation in the gambling White Paper will be going ahead. The Government must be able to strike that balance, as they have promised.
I would like to set out the context for introducing financial risk checks as part of the gambling White Paper more broadly. Half of adults across the UK gamble each month. The vast majority do so safely, moderately and in a way they enjoy. I remember my nan going to bingo every week when I was growing up, and I have always enjoyed going to the races—I was pleased to attend the St Leger last year. For some, however, gambling can become a more serious problem: 300,000 people across the country experience problem gambling, and 1.8 million are considered to be at elevated risk.
The last time gambling laws were updated was back in 2005. Since then, the landscape has changed dramatically. Thanks to our tablets, laptops and phones, most people now have the potential to carry a casino in their pocket, meaning that they can gamble anywhere and make huge losses in a very short time, as my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) outlined; I really appreciate the work that she has done over many years in this area. Because of that rapid growth in technology and our growing awareness of the impact of gambling harms, changes to our gambling regulation are now long overdue.
In my time as shadow gambling Minister, I have met those who are recovering from addition, as well as family members who have suffered the unimaginable pain of losing a loved one. For those people, it is absolutely clear that gambling harm has the potential to be devastating, and that more must be done to ensure that families are protected, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) spoke powerfully about.
Affordability checks form part of the new, modernised system of gambling regulation that is fit for the future. Accompanied by other measures such as online stake limits, data sharing between gambling firms and a crackdown through the regulator on black market activity, they will ensure that the law does more to protect children and adults who are vulnerable to harm.
The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) spoke about how early intervention in the form of checks can make a difference and change the course of addiction. That may well be the case—it is important to make early interventions if we can—but it strikes me that there is a piece missing, because it is not clear what intervention will take place as a result of the checks. This is perhaps not an issue that we can solve here today, but it needs to be considered in the wider context of the White Paper.
As colleagues have outlined, it is also important that our regulation recognises that many people enjoy betting safely and without harm; the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) outlined that point robustly, as always. The Government must therefore be clear on how they will actually go about ensuring that affordability checks are accurate, frictionless and non-intrusive for consumers, as they have promised. I will conclude my speech with a number of specific questions for the Minister, but I will first speak briefly about why, in this context, the racing industry in particular is concerned about the nature of the checks.
Many Members have spoken about the impact that racecourses have in their constituencies, and I will try to list them. We had the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock) with Newmarket, the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) and the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) with Cheltenham. The hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn), who is a huge champion for the industry, spoke about his racecourse, Haydock. The hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill) spoke about Musselburgh, and the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) spoke about the economic benefit of racecourses in such areas. Apologies if I missed anyone out.
Last week, I hosted a roundtable with representatives from the racing sector, including those who started today’s petition. They shared their thoughts on the potential unintended consequences of the checks, which the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) spoke about very powerfully. Racing and gambling have a naturally symbiotic relationship, with the success of each industry somewhat dependent on the other. With more than 5 million spectators enjoying a trip to the races each year, it is clear that many people enjoy the combination too, making it the country’s second favourite sport. However, as a result of the partnership, the Government predict that the White Paper will cost the racing industry £14.9 million, with the British Horseracing Authority saying that that could rise to almost £50 million a year when considering the impact of the levy, media rights deals and overall funding.
In turn, as we have heard today, such losses could lead to lower prize money, decreasing participation, job losses in the rural economy and an overall decline in the sport. It is important for racing that the Government and the Gambling Commission work with the industry to ensure that financial risk checks are truly frictionless, targeted and accurate.
Philip Davies
The hon. Lady is being very generous, and I commend her on being knowledgeable on the subject. I have a lot of time for her, as she knows. Based on what she said, would she support the calls that we have heard from many hon. Members today that perhaps a distinction should be made between games of skill and games of chance? I took from what she said that that would probably deal with the two separate issues she referred to.
Stephanie Peacock
I understand that argument, and I have some sympathy for it. However, I do not think that we can carve out horseracing in particular as being free of harm; I simply do not think that is the case. Of course the harm for the horses is less than some, but it is greater than others. We need to strike a balance. I am sympathetic to the argument made by the hon. Gentleman, and I am sure that the Minister will pick it up when he speaks. That is also why it is right that we should work to find a future-proof settlement on the horseracing betting levy, which contributes about £80 million to £100 million to the sport. I hope therefore that the Minister can update us on how the review into that is progressing.
Let me move on to the specifics of how the checks will be conducted. The Minister must be clear on how friction will be removed from the system. Indeed, in those rarer cases where it is proposed that bank statements or payslips might be needed as part of an enhanced check, it is unclear just how frictionless the process could possibly be. Concerns have also been raised with me about the value of using net losses alone without combining them with other markers of harm to prompt an affordability check. As a result, it would be helpful if the Minister could set out in full the latest thinking on how the checks will be conducted, so that they are accurately targeted and have limited user input. In the absence of that, can he let us know when we might expect a full response to the consultation?
The Gambling Commission confirmed late last week that the lower-level checks will use only publicly available data and will run on higher thresholds to start with. It also said that for enhanced checks there will be a pilot to test the details of data sharing. Can the Minister confirm the pilot to the House today and outline how the Department will work with the commission, credit agencies and the gambling industry to ensure its smooth running? Further to that, it would be reassuring if the Minister could set out how the pilot and higher threshold period will be evaluated. For example, what issues will the commission look out for, and what criteria will define success? It is important that we get that right. If the checks are not frictionless or are more disruptive than genuinely useful to those who are at risk, there is a risk that customers will be driven from the regulated industry to the black market, where there are no safer gambling protections whatsoever. That is a real concern, as has been spoken about today.
There is consensus on the need to update our regulation so that vulnerable people are better protected from gambling harms in the modern age. However, at the same time the punters, racing and the gambling industry deserve some clarity about how the Government will ensure that affordability checks are carried out with accuracy and in a way that does not cause unnecessary friction for those gambling responsibly. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Department plans to strike that balance.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stuart Andrew)
I thank the hon. Member for Neath (Christina Rees) for tabling this important debate, as well as everyone who signed the petition. My hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) said that I always turn up to these events; I must confess I did not know that I had a choice. I may have made a different decision if I knew that, but there we are.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) quite rightly mentioned the book that he showed me. It looked like a very extensive book. I have not had chance to read it all yet, but I am sure that “Strongholds of Satan” by William Morgan will be valuable as I further my education in this whole exciting field of policy. In her opening comments, the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) outlined the varying points that came up in the debate and the various views from stakeholders, whichever side of the debate they might be on. I am grateful for all the comments. The debate has been interesting and thought-provoking, and it is good to hear those different perspectives. That is why I always try to take the time to meet and engage with people and, crucially, listen to the points put forward to me.
As some have mentioned, we are walking a fine line and need to get it right to help those who may be entering the risk of gambling harm while ensuring that those who want to continue to gamble safely can do so. I want to recognise the concerns that many have had with the proposed system of checks for the highest-spending online customers to help identify that harm. Those concerns have been raised by colleagues, in the media and certainly with me over the past few months. I believe that the proposals for financial risk checks will represent a significant improvement for both businesses and customers, compared with the current situation.
A recent GambleAware study showed that almost three in five adults support the introduction of the checks. None the less, we and the Gambling Commission have listened and we want to get it right. We are clear that the risk checks should not overregulate the gambling sector, should not unduly disrupt the millions of people who gamble without suffering harm, and should not cause unnecessary damage to sectors that rely on betting, particularly horseracing. We and the Gambling Commission both recognise that it is not our job to tell people how to spend their money. As outlined in the gambling White Paper, we want to balance that freedom with the necessary action to tackle the devastating consequences that harmful gambling can have on individuals and communities.
We know that operators are operating onerous, ad hoc and inconsistent so-called affordability checks on a number of customers, often without being clear on why the checks are happening and normally requiring customers to provide data manually. The proposed system will be a significant improvement by having clear and proportionate rules to which all operators are held, allowing for financial data to be shared seamlessly with operators instead of burdening customers with information requests. The Gambling Commission’s consultation on these checks closed in October. I know from our discussions that it has given careful consideration to the nearly 2,000 responses that it has received, and it has been working very closely with relevant stakeholders, including my Department, industry representatives, the Information Commissioner’s Office, the financial services sector and others, to refine the proposals.
Understanding consumer perspective is vital for the commission. That is why it has a programme of research on the consumer voice, which is an ongoing piece of research using qualitative and quantitative methods to gather consumer perspectives, including on the consultation proposals relating to financial risk. That research has helped inform its thinking and will be published by the commission alongside the consultation response. I am glad that the points raised today reflect that some of the issues facing punters are not down to just these checks—other issues have quite rightly been raised.
Following the publication of a blog by the commission on 22 February, I am pleased to be able to provide colleagues with an update on these checks. Firstly, the Gambling Commission has confirmed that it will be proceeding with the proposal for financial risk checks. That includes the frictionless, light-touch financial vulnerability checks and the enhanced ones. However, following feedback through the consultation, the commission has confirmed that it will not require gambling businesses to consider an individual’s personal details, such as their postcode or job title, as part of the checks. I know that was a key concern for those who signed the petition, and I hope that demonstrates that the commission is carefully listening to the concerns as it finalises how the checks will work.
To ease the introduction of those checks, as we have heard they will initially come into force at a higher threshold for a short period, before reverting to a lower threshold later in the year. We expect the lower threshold to be closely aligned with that proposed in the White Paper, which will enable a smoother implementation for the small number of affected consumers. The checks will not be intrusive, and will use publicly available data—as has already been said.
The commission will require the industry to introduce these frictionless, light-touch checks in two stages; that is intended to happen over the course of this summer. Enhanced financial risk assessments will also be implemented for the important protections they can offer consumers who may be at financial risk, and to ensure that assessing financial risk can be done in a more frictionless manner than is currently possible. The Gambling Commission will therefore conduct a pilot and data collection period. That will involve the commission working with the credit reference agencies and a selection of gambling businesses to ensure that the process of assessment is as effective and streamlined as possible. The pilot will run for a minimum of four months, during which time the commission will consider all issues that arise. The commission is clear that this process will help to refine the final requirements and models for data sharing, and help to ensure that the intentions and commitments in the White Paper are fulfilled.
I am sure everybody agrees it is important that we do not skip ahead to full implementation before getting the details right. Indeed, I know that many right hon. and hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), have made suggestions to me and to the commission. All of us want to find a solution that actively protects those most at risk of harm. The commission is actively considering all the proposals—including my hon. Friend’s—and I can confirm that many of the ideas that have been raised will be explored during the pilot stage, including looking at whether CATO or SCOR data is being used. By doing so, the commission can ensure that all the decisions that will be made are based on the evidence of what is working.
Matt Hancock
Will that include carving out horseracing in the same way that the national lottery has been carved out? Both of those have the lowest impact in terms of gambling harm and it would be inappropriate to treat the two differently.
Stuart Andrew
I have heard the national lottery mentioned a few times. Yes, it is unique—it is under its own separate legislative framework—but under the fourth licence conditions, player protection requirements will be increased and there will be conditions on payments for support, research, education and treatment.
I have also heard arguments for a carve-out for horseracing. I acknowledge that greater gambling harm occurs in online casinos, but we know that those who experience gambling harm use multiple products, and some have been using horseracing products. I have heard harrowing stories of people who have made losses on horseracing products alone.
Stuart Andrew
I am going to crack on because I do not have much time left and I want to get through as much as I can. If I have time at the end I will happily take the hon. Gentleman’s intervention.
I hope it is clear that both the Government and the commission want this to be a genuine pilot of how data sharing would work. Throughout the pilot, gambling businesses will not be expected to act on the data they receive, although they will of course be expected to continue to protect consumers by implementing their own existing consumer safety controls and to remain compliant with our existing regulatory requirements.
The Government and I are supportive of the evidence-led and consumer-centred approach that has been proposed for the pilot period, and the Gambling Commission will publish its full consultation response very soon. I remind colleagues that this is about online betting; people who go to racecourses or betting shops will not be a part of this, and the “day out” experience will not be affected.
In the meantime, we have also challenged the industry to be more transparent with customers. Currently, requirements are in place for gambling operators to identify customers at risk of harm and to take action, but there are no specific safer gambling requirements on how or when gambling operators must consider the financial circumstances of their customers. Where there have been failures to identify and act on clear signs of harm, the Gambling Commission has not hesitated to take action, including with fines, but there has been inconsistency across the sector. That is why we and the commission are working closely with the industry with it, so that we have a much better system in this interim period.
In the light of that, and in my meetings with colleagues and with the Horseracing Bettors Forum, I have urged the members of the industry to work together to mitigate the impact of customers having to provide information and documentation while we develop the new, frictionless system of checks. We understand that they are working towards delivering an industry-led code that would apply in the interim period. I know that progress is being made and I hope that we will be able to report that an agreement has been reached soon, so that customers have more clarity about what is expected.
Let me address the concerns raised here today about the black market. I assure colleagues that I take the threats posed by illegal online marketing and markets very seriously indeed. We know that they can pose a variety of risks to consumers, including by allowing access to those who have self-excluded through GAMSTOP. That is unfair to those businesses that abide by the rules. As set out in the White Paper, we committed to giving the Gambling Commission more powers to block and disrupt illegal gambling websites. We are delivering on that commitment through the Criminal Justice Bill, which will allow the commission to suspend IP addresses and domain names if they are being used for the purposes of serious crime connected with unlicensed gambling. The commission has also been able to invest in work to combat illegal gambling and it has succeeded in disrupting and reducing illegal traffic into British gambling markets. That work should be enhanced by the new disruption powers that the commission will receive once the Criminal Justice Bill has passed through Parliament.
I will now address horseracing specifically, as it has been raised here today. The British Horseracing Authority and other stakeholders in the industry have voiced concerns about the impact of the checks on the sport. I assure everybody that we have heard the concerns and take them extremely seriously. I have already met with many colleagues here today, including members of the APPG on racing and bloodstock. I have also met the Horseracing Bettors Forum to hear a customer perspective. I will continue to engage with the sector and those affected by the reforms, because the Government are strong supporters of horseracing. I acknowledge the many points that have been made about the significant contribution that horseracing makes to our economy and the central role that it plays in the livelihoods of rural communities. The employment that it supports across racecourses, training yards, breeding operations and related sectors reflects a powerful industry that is respected at home and abroad. Many colleagues have spoken here today or written to me on this subject, and I saw at first hand the care that is given to racehorses on a recent visit to a training yard in Middleham. I am therefore clear that we must ensure that the checks do not adversely affect racing or those who work in the sector, or interrupt the customer journey. They also must not push away high-net-worth individuals such as owners and trainers that invest in the sport.
The Gambling Commission has worked very closely with operators to explore the practical aspects of implementing the checks, and colleagues have said that they have seen an improved relationship between the commission and the industry. The commission has also been carefully considering responses to the consultation, which have helped to shape the implementation plans. We want to protect those at risk—I make no apology for our doing that—with minimal disruption to the majority, who I recognise bet on horseracing with no ill effect.
We recognise the importance of horseracing, but we know also that the levy is an important piece of work. I am about to run out of time, but I will happily write to colleagues to update them. Discussions are ongoing—I know that the Betting and Gaming Council had discussions this morning about an offer that is on the table for the levy—and I hope to be able to update colleagues shortly. With that, given that my time has run out, I apologise for not covering all the points, but this was an extensive debate.
Christina Rees
Very briefly, and on behalf of the Petitions Committee, I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their very valuable contributions.
Written Statements
(9 months, 4 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
UK Integrated Security Fund 2024-25
(9 months, 4 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
The Minister of State, Baroness Neville-Rolfe DBE CMG, has today made the following statement:
I wish to update the House on the launch of the UK integrated security fund (ISF) announced in the integrated review refresh (IRR) by the Prime Minister on 12 March 2023. The integrated security fund (ISF) will succeed the existing conflict, stability and security fund (CSSF) in April 2024.
The ISF is a cross-Government fund developed to tackle the highest-priority threats to UK national security at home and overseas. The ISF will use official development assistance (ODA) and non-ODA funding to enable the delivery of National Security Council priorities. It will take an integrated, agile, catalytic, and high-risk approach to find solutions to the most complex national security challenges outlined in the IRR 2023.
Through integrating domestic and overseas national security programming, it will aim to have real-world strategic impact, bring value for taxpayers’ money, and demonstrate UK innovation.
The ISF will build on the important work supported by the CSSF. New areas of ISF programming will reflect the priorities set out in the IRR and will add additional priorities, including maritime security, economic sanctions and emerging and disruptive technology such as AI and quantum computing. The ISF has allocated almost £1 billion for FY 2024-25, bringing some existing economic deterrence and cyber programmes into the single fund. In FY 2022-23, the CSSF invested £830 million as set out in the CSSF annual report FY 2022-23.
The report demonstrates how CSSF programmes have delivered clear results. In the Lake Chad Basin region in West Africa, data collection, analysis and co-ordination between the military and police improved the response to the threat from improvised explosive devices to local communities. Violent extremist groups operating globally pose a threat to the UK and to our allies. To counter the increase in the threat of Turkish-manufactured converted blank-firing weapons on UK streets, CSSF programmes invested in capacity building and advice, resulting in changes to firearms legislation in Turkey. This resulted in a drop in the sales of blank firearms in Turkey and a decrease in imports of blank firearms into the UK.
These examples highlight the fund’s tangible contribution to enhance UK national security through integrated programmes across 12 Government Departments and agencies, with a presence in over 90 countries and territories.
[HCWS291]
Children and Young People’s Resettlement Fund
(9 months, 4 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Felicity Buchan)
I am pleased to announce 11 projects that have secured funding from the children and young people’s resettlement fund. This £2.5 million fund facilitates projects in England until March 2025 that support young people, aged 21 and under, on the Ukraine, Afghan and Hong Kong BN(O) pathways. Name Amount Barnardo’s £300,000 Beacon Family Services CIC £45,191 Bradford Foundation Trust £193,116 Catalyst Psychology Community Interest Company £159,770 HealthProm £199,700 Hong Kong Well UK £226,748 International Rescue Committee UK £234,522 PATH Yorkshire Ltd. £298,330 St. Mary's Ukrainian School Limited £323,725 Stoke-on Trent and North Staffordshire Theatre Trust Limited (New Vic Theatre) £162,369 Wiltshire Council £47,602 Total £2.191 million
The fund aims to have a positive effect on the lives of children and young people on these pathways by addressing their specific needs and vulnerabilities, including mental health and trauma. The projects will provide support to enable children and young people to recover from traumatic experiences, displacement or resettlement and to integrate into society while retaining a connection to their culture.
Projects will be delivered during 2023-24 and 2024-25 and will contribute to our understanding of effective interventions for these young people.
Bids for a share of the funding were open to councils and voluntary organisations by application launched on 27 September 2023. From the 167 applications received, the following 11 organisations will be funded a total of £2.191 million:
Close to £290,000 will remain to fund projects commencing next financial year.
Funding will be allocated to the devolved Administrations according to the Barnett formula.
[HCWS292]
Local Transport Fund
(9 months, 4 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Mark Harper)
I am pleased to inform the House that my Department has today published details of the new £4.7 billion local transport fund dedicated to transport funding across the north and midlands. The local transport fund delivers on a commitment made in our Network North plan and is paid for by savings from HS2.
As the Prime Minister committed, every pound of the £36 billion that would have been spent on HS2 phase 2 will be invested into transport improvements that benefit far more people, in far more places, far more quickly. Every penny of the £19.8 billion committed to the northern leg will go to the north and every penny of the £9.6 billion committed to the midlands leg to the midlands, with the £6.5 billion saved by our new approach to Euston benefiting the rest of the country.
We are sticking to our plan to level up communities with greater transport links right across the UK for a brighter future. Our plan will ensure millions of people in the north and the midlands will benefit from better public transport, reduced congestion and upgraded local bus and train stations thanks to the new £4.7 billion local transport fund: £2.5 billion pounds will go to the north and £2.2 billion to the midlands across the next seven years (2025-2032).
Larger combined authorities in the north and midlands have already had confirmation of significant extra funding—with a further £8.5 billion increase to the city region sustainable transport settlements paid for by HS2. We are extending this successful model to all local authorities in the north and midlands through the local transport fund, providing the first transport budget of its kind for our smaller cities, towns and rural areas.
This is an historic level of funding for these councils. The new funds can pay for the infrastructure that communities really want: from new roads to new mass transit systems, more EV charge points or refurbished bus and train stations, to filling in potholes. It will be for locally elected representatives—councils, working with local MPs, not Whitehall—to decide how to spend this money and they will be accountable to their voters for how they do. The local knowledge of Members of Parliament will be vital, so I am requiring councils to consult their local Members of Parliament before spending this new funding. The funding is available from next year, giving time for councils to develop plans for this unanticipated funding boost.
This announcement builds on our progress of delivering reallocated HS2 spending to new transport schemes across the country. We have extended the national £2 bus fare cap. We announced the first down payment of a £1 billion investment in buses, with £150 million being allocated over the next year across the north and midlands. We set out details of our new £8.3 billion road resurfacing fund, with the first £150 million already reaching local authorities.
Details of the total funding each local transport authority will receive are published on www.gov.uk. The local transport fund is in addition to local transport funding from the last spending review and to what local transport authorities were expecting to receive in future. The Government will publish the annual allocations for this fund in due course. To ensure local authorities can make the most of this unprecedented funding, the Government will publish advice for local authorities. We will ask local authorities to determine their local transport priorities and develop delivery plans by autumn 2024 for projects to be funded by the local transport fund. The local transport fund is predominantly capital. It will include a resource element to ensure local authorities can deliver their plans. We will support local authorities as they develop their plans so that they are ready to deliver improvements with the local transport fund from April 2025.
[HCWS290]
Grand Committee
(9 months, 4 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(9 months, 4 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
My Lords, good afternoon. I remind your Lordships that, as normal, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
Local Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Order 2024
(9 months, 4 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Caine
That the Grand Committee do consider the Local Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Order 2024.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Caine) (Con)
This statutory instrument, and the Representation of the People (Postal Vote Handling etc.) (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2024, were laid before your Lordships House on 10 January. They flow from the Elections Act 2022 and deliver on the Government’s manifesto commitment to stop “postal vote harvesting”: the dubious practice of collecting large numbers of postal votes to be returned by someone other than the voter to whom the ballot paper is issued. One instrument applies these measures to parliamentary and Northern Ireland Assembly elections in Northern Ireland, and the second to local elections. The equivalent measures for Great Britain have, of course, already been passed by this Parliament.
These statutory instruments will set a limit on how many postal votes any one individual can directly “hand in” to the returning officer, and complement other Elections Act provisions protecting the integrity of the absent vote process. These include banning political campaigners handling postal votes issued to another person, and ensuring the secrecy of absent voting. One of the instruments also contains some technical amendments relating to the changes to EU voting and candidacy rights, which I will touch upon later.
I will set out the measures related to limiting handing in postal votes in more detail. Currently, there are no restrictions on who may hand in postal votes and how many may be handed in by any single person, and no record of who has done so. This is not acceptable because it creates opportunities for unscrupulous individuals to undermine the integrity of postal voting. For example, voters could be coerced into handing over their unmarked ballot paper, or completed ballots could be tampered with out of sight of the voter before being returned. Even if they are acting legitimately, where individuals are seen to be handing in significant numbers of postal votes in one go, it can easily create the perception and suspicion of impropriety, which can be damaging to confidence in the electoral system. Retaining public confidence in the democratic systems of our country is, of course, critically important.
We are therefore intent on striking the right balance between being mindful of security, keeping the electoral process accessible and ensuring that confidence in our electoral systems is reinforced. Under these regulations, a person, in addition to their own postal vote, will be able to hand in the postal votes of up to five other electors, including any for whom they are acting as proxy. We consider this a reasonable limit that will support the integrity of postal voting.
In Northern Ireland, postal votes can be handed in at the electoral office. Unlike in Great Britain, where postal votes may be returned to the polling station, in Northern Ireland handing in postal votes at polling stations has never been permitted. This prohibition will not change as a result of these measures. A person handing in postal votes will be required to complete a form setting out basic information. Where the forms are not completed, those, and those in excess of the limit, apart from the person’s own, will be rejected. Any postal votes that have been left behind in the electoral office without an accompanying form, including those posted through or pushed under the front door, will not be counted as they will not have been returned in accordance with these requirements.
The new forms make these changes clear to the voter. In addition, the rules will be published as widely as possible by both the Electoral Commission and the chief electoral officer. After the poll, the chief electoral officer will, where possible, write to the persons whose postal votes have been rejected under these requirements to notify them that their vote was rejected, and the reasons for that.
The regulations before us today also make some small changes in relation to EU voting and candidacy rights. The Representation of the People (Franchise Amendment and Eligibility Review) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2023 implemented changes to the previously automatic right of EU citizens to vote and stand in elections. These regulations amend those 2023 regulations, so that where the eligibility of EU citizens to remain on the register has been reviewed, duplicate notices do not have to be issued.
Additionally, where an election is originally scheduled to take place before the franchise changes come into force, but following the death of a candidate the poll is rescheduled for a date after the changes, these measures will ensure that candidates and registered EU citizens remain eligible to stand and hold office at that poll.
I hope noble Lords agree that these measures are sensible safeguards against the potential abuse of absent voting and will reduce the opportunity for individuals to exploit the process. I hope that, following my setting out the details of these statutory instruments, the Committee will appreciate their careful and considered design for supporting absent voters. I beg to move.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his presentation of the facts concerning both statutory instruments. I declare an interest in two respects: first, as a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee of your Lordships’ House; and secondly, as a participant in elections in Northern Ireland for the past 43 years, either as a candidate or as a party worker. In all those elections, I was well aware that postal votes provided the elderly, the infirm, students and those on holiday with the opportunity to vote by post or by proxy. I welcome legislative efforts to protect postal and postal proxy voting arrangements, because there was no doubt that there was actual fraud, as I saw for myself. I saw it in the last election in which I was a participant, and whenever I failed to get re-elected as the MP for South Down. There is no doubt that electoral fraud took place in the polling place and through postal votes, through a large degree of postal vote harvesting. We saw people going into the electoral office with hundreds of completed ballot papers in the prescribed envelopes, duly certified by a family member.
I have always been afraid that there might be those who seek to steal postal votes, particularly from the infirm, in order to seek electoral advantage. We have heard many examples of that, so I am pleased that legislative action is being taken. However, what legislative action will the Government take to protect the polling place itself at parliamentary, Assembly and local government elections in Northern Ireland, in order to protect voters and prevent vote stealing? People who had perhaps not voted in previous elections, and who turned up to vote in the 2017 parliamentary election and were definitely on the register, discovered at 6 or 7 o’clock that evening that their votes had already been cast by somebody else.
There needs to be some legislative means to protect the polling place, both inside and outside, because in some places voters are subject to constant haranguing by party workers; indeed, we have all been victims of that. What can be done to ensure that photographic identities are protected and cannot be copied or photoshopped, as must have been the case in the instance to which I referred?
I would also like to know from the Minister whether discussions took place with the Electoral Office of Northern Ireland and the Electoral Commission before these instruments were made. If they did, what was the view of both organisations? In addition, are the Government confident that there will be full access to the franchise through this legislative means for those who are elderly, those on holiday, and for students, and that there will not be any denial of the franchise or any means of obviating these new legislative measures? We have seen examples of that.
Whenever the ballots are open to party political workers some few days before the actual polling place is open, will those workers have an opportunity to be informed of the number of postal votes issued, the number delivered, and the number rejected because they did not have the proper accompanying identification with them?
In any event, and in conclusion, I welcome the instruments as they stand and as they relate to the protection of the franchise in council and Assembly elections.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, I am just interested in what the Minister said in relation to postal votes. He remarked that they are sometimes pushed through the door. I am not saying that he implied anything by saying that, but by listening to the way it was said you could nearly think that maybe there was something very improper about that. There has been no alternative up to now other than to push them through the front door—and certainly not through the back door.
As regards postal voting, if I go to the polling station, I must produce ID; there is no need for that at all if I get a postal vote. It strikes me that the potential for where abuse might occur is always with postal voting. I am not saying that it is on a wide scale, but I listened to what the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, said, and found myself concurring with much of it.
The other thing I want to emphasise is on voting on the day. It is imperative that there is a police presence inside the polling station. That can be reassuring to the public who come to vote. Some come in trepidation and fear because very often, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, rightly said, there is quite a hostile atmosphere outside from political activists coming to the polling station who do not always have a great regard for the rule of law. Indeed, they have very little respect for those who may not vote exactly how they guess—because that is all they are doing—they will. That needs to be looked at.
However, I have to say in favour of Northern Ireland that it has led the way on this matter. We have been able to get a fairer system of voting—if that is the proper word. Take remote, isolated areas, not least border areas: a minority community there might not feel very comfortable about coming to vote, hence they resort to postal voting—perhaps “resort” is not the right word either, but they will avail themselves of the postal voting system. That must be protected too. We can turn this thing down so tight that there is no degree of flexibility, because all we are trying to do is protect the genuine voter coming to vote. It is not those who are abusing the system who will feel pushed out here, because they will not; they will still have their ways of doing things, which are often very provocative. Indeed, sometimes quite a bit of agitation is applied.
Elderly voters who apply for a postal vote are vulnerable because activists—for the sake of a better word—will call at their door and tell them, “You’ve got a postal vote; I’ll deal with it”. That is highly suspect and must be dealt with in a way where the postal voter can be assured that their postal vote will go the way they want it to go, not the way the activist who arrives on their doorstep surmising, “Oh, here’s a number of postal votes, we’d better call here”, wants it to go. I have no problem with election workers assisting people, but that is all they should be doing.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I shall be extremely brief because we support these SIs. Trust in elections is absolutely key to our democratic system. The review by the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, identified several areas where measures could be strengthened to reduce the risk of electoral fraud; these SIs stem from that, and are welcome.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, asked about consultation, but the instruments say that consultation took place with the Northern Ireland electoral bodies and the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland. This is not always the case but I understand that, in this case, consultation took place. That is very much to be welcomed.
My only substantial question for the Minister regards training on these changes for the electoral officers in Northern Ireland and making sure that the changes are communicated properly. Can he give us an assurance that this will be done in good time ahead of the forthcoming general election? Can he confirm that there will be provision for sufficient resources to be made available in order to implement these changes?
The Minister will know that, when these SIs were debated last week in the House of Commons, some concern was expressed about the definition of “political campaigner”. Can he confirm that these changes will also be communicated to the political parties in good time? Can he say a little about how the definition of “political campaigner” will be monitored in practice?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these SIs, which put in place new rules on the handing in of postal votes in local, parliamentary and Assembly elections in Northern Ireland, as provided for by the Elections Act 2022. An equivalent SI for Great Britain has already gone through both Houses, with noble Lords participating in the recent debate here in January.
The Act established that it was an offence for a “political campaigner” to handle postal votes other than in very select circumstances. These instruments set out the new rules for members of the general public, which will sit alongside the other measures that the Act brought in. We on these Benches will not oppose the SIs but we want to probe the Minister on their impact. It is always worth noting that, long before the 2022 Act, the Labour Party had for years been signed up to the Electoral Commission’s code of conduct for campaigners, which bans campaigners from handling completed postal ballots.
We seek clarity on who is covered by which provisions. Colleagues in the Commons, as the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, said, raised the issue of the need for good understanding and communication on who is covered by the definition of a political campaigner, so people have absolute clarity on which set of rules applies to them. If a person puts a party poster in their window during an election, are they a political campaigner? How will electoral officers be supported to adjudicate on whether someone is a political campaigner or not?
We would like to see more clarity for voters, so that votes are not lost by mistake. Can the Minister give more detail on how the regulations will be made clear to voters, in order to avoid any votes being lost due to people being unaware or unsure of the new requirements?
Finally, I want to pick up on support for electoral officers, which was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, and other noble Lords. Without a doubt, these changes will place some administrative burdens on our electoral administrators. The pressure on local authorities is significant; electoral administrators up and down the country are stretched and are getting their heads around the changes the Government are making, as we pointed out several times during the passage of the Elections Bill. In the light of the numerous SIs that have come before us, these changes will create an unprecedented level of work for electoral administrators. Will electoral officers be further resourced in Northern Ireland? Will they be strengthened to deal with the impacts and changes outlined? My noble friend Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick spoke about the consultation, which is referred to in the Explanatory Notes, but can the Minister tell us about the nature of the feedback from the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland and the Electoral Commission? I look forward to his response.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in this short debate. I shall try to respond to a number of the points that have been made. I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, and the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, who have extensive experience of elections in Northern Ireland, in both fighting them and campaigning as candidates. I have participated directly in only one election in Northern Ireland, in 2010—without a great deal of conspicuous success, I am afraid to say.
I am grateful to noble Lords. Both the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, spoke about protecting polling stations. Of course, we will keep that under close review. Any question of a police presence at polling stations would be a matter not for the Government but for the Police Service of Northern Ireland, in consultation with the Chief Electoral Office. Of course, we keep the issue constantly under review and take it very seriously. That said, notwithstanding some of the comments that have been made, my understanding is that the police and the chief electoral officer are clear that organised electoral fraud at polling stations or polling places is not currently a significant issue. However, I take on board the noble Baroness’s comments and will look closely at the issue.
On engagement with the chief electoral officer and the Electoral Commission, I assure noble Lords that extensive and significant consultation took place. I refer specifically to the questions of the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie. These issues were discussed at length, and I can confirm that the Electoral Commission and the chief electoral officer were fully supportive of the changes the Government are setting out in these regulations.
Concerns were raised about the potential denial of the franchise. The Government are satisfied, through our consultations with the Electoral Office and the Electoral Commission, that these regulations are a fair and proportionate measure which will help to protect the integrity of the election system in Northern Ireland and the postal vote system.
The noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, referred to the definition of a political campaigner. He will be aware that this is set out in the legislation. For the record, it is worth setting it out for the Committee. A political campaigner is a candidate, election agent or sub-agent; somebody employed or engaged by a candidate for the purpose of assisting the candidate’s activities; a member of a registered political party who conducts activity designed to promote a particular outcome at the election; someone employed or engaged by a registered political party in connection with the party’s political activities; or a person employed or engaged by a person within any of the previous categories to promote a particular outcome at the election, which further applies to anyone employed or engaged by such a person to help promote a particular outcome at the election.
Of course, with any new system, we will need to see how this beds in, and we will keep it under review. If changes are necessary, we will come back to Parliament with them.
We are clear that the changes will be communicated directly to electors via forms, including declaration of identity and polling cards. The Electoral Commission and the chief electoral officer will also use all avenues open to them to publicise the changes, including their websites. Both the Electoral Commission and the chief electoral officer are seized of the importance of this and of making sure that the changes are clearly and widely understood by voters.
In conclusion, I know that all noble Lords believe that preserving our democratic processes is paramount. I hope the Committee will agree that these instruments enable us to ensure the integrity of the electoral system and maintain confidence in it by introducing, where we can, what I regard as sensible safeguards against the potential abuse of absent voting. I am therefore pleased to be able to introduce these measures.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
Before the Minister sits down, can he tell the Committee about extra support and resources for electoral officers? Perhaps I missed what he said about that.
Lord Caine (Con)
Of course; I apologise to the noble Lord. In Northern Ireland, all electoral delivery is the responsibility of the chief electoral officer and his staff. Local authorities in Northern Ireland are not involved in that at all. I can assure the noble Lord that we are working closely with the chief electoral officer to identify the specific impact of each of these measures and that any additional resource will be kept under review in that context.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
I asked about the reconciliation of postal votes, which happens about three days before polling day in electoral offices. One party-political worker from each party goes along to that and the postal ballots are opened. Will there be a register showing how many postal ballots were submitted, and those that were rejected and accepted?
Lord Caine (Con)
That is my understanding. As I outlined in my speech, where votes have been rejected, the electoral officer will write to the individuals concerned to let them know why, where possible.
That probably covers most of what was raised in the discussion. I commend these instruments to the Committee.
Representation of the People (Postal Vote Handling etc.) (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2024
(9 months, 4 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Caine
That the Grand Committee do consider the Representation of the People (Postal Vote Handling etc.) (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2024.
Reporting on Payment Practices and Performance (Amendment) Regulations 2024
(9 months, 4 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Johnson of Lainston
That the Grand Committee do consider the Reporting on Payment Practices and Performance (Amendment) Regulations 2024.
Relevant document: 10th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Lord Johnson of Lainston) (Con)
My Lords, as we all agree, small businesses are the backbone of our economy. They make up 99.9% of UK businesses, employ millions of people and enrich our daily lives. That is why the Government have declared 2024 to be the year of the small business. So far, we have strengthened our “Help to Grow” campaign, established the Small Business Council and are extending the payment performance reporting regulations which we are here to debate today.
However, small businesses are being let down by late and long payments, which contribute to an estimated 50,000 UK business closures each year. In addition, 56 million hours are wasted each year by businesses chasing late payments. I will outline the key elements of this statutory instrument and the Limited Liability Partnerships (Reporting on Payment Practices and Performance) 2017.
The first objective of this instrument is to extend the reporting requirements beyond the expiry of the Reporting on Payment Practices and Performance Regulations 2017 and the Limited Liability Partnerships (Reporting on Payment Practices and Performance) 2017 on 6 April this year until 6 April 2031—a very clear extension. Since the 2017 regulations and the Small Business Commissioner were introduced, instances of late payment by large businesses have fallen across the UK. If the 2017 regulations were to sunset without extension, we would remove payment time transparency entirely. I hope that noble Lords agree with me on that. We would also be removing the healthy dose of competition that drives large businesses to improve their payment time. Without the reporting requirements, businesses would not have to worry about being the outcasts of their peers due to poor payment practices.
My colleague Kevin Hollinrake MP, the Minister for Small Business, launched a consultation early last year which asked the public for their opinion on the regulations and our proposals for improving them. Trade associations and businesses across a wide range of sectors provided us with overwhelming support for the extension of the regulations and for the new reporting requirements which we will be introducing.
The second objective of this instrument requires large companies and limited liability partnerships in scope of the 2017 regulations to disclose additional information and report two new payment performance metrics. We will make it a requirement for businesses to provide the value of the invoices paid during the reporting period. Small businesses told us that this would provide them with even more clarity over how large businesses behave. We will also be introducing a requirement for businesses to report on the percentage of invoices that they dispute. Small businesses told us that they are concerned that some of their customers use frivolous disputes to avoid making timely payments. We listened to them and have taken action to address this.
The third objective of this instrument is to clarify the reporting requirements when supply chain finance is used by large businesses. This amendment will ensure that the impact of the use of supply chain finance is more accurately reflected in the reporting data, providing small businesses with a clearer picture of a business’s payment practices.
Like their predecessor, these regulations will require a review in April 2029, before their statutory expiration on 6 April 2031. It is critical that this legislation remains in place and is further improved to provide small businesses with the transparency that they need. By increasing the level of transparency, we will be arming small businesses with more information to help them make informed decisions about who they work with, while applying additional pressure to large businesses to improve their behaviour. We are incredibly grateful to the 137 respondents to the consultation on these regulations. They included small and large businesses as well as a range of representative trade bodies. There was overwhelming support for the extension of the regulations and for the new metrics that we will be introducing. I sincerely hope that my colleagues here with me today can see the benefits that these regulations provide and can agree with the introduction of this affirmative statutory instrument. I beg to move.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, I welcome these regulations, although I would have liked them to go even further. Prompt payment, as the Minister said, is vital to smaller construction firms, particularly at present, when a recent report from the Begbies Traynor Group found that the construction sector had the highest number of at-risk businesses in the UK, more so than any other industry. That is 83,000 firms in significant financial distress. Late payment and retentions are key issues exacerbating these problems for small construction firms, as larger companies higher up the supply chain seek to hold cash in their accounts for as long as possible, thereby adding to the challenges for smaller firms of inflation and increased costs of materials, energy and other necessities. Borrowing is often no longer an option for many SMEs. Therefore these regulations, requiring greater transparency of payment reporting, represent a step forward in keeping larger companies accountable and reinforcing the Government’s efforts to support SMEs by establishing prompt payment as the norm, not the exception.
The requirement to report on invoices both paid and unpaid by value, not just by volume, is particularly welcome. Even if the number of invoices paid within the time specified—30 days, 60 days or more than 60 days—represents a high percentage of all invoices, the total percentage value of those invoices may be significantly lower, because lower-value invoices tend to be paid more quickly. The requirement for senior management to sign off on the figures reported is also a laudable step forward.
However, there are some disappointing omissions from the regulations. The Government’s consultation response last November promised to introduce “reporting on retention payments”—that is, the withholding of a proportion of payments due to subcontractors for work they have completed—for businesses in the construction sector. Perhaps the Minister can tell us something about when and how this will happen, even if it may be too much to hope that he might give an indication of how the Government might move towards ending the pernicious practice of retentions altogether. It is high time that happened, after so many years of government consultations and considerations but no conclusions.
The consultation response also promised more active and visible enforcement of payment practice reporting requirements, but there is no reference to this in the regulations before us today. Reporting by itself will not solve prompt payment issues, so how will it be backed up by the enforcement measures promised by the Government? What will happen if a supplier to a government construction project reports consistent lateness in paying its supply chain, especially for higher-value invoices? Can the Minister say something about how and when this enforcement commitment will be met, including the plans for implementing changes to the role of the Small Business Commissioner to broaden its powers and increase its effectiveness in supporting small businesses?
I welcome the regulations as far as they go, but I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government plan to finish the job by introducing further regulations, hopefully quite soon, to ensure that reporting requirements are actually monitored and enforced and, above all, to begin finally to deal with the far too long-standing bane, blight, canker, plague, scourge—or whatever other synonym one may choose—of retentions.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, we, too, welcome this statutory instrument in as far as it goes. When I saw that my friend the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, was speaking, I knew that my speech would get shorter, because he has already covered much of the ground that I wanted to talk about. Late payment is just about the number one issue facing SMEs. If you listen to the organisations that represent them, it is the issue they always come back to. It will not be solved merely by transparency; we know that is the case. We have some transparency, but we are not getting solutions.
There is a culture in certain sectors. As the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, just set out, some sectors are worse than others. SMEs rely on a small number of large customers. The Minister said that publishing information would help SMEs to make informed decisions about whom they would work with. However, in many cases SMEs do not have the luxury of a decision about whether to sell their product or service to one company or another. That is the market and those are the businesses that operate; if there is a culture of late payment or retention in that business and, if those SMEs want to continue to trade, they have no choice about with whom they will trade. There is very little jeopardy for those companies that continue to practise late payment. That is the point the noble Lord made about enforcement.
I will make one other point about the building sector. Although it is a somewhat dated example, we can go back to 2018 and the Sandwell hospital project, which was managed and run by a company called Carillion. When that company went bust, it was very clear that its entire cash flow was managed through the late payment and retention of its contractors and subcontractors. The transparency situation has not appreciably changed since then.
A big issue that has to change is the Government’s view to their management of public procurement. The issue of late payment came up a number of times when we considered the public procurement Bill. Can the Minister ask his department what it can do, using the new Procurement Act, to help bolster enforcement on these issues? From our point of view, we would make it compulsory to sign up to a prompt payment code then seek ways to enforce it. Without that, the small improvement of this statutory instrument will continue to leave many of our small and medium-sized businesses in a position where their cash flow is used for the benefit of their customers’ cash flow.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I declare my interests, as set out in the register, as a director of several businesses and companies. I thank the Minister for setting out the regulations and welcome the Government’s campaign, declaring 2024 as the year of the SME.
I have advocated for provisions such as those provided by this instrument since long before I became a Member of your Lordships’ House. As a businessperson, I welcomed the original instrument’s introduction in 2017, and support the extended sunset clause and the expanded reporting requirements contained in this legislation.
As noble Lords have said, for too long and far too often, SMEs that have supplied goods and services to larger companies and public sector organisations have not been properly respected regarding payment terms. A relatively small amount of money for a large organisation can be, for many SMEs, a question of whether wages or rents are paid on time. It is stressful enough running a business, and late payments from large customers, whether through inefficient systems or the deliberate withholding of payments, are an all too common factor. Late payments can lead to additional borrowing costs for SMEs. Further, some SMEs may be reluctant to chase late payments for fear of jeopardising the business relationship. When payments have to be chased, good will, time and energy are unnecessarily wasted on both sides.
In tough economic times, as costs rise and margins are squeezed, SMEs are particularly vulnerable to cash-flow problems. Yet, in 2022, SMEs were owed an average of £22,000 in late payments. This has massive negative impacts on reinvestment, liquidity and market operation.
We know that we have a serious productivity problem in our economy. We can also agree that SMEs are the lifeblood of a healthy economy. So I am unsurprised that a consultation on these regulations last year strongly supported their extension and expansion. The expansion requires companies to publish additional information on both the proportion of disputed invoices resulting in payments exceeding the agreed times and the value of invoices paid late, in addition to the number of such invoices—an important improvement, in my view. It also requires companies to report on the percentage of invoices paid before 30 days, within between 31 and 60 days, and after 61 days or longer.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I greatly thank noble Lords for their passionate inputs into this debate. This is a serious issue. I should say that, although I do not believe I have any personal conflict, I would recommend that all noble Lords inspect my register of interests because, clearly, I have interests in businesses. Indeed, the noble Lords, Lord Leong and Lord Fox, and I have all had experience of working in small businesses, and late payment is a significant issue. We have these dry statistics, but the reality is that it has an effect on people’s lives, induces stress and wastes time, with an impact on the economy. It is something that we have to take very seriously. We are all in agreement that extending these rules until 2031 makes absolute sense. I am grateful to my colleagues for supporting us in this cross-party and cross-Committee view.
Some relevant questions were asked, and I will try to cover them briefly, but I would be absolutely delighted to have a further conversation. I know that my colleague, Kevin Hollinrake, is certainly available to hear further input from noble Lords, if that would be useful.
The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, made a point about the Small Business Commissioner. Let me say something; it may help to cover some of the other points made by noble Lords. The Payment and Cash Flow Review Report issued by Minister Hollinrake at the end of last year—I thought that it was a clear and excellent report—covers nearly all of the questions asked by noble Lords today, in particular the point about the Small Business Commissioner. The intention, to which we are absolutely committed, is to introduce broader responsibilities, which will allow said commissioner to undertake better investigations and publish reports; this will help significantly, I think.
The noble Lord, Lord Leong, asked who currently enforces the payments process. It is the Department for Business and Trade. We publish that data—it is on the Government’s website—and we also have a team tasked specifically with ensuring that we monitor late payment. That information is published.
I am sensitive to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, about the competitive case. As someone running a small business, one is—I was, and we were—obliged to take whatever business one can get. That is not irrelevant when it comes to the publishing of businesses’ competitive positions among each other; it is important. Similarly, the work that we have done on Companies House, with input from many noble Lords opposite, allows us to have better data around companies’ behaviour, which will have a significant impact. As I understand it, at least anecdotally, there is a concept in the consultation of competition between companies in terms of wanting to be a better payer is something that is not to be taken lightly.
I refer noble Lords to the report, looking at concepts such as late payments to be embedded in environmental, social and corporate governance standards, and so on. This will all have ultimately important impacts.
I have two other points, before I conclude, about the construction sector. Again, we have been very clear that we are looking to severely control the principles around retention payments, how they can be levied and how that operates in the information that we publish on that. We have been working very closely with an organisation called Build UK, which now publishes league tables on payment performance within the construction industry. This is a very clear flagged issue and something we are certainly working on. I am happy to write to noble Lords with further information if that is useful.
Lastly, the noble Lord, Lord Fox, raised a very important point about government procurement: how can we ensure that the Procurement Act is used more effectively to ensure that, through the supply chain, government procurement, which accounted for however significant a percentage of all procurement in the UK, is used to drive payment terms from its suppliers? That is a core element of this and it is worth saying that, since legislation was brought in in 2017, average payment times have reduced from 81 days to 36 days, which is a significant reduction. That is a single statistic, and I am very aware that it does not represent the value of the deals or go into a huge amount of detail, but that is the information that I have been given and I think it is very encouraging. Clearly, there are outliers and industries where there are still issues over payments. The Government take this point extremely seriously. It is a cornerstone part of our policy agenda to help small businesses, and indeed help the economy, to function properly. I am very grateful to all noble Lords for their input.
Lord Leong (Lab)
The Minister mentioned the drop in procurement payment from 81 days to 36 days. That is obviously very encouraging, but do the Government have figures for how long it takes the main contractor to pay its subcontractors?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Leong, for that point. We will have this data. I am looking, and average payment times between businesses peaked in December 2020 at 30 days and is now down to 35.6. I do not have the data in front of me for what it was before these regulations came in, but there is a very clear downward trend that can be seen in a chart in the report. I am happy to show noble Lords and to write with more specific information. The whole point about this exercise is to have the information to demonstrate what the trends are and who is not following the right courses of action.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
Before the noble Lord sits down, if that is the right phraseology, I have no doubt about the Government’s commitment to some of these further developments in reporting on retentions, for example. My question was very much about how and when that is going to happen, and why it does not happen. Here we have regulations which seem to me to be ideal for that quite simple reporting of retentions. It does not go nearly far enough, in my view, towards actually scrapping retentions, but it does at least produce the sort of transparency that the Minister is talking about.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for those points. The timeline is genuinely as soon as possible. We felt it was more important, given the timing of the cliff edge and the sunset around this legislation, to make sure that we extended that to 2031. I am aware, without speaking on behalf of my ministerial colleagues, that retention payments and issues around construction are absolutely on top of the priority hopper, so I hope the noble Lord will be satisfied with that.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, finally—I am not to be outdone—the Minister sets a lot of store on the public embarrassment issue. I come back to the balance of jeopardy: the Minister is a businessman of the world and he knows that, if you have a publicly listed company, it can make sure it reaches its numbers by the end of the year by extending its outgoings into the following year—it happens all the time. Which is more embarrassing to the board, not meeting its financial projections to the Stock Exchange or having a rather dirty note in its annual report 12 months later?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for the direction of his question. I do not necessarily think that I can answer it specifically. It would be unfair to deviate away from the main thrust of what we have been discussing today: a very sound extension of the right type of legislation for gathering information and including new areas within which to gather information, such as on value, to ensure that the supply chain funding and the data from companies using that system are not distorted. This is sensible, frankly, and has the support of everyone here.
However, the Committee is absolutely right to put pressure on the Government regarding potential payments around the construction industry and, importantly, the Small Business Commissioner. The plan is that the commissioner will be given significantly more powers—and not simply to publish the league tables, which I agree with the noble Lord is soft power. As I understand it, we are looking at opportunities to give the Small Business Commissioner, or whatever office it evolves into, real teeth when it comes to ensuring that companies are fulfilling their obligations.
There is more work to be done. This is a quite a new concept for the UK economy. We are looking at legislation that is just under 10 years old whereas, previously, we did not have any such legislative structures.
Paternity Leave (Amendment) Regulations 2024
(9 months, 4 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Johnson of Lainston
That the Grand Committee do consider the Paternity Leave (Amendment) Regulations 2024.
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Lord Johnson of Lainston) (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to be here today for this debate on the draft regulations, which will benefit working families by providing valuable additional flexibility to paternity leave working alongside the paternity pay regulations.
Currently, eligible employed fathers and partners are entitled to one or two consecutive weeks of statutory paternity leave and pay to care for their baby or support the mother. This must be taken within eight weeks of birth or placement for adoption. These regulations recognise the importance of fathers and partners spending valuable time with their children in the first year following birth or adoption and will make it easier for parents to take their full paternity entitlement.
We know that having more flexibility in how paternity leave and pay can be taken is important to families. We consulted on this in 2019 through the Good Work Plan: Proposals to Support Families. We found that 64% of respondents wanted greater flexibility in when and how paternity leave could be taken. Allowing fathers and partners to take their leave up to a year following birth or adoption was the most commonly suggested measure to accomplish this. Our changes will provide this much-needed flexibility. These regulations will fulfil our 2019 manifesto commitment to make paternity leave easier to take. I want to set out briefly how they will do this.
Our first change will allow fathers and partners to take their leave in non-consecutive blocks. Currently, only one block of leave can be taken, which can be either one or two weeks. Our change will remove this barrier by enabling parents to take two non-consecutive weeks of leave. We hope that providing fathers and partners with the flexibility to take their two weeks of leave non-consecutively means that they will find it easier to use their full entitlement and take their second week of leave. For some parents, taking two weeks of leave in one go is challenging due to pressures of work or for other reasons. Enabling parents to take their leave non-consecutively means they can take their leave at a time that works best for them and could lead to an increase in parents taking their second week of paternity leave.
Our second change will allow fathers and partners to take their leave and pay at any point in the first year after the birth or placement for adoption of their child. This represents a big increase from the eight weeks following birth or adoption in which parents currently must take their leave. This change gives parents more flexibility to take their paternity leave at a time that works best for their family. For example, this change could enable a father or partner to take time off work to be the primary caregiver when the mother returns to work. This is important as evidence shows that fathers who spend time solo parenting are more likely to play a greater role in caring for their children in later years.
Our third change will shorten the notice period required for each period of leave. The new regulations will require an employee to give only four weeks’ notice prior to each period of leave instead of 14 weeks before the expected week of childbirth. This means that a parent can decide when to take their leave at shorter notice to accommodate the changing needs of their families. This will apply to parents in birth and surrogacy scenarios, as the notification rules are different for adopters. This will also allow fathers/partners to change the number and dates of blocks of leave they plan to take. Responses to the Good Work Plan consultation show that both employers’ and employees’ groups considered this to be a fair and practical option. These regulations will work alongside the Statutory Paternity Pay (Amendment) Regulations 2024 to make both paternity leave and paternity pay more flexible and easier for fathers and partners to take.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his presentation, which was very clear, and I welcome the movements that this statutory instrument represents. It is important to add more flexibility, to do things such as reducing notice, and to extend the period by which this leave can be used. The Minister is correct: the ability for fathers to spend time with their babies at this early stage is an extremely vital part of improving the level of parenting going forward.
However, we have to be a bit realistic, in that we have an economy that is gradually moving towards an informal employment model, whether it is gig economy or zero hours, which means that an increasing number of people are missed out by this sort of measure. Then, of course, we have straightforward self-employed people, who are not part of this, and people who have not been working for long enough for their business. That starts to leave out a large number of people. I cannot give the exact number, but at least a quarter of fathers are not eligible because of those issues; it is probably more because the gig economy is increasing. I urge the Minister and the Government to consult with all of us about ways those fathers can be brought into the system, because at the moment there is a danger that they will slip through the net.
We will be going into the election with a manifesto commitment to an increase in the amount of paternity leave that is available and in the level of flexibility. I am sure that His Majesty’s loyal Opposition will say something similar in a minute, perhaps with more specificity. However, I will make a special mention of those businesses that go beyond the law. Many businesses go way past the legal minimum, and one way of moving this forward is for the Government to recognise, praise and celebrate businesses that do far more than the current legal limit. They recognise that the fathers in their business benefit, not just as fathers but as employees. I think the Government and all of us can spend time celebrating that.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Fox, I welcome this SI, as far as it goes. As he said, it is welcome, but this is not groundbreaking; we are talking about small moves in timescale, the length of leave, when it can be taken and the number of opportunities to take it. On the previous SI, we were all declaring our interests. My interest in paternity leave finished 21 years ago, when my youngest child passed his first birthday, but I declare my interest in a number of businesses that I advise, all of which treat their employees at a better and higher level than the legal minimum that this sets—and I shall come back to that.
The SI, Explanatory Memorandum, impact assessment and the Minister’s introduction are all very clear. As I said at the start, this is welcome, but I have a few questions to raise. If the Minister cannot answer them, I am more than happy for him to write to me and place a record of that letter in the Library with answers to some of the specifics—but we support this SI going through.
To work through the regulations, one thing that I was not clear about is the territorial application, which is England and Wales and Scotland. Why does it not also cover Northern Ireland? I was interested in that.
Let us look at flexibility. When I did take paternity leave—Jeez, 23 or 24 years ago—my employer at the time, GMB trade union, offered two weeks, which could be taken within the first year, but there was no period that you had to take. These regs will cover two one-week blocks. Twenty-four years ago, I was able to take the first week, then my wife and I decided that I would take every Friday for the next five weeks, because she had help and support earlier in the week, and Fridays were the time that I could take to spend time with our child and allow her some respite. That flexibility of having one day a week for the next five weeks was a different way of taking it, but that is not covered by the regulations. So, just to take the point from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, a bit further, did the department look at widening that flexibility so that it could be taken as individual days?
I fully welcome it being within the first year, and the notice period is also more than welcome. The Minister noted that the first consultation was post the general election following a manifesto commitment in 2019. We are now in 2024, so I am wondering why it took so long to get here, because this is a positive move. The impact assessment, again, is spot on and covers all the right issues.
I am looking at flexibility for a reason. If we look at page 9 of the impact assessment, it looks at the take-up assumptions. Right now, we are on 74% for week one and 66% for week two. A large number of partners and fathers are not taking the second week, so this is about redressing that. However, the assumption is that the second week will move up to a central figure of 70%, which is an increase of only 4%. Even if we get to the high-end assumption of 74%, it is an increase of only 8%. Any increase is welcome, but is there more that the department can do to help general uptake on the first week? With these changes, there is no expectation that week one uptake would increase. Is there more that we could do on advertising and marketing to show and share the benefits of this? Looking at the finances of it, they are relatively small.
The Minister touched on the neonatal issue as well. I have a genuine question for information. Obviously, when there is a notice period, it is for four weeks. If you have a premature birth, or it is an adoption and things move quicker, that four-week period may be too much. The Minister touched on this but I did not quite get the detail of it. If there is a premature birth, what are the rules in terms of the partner or father being able to move quickly in order to take time off? I presume that many premature births end up in hospital but I am sure that support from the partner or father would be very willing. Can the Minister say anything on that?
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, touched on the gig economy so there is no need for me to repeat what he said.
With that, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said, we will come back to the manifesto in due course, but now is not the time to set out what our policy would be for the next election. We on these Benches support these regulations.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, for making the point about the declaration of interests. I hope that, for once, I also have no interests to declare in a debate and no need to apologise after the event for not declaring them—but who knows? What is important is that the nation will benefit, and we may too; that is a good thing. I will answer some of the questions asked but am happy to follow up with answers to some of the more specific questions in writing.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, made some important points about celebrating and congratulating businesses that go beyond the statutory minimum. We should bear this in mind. I do not have the statistics on how businesses function in terms of percentages and performance but, to be honest, all the businesses that I have ever worked around or been involved with have always operated a different process for paternity leave, maternity leave and so on. That is a great thing; we should not forget it. These are minimum standards. It is important that I emphasise that. This should not be “the” standard, as it were; we hope for and expect companies—indeed, all bodies—to try to go beyond it. As the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, rightly said—28 years ago, was it?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
Yes—24 years ago, the noble Lord had a greater degree of flexibility then than these minimum standards imply. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for raising that.
I also thank the noble Lord for making a point about the self-employed. Mothers are eligible for maternity leave as self-employed persons but self-employed fathers are not eligible for paternity leave. I have not covered this area in my ministerial work but I would be comfortable going back to my colleagues and asking them to scrutinise the opportunities there further. Bearing in mind that self-employed people—again, I have been self-employed to some extent—have very different working patterns and living patterns, we should not necessarily conflate the two, but it is absolutely right to review and assess how we as a society support families and carers of babies and children.
The noble Lord, Lord McNicol, made a number of important points. The first related to Northern Ireland. This area of legislation is devolved to Northern Ireland. We assume that it will follow the legislative work we are doing today—we cannot guarantee that but it is the assumption; there is some shaking of heads and nodding behind me—but, clearly, we believe that these minimum standards should be applied, certainly across Great Britain.
The noble Lord, Lord McNicol, asked whether we looked at widening flexibility. I do not have the answer to that because I was not engaged in the preparation of this legislation, but I will come back to him, if that is acceptable. All these measures are always taken in the light of balancing our desire to create the sort of society that we want with the need for economic growth and bearing in mind how businesses function. The issue with all these pieces of legislation and regulations is that they apply across the board to all businesses, and some businesses, particularly very small ones, can often find compliance difficult. They might not have the flexibility over the professional employee basis that many noble Lords here may be more used to, so I have some sympathy with the need to be quite clear about ensuring that these are minimum rather than general standards and that they can be operated by all companies across the economy.
I noted the noble Lord’s last point: 74% take-up of week 1, and 64%—or low 60s—take-up of week 2. That is precisely why we are making these changes: to encourage fathers to take that second week. We believe that additional flexibility will allow that.
The noble Lord asked about neonatal care regulations. I believe they are to come into play on 6 April, and they are also entitlements from day 1. If that is not the case, I will let him know. As far as I understand it, they operate slightly differently from paternity leave, but I am happy to clarify exactly what those new entitlements will be. Again, they will be a very important, welcome relief for many parents in an extremely difficult situation.
With that, I am grateful to noble Lords for their input in this valuable and important debate. I commend these regulations to the Committee.
Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (Consequential, Supplementary and Incidental Provisions) Regulations 2024
(9 months, 4 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Johnson of Lainston
That the Grand Committee do consider the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (Consequential, Supplementary and Incidental Provisions) Regulations 2024.
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Lord Johnson of Lainston) (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to see the same team back again. We have covered late payments of paternity leave and now we are on economic crime; I hope that they are not linked. I believe these are to be consequential, which in plain English means inconsequential. I hope that we can cover this quite smoothly but of course, as always, I am very open to hearing noble Lords’ views on how we can improve our legislation to reduce economic crime in this country and get Companies House to work more effectively. At the risk of being slightly repetitive, I urge noble Lords to look at my interests in the register.
These regulations were laid before the House on 30 January under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, which I will refer to as the 2023 Act. This Act makes changes to the Companies Act 2006, which, among other things, reforms the role and powers of the Registrar of Companies.
Last week, I brought forward the first four affirmative statutory instruments to begin the long-awaited process of enabling the registrar to become a proactive gatekeeper of company information. Those regulations and the powers in the 2023 Act equip the registrar with the ability to compel answers about suspicious information, remove or change information on the UK company register, as well as analyse and disclose data available to her to law enforcement agents. I am pleased to say that, by next week, the registrar will be able to begin using her new powers. This will be an important step in improving the integrity of the company register for investors and businesses alike and will help in the fight against economic crime.
This statutory instrument will make minor consequential amendments to the Companies Act 2006 and the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022. It also introduces changes to eight pieces of secondary legislation. The changes are very technical in nature but are designed to ensure that the reforms apply coherently and the registrar’s new powers are exercised effectively.
The key purpose of this statutory instrument is to ensure that the changes introduced into the Companies Act 2006 will extend, where possible, to law governing other business entities registered in the UK. It also lifts restrictions on the use and disclosure of certain data by the registrar and allows her to share it more widely, especially with public authorities for purposes connected with the exercise of these functions. The changes are necessary to ensure consistency across the statute book pertaining to business entities, as well as to provide clarity and accessibility to users of legislation.
Although this statutory instrument does not make any policy changes, these regulations are an important effort to ensure that the registrar’s objectives and powers are applied consistently to all business activities registered at Companies House. I am sure that noble Lords have read some of the background notes but these are grandfathered in European companies, called Societas, and various other types of companies; I will be happy to write to noble Lords in greater detail but we are comfortable in wanting to make sure that we have not let any peculiar formation through the net.
Looking ahead, there will be greater opportunities to consider the more substantial parts of the reforms. My department will continue to bring forward further statutory instruments to implement the reforms to Companies House fully. These instruments will strengthen the role and powers of the registrar, help tackle economic crime and make the company register one of the most trusted in the world. I beg to move.
Lord Fox (LD)
Those are laudable aim, Minister. Those of us who laboured long and hard into the night on the then Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill welcome the arrival of this statutory instrument. When we considered the other ones last week, I asked when the commencement statutory instrument was due. I think that this is what I was asking for, so that is good news.
I have nothing to add. As I say, we debated long and hard on the Bill, now the Act. The proof of the pudding will be in Companies House and how it gets motoring on its new mission. I know that the Minister and the department know this; anything that we can do together to help it get there is to the benefit of all of us. We wish this statutory instrument godspeed and we wait hopefully for the other 50-something that will come hard on its heels.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, as stated earlier, I declare my interest as a director of several companies, as set out in the register. I thank the Minister for clearly setting out this set of regulations. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Fox: we on these Benches are content to support this set of technical regulations and have nothing further to add.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lords for their support of this technical point. If people are listening to these debates, they should not be under any illusion that there has not been a rigorous debate around every element of the ECCT Bill—and more will come. In this instance, these are technical points, and I would be grateful if this instrument could be passed by the Committee.
House of Lords
Death of a Member: Lord Cormack
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, on 24 February. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to the noble Lord’s family and friends.
Overseas Territories: Tax Haven Status
(9 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chakrabarti
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the economic benefits for the United Kingdom of the tax haven status of the Overseas Territories.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, in polarised times, I look across and see the significant space where the temperate voice of our friend Lord Cormack ought to be. We will all miss him. I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, the UK has not made any recent quantitative assessment of the economic benefits of the overseas territories to the UK, but we continue to support the territories to build vibrant and sustainable economies, including through encouraging greater links to the UK economy. The overseas territories are an integral part of the British family. The elected Governments of inhabited overseas territories are responsible for fiscal matters, including tax, and are committed to upholding international tax standards.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister, if not exactly any the wiser. Last November, the UN General Assembly voted overwhelmingly in favour of a new framework convention on tax justice. His Majesty’s Government were among a small club of rich countries that voted against. Now that that Motion has been so overwhelmingly carried, and there will be negotiations for a treaty to deal with tax avoidance and evasion in the world, will His Majesty’s Government engage?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
As the noble Baroness will know, there is an enormous amount of work going on at the moment around international tax. That has been led by the OECD and the inclusive framework, involving 130 countries and jurisdictions from around the world working on two pillars: one for the greater share of group profits to be taxed in market countries, and the second a global minimum tax, where all profits will be subject to a 15% minimum effective tax.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, from these Benches I join in with the shock and sense of loss at the death of Lord Cormack. He was such a big figure in this House and I know it is a very personal feeling for many of us sitting here, as well as for those across all Benches.
On 8 February—this month—a jury in Florida found the former Premier of the British Virgin Islands guilty of drug trafficking and money laundering while in office. Do the Government understand that that kind of corruption would have been much more difficult had there been in place the long-promised public register of beneficial ownership? The Government had guaranteed to this House that it would be in place for all overseas territories by the end of last year. Where are we in this process, and do the Government recognise their crucial role in stemming corruption?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The Government absolutely recognise their crucial role in stemming corruption; we work very closely with the overseas territories on all sorts of issues when it comes to illicit finance. I refer the noble Baroness to the Written Ministerial Statement from my honourable friend in the other place, the Minister for the Americas, Caribbean and the Overseas Territories; in that is a helpful summary that sets out where each of the overseas territories is in relation to introducing a public, accessible register of beneficial ownership.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as I have family living in the Cayman Islands. Is that particular territory not a good example that others should follow? It has a well-regulated jurisdiction with a tax-neutral framework, which supports taxes being paid where the profits are made. It has signed up to and is approved by FATF, on anti-money laundering, and also has a positive rating on the OECD Global Forum. Against that sort of background, does it not demonstrate that territories such as Cayman that are close to us have got their house in order? And, yes, against that background one would hope that any that have not would follow suit.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I am grateful for my noble friend’s support for the Cayman Islands, but it is just one of the many different overseas territories. Not wishing to detract at all from his words, I would say that the Cayman Islands is doing well, but I think it can do better. For example, the beneficial ownership register that the Cayman Islands is planning to put in place will still have a legitimate interest access filter. We believe that that is an interim step, and we would like to see fully open registers of beneficial ownership as soon as that can be implemented.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I associate myself with the comments in relation to Lord Cormack. One thing he was incredibly powerful about was encouraging others, particularly on the parliamentary fellowship across this House. He was a great person who will be sadly missed.
Perhaps I might pick up the Minister in relation to the timescale for registers of beneficial ownership. We have had some progress, I am not denying that, but the British Virgin Islands and others have got timetables that talk about five years. What are the Government doing to support these overseas territories to implement these registers in a speedier and more thorough fashion? Support is needed as well.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I absolutely agree that we need to support the overseas territories. We have the skills, capacity and capability to do that, and that is what we do—but recognising that the relationship with each of them can be very different. They have elected Governments of their own. Those Governments are responsible for their domestic affairs. The noble Lord mentioned timeframes of five years. The British Virgin Islands, which I admit is probably towards the end of introducing the beneficial ownership registers, is looking at putting a framework in place no later than quarter 2 of 2025.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister explain why, at a time when British people are paying more tax than they ever have done, the richest people in the world and in this country are avoiding tax altogether—people such as the part-owner of Manchester United, who now apparently wants the taxpayer to give him billions of pounds to invest in his business? Where is the fairness in that?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Obviously, I cannot comment on any individual’s tax affairs, but it is the case that overseas territories are non-sovereign jurisdictions. They have a unique relationship as part of the British family, but they set out their own tax legislation within their own legal structures and it is certainly not for the UK Government or Parliament to drive a coach and horses through that.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, has the Minister’s department carried out any assessment of how much higher tax rates would be in the rest of the world if there were not competition from these lower-tax jurisdictions to keep us in check?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I am afraid I have to say to the noble Lord that we have not carried out that assessment.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, on 8 June, the Treasury Secretary in the other place said:
“HMRC plans to calculate and publish a new stand-alone”
estimate of the
“offshore tax not being correctly reported”
by individuals
“next year, for the ‘Measuring tax gaps’ 2023 edition”.
Well, that hat has already been published, but there is still no estimate of the offshore tax gap. Can the Minister explain why the Government are so relaxed about offshore tax avoidance?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The Government are not relaxed about offshore tax avoidance. We maintain that all tax avoidance needs to be stamped out, which is why we work so very closely with the overseas territories on tax avoidance, anti-money laundering and counterterrorism finance, including with registers of beneficial ownerships. We have very good relationships. We meet with our colleagues frequently to discuss how to put things in place such that they are implemented as quickly as possible.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend accept that, if some of the overseas territories ceased to be tax havens, they would become an even greater burden on the British taxpayer?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
As I said in my opening remarks, we encourage the overseas territories to develop sustainable and successful economies. As I also said, they are responsible for setting their own tax rates, and we will think about how future tax rates may change. It is also the case that tax rates will be underpinned by, in particular, pillar 2, which will be implemented via domestic rules across all overseas territories where it is relevant.
NHS: Neurology Care
(9 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Londesborough
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the NHS’s resourcing and capacity to provide specialist care, in line with that provided to cancer and cardiac patients, for those living with neurological conditions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con)
My Lords, integrated care boards are responsible for commissioning most services for people with neurological conditions. NHS England has established the neuroscience transformation programme, a multi-year clinically led programme aimed at improving specialised adult neuroscience services in England. The programme has developed a new model of integrated care for neuroscience services to support ICBs to deliver the right service at the right time for all neurology patients, including providing care closer to home. A toolkit is being developed to support ICBs to understand and implement this new model.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, there are 11 million people in the UK living with neurological conditions—the cause of more deaths than cancer and heart disease combined and the greatest cause of lifetime disability. The NHS is clearly not set up to provide the specialist care needed. France and Germany have more than four full-time consultant neurologists per 100,000 people; here, it is just over one. Across the UK, there are no full neuro units to be found in the majority of our counties. The consequential wastage of healthcare resource by non-specialist care, plus the social and economic burdens, is put at £96 billion by the Economist in a findings report released today. Can the Minister tell us: what are the plans to address this critical imbalance?
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank the noble Lord. I had the opportunity to join the Neurology Alliance forum today, which was quite timely. I think its approach is entirely right in looking at what we can do to help people get on with an active life and back into the workforce, understanding that the economic impact of that is key. We have set up the neuroscience transformation programme, which the Neurology Alliance is on board with, which we think will tackle many of the issues that the noble Lord mentions.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Scottish Government’s advisory committee on neurological conditions and as chief executive of Cerebral Palsy Scotland. People with neurological conditions are faced with navigating a very complicated maze of services straddling primary care, secondary care and social care. Some conditions have well-defined pathways; many other conditions, such as cerebral palsy, do not. If the Government are not going to look at an overall neurological strategy such as the one that we have in Scotland, what practical steps will they take to help people with neurological conditions navigate these confusing services, so that they get the right support at the right time?
Lord Markham (Con)
My noble friend is correct. The important step towards this was our appointment of the first national clinical director of neurology over the last year. The task force put out a progressive neurological conditions toolkit which sets out the pathways exactly as my noble friend mentions. It shows the treatments for over 600 conditions. This is a complex area so it is vital that the pathways are understood in each area and patients can understand how to navigate them.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, the Government have created a new occupational health task force, which is welcome, but it will not help somebody to stay in their job or get back to work if they face a wait of many months to see a neurologist because that is what their condition requires. Can the Minister confirm that he will be working with his colleagues in DWP to ensure that the neurology capacity is there to see referrals from occupational health services more quickly?
Lord Markham (Con)
Yes, absolutely. Of course, this is what the CDCs are about as well in trying to get that diagnosis capacity. At the Neurological Alliance forum I was just at, the main thing was needing help with early diagnosis, because getting treatment is key to it all and, also, seeing whether we can sometimes refer people directly to the CDCs so that the GP is not always the bottleneck.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, as Lord Cormack was a fellow of Lincoln, as I am, I pay tribute today to his considerable contribution to the City of Lincoln, as well as to this House and to the other place. May his memory be for a blessing.
The Neurological Alliance has expressed concern about the lack of clarity over whether new therapies for those affected by neurological conditions and their changing needs have been factored into the workforce plan. Can the Minister set out how the workforce plan will respond to these changing circumstances both for those with neurological conditions and those with other conditions?
Lord Markham (Con)
I echo the noble Baroness’s comments regarding Lord Cormack.
In terms of the long-term workforce plan, I was talking this morning to the national clinical lead in this area and to Professor Steve Powis. The next stage in terms of the detail is looking at the individual specialties and neuroscience experts are part of that. In the last five years, we have seen an increase of about 20% or so in this space but understanding that need going forward is the next stage in the long-term workforce plan.
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford (Con)
My Lords, I echo the comments about Lord Cormack—we are all going to miss him dreadfully in this Chamber.
There are about 600,000 people in the UK living with epilepsy. An epileptic seizure can cause significant disability and, in the worst instances, death. Only half of those living with epilepsy are seizure free, but this could rise to 70% if all those with epilepsy were targeted to the right treatments. Can the Minister say what plans the department has to improve epileptic treatment in the UK with improved specialist care?
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank my noble friend, and I proudly wear the Epilepsy Action badge from the meeting I was just at. As my noble friend says, it is all about trying to get that early diagnosis. If you can get that and help people get the right treatments, that is exactly the right direction of travel because it can make a huge difference to outcomes. The progressive neurological condition toolkit I mentioned earlier sets out that pathway and the model of integrated care for all the ICBs, which they will all then be held to account on to make sure patients with all these conditions—and there are 600 of them including epilepsy—are getting the right treatment in their neighbourhood.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests in palliative care. Do the Government recognise that many of the patients with neurological disease are living with palliative care symptoms such as pain, breathlessness, worry and fatigue, which could be managed in the community with good integration between palliative care services and neurological services? Therefore, have the Government given specific commissioning guidance to integrated care boards to ensure that they look to see how the integration is developing in their own areas to enable these patients to improve their quality of life and their ability to live actively for as long as possible?
Lord Markham (Con)
Yes, that is precisely what I was referring to: the progressive neurological condition toolkit is all about the pathways for that integrated approach to it all. Again, there are 15 million people affected—I think this statistic was mentioned earlier—and one in five deaths come from related conditions, so making sure we have that integration with palliative care as well as the other services is key.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, neurological conditions require diagnosis by a specialist. Thereafter, the individuals need the input of people from all the different disciplines of the NHS. At the moment, the expectation to manage that falls upon GPs, and they cannot manage it. The key people who can are specialist nurses, and we have a severe deficit of specialist nurses for several neurological conditions. Can the Minister say how that deficit is to be addressed by the workforce plan?
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness. Yes, the point about epilepsy nurses was made very clear to me just half an hour ago, and I quizzed both the national clinical director of neurology and Professor Stephen Powis on that subject this morning. I was assured that the next stage of the long-term workforce plan goes into that level of detail. I have made a commitment to the House to share some of that data, so we can make sure that it really is covered properly.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, as human beings we are one biological system. A disease in one system often impacts another: for instance, chronic cardiac failure often results in cognitive dysfunction and people with neurological conditions often have associated cancers. While this Question is about funding for neurological diseases—and in the last two weeks, we have had Questions about funding for cardiovascular disease, cancers and others—what the whole thing shows is that we have one system failure in the health service. The only way that might be addressed is to get some out-of-the-box thinking. Does the Minister agree?
Lord Markham (Con)
I hope the noble Lord knows me well enough to know that I am always up for some out-of-the-box thinking. We are putting a lot of resources into this space. When we talk about dementia, which is captured in this, the commitment I gave last week was to bring in the expert panel, so that we can start to really understand this because early diagnosis is absolutely key. There is some out-of-the-box thinking there. Again, just now I was caught by the spinal muscular atrophy people; they were saying that if we could add that to the baby pinprick test, for instance, we could make sure that babies never suffer those symptoms later in their life, in many cases. I am absolutely up for that out-of-the-box thinking.
Life Sciences Businesses
(9 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
To ask His Majesty’s Government what further steps they intend to take to support life sciences businesses starting up and scaling up in the United Kingdom.
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Lord Johnson of Lainston) (Con)
The life sciences sector is among the UK’s most globally competitive, with a turnover of more than £108 billion in 2022 and employing over 300,000 people. Supporting the sector is a priority for this Government, as demonstrated through a range of initiatives. These include a £520 million fund supporting life science manufacturing, reforms to the UK’s pension market to boost funding for companies, grants for early-stage companies via Innovate UK, export support and initiatives to accelerate the NHS adopting innovation.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that reply. We all understand the importance of the life sciences sector to our economy and to the health of our nation. Can he explain why, under this Government, the UK’s share of global exports in this sector was down from 9% to 4%, and our share of global R&D fell from 7.2% to 3.2%, between 2012 and 2020? Does that not represent a complete failure by this Government to create the stability and certainty in which life science innovators can flourish?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am always grateful for challenge from any Peer in this House, but I have very different figures. If I look at the turnover of the life sciences sector, I find that, in 2022 alone, it was up by 13%, and it is up by 40% since 2015. There is a whole lot more that we can do, but I am proud of our record when it comes to garnering investment—FDI, which is particularly my function—into the UK life sciences sector. Over a three-year average, we are third in the world, behind only the United States and Germany. That is rather a significant tribute to the people in this sector and the Government’s support of it.
Lord St John of Bletso (CB)
My Lords, it is well known that there is a chronic shortage of purpose-built life sciences wet lab space. Can the Minister elaborate on what measures are being taken to build more science parks and innovation hubs?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
The noble Lord is absolutely right to raise this as a core issue. I am quite frustrated myself at some of our planning points, which certainly delay the building of these essential facilities. I am glad that life sciences wet lab space has been coming on stream in significant quantities, not least recently in Canary Wharf, which I hope he will join me in celebrating. However, there is more to be done; I totally agree with the noble Lord.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, the Office for Life Sciences reports to the DHSC and the DSIT. The Office for Investment is a joint No. 10 and Department for Business and Trade unit. I spoke to a major biotech investor in this country, which said that the lack of communication between these two organisations is hampering its progress in building new biotech capacity in this country. Does the Minister agree that these two organisations ought to work closely together? There ought to be an explicit link, so that when companies are trying to scale up and invest in this country there is a proper joined-up approach.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I sometimes feel that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, asks the perfect question, though we have not collaborated. Tomorrow, I have just such a trilateral meeting, between DSIT and the Department of Health, the Office for Life Sciences and the Department for Business and Trade. I totally agree with the comments made by businesses about the siloing of government, which I am afraid is an issue we all face. This working group will have enormous power in trying to drive change and there are a number of things I want it to do. First, I want it to try to identify key companies around the world that we want to bring to the UK. Secondly, it should look at how we scale up the existing opportunities we have. The noble Lord is absolutely right, and I am delighted that tomorrow will mark the first event of which he has spoken.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, the Minister referred to the position of the US as being in advance of the UK in life science innovations. Our universities increasingly recognise the critical need to put innovations and discoveries of patient benefit through start-ups and scaling. However, costs and complexity are driving start-ups to pursue regulatory approvals via the US FDA, rather than here. This means that patients get biotech and medtech advances far later than those across the Atlantic, even from UK spin-outs. What are the Government doing to remove the redundancy and repetition to incentivise UK companies to pursue NHS deployment in this very competitive global market?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her prompting. The Government have put more money into the MHRA, specifically for clinical trials, to assist all of our agencies to license more effectively and faster. As Minister for better regulation, it is part of my specific project to drive innovation. Clearly, this is not without risk, but, if we are to own the IP and lead the world, it is essential that we must go faster. That applies not just to the regulators but to government departments. We are working hard on this, but I appreciate the challenge.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I refer to my interests, as set out in the register. When I was in the Department of Health, I had a meeting with a number of start-ups from the life sciences sector. They told me what wonderful products and services they had, but that they could not convince investors to invest in them. We looked at whether we could bring investors together with start-ups and scale-ups, so that they better understood each other—the companies could understand what the investors were asking for in returns and investors could understand the potential of these businesses. What progress has been made in bridging the gap between investors seeking to understand investing in the life sciences industries and those start-ups seeking to attract investment?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for that point. This is very much the work of the Office for Life Sciences, the Department for Business and Trade, and the Office for Investment. We do a huge amount of work liaising with companies and investors. One of our missions is to get more life sciences funds established in the UK, so that we can, I hope, benefit from the home buyer. I was particularly pleased a few months ago to celebrate the opening of the Flagship Pioneering office in London, which is precisely that sort of life sciences fund. It was part of the incredible investment in companies such as Moderna. We want them here and they want to come to the UK. If we can encourage them to do this, it will have a huge advantage in bridging the gaps my noble friend mentioned.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I wonder whether the atmosphere is too pessimistic. The University of Oxford has propelled itself to the forefront of the world in its life sciences and science parks, notably one by Magdalen College that has more than 100 start-ups and is expanding. Does this not mean that the Government should support universities, their freedom and their ability to do science? It is from that that the great success of these life sciences start-ups has come.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I totally agree with the noble Baroness. I would go further and say that one policy motor that has been successful so far is these life science investment zones, particularly in Liverpool. I had the privilege to meet with Steve Rotherham today and the metro mayors, who have been leading across the board and in Yorkshire, to find an essence of focus for the investment into these new technologies. We are doing a huge amount of work on university spin-offs as well—organisations such as Northern Gritstone and Midlands Mindforge are the absolute core of the work I am doing to get money internationally into these pools of capital.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, my question arises out of the one just asked. Can the Minister elaborate on what the Government are doing to spread the excellent work of the life sciences in this country more evenly around the UK?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I hope I have answered this to some extent. There is no limit to the amount of work that we can do to get more investment into this sector. It starts from the smallest opportunities at universities, where we can put more money into life science spin-out funds, trying to help the organisations that pool that capital, as I say. It is about trying to establish bases in London for the key life sciences funds from abroad, and working with sovereign wealth funds, the biggest pension funds and the UK pension fund industry to put money into the industry. That is an important start.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, will the Minister attend the conference on life sciences in Aberdeen on 20 March, which is designed precisely to focus on this and is being promoted not just by the Aberdeen chamber of commerce but by the Times and the industry? Will the Government attend?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising this. It was not in my diary, but this is an area of great passion for me and, if I can attend, I certainly will. I am sure some of my officials will be heavily engaged. Earlier in the year, we attended the key life sciences summit in San Francisco, which I had the privilege of attending the year before. We have to be out there flying the flag, so I totally agree with that prompt and I will look into it.
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of Oxford University Innovation. Following the excellent question from the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, I am pleased to report that university innovation is going from strength to strength. At the University of Oxford, we spun out an average of four to five companies in 2015, but there was an average of 20 in 2021. Investments in Oxford spin-outs went from £125 million a year from 2011 to 2015 to over £1 billion a year now; that is more than 45% of the country. The question is not how we get the innovation started—that is easy. The question is how we scale those companies and keep them in the UK. What are the Government doing to attract that growth capital and keep those companies here?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for that question, and I congratulate her on the astonishing amount of work that she has done to promote the sector. I am happy to have further discussions on the technical focus of the spending and getting the right level of capital into the scale-ups. As I say, it runs from a range of university spin-outs through to the development and commercialisation of those ideas. We then have to locate funds in the UK, and, at the highest level, we need more liquidity in our stock market for the very large venture opportunities. That circles back to the Mansion House compact and the Edinburgh reforms, which the Chancellor has been absolutely right to focus on. I hope the Government will announce in the near future the result of the LIFTS competition, which is a £250 million fund specifically designed to kick-start investment from defined contribution pension savers into this industry, which will have an important impact.
Employment of People with Criminal Convictions
(9 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Burt of Solihull
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to encourage businesses to employ people with criminal convictions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to say that the rate of prison leavers in employment six months after release almost doubled in the two years to March 2023, from 14% to over 30%. New Futures Network, the Prison Service’s specialist employment team, runs quarterly recruitment drives. These national campaigns have seen more than 200 employers and partners working with HMPPS to deliver more than 230 events in prison. Several other measures support the Government’s drive to get former prisoners into work.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, I know—because I told him about it this morning—that the Minister is aware of the ban the box campaign to do away with the criminal convictions tick box on job application forms so that applicants can be assessed on their skills before their past mistakes. We know that work after prison dramatically reduces reoffending rates and helps to create a safer society. It helps companies to access a rich talent pool, yet three-quarters of them discriminate against applicants with convictions, excluding millions of jobseekers from the market. I thank the Minister for agreeing to look into this campaign, led by the charity Business in the Community, to see how the Government might support it.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, as your Lordships know, under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 the Government have been progressively reducing the need to disclose previous convictions, particularly in relation to community sentences and sentences of under four years, and now even some non-violent sentences of over four years can be regarded as spent. As the noble Baroness has said, the ban the box campaign run by Business in the Community, which comprises more than 150 employers covering over 1 million roles, asks employers to delay the point at which applicants are asked to tick a box on and give details about any criminal convictions so that they can expose their skills at interview before any disclosure of convictions is made, if such disclosure is still required.
The Government are very pleased to commend the work of Business in the Community, which has now led the ban the box campaign for several years. In 2021 it passed the milestone of covering more than 1 million roles, and as long ago as 2016 the Government signed up to it for the Civil Service. The noble Baroness rightly identifies that this is a very important initiative. Increasing rates of employment on release from prison is very important, and the Government will continue to support the initiative.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I was going to ask about ban the box as well. The Minister has given a full answer. However, can he say something about the practices of the Ministry of Justice? When it contracts with numerous companies and NGOs, does it require them to practice ban the box themselves?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I will have to come back to the noble Lord on that question, as I am not in a position to answer it straightaway.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a trustee of the Prison Reform Trust. An impressive 10% of Timpson’s workforce are ex-offenders. Its chief executive said on the radio just a few days ago that they are among his best employees, no doubt because they are highly motivated to succeed. In addition to the Government encouraging businesses to employ more ex-offenders, which I strongly support as a key to rehabilitation, are government departments doing anything to recruit more ex-offenders?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, the Government do recruit ex-offenders and have signed up to various programmes to do so. That is a matter for individual departments, but it is certainly part of the Government’s programme to pursue that avenue.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, with the reoffending rate remaining stubbornly high, what work is being done to prepare offenders to perform properly in the job market when they leave prison?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I can give your Lordships a variety of examples. I was talking to a prisoner from HMP Winchester the other day; he was very pleased and said, “It’s been great. I’ve completed the IT course and for the first time in my life I can do a Word document and an Excel spreadsheet”.
Your Lordships may have seen the report in the press this morning about HMP Liverpool, which has been completely transformed. The brewery Marston’s has a mock-up of a pub, where prisoners can train to work in hospitality. In HMP Swansea you will find the mock-up of an HGV with which you can qualify for your HGV licence. In HMP Humber you can do the same thing with a forklift truck. There is a great deal going on in our prisons, and we should be very proud of our Prison Service for pursuing those initiatives.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
My Lords, from these Benches I add our own sadness at the death of Lord Cormack. His contributions to this House and to the Church will be sorely missed.
As has been said, there has been a serious decline in rehabilitation and release planning services in recent years. Prisoners need to be engaged with purposeful work; there needs to be planning ahead of their release—including release on temporary licence—to secure employment, if we are to prevent reoffending. What steps are the Government taking to increase release on temporary licence?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, the Government are very keen to allow prisoners release on temporary licence wherever that is possible. I emphasise the work that has gone into preparing prisoners for employment; there is now an employment lead in every one of our 93 prisons, and an employment hub where prisoners can access vacancies, make applications, et cetera. Every prisoner has an ID, a bank account and accommodation arranged when they are being released. There is an employment advisory board in every prison, and these measures are taking effect.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, it is the turn of the Green Benches. If everyone is quick, we can then hear from my noble friend Lord Polak.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I will be quick. I will just say that I will miss Lord Cormack very much.
There is a section of prisoners—the IPP prisoners, who are imprisoned for public protection—who are constantly being called back to prison, and their mental health is very much under threat; they are a very vulnerable population. Are prisons looking to rehabilitate those prisoners in particular, by preparing them for work?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, there is a specific action plan in place for IPP prisoners. The question of whether they are being prepared for work is a little premature because they first have to be prepared for release. We are going to discuss this matter in great detail in the debates on the Victims and Prisoners Bill, and I look forward to further discussions with the noble Baroness.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, for eight years I have had the privilege of sitting on this Bench next to Lord Cormack, often annoying him by asking him procedural questions; of course, he knew every answer. Yehi zichro baruch—may his memory be a blessing.
I refer the House to my interests in the register: I am an adviser to Legacie Developments, a small construction company in Liverpool run by John Morley, which last week celebrated the 50th ex-prisoner it has employed. Does the Minister welcome this? How can we expand this sort of operation?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
The Government are very keen to expand all opportunities for the re-employment of prisoners. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to a range of employers—Timpson, Marston’s, Greene King, Greggs, Wagamama, Marks & Spencer and many others—of which, as a nation, we should be proud.
Registered Office Address (Rectification of Register) Regulations 2024
(9 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Johnson of Lainston
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 18 December 2023 be approved.
Relevant document: 8th Report from Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 19 February.
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Lord Johnson of Lainston) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move the four Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper en bloc. In doing so, I declare my interest as a director and person with significant control of some companies. I do not believe there is a direct conflict, but I inadvertently omitted to declare my interests in Grand Committee last week, for which I apologise.
Victims and Prisoners Bill
Monday 26th February 2024
(9 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 View all Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 31-VI Sixth marshalled list for Committee - (22 Feb 2024)
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
“Major incidents: duty of candour(1) In discharging their duties in relation to a major incident, public authorities and public servants and officials must at all times act within their powers—(a) in the public interest, and(b) with transparency, candour and frankness.(2) If a major incident results in a court proceeding, official inquiry or investigation, public authorities and public servants and officials have a duty to assist—(a) relating to their own activities, or(b) where their acts or omissions may be relevant.(3) In discharging the duty under subsection (2), public authorities and public servants and officials must—(a) act with proper expedition,(b) act with transparency, candour and frankness,(c) act without favour to their own position,(d) make full disclosure of relevant documents, material and facts,(e) set out their position on the relevant matters at the outset of the proceedings, inquiry or investigation, and(f) provide further information and clarification as ordered by a court or inquiry.(4) In discharging their duty under subsection (2), public authorities and public servants and officials must have regard to the pleadings, allegations, terms of reference and parameters of the relevant proceedings, inquiry or investigation but may not be limited by them, in particular where they hold information which might change the ambit of the said proceedings, inquiry or investigation.(5) The duties in subsections (1) and (2) must—(a) be read subject to existing laws relating to privacy, data protection and national security, and(b) apply in a qualified way with respect to private law and non-public functions as set out in subsection (6), and(c) not be limited by any issue of insurance indemnity.(6) The duties in subsections (1) and (2) will be enforceable by application to the relevant court or inquiry chairperson by any person affected by the alleged breach, or the court or inquiry may act of its own motion. (7) Where there are no extant court or inquiry proceedings, the duties may be enforced by judicial review proceedings in the High Court.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would require public authorities, public servants and officials to act in the public interest and with transparency, candour and frankness when carrying out their duties in relation to major incidents.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, there is an urgent need to introduce the duty of candour for those operating across public services such as policing, health, social care and housing. A duty of candour would place a legal requirement on organisations to approach public scrutiny—including inquiries and inquests into state-related deaths—in a candid and transparent manner. The duty would enable public servants and others delivering state services to carry out their roles diligently, while empowering them to flag dangerous practices that risk lives.
By requiring openness and transparency, a statutory duty of candour would assist in creating a culture of change in how state bodies approach inquests and inquiries. It would give confidence to those individual members of an organisation who want to fully assist proceedings, inquiries and investigations but who may experience pressure from their colleagues not to do so. A statutory duty of candour would compel co-operation with proceedings, inquiries and investigations, thereby dismantling the culture of colleague protection in, for example, the police service.
The NHS currently has a duty of candour whereby there is no liability for breaches. The need for sanctions on a duty of candour was recently evidenced by the inquiry into deaths in Essex mental health services. Before the inquiry was converted into a statutory inquiry, the then chair had said that she could not effectively do her job and that only 30% of the named staff had agreed to attend evidence sessions—a key element of the duty of candour as put forward in the amendment, which would apply to all public authorities.
A duty of candour needs to apply to all public authorities to ensure an effective end to evasive and obstructive practices following contentious deaths. State-related deaths, particularly major incidents such as the Hillsborough tragedy or the Grenfell Tower fire, commonly involve many different public agencies, from local authorities to health services. Without ensuring a duty of candour that applies to all involved in relevant investigations, institutional defensiveness and delays will continue, and the fundamental purpose of such investigations—to prevent future deaths—will continue to be undermined. The original version of the duty, put forward in the Criminal Justice Bill, applies only to police officers. Do the Government agree that it is important that this is fixed, whether in this Bill or a future criminal justice Bill?
Institutional defensiveness has been found to be a pervasive issue in inquests and public inquiries. It causes additional suffering to bereaved persons, creates undue delay to inquests and inquiries, undermines public trust and confidence in the police and undermines the fundamental purpose of inquests and inquiries—to understand what has happened and prevent recurrence. Establishing a statutory duty of candour would go some way to addressing these issues.
In her 2017 review of deaths and serious incidents in custody, Dame Elish Angiolini concluded:
“It is clear that the default position whenever there are deaths or a serious incident involving the police, tends to be one of defensiveness on the part of state bodies”.
Additionally, the chair of the statutory Anthony Grainger inquiry, His Honour Judge Teague KC, concluded that it was his
“firm view that an unduly reticent, at times secretive attitude prevailed within Greater Manchester Police’s Tactical Firearms Unit throughout the period covered by the inquiry”.
Compelling co-operation with a statutory duty of candour would enable inquests and inquiries to fulfil their function of reaching the truth to make pertinent recommendations which addressed what went wrong, and to identify learning for the future.
Failure to make full disclosure and to act with transparency can also lead to lengthy delays as the investigation or inquiry grapples with identifying and resolving issues in the dispute at a cost to public funds and public safety. A statutory duty of candour would significantly enhance the participation of bereaved people and survivors, by ensuring that a public body’s position was clear from the outset, limiting the possibility of evasiveness. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I rise to speak to this amendment to which I have added my name. I declare my interest as co-chair of the national police ethics committee.
Before turning to the amendment, I follow other noble Lords by recording the deep gratitude of both myself and many in the Church for the wisdom and friendship of Lord Cormack. On behalf of both the party he served and the Church he loved, over so many decades, Patrick wonderfully embodied that concept of “critical friend” which is so vital to the functioning of all institutions. We were all better for his wisdom and friendship, and we all learned much from his challenges. He may not have been subject to a duty of candour, but that never stopped him from being very candid in expressing his views. We will miss his contributions, here and elsewhere greatly.
The former Bishop of Liverpool advocated for a duty of candour in his report on the Hillsborough disaster, The Patronising Disposition of Unaccountable Power. That title tells its story. His report was produced over six years ago; a duty of candour was finally contained in the College of Policing’s Code of Practice for Ethical Policing in the last two months, for which I and many others are deeply grateful.
The amendment would require public authorities, public servants and officials to undertake a duty of candour. By placing a general duty of this nature on a statutory footing, the participation of bereaved people and survivors in the justice system would be enhanced. Inquest describes an
“endemic culture of delay, denial and institutional defensiveness from public authorities and private corporations that bear responsibility for the health and safety of the public”.
We do not always get it right in the Church, either.
As Bishop of Manchester, it fell to me to help lead my city and diocese in their response to one of the worst terrorist incidents on UK soil in recent years. I believe that we responded well—so well that we have been able to help other cities around the world that have faced similar tragedies since. However, when it came to learning lessons—discovering what had gone less well—we found ourselves hampered by the natural reluctance of public bodies to share their failings. This is not about finding guilty parties to blame; it is about learning from the events that happen.
A duty of candour would help to move the emphasis away from reputation management in the wake of crises, towards supporting victims, their families and survivors. I was delighted to learn that we now have such a duty in the code for policing, but it seems to me that exactly the same arguments apply to the other services involved in seeking to forestall or respond to major incidents. I contend that it is not enough for just the College of Policing to introduce this duty, although that is indeed a welcome step; we need a more general duty that extends to a far wider range of public bodies.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I have signed the amendment and it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester.
The 2013 Francis report set out the failings of the Mid Staffordshire hospital trust, explaining exactly why there needed to be a duty of candour. It said:
“This was primarily caused by a serious failure on the part of a provider Trust Board. It did not listen sufficiently to its patients and staff or ensure the correction of deficiencies brought to the Trust’s attention. Above all, it failed to tackle an insidious negative culture involving a tolerance of poor standards and a disengagement from managerial and leadership responsibilities. This failure was in part the consequence of allowing a focus on reaching national access targets, achieving financial balance and seeking foundation trust status to be at the cost of delivering acceptable standards of care”.
That could apply to many of the issues that we have debated in this part of the Bill on major incidents. Regulation 20—the duty of candour brought in across the NHS in 2015—was defined as
“the volunteering of all relevant information to persons who have, or may have, been harmed by the provision of services, whether or not the information has been requested, and whether or not a complaint or a report about that provision has been made”.
I will refer to that duty of candour in today’s debate on a later amendment.
The CQC points out that we must remember that there are two types of duty of candour—the statutory and the professional—both of which
“have similar aims—to make sure that those providing care are open and transparent with the people using their services, whether or not something has gone wrong”.
The implementation of the duty of candour covering the NHS applies to all healthcare providers, registered medical practitioners, nurses and other registered health professionals where there is a “belief or suspicion” that any treatment or care provided by them or their trust
“has caused death or serious injury”.
It is important for the NHS that it is for people who are registered, as it is with the police. If we ask to broaden it, and we do, we need to think carefully about who it should cover, because these people must be accountable—probably through registration.
Although it is a decade since the duty of candour was introduced, serious incidents, including death and injury, have continued in the NHS. Responsible hospital trusts and providers, as well as the individual regulated healthcare professionals, all know that they will be held accountable to this standard. As was described by the two previous speakers, it is a no-fault system which overcomes the old problem that saying sorry implies legal responsibility. It sets out a standard for declaring that there is a problem as soon as someone—anyone—is aware, and, where used correctly, it reduces the agony of victims and their families facing the block of institutional silence. Where it is not used, the CQC will inspect and consider why.
I support the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, that the duty of candour should cover public authorities, public servants and officials at major incidents, and they should follow it. Just think if the NHS had used the duty of candour for victims and families of the infected blood scandal, or if the police had used it in relation to Hillsborough instead of blaming the fans, or if it had been used by the council and other bodies involved in the fire at Grenfell Tower. However, just as importantly, the duty of candour changes organisations so that, where possible, they think before the event, which can also prevent major incidents. Staff put the safety of people first in all that they do. It will not prevent all major incidents, but it can either reduce or stop the consequences of a potential disaster and make the aftermath much easier to live with.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and all noble Lords who have spoken to this amendment, which would place a statutory duty of candour on all public authorities, public servants and officials in relation to a major incident. This is, if I may say so, a modified version of the Public Authority (Accountability) Bill that was previously put forward, which is known as the Hillsborough law, so the underlying question here is: should we have in statute, in one form or another, a Hillsborough law?
There is much common ground between us. At no point are transparency and candour more important than in the aftermath of a major incident. As the Government said in their Statement of 6 December in response to Bishop James’s 2017 report, it is of the highest importance to combat
“unforgivable forms of institutional obstruction and obfuscation”
and the “inexcusable … defensiveness” of public bodies in “their own self-interest”. We agree with Bishop James, and indeed with the speakers today, that what is needed is a change of culture. The question is: what is the best and most effective route to bring about that change?
In essence, for the reasons already set out in the Government’s Hillsborough Statement on 6 December and the debate that day in your Lordships’ House, the Government do not believe that this amendment, applying to officials across the whole public sector, would be an appropriate or effective way to prevent a repeat of the failings that occurred in the aftermath of Hillsborough. First, as a general point, a central feature of a case such as Hillsborough, and other similar cases, is the imbalance of power between the authorities on the one hand and the bereaved on the other. The creation of the independent public advocate for a major incident—who will no doubt pursue the victims’ interests with terrier-like determination, I hope—will go a long way towards rebalancing that previous imbalance of power and securing equality of arms. I suggest that the institution of the IPA is in itself a lasting tribute to the Hillsborough families who have campaigned to ensure that no other families ever have to suffer in the same way.
In addition, still on the equality of arms point, the Government have removed the legal aid means test for exceptional case funding for inquests and will consult on expanding legal aid for inquests where an IPA is appointed or terrorist offences are involved. Cabinet Office guidance will reaffirm the expectation that legal expenditure by public authorities should not be excessive and should be published. Again, those matters should go a long way towards rebalancing the position between the various parties.
The second point, which I think the right reverend prelate the Bishop of Manchester was, in a sense, already making, is that the Government have already tackled directly the central failure in the aftermath of Hillsborough, which was a failure by the police. As noble Lords will be aware, in 2020 the Government introduced a statutory duty of co-operation for individual police officers to ensure that they participate openly and professionally with investigations, inquiries and other formal proceedings. A failure to co-operate is a breach of the standards of professional behaviour and could result in disciplinary sanctions, including dismissal.
In the Criminal Justice Bill that was introduced in November 2023, which I hope will be before your Lordships’ House before too long, the Government are placing a statutory duty on the College of Policing to issue a code of practice relating to ethical policing. In advance of that, as has been mentioned, the Code of Practice for Ethical Policing, was laid in Parliament on 6 December under existing powers alongside the Government’s response to Bishop James’s report. That code, directed at chief constables, includes a duty to ensure candour and openness in the forces that they lead, to ensure that everyone in policing is clear what is expected of them and to provide confidence to the public that the highest standards will be met. That will be monitored, and chief constables will be monitored, by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services and by local police and crime commissioners.
A further area of concern, which the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, referred to, relates to the NHS. One notes the Francis report of some years ago, and there are continuing concerns, for example, around events at the Countess of Chester Hospital that are the subject of a statutory inquiry by Lady Justice Thirlwall. There is already a duty of candour on the NHS under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 that covers everybody who is registered with the Care Quality Commission. The Government are reviewing that provision to see whether it is working properly. There may be details to discuss around exactly who it should cover and collaboration with the General Medical Council and the Nursing and Midwifery Council to ensure that the professional standards march in line with the statutory standards—that may be a matter for investigation—but, in principle, in the NHS, those duties already exist.
The same is also true, in effect, for statutory inquiries under the Inquiries Act 2005, backed by criminal penalties. It refers to court proceedings, where full disclosure is required of all litigants under well-established principles, and a duty of candour is expected by public authorities, notably in judicial review. For inquests, coroners have powers under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 to obtain documents, administer oaths and question witnesses. There is a Ministry of Justice protocol that was specifically revised following Bishop James’s report, which requires government departments and lawyers to approach inquests with openness, honesty and full disclosure. A range of matters is already covered, so that leaves non-statutory inquiries, which the chairperson can request are converted into statutory inquiries in the event of obfuscation or non-cooperation. The Government feel that, in effect, the ground is already sufficiently covered in a very targeted way.
As for public servants working in central government, the Government have already reaffirmed their commitment to ensuring openness and transparency, as set out by my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister when signing the Hillsborough Charter on 6 December 2023. The commitments in the charter are reflected in the existing framework of obligations and codes that apply to all those who work in government, such as the Civil Service Code, the Code of Conduct for Special Advisers and the Ministerial Code, to which we can add that public appointees to the boards of UK public bodies are subject to the Code of Conduct for Board Members of Public Bodies, which, in turn, incorporates the Nolan principles. Those matters, in the Government’s view, reveal a quite comprehensive coverage of the issue that we are discussing.
The Government also consider that the amendment in its present form would be practically unworkable, applying as it does directly to all public officials who may be involved in the context of a major incident. It would apparently require maybe dozens of officials, junior as well as senior, to come to individual and autonomous views on whether, for example, a particular document was in scope, or irrelevant, or privileged or covered by national security or whatever. That could easily give rise to many difficult and conflicting views, making the whole process almost impossible to manage and drawing civil servants into conflict with each other and their employers.
For those essential reasons, the Government do not feel that this is an appropriate way forward. The speakers in this debate did not raise the Post Office, which in some ways colours a lot of the background to this. On that point, I can say that the proposed legislation on the Post Office is clearly being driven by some very serious incidents of prosecutorial misconduct in breach of existing rules. We do not need new rules; they did not follow the old rules.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
It is good to see the Minister back in his place; we are pleased to have him back and I am very grateful for his comments. He mentioned the Post Office. I spoke about the importance of culture and making sure that things do not happen. While he is absolutely right on the legal side, there is an issue about the personal duty of candour that changes behaviour. Does he recognise that?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
Yes, the Government recognise that up to a point. What we are discussing is the right way to get there. The Government are not convinced that this statutory amendment is the right way, but there are other ways of doing it, through our codes and the provisions that we have for the NHS, the police and now the Hillsborough charter—the matters that have been mentioned.
I cannot go into specific detail on the Post Office, because we do not know what has happened, but the duty on a prosecutor to follow the codes that they must follow is a duty on that individual. I will not go any further than to make that comment.
Finally, in the spring, the Government hope to publish their response to a report by the Law Commission on reforming the common-law criminal offence of misconduct in a public office. We have to await that response to see whether it bears on the issues that we are discussing. With those points made, the Government recognise the sensitivity of and differing views on this matter. The Lord Chancellor’s Oral Statement on 6 December said, very explicitly, that we will keep it under review. While legislation alone and the Government’s view cannot ensure a culture of openness, honesty and candour, we do not rule out bringing forward legislation at some future point if we are persuaded that it is needed. The matter is still under reflection, from that point of view.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, summed it up, really: while this is a probing amendment, it is about changing the culture and behaviour of organisations. I was talking to my noble friend Lady Thornton during this debate. She sits on an NHS trust and was saying that a culture is embedded in the way that the NHS practises its procedures now, which has come from it having a duty of candour for the last 10 or 11 years. The Minister made other points about addressing the same issues, so it is not as though one set of responses precludes another, such as the duty of candour.
Of course, I am pleased that the Lord Chancellor has said that he will keep an open mind on this and keep the matter under review. I acknowledge the Minister’s points about creating the independent advocate role, the review of legal aid and individual professional standards, which are being looked at, but none of them precludes also having a duty of candour. That was the point made by all who spoke in support of the amendment. Nevertheless, I thank the Minister for his response and beg leave to withdraw Amendment 133.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I too have signed Amendment 133A, which is a probing amendment and states that the Secretary of State will be acting on behalf of the United Kingdom Government when they establish the body to administer the compensation scheme for victims of the infected blood scandal.
Amendment 133B stipulates that payments made under Clause 40 must be fully funded by the Treasury. In anticipation of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, Amendment 134 is intended to probe how and when compensation payments will be made to victims of the infected blood scandal.
I acknowledge the letter that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, sent to us—and the constructive meetings we have had—advising that there may be future amendments coming forward on Report. For now, I beg to move.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I start by recognising that one of the people who wanted to speak to this amendment is not in his place. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, told me he was going to speak, and his death over the weekend leaves a large gap, not just in Parliament but for the victims of the infected blood scandal and their families, whom he supported.
He said in the Commons on 13 November 1989:
“No one can give back to these victims the hope of a normal life that was once theirs. No one can remove the uncertainty with which they and their families live from day to day—the uncertainty of when the bell will toll. If any group of people live in the shadow of death, they do. It is no wonder that their story has been described as the most tragic in the history of the NHS ... I hope that we shall have a full and good answer from the Minister, but whatever he says, unless he agrees to our request, the campaign will go on and we shall not go away.”—[Official Report, Commons, 13/11/89; cols. 153-55.]
Patrick, we shall go on. May you rest in peace.
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for his letter, and for the meeting we had to discuss this amendment and Clause 40. I hope he will have better news for your Lordships’ House today. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, on Amendments 133A and 133B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, which talk about payments for the infected blood scheme being arranged on behalf of the UK Government and paid from the UK Treasury. It is right—this scandal has been going on for approaching 50 years, since long before devolution, and therefore it is inappropriate for Scotland and Wales to have to foot the bill for something that is clearly the responsibility of the UK Government.
Clause 40 of the Bill was an amendment laid by Dame Diana Johnson MP in the Commons and it won cross-party support in a vote. It requires the Government to establish a body to administer the compensation scheme for victims of the infected blood scandal. The clause is the original wording of the Infected Blood Inquiry’s second interim report, recommendation 13, and incorporates recommendations 3 and 4.
My probing Amendment 134 was also laid in the Commons, but, unfortunately, there was no time to debate it. It would ensure that an interim compensation payment of £100,000 is made in respect of deaths not yet recognised—specifically ensuring that, where an infected victim died, either as a child or as an adult without a partner or child, their bereaved parents would receive the compensation payment. Where an infected victim has died and there is no bereaved partner but there is a bereaved child or children, including adopted children, the compensation should be paid to the bereaved child or children, split equally. Where an infected victim has died and there is no bereaved partner, child or parent, but there is a bereaved sibling or siblings, they should receive the compensation payment.
It should be noted that the wording is the original wording of recommendation 12 of the Infected Blood Inquiry’s second interim report. It is also very helpful that both the Welsh and Scottish Governments have written to the UK Government to support the compensation in advance of the inquiry reporting in May. On 18 December last year, the Paymaster General, John Glen, made a statement raising expectations, but unfortunately provided no information on when a compensation body would be established, let alone when interim payments in respect of unrecognised deaths might be made.
Both Clause 40 and this amendment are only the latest attempts to move government—not just this Government but many Governments of differing political parties—into sorting out and paying the compensation that is due to these groups of people, whose lives over the last four decades have been severely affected or destroyed by acts of the NHS, and therefore also by the Government, which used infected blood to treat haemophiliac patients through factor 8, as well as for those receiving whole blood transfusions.
The numbers are grim. Just under 5,000 people with haemophilia and other bleeding disorders were infected with HIV and hepatitis through the use of contaminated clotting factors. Some unknowingly infected their partners. Since then, 3,000 have died. Of the 1,243 infected with HIV, fewer than 250 are still alive. Many thousands who had full blood transfusions in the 1980s and 1990s were infected with hepatitis. Some people may not even know that they were infected as the result of a transfusion.
I thank all the victims and family members who have written to me. I cannot do them and all the different campaigning groups justice in the short time today. They have been victimised time and again by the NHS and by Governments fighting them and all other victims over the years—sometimes, I am afraid, with lies and prevarication. I pay particular tribute to two indomitable women who are still campaigning after 30-plus years. Colette Wintle and Carol Grayson were part of a small group that in 2007 sued four pharma companies—Bayer, Baxter, Alpha and Armour—in the US, who had used contaminated blood from prisoners to make factor 8, which the NHS bought and used without any warning to patients and their families. The American judge acknowledged that the pharma companies had used infected blood but disallowed the case on a technicality, saying that the duty of care for patients in the UK lay with the NHS and therefore the UK Government. But the Government did nothing.
An independent and privately funded Archer inquiry, which reported in 2009, was followed by Theresa May setting up the full public inquiry, chaired by Sir Brian Langstaff. He has issued two interim reports, with the final report due in May this year. In the middle of all of that, Sir Robert Francis also completed a report on the structure of compensation, which was published in March 2022, with which Sir Brian agrees and which he has built into the recommendations of his second interim report. That report, published last year, is an extraordinary read. No Minister or official can ignore the clear language and recommendations, evidenced by witnesses to the inquiry, that show decades of government and NHS wilfully ignoring their responsibilities and lying to victims and their families.
The Government have also recently announced that Sir Jonathan Montgomery, as the chair of the group of clinical, legal and social care experts, will give the Government “technical advice on compensation”. Unfortunately, this has not helped their relationship with the victims. First, there is concern that this group will also slow down any process of compensation, and secondly, the chair, Sir Jonathan Montgomery, a well-respected ethicist, has links with Bayer, one of the four pharma companies that sold infected blood to the NHS.
Disappointingly, Ministers have recently said in Oral Questions that they will not start until the Government have considered Sir Brian’s final report. We know that it usually takes at least six months for the Government to formally respond to an inquiry report when it is published, so can the Minister tell us whether they will now change this and move swiftly to make the compensation happen, as Sir Brian recommends?
Baroness Featherstone (LD)
My Lords, I apologise for not having been in the Chamber at Second Reading.
Thousands of people have died because of Governments’ and officials’ lies and obfuscation about the contaminated blood scandal. This Government, and every Government for the past 40 years, should be ashamed. Perhaps this Government should be more ashamed than all because, when we finally got the long campaigned for and long literally begged for public inquiry—I praise Theresa May for initiating that inquiry—the chair, Sir Brian, said in terms what the compensation should be and that it should be paid swiftly. Unbelievably, the Government are still prevaricating. I hope they are not hoping to limp on to the next election. We need to do better to stop obfuscation and delay, and make the amends that can be made, although nothing will ever make up for what has happened. My noble friend Lady Brinton’s speech was extraordinary and laid this out far better than I can. We can never bring back the 3,000 who have died and those who are dying every single day while this is delayed, nor undo the suffering experienced by this 40-year agonising wait for justice.
I declare an interest. My nephew Nicholas Hirsch, one of my sister’s twin boys, was a haemophiliac and contracted hepatitis C. He died aged 35, leaving a 10 month-old baby daughter. Every family that has lost a loved one is in the same position. Those who are still living need to live to see justice, and the families of those who have died need to see justice. The time being taken is obscene, inordinate and cruel. The rubbish being pumped out by the Government about waiting for the final bit of the inquiry is intolerable. Sir Brian, the brilliant chair of the inquiry, has made it crystal clear that there is no need and no time to wait. Quite frankly, we should not need a TV series and public outrage to be the motivation for the Government to do the right thing.
I have been trying over the years to get redress on the issue. I remember going with Lynne Kelly, head of Haemophilia Wales, to meet Chris Wormald, Permanent Secretary at the Department of Health, to show him the proof of obfuscation and lies. He lied to us there and then, and then he lied in writing—a lie for which he later apologised in writing, and which I submitted in evidence to the inquiry. It was shameful how many lies were told by officials to victims, as well as to the parents and families of those who were contaminated. The very least the Government can do is to act, right now, before any more victims die.
Before I sit down, I want to pay tribute to all the campaigners, fighters and families who have sought justice. In particular, I thank the Labour MP Dame Diana Johnson, who has been chair of the APPG and fought so hard on this, as well as Jason Evans from the campaign organisation Factor 8.
It is important to be clear beyond doubt and lay responsibility where it lies: at the Government’s door. These amendments make it clear that the Government are responsible for fully funding payments, that they should set up the body that will administrate this on their behalf, and that they must put on the record how and when this will happen, and stop prevaricating that they need to wait for the final report. For decency, for honour and for compassion, I ask the Government to please do the right thing and do it now.
Baroness Campbell of Surbiton (CB)
My Lords, before I begin, I too pay tribute to the late Lord Cormack. He was a consummate parliamentarian, but he was also my friend, and he taught me so much when I arrived in the House. Equally, he gave terrific support on disability issues; on every occasion, he was very supportive.
I support Amendment 134, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I declare an interest, as my first husband, Graham, had haemophilia and received infected blood products. As a result, he contracted both hepatitis C and HIV. We learned of this only after we had become engaged. Graham died 30 years ago, on 19 December 1993, aged 32. We had been married for only six years.
I apologise that my health prevented me speaking at Second Reading. As I was directly affected by the infected blood scandal and gave evidence to the inquiry, I hope your Lordships will forgive this late intervention.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, addresses a matter of profound importance to the thousands of us infected or affected by the shameful events that devastated the lives of so many. Your Lordships will remember that, in July 2017, Prime Minister Theresa May ordered a fully funded independent inquiry into how contaminated blood transfusions infected thousands of people with hepatitis C and HIV. She also allocated £75 million to be available for interim payments to victims still living and bereaved families. Yet only two months ago, some seven years on, the distinguished chair of the inquiry, Sir Brian Langstaff, expressed his frustration with delays in setting up a compensation scheme. He said:
“The Inquiry’s final recommendations on compensation were published in April 2023. My principal recommendation remains that a compensation scheme should be set up with urgency”.
The Government accept the “moral case for compensation”, but these words are meaningless if actioning the inquiry’s recommendations is further delayed.
It was in 1987 that Graham, then my fiancé, and his younger brother Anthony were first told that they had HIV from factor 8 clotting agents. Anthony was first to die, leaving a widow and a one year-old daughter. Graham endured five years of misery, a barrage of associated illnesses, including pneumocystis pneumonia, epilepsy and intermittent blindness. He died 18 months after his brother. It must have been unbearable for him to watch what he knew was in store for him, but his courage took my breath away.
I count myself lucky. I eventually found a way to move on, enough to lead a good, purposeful life after Graham died, but the memory and the flashbacks do not fade. Thousands of other affected families have not been as fortunate, with the personal cost of the past ever present and haunting. Many wives of infected men lost their childbearing years. Parents and countless partners gave up jobs to care for loved ones at a time when HIV/AIDS was stigmatising and isolating. There have been over 3,000 deaths to date, with an average of one more every four days.
The Government have rightly accepted more responsibility for their part in the tragedy, but they have procrastinated in establishing a compensation scheme. Not content with the guidance given by Sir Robert Francis, who was specifically appointed to make recommendations for compensation, the Cabinet Office has now appointed Sir Jonathan Montgomery to chair a group of experts to decide who gets what. Not surprisingly, the infected blood community is concerned, given Sir Jonathan’s past links with two bodies implicated in the scandal, and unhappy about yet a further delay.
According to the chair of the Haemophilia Society,
“it has caused huge anger and upset in the community. We certainly haven’t been consulted and neither have any other members of the community as far as I am aware. This is now the third knight to be asked for his opinion on it. First, Sir Robert Francis. Then Sir Brian made his recommendations in his interim report. They are now asking for a third time. It feels like they want to keep asking the same questions until they get an answer they like”.
I hope the Minister will tell us how this latest “body of experts” on compensation will involve members of the infected blood community, whose lived experience makes them experts too. The need for such involvement is a consistent theme of Sir Robert’s report if trust is to be restored. So, in the spirit of transparency, will the Minister let your Lordships have sight of the membership and terms of reference of this new expert group? Can he also give an approximate timeline of when compensation will be paid? As the Government insist on waiting for the final inquiry report to be published on 20 May, will the Minister at least assure this House then that a compensation scheme will be ready to go live afterwards?
Every year, on the anniversary of my late husband’s death, I visit St Botolph’s church in the City of London. It has a remembrance book with the names of hundreds of haemophiliacs who have died from infected blood products. Each year, I see pages of new entries. Surely this example alone should galvanise the Government into compensating those still living as soon as humanly possible. Each delay means countless more deaths without the comfort of knowing that justice has been served for the infected victims, and their affected partners and children.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I express my strongest possible support for all the amendments in this group. I congratulate the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Campbell, on their powerful speeches. As president of the Haemophilia Society for many years, I have met many of the victims infected in this appalling blood scandal. Many have died before any compensation was paid to them at all. Many others soldier on with the support of their families.
We have all been moved by the Post Office scandal, but in my view far too little has been heard of the very different but equally devastating suffering of the people given infected blood, many of whom were already suffering from a serious condition. As we know, their health-wise suffering was different from that of the Post Office staff. The great thing about these amendments is that they provide clear deadlines and clear government responsibilities.
Lord Bichard (CB)
My Lords, I too speak in support of Amendment 134. I have to apologise, for I am afraid I was unable to attend Second Reading. I speak on this amendment as someone who has spent a good deal of time in the last couple of years chairing one of the expert advisory groups for the infected blood inquiry, looking at public health and administration. As a result, like some other Members of this House, I spent a day at the inquiry giving evidence. That day made a huge impression on me, as I know it will have done on others. It made a huge impression not least because there was an audience of dozens of victims, who had suffered grievously for years and decades. They have shown immense courage, determination and resilience in the face of what the chair, Sir Brian Langstaff, has rightly said were serious failings over decades that
“led to catastrophic loss of life and compounded suffering”.
As chairman of an expert advisory group, it was not for me to draw those wide conclusions but I was able to see from the evidence—and draw my own conclusions—that during that period there had been multiple breaches of the Nolan principles and the conventions that preceded them, and multiple breaches, I am sad to say, of the Civil Service Code. In other words, the state let these people down time and again, and the state should now provide restitution without any further delay.
There is one other reason why I am supporting this amendment: because I feel that not to do so would make me complicit in what now seems to be the way in which the state, in all its forms, responds to failings such as this. We delay accepting responsibility for as long as we can. We defend the indefensible. We place the reputation and interests of institutions and the system above the interests of the people who have been harmed. We set up inquiries, which inevitably delay action. I am not in any way criticising the way in which Sir Brian has led the infected blood inquiry; it has been exemplary, and he has done a fantastic job. We then design unnecessarily complex systems for claiming compensation. We do not do this once; we do all that time and again. It happened with Windrush, Grenfell, the Post Office and, probably most heinously of all, the infected blood inquiry.
We have reached a stage where these responses themselves are a breach of the Nolan principles of public life. Let me remind the Committee that these principles include integrity, accountability, openness and leadership. This amendment seeks to change the responses and rebuild the public’s trust in the way in which we govern. It needs to be done quickly, because the inquiry report will come out in May, and it will receive phenomenal attention. It will either further undermine the public’s faith in government or, if we take this action now, perhaps people will believe that we are changing things through action and not through words.
Lord Owen (Ind SD)
My Lords, 1975 was a long time ago. I am getting on in age now, and I wondered if I would ever see the day when the decision I announced to the House of Commons with money attached—that we would go for self-sufficiency in blood products—would be honoured, at least in a way so that some of the relatives of the many people whose lives have been lost would feel some sense of satisfaction. I could make a very long speech on all those who have fought this fight with honour, dignity and integrity. They belong to all political parties; it very soon became a cross-party campaign.
I also want to make a few things clear. We knew about this earlier than 1975. A very remarkable book, The Gift Relationship by Professor Titmuss, identified the problem of the blood coming into our country from places in which there were absolutely no safeguards and very few questions you could ask about somebody’s past health. At that time, we had no way of finding out whether blood was infected with hepatitis, for example. We had to ask a simple question as a method of trying to find out whether a blood donor was suitable: we would ask if they had ever been yellow—ie, had their liver ever been affected so that they were jaundiced and, as likely as not, had been infected with hepatitis. It was as crude as that.
I want to make it clear that, through the years in which blood products which doctors knew might be infected were being used, they had an agonising choice. They had to explain the risks to the patients. Sometimes there were children who were not able to understand it, so the issue was put to the parents, who had to juggle these very difficult and complex medical facts. The paediatricians and haematologists had to do their best to explain the risks to them, without really knowing.
When I first began to look at this question, I wondered whether we could get away with having a complete ban on blood products. It soon became clear that, if we did that, we would not be able to give blood products that might well not be contaminated to a very substantial number of patients. Let us remember what the situation is. Eventually, we got a product that parents could inject at home. That meant that, if a child had fallen and was bound to bleed into their knee, arm or elsewhere, they could give the injection straightaway and the child would likely not suffer any serious damage—but that was actually one of the worst products to give. These choices were being made against this background of a lack of knowledge—but nothing explains the refusal of successive Governments to pay compensation to those affected. Nothing explains the delay, which meant that, when AIDS came, we still had no blood of our own—we were not self-sufficient with blood very likely not to be contaminated, although even then we could not be absolutely sure that it would not be contaminated.
What I would have said would have been much stronger, more vehement and angrier if not for the circulation of a letter from the noble Earl, Lord Howe, to us about this debate. I have known him in many different guises, and I know him to be a man of honour. Frankly, when I read this letter, I do not need any more assurances that there will not be any unnecessary delays. I believe his words are carefully chosen, and I think he understands, like many people from his own party and people who have been responsible for healthcare, that there can be no more ducking and weaving, and no more appeals from the Chancellor to delay it for another year or anything like that. This time, we have to honour it—and we have to do it this year.
The report will be available on 20 May, and everybody will be able to read it. Judging by the day’s evidence I gave, I think that it will be a searching and honourable report. Given the device in the House of Commons of attaching it to the Bill—of course this was a device—and now given the Government responding to this device by trying not to dismiss it but to make it more precise and effective, that battle seems to be over. We can be sure that this year—in a matter of months—payments will be made. I hope that can be made clear from the Front Bench. Nobody comes out of this with a lot of distinction, but I only say: let us read the report. I suspect a lot of people will feel very ashamed.
Lord Horam (Con)
My Lords, the Committee listened with great interest to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Owen, and the honourable part he played in this tragic situation. I was a Minister of Health much later, between 1995 and 1997, and I had to struggle with problems with the Treasury and getting reasonable compensation for the victims—the infected and the affected—as he said. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for raising this issue today so that we could have a debate of this kind. It is necessary, and we should keep pressing.
I was appalled by the Statement by John Glen before Christmas in the other place. It was one of the emptiest Statements I have heard from a Minister in that situation. It was as though the Government were just going through the motions of giving a Statement because they had committed themselves to doing so, without having anything at all to say, which is extremely disappointing. I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Howe for having much more sensible and positive things to say in his letters so far. We hope he can follow those up.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I apologise to the Committee that I was not available to speak at Second Reading. I had not intended to speak and will not delay the Committee long, but I add my plea to my noble friend the Minister that this is finally resolved. The speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the examples given by the noble Baronesses, Lady Featherstone and Lady Campbell, should speak for themselves. As a tribute to Lord Cormack, who campaigned on this issue for so many years, it would be fitting if my noble friend could give us concrete reassurance from the Front Bench that this injustice will, finally, be properly remedied.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, this group of probing amendments, which have the aim of ensuring decent and necessary payments to all those bereaved in this disastrous scandal, has given the Committee the chance to consider the appalling plight of the victims of the infected blood scandal.
We welcome Clause 40, in particular Clause 40(3)(a), which says that:
“In exercising its functions, the body must … have regard to the need of applicants for speed of provision, simplicity of process, accessibility, involvement, proactive support, fairness and efficiency”.
It is only to be hoped that the Government live up to the promise of that clause in future, because they have signally failed to do so in the past.
If this Bill has taught us anything, it is that all victims of crime, major incidents and appalling and deeply shocking medical errors such as this, as well as other administrative disasters such as the Post Office Horizon scandal, have so many needs that resemble each other. We need early admissions of responsibility and culpability. We need government and administrative bodies to face facts. We need to ensure that victims have early access to the services and support they need and that such services and support are in practice provided in full and in good time.
Of course, one of the tragic aspects of this scandal is that the need for speed is particularly severe. It is worth reminding ourselves that, since Sir Brian Langstaff’s interim report of April 2023, more than 70 victims have died. The noble Lord, Lord Bichard, gave evidence to that inquiry, as did the noble Lord, Lord Owen. Both spoke eloquently of its conduct, and it is worth remembering the conclusion of the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, that the state let people down and should accept responsibility. He spoke of defending the indefensible, and the noble Lord, Lord Horam, echoed his words. Delaying compensation is denying responsibility. As all noble Lords who have spoken have said, there is no reason at all to wait any longer—certainly not until the Government have digested at length the contents of Sir Brian’s final report. Any such delay would be a travesty of Sir Brian’s principal call, which was for urgency.
Sir Robert Francis’s recommendations, in his report in June 2022, on the way that compensation should be handled, along with Sir Brian’s report, now need urgent implementation. It is to be hoped that the work of the expert panel—established under the chairmanship of Jonathan Montgomery, who is the chair of Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, which was not a mile away from involvement in the crisis—does not delay or water down the recommendations of the two reports. It is right to say that the campaigners are deeply concerned, as the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, stressed.
In opening the debate, my noble friend Lady Brinton and the noble Lord, Lord Owen, pointed out the strength and determination of this very long campaign. We mourn Lord Cormack, whose involvement in the campaign was also extensive and long lasting.
The noble Lord, Lord Owen, spoke of the difficulties facing doctors, and the lack of political will needed to ensure self-sufficiency in blood products in this country. We can only hope that the noble Lord’s optimism in expecting the Government now to react quickly and finally, following the report due in May from Sir Brian Langstaff, is justified. My noble friend Lady Featherstone and the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, added their accounts of personal tragedy, and thereby movingly added to the demand for urgency.
We know that the Horizon case led to definitive action only following ITV’s television drama. It should not be the same with the infected blood scandal, but we understand that ITV has commissioned Peter Moffat to write such a drama, so perhaps public opinion will come to the rescue once again. The burden of my speech, and the speeches of all noble Lords who have spoken today, is that this should not be necessary in a civilised and compassionate democracy.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, in arriving, as we now have, at Part 3 of the Bill, I should like to begin by thanking all noble Lords who have spoken so powerfully and movingly on a set of events which many regard as constituting the worst disaster in the history of the National Health Service. The story of those who received infected blood as part of their NHS care and treatment is one of unimaginable suffering and terrible tragedy over more than four decades. It is a story that is still not yet over. The victims’ suffering has been made even worse by an absence of full justice for those individuals and, alongside that, a failure to reach—as far as may be possible—a sense of closure.
The official public inquiry currently under way, under the chairmanship of Sir Brian Langstaff, is the start of delivering the justice that is needed. The inquiry has been informed by the expert work of Sir Robert Francis, and Sir Brian has so far published two interim reports on his findings, with his final report due on 20 May. Meanwhile, in the other place, Clause 40—as it is now—was added to the Bill to speed up the delivery process.
The Government accept the will of Parliament that arrangements should be put in place to ensure, as far as reasonably practicable, that the victims receive justice as quickly and efficiently as possible. Therefore, my desire—and, I trust, that of all noble Lords—is to see the Bill added to the statute book as soon as is reasonably practicable. The Government are well aware that every passing season sees more suffering, death and bereavement. We are therefore eager to avoid more needless delay.
Ministers have already taken action and given a number of undertakings. First, we have promised that within 25 sitting days of Sir Brian Langstaff’s final report being published, we will make a Statement to Parliament setting out the Government’s response. The period of 25 days is not a target but a deadline. We will issue our response as soon as we possibly can.
Secondly, in response to a recommendation from Sir Brian, we have made interim payments amounting to £440 million to infected individuals or bereaved partners registered with existing infected blood support schemes.
Thirdly, in readiness for Sir Brian’s final report, we have appointed Sir Jonathan Montgomery to chair an expert group whose remit is to advise the Government on some of the legal and technical aspects of delivering compensation. I realise that some have questioned Sir Jonathan’s appointment because of his former connection with Bayer. Noble Lords may wish to note that Sir Jonathan ceased to be a member of the Bayer bioethics council on 31 October 2023. The council was an independent advisory group which had no role in the day-to-day operations of the company. It has had no executive power in the operational business of Bayer.
I emphasise that nothing in the work of the expert group is intended to cut across the conclusions of the inquiry or the advice of Sir Robert Francis—quite the opposite, actually. The expert group is there to enable Ministers to understand certain technical issues and thus enable decisions to be taken more quickly.
On the amendment passed by the House of Commons, which we are now considering, noble Lords will understand that the provisions of any Bill need to be legally coherent and should not cut across the integrity of the statute book. There are two principal defects with Clause 40: first, its coverage does not extend to the whole of the United Kingdom. The Government are clear that infected blood is a UK-wide issue. For that very reason, the infected blood inquiry was set up on a UK-wide basis. In March 2021, we announced uplifts to achieve broad financial parity across the UK’s infected blood support schemes, increasing annual payments to beneficiaries across the country as a whole. Maintaining a commitment to parity across the UK is extremely important.
We also need to agree on a set of arrangements that are workable and, above all, work for victims. It is therefore essential for the UK Government to engage with all the devolved Administrations with those aims in view. That is what we are now doing. My right honourable friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office met counterparts from the Welsh Government, Scottish Government and Northern Ireland Executive earlier this month to discuss this matter; those discussions will continue.
The second principal defect of Clause 40 is that in proposing the establishment of an arm’s-length body, as Sir Brian recommended, it does not also propose any specific functions for that body. The Government’s intention, therefore, is to bring forward an amendment on Report which will correct these two deficiencies and add further standard provisions to ensure a more complete legal framework when setting up an ALB. I plan to engage with noble Lords in advance of Report to discuss the content of the government amendment once it has been drafted.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
The Minister mentioned that there will be government amendments on Report to address the deficiencies in Clause 40 that he has identified. Does he envisage having the opportunity, between now and Report, to prepare amendments to address some of the other legal impediments—for example, to widening the cohorts—that he has identified? That could accelerate clarification and speed up the process.
Earl Howe (Con)
I anticipate using every opportunity available to engage with noble Lords on not only what the amendments will comprise but what we intend to do thereafter. As the noble Lord will appreciate, there is a wealth of regulations in this space. I venture to say that quite a lot of the detail of the arrangements will be contained in regulations, which will be laid as soon as possible. To the extent that I can go into detail on what those regulations will contain, I shall be happy to do so, but I hope that the noble Lord will understand that I am not in a position to do so today.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
I apologise for interrupting the Minister. He referred to the payment of £100,000 to a lot of people in 2022, but is he aware that the whole point of Amendment 134 is to fill the gaps for all the people who did not receive an interim payment? When he referred to speeding up their response to the Langstaff inquiry, that was a verbal commitment, as I understand it. The point is that these people need an urgent payment of £100,000; as I understand it, they have not received any compensation, so it is urgent. We are talking about something that happened 50-odd years ago. The idea that we still need more time cannot be right, so I hope that the Minister can reassure us that absolutely everything will be done to get a payment of £100,000 out to the groups of people who have not yet received compensation—immediately and within a month of the passing of the future Act, as the amendment says.
Earl Howe (Con)
I perfectly understand the noble Baroness’s strength of feeling on this long-standing scandal. It may be of some reassurance to her if I repeat the words of my honourable friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office in the other place, who said in December:
“The victims of the infected blood scandal deserve justice and recognition. Their voice must be heard, and it is our duty to honour not only those still living and campaigning but those who have passed without recognition”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/12/23; col. 1147.]
I met the Minister for the Cabinet Office to discuss these matters. My right honourable friend assured me that this is indeed his highest priority, and I undertake to the Committee that I will continue to work closely with him ahead of the next stage of the Bill.
I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions to the debate and for highlighting so compellingly the issues that bear upon this appalling human tragedy. Ministers will reflect carefully on all that has been said. I hope my response has provided the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, with enough by way of assurance—although I wish I could reassure them even further—about the Government’s intended course of action to enable the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment and for the other amendments in the group not to be moved when they are reached.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
Before the Minister sits down, I would like to ask him a couple of questions. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Marks, who asked exactly the question I wanted to know about: what is going to happen between Committee and Report?
In other instances, it has been quite speedy to set up a shadow body—after all, the Government now know how to do it. Is there any capacity to start setting up a shadow body that will be ready to go?
We do not yet know the timetabling for the Report days, but clearly Members of the Committee are going to need to see the Government’s amendments in enough time, particularly—to pick up the point raised just now by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher—to try to address the deficiencies if those who are not currently included remain so.
Earl Howe (Con)
On the noble Baroness’s latter point, I hope to have extensive discussions with noble Lords about the Government’s amendments and their intended and literal effect.
On setting up a shadow body, I myself asked that very question. There are some issues here. I am advised that it would not save any time. There are still a number of decisions to be made on the government response to infected blood, and clearly we cannot pre-empt those decisions by establishing an arm’s-length body without clarity on what its precise functions or role would be. As I have said, our intention is to table amendments on Report that will correct the defects in Clause 40 and have the desired effect of speeding up the implementation of the Government’s response to the inquiry.
However, I will take that point away to make sure that there really is no advantage in not having a shadow body. The Government have done that before in other circumstances and it is worth thoroughly exploring as an option. I think I will be told that any idea of a shadow body would need to be considered alongside its interaction with the passage of the legislation and the Government’s response to the recommendations of the second interim report, and indeed the report as a whole, but I hope the noble Baroness will be content to leave that question with me.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, this has been an important debate. In fact, I go further: it has been a historic debate, because in a relatively short debate we have had the noble Baronesses, Lady Featherstone and Lady Campbell, who spoke about very close relatives who have been affected by this tragedy; we have had the two noble Lords, Lord Bichard and Lord Owen, who gave evidence to the inquiry; and the noble Lord, Lord Owen, in his speech, went back the furthest, if I can put it like that, to 1975. There are Members who have spoken in this short debate who have tracked this issue for the many decades that it has lingered.
Nobody is questioning the best intentions of the noble Earl, Lord Howe; he has been involved in this issue in a number of ways over many years. My amendments are essentially probing amendments, and I acknowledge the letter that the noble Earl has sent to us. We will not press the amendment, but I was going to ask the same questions as the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, about process. The Government have said they will table amendments on Report, and the Minister said there will be an opportunity for noble Lords to see the amendments before then and to discuss them, but we may want to table amendments to his amendment and we will want to make sure we have ample time to do that. I know the noble Earl understands that point, but I repeat it from these Benches as well.
Baroness Brinton
“Victims of the Horizon system: timetable for compensation payments(1) Within seven days of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a timetable for making payments in respect of schemes or other arrangements to—(a) compensate persons affected by the Horizon system;(b) compensate persons in respect of other matters identified in High Court judgments given in proceedings relating to the Horizon system.(2) In considering a timetable under subsection (1) the Secretary of State must have regard to the importance of speed and fairness to victims of the Horizon system.(3) In this section “the Horizon system” means previous versions of the computer system known as Horizon (and sometimes referred to as Legacy Horizon, Horizon Online or HNG-X) used by Post Office Limited.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to publish a timetable for the payment of compensation to victims of the Post Office Horizon scandal.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I tabled Amendment 135 some weeks ago, after there seemed to be some difference in timing for the compensation scheme for those sub-postmasters who were accused of stealing, prosecuted and convicted, lost their jobs and their homes, were made bankrupt, lost future employment and, worse, lost their relationships; some were so distressed that they took their own lives. This House has debated this issue a lot, and I will not go through the detail, even of the compensation schemes, because I believe that they are familiar to many people in your Lordships’ Committee, unlike the previous group.
On Saturday the Times reported that more than 250 of the affected sub-postmasters have already died. Like the infected blood compensation scheme that we discussed in the debate on the last group, time really is of the essence. The amendment says that within seven days of this Bill passing,
“the Secretary of State must publish a timetable for making payments in respect of schemes or other arrangements”,
both for those affected by the Horizon scheme and in relation to
“other matters identified in High Court judgments”
about the Horizon scheme. It emphasises that speed and fairness must be priorities, echoing the points the Prime Minister made last month. The amendment also refers to the scope of the Horizon scheme, including its predecessors and successors.
It is important to state that the High Court was absolutely clear that any prosecution that relied on Horizon is unsound. It was worrying that on 9 January this year the chief executive of Post Office Ltd—or POL—wrote an email that was published last week, stating that POL believed that around 360 sub-postmasters were probably guilty; that is, in POL’s view, the prosecution was not totally reliant on Horizon. I am afraid that this letter shows that the culture inside POL has not changed, and that is truly shocking.
The evidence to the public inquiry demonstrated that POL’s approach to investigation and prosecution was unfair and inappropriate, because POL was the victim, the investigator and the prosecutor. It often denied postmasters access to information that they needed for their defence, which is against our court rules.
Last week the press reported that POL has now instigated an “independent investigation” by retired police officers into the behaviour and actions of POL investigators. Can the Minister assure your Lordships that it will be a truly accountable and independent investigation whose results will be fully published, unlike POL’s behaviour with Second Sight, which it commissioned to investigate the sub-postmasters and Horizon? It was then gagged and sacked when it uncovered the truth. While it is good that these prosecution powers will not be used again, can the Minister confirm that this group of victims—the 360 who the chief executive of POL says are probably guilty—will still be fully eligible for compensation in line with others?
On the compensation schemes, yesterday’s Sunday Times reported that some former postmasters are still waiting to hear from POL about their claim. There is a simplified form now, 14 pages long, with 100 supplementary questions that remain—as on the previous form—absolutely impenetrable. They make clear that POL fails to believe certain claims about hardship, personal injury, harassment and mental health. Some are being asked for specific documents going back over two decades. I am not sure that I could put my hands on my P60 from two decades ago.
The guidance clearly states that POL is supposed to accept some claims, even when it does not have the exact detail. I quote from the guidance:
“Where the postmaster is unable to satisfy the burden of proof in relation to their claim, their claim may nonetheless be accepted in whole or in part if the Scheme considers it to be fair in all the circumstances”.
But POL is not telling the postmasters what is fair. Once again, it is using its powers to hobble these victims.
I will not go into the detail of the three schemes. We understand why they are different and we debated them in some depth when, on 16 January, the Post Office (Horizon System) Compensation Bill went through all stages for quick enactment. My concern is that, despite promises from the Dispatch Box in both Houses that the scheme would be simpler and accept a wider range of damages, including the elements I just outlined, unfortunately, in the hands of POL once again, the exact opposite seems to be happening.
I do not seek to open personal cases in Committee, but there are enough postmasters now saying that POL is offering them only a very small fraction of the actual losses suffered by them as compensation. Some, including Alan Bates, have said that they have been offered a sixth of their claim. This is outrageous. Can the Minister say whether the Government have oversight of these issues and how they can be resolved?
At the Post Office (Horizon System) Compensation Bill Second Reading, I mentioned a scheme that Dan Neidle, who runs Tax Policy Associates, thought would be most fair. He is an expert in compensation and taxation, and he made two or three points that have not been picked up in the compensation schemes as they are currently being run.
First, all applicants should receive a grant for legal advice. This is particularly vital when complex forms have to be completed and official data needs to be found. He also thought that there should be a large fixed amount when it is confirmed that they are a victim of the scheme, whether convicted or not. That would remove the current shameful divide between different types of cases for those convicted and those imprisoned. He thought that figure should be considerably higher than £100,000, but that is entirely up to the compensation scheme and the Government to agree.
There should also be—this is part of the fog from POL—an amount that reflects their loss of earnings from the day they could no longer work, the loss of the home and any subsequent loss accruing from that, their pensions and any amounts relating to specific damage above and beyond that outlined in previous areas. I mention this because it is exactly the sort of detail that sub-postmasters need to see laid out in a very clear form, which they are still struggling to find.
Last week, I asked a question of another Minister following either a Statement, an Oral Question or a PNQ. I note that, on page 93 of the Green Book for the 2023Autumn Statement—and in the chart on page 84—it says:
“Post Office Compensation Schemes, Corporate Entities … The government will legislate in the Autumn Finance Bill 2023 to exempt from Corporation Tax compensation payments made under the Historical Shortfall Scheme, Group Litigation Order schemes, Suspension Remuneration Review or Post Office Process Review Scheme. The legislation will align the taxation of onward payments of compensation to that of individual recipients”.
It is interesting that we have had, just before Christmas, regulations relating to taxation for both the Horizon scheme and the infected blood scheme in one set, so the Government can put the two together if they so choose to do. However, I cannot find anywhere in the Green Book the £1 billion that the Government say they have set to one side to pay for the compensation. It is not visible in the Treasury elements or BIS bits. Can the Minister show me where it is? I am not expecting him to do so this afternoon, but this is the second time I have asked about this and had no answer. I want to know where in the government books it is being held and whether the whole £1 billion is being held.
Over the past two weeks, the Independent has been gathering reports on one of the two predecessor programmes to Horizon, known as Capture. In 2003, June Tooby discovered that she was being sued by POL for £50,000 in a case that dated back to 1994 and bears many similarities to the Horizon scheme. She was not alone; other sub-postmasters from that era were also sued and bankrupted by POL. Sadly, June has now died. Can the Minister say whether sub-postmasters prosecuted as a result of the Capture scheme will also be covered by the Horizon scheme? It is a predecessor, after all, and we know that sub-postmasters were asking Ministers as early as 1997 about problems with the IT systems that were the predecessors to Horizon.
Finally, can the Minister please resolve the issue around the timings of the completion of the compensation scheme, as currently outlined? On 10 January, the Prime Minister said in Prime Minister’s Questions that the sub-postmasters will be cleared and compensated swiftly. On the same day, Kevin Hollinrake MP said at the Dispatch Box that all compensation should be paid by August, barring those where a few details are not completed. However, on 28 January, the Secretary of State, Kemi Badenoch, said on the BBC that the deadline of August was not a priority and that getting governance sorted out at the Post Office was more important. I do not want to get into the arguments that she and Henry Staunton have been having over the past few days but this urge to get the compensation sorted remains an absolute priority for the victims. Can the Minister say who is right? Equally importantly, will the Government unblock the logjam inside the Post Office over what is a fair claim, which was the other key element of the announcements made at the beginning of the year?
I beg to move.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I was pleased to put my name and that of my noble friend to this amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has given us a comprehensive introduction to this issue. Given that this is an issue of current discussion across the country, there is not much point in me going into detail on the rights and wrongs, as well as the injustices, that we all know the Horizon scandal involved. It is shocking; it is a scandal that we should all be aware of and seek to remedy as quickly as we can.
This amendment and the one before show that this Bill is important because of its inclusiveness—I look to the commissioner—and it is not the first time I have said that in this discussion. It is very important that, in the course of the Bill, we recognise the different sorts of victims that there are in terms of the way the state has behaved, the major catastrophes that people suffer, and the issues of the courts and our justice system. That is all to the good because we will, I hope, end up with an Act that will really serve victims in all of those areas well.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for her amendment, which, as she explained, would require the Government to publish a timeline for the payment of interim payments for victims of the Horizon scandal. As she knows, the amendment takes us back to a subject that the House has discussed several times in recent weeks. In all parts of your Lordships’ House, there is a strong desire to see justice for the victims of the Horizon scandal—in particular, to see them receive prompt financial redress. The Government share that desire.
The effects of the scandal on some postmasters have been, to put it at its mildest, truly awful. Some of them have lost their livelihoods, their homes or their health—or even all three. Others have faced serious financial impacts. The noble Baroness’s question is therefore extremely pertinent.
For reasons of history, there are three separate compensation arrangements in place; I hope that the Committee will allow me to put them on the record. One is for people who have had convictions for criminal offences overturned. A second, which is delivered by the Department for Business and Trade rather than the Post Office, is to top up the compensation settlement for unconvicted postmasters made at the end of the original so-called GLO High Court case, which exposed the scandal. The third—the Horizon Shortfall Scheme or HSS—is for postmasters who were neither in the GLO group nor convicted.
In two of the streams, we have recently announced fixed offers of settlement: £600,000 for those with overturned convictions and £75,000 for the GLO group. These fixed offers allow postmasters to receive substantial compensation without delay or hassle. Of course, those with larger claims will not generally want to accept these sums. They will instead, quite rightly, have their compensation individually assessed. For both groups, substantial interim payments are made promptly. Further payments are available to those facing hardship while their full claims are being assessed. We have undertaken to make first offers within 40 working days of receiving a completed application for the GLO scheme.
The HSS is already well advanced. All 2,417 of the people who applied by the original scheme deadline have had initial offers. More than 2,000 of them have accepted settlements and been paid. Late claims are still coming in—some stimulated by the ITV drama, in fact—and are being dealt with promptly.
However, two crucial drivers of the pace of compensation are not controlled by either government or the Post Office. First, the overturning of convictions has, of course, been in the hands of the courts, and it has been frustratingly slow. We believe that more than 900 people may have been wrongly convicted in this scandal, but, to date, only 97 of them have had their conviction overturned. The process has been not only slow but uncertain. In too many cases, the evidence has been lost or destroyed over time, and many postmasters have understandably lost all faith in authority and cannot face the prospect of yet another court case to clear their name.
That is why, on 10 January, the Government announced that they will be introducing legislation to overturn all the convictions resulting from this scandal. We recognise that this is an unprecedented step, but it is necessary if justice is to be done. I can tell noble Lords that, this afternoon, my honourable friend in another place has made a Statement about that legislation. We hope to introduce this legislation within a few weeks. I am sure that it will be widely supported across the House and in the other place, and that it will therefore be able to progress quickly. We hope to see it become law before the summer, with prompt compensation to follow.
That takes me to the second area where we do not have control of the timescale: postmasters and their lawyers need time to formulate claims and gather evidence, with some needing specialist reports from medical or forensic accounting experts. Setting arbitrary deadlines for the submission of claims would, I suggest, be deeply unfair to postmasters, and we therefore should not do it.
That is why the House recently and enthusiastically passed the Post Office (Horizon System) Compensation Bill, which implemented the Williams inquiry’s recommendation to remove the arbitrary deadline of 7 August 2024 to complete the GLO compensation scheme. It remains the Government’s goal to complete that scheme by August, but if postmasters need longer, that is fine.
The Government are determined to see financial redress delivered as quickly as possible for all postmasters, including those whose convictions will be overturned by the forthcoming Bill. However, setting a fixed timetable would entail rushing postmasters into major decisions about their claims and the offers they receive. I hope that, on reflection, the noble Baroness agrees that we should not do that, and will therefore feel able to withdraw her amendment.
The noble Baroness asked me a number of detailed questions. If she will allow me, I will write to her as fully as possible in response to her particular questions about legal advice, the Green Book, the logjam of claims and a number of others.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister for his response. As ever, it was thoughtful and very helpful.
I laid the amendment principally because it seemed to me that there were two issues. The first was about everything being done, where possible, by August, which seemed encouraging but clearly is not going to be hit in many cases. The detail that I gave to the Committee in the speech is what worries me more: there seems to be a chasm between Post Office Ltd and the postmasters about what is eligible in damage. I do not think it is just about whether people can get access to information, because of this proviso. I will be grateful for any letter, but would the Minister be prepared to meet between Committee and Report to discuss the detail? The most urgent thing, from their perspective, would be a grant for legal advice, given the complexity of applying. If that can be speeded up in any way, shape or form, that would be enormously helpful.
I suspect I will bring something back on Report, though probably not the same thing at all. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
“Review: National Oversight Mechanism(1) The Secretary of State must launch a review into the merits of introducing an independent National Oversight Mechanism responsible for collating, analysing and addressing recommendations arising from the post death processes of investigations, inquests, public inquiries and official reviews following a major incident.(2) The review under subsection (1) must be launched within six months of the day on which this Act is passed.(3) The Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a report summarising the findings of the review under subsection (1) within 18 months of the day on which this Act is passed.”
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, this is a probing amendment to enable debate on the concept of a new national oversight mechanism. The amendment proposes:
“The Secretary of State must launch a review into the merits of introducing an independent National Oversight Mechanism responsible for collating, analysing and addressing recommendations arising from the post death processes of investigations, inquests, public inquiries and official reviews following a major incident”.
With regard to public inquiries, there is no legal mechanism to require consideration, action or reasoned rejection of a recommendation made in the course of a statutory inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005. In other words, recommendations made by a statutory public inquiry or a non-statutory inquiry have no legal force on the Government, public authorities, corporations or anyone else.
With regard to coroners’ prevention of future death reports, a large proportion of public bodies that receive recommendations fail to respond, and analysis using the Preventable Deaths Tracker developed by researchers at the University of Oxford found that only 33% of all PFDs issued by coroners had expected responses published, with 29% of responses overdue. Further, the researchers found that response rates to PFDs examined in 25 of their studies ranged only from approximately 10% to 60%, with no study resulting in a 100% response rate.
The Grenfell fire is a shocking example of this accountability gap. In 2009, the Lakanal House fire killed six people in a 14-storey tower block in Camberwell. Following the inquest into their deaths, the coroner, Frances Kirkham, made recommendations to the Secretary of State, the Mayor of London, the London Borough of Southwark and London Fire Brigade. These included making crucial improvements to building regulations, control room and incident command system training, awareness of the risk posed by cladding fire, and guidance on high-rise residential evacuation. In 2017, the Grenfell Tower fire killed 72 people in a 24-storey tower block in North Kensington. The Grenfell Tower inquiry exposed the fact that many of the Lakanal House recommendations were not implemented before the fire. Implementation was not considered to be urgent and was instead included in a medium to long-term programme of work.
During the inquiry, Dame Melanie Dawes, the former Permanent Secretary at the Department of Housing, Communities and Local Government, told the inquiry that
“there was no tracking recommendation put in place, something that I think was really important and there should have been”.
The lack of a mechanism was described as a gap in the Civil Service that
“could have happened in any department”.
The department itself stated that it missed the opportunity to look beyond recommendations and consider the widespread use of non-compliant materials on high-rise buildings and the associated risk of fire. That is just one example.
To address this accountability gap, the lobbying group Inquest, through me, is calling for the Government to establish a national oversight mechanism, which would be an independent public body responsible for collating, analysing and following up on recommendations arising from four post-death processes: investigations, such as those carried out by the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman, the Independent Office for Police Conduct or serious incident reviews; inquests; public inquiries; and official reviews into deaths, such as the Angiolini review into deaths and serious incidents in police custody. Inquest has put forward a mechanism by which this could be achieved, through the collation, analysis and follow-up of the data.
This amendment calls for a review into the processes and merits of creating such a mechanism. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response and hope that he will commit to undertaking such a review. I beg to move.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I am really grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for raising this issue and laying this amendment. I declare my interest as the vice-chair of the All-Party Fire Safety and Rescue Group so his comments about the Lakanal House and Grenfell Tower fires really chime with me. From these Benches, my noble friends Lady Pinnock and Lord Stunell have both raised these issues repeatedly.
It is really important to remember that one of the big lessons that I hope we will now begin to learn from Grenfell Tower and the many other fires before it rests in Dame Judith Hackitt’s report on the construction industry and Grenfell Tower. She talked about the importance of the “golden thread” through every part of the construction. The same is true when things go wrong and it seems to me that a national oversight mechanism is exactly the golden thread that we need to ensure that we do not have to time and again relearn the lessons of disasters after they have happened. From these Benches, we support the amendment.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for this amendment and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for speaking in support. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review into whether to establish an independent national oversight mechanism to collate, analyse and address recommendations from investigations, inquests, public inquiries and official reviews following deaths after a major incident.
In 2014, the House of Lords Select Committee published a post legislative scrutiny report on the Inquiries Act 2005. In their response, the Government agreed with the principle that bodies should set out their plans for implementing recommendations directed at them. When an inquiry’s recommendations are directed at the Government, it is the responsibility of the lead department to determine how best to progress and implement the recommendations. An official review would follow the same principles.
Parliament has a crucial role in scrutinising the activities of government departments. Select Committees, in particular, hold individual departments to account, including in their response to recommendations made by statutory and non-statutory inquiries and reviews. The Government remain of the view that Parliament already has the ability to hold government departments to account on their response to and implementation of recommendations and that Parliament is best placed to carry out this function.
Noble Lords will also be aware of the Statutory Inquiries Committee that was set up by the Lords Select Committee very recently. It has been appointed to consider the efficacy of the law and practice relating to statutory inquiries under the Inquiries Act 2005. It may be well placed to consider the merits of an independent national oversight mechanism for statutory inquiries.
Turning to inquests, a coroner has a statutory duty to make a report to prevent future deaths if action should be taken to prevent or reduce the risk of future deaths. Recipients of PFD reports must respond to the coroner within 56 days of receipt, setting out what actions will be taken, or explaining any not taken. The Government in their response to the Justice Committee’s 2021 report committed to consider the merits of a recommendation to establish a national mechanism to ensure that actions highlighted in PFD reports which could contribute to public safety and prevent future deaths are implemented. The Justice Committee is currently undertaking a follow-up inquiry into the coroners service and will revisit this issue; the Government are due to give evidence shortly.
In response to some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and backed up by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, recipients of PFD reports, as I say, must respond to the coroner within 56 days. However, it is not the coroner’s role to review whether—and if so what—actions should be taken in response to a report. This would be inconsistent with their status as independent judicial officers.
The Government in their response to the Justice Committee’s 2021 report committed to consider the recommendation to establish a mechanism to ensure that actions in PFD reports which could contribute to public safety and prevent future deaths are implemented. The Justice Committee’s follow-up inquiry into the coroners service will revisit issues around PFD reports on preventing death and improving public safety.
While I understand the intent to ensure that the merits of setting a national oversight mechanism are considered, it is likely this would duplicate ongoing parliamentary inquiries into these matters. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this very brief debate. I want to pick up a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, about the golden thread of establishing a mechanism to ensure that any findings which come out of either public inquiries or coroners’ reports are tracked through and implemented.
I quoted a civil servant as saying that the established mechanisms have not worked, and the example I gave was of the cladding on Grenfell Tower. The Minister spoke about considering whether to establish a mechanism for reviewing PFD reports and coroners’ reports. When will that review be complete and does the noble Lord believe that that review will adequately establish some sort of overall mechanism for dealing with coroners’ recommendations?
To circle back a bit to the public inquiries point, the Minister said that Parliament is best placed to carry out the functions of public inquiries and look at recommendations. I have to say that I really cannot think of Parliament looking at cladding issues. There needs to be a more systematic way of dealing with these matters to ensure that there is that golden thread that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, talked about, so we have some comfort that these processes are being properly reviewed and implemented. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Burnett of Maldon
Lord Burnett of Maldon (CB)
My Lords, in the absence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, who is abroad at the moment, I move this amendment and will speak to the others in this group, save for Amendments 146A, 174 and 175 which stand in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
Clause 44 enables the Secretary of State to refer a decision of the Parole Board to release what is known as a top-tier prisoner for a judicial decision either to affirm or to quash a decision of the Parole Board. Top-tier prisoners are those who have committed the most serious offences. The Bill identifies the Upper Tribunal as the court to which referrals will be made, save in cases where there is sensitive material, in which case the court is the High Court.
The principal amendment in this group, which would amend Clause 44, is to propose that all referrals go to the High Court; in particular, a
“Divisional Court of the King’s Bench Division”.
The other amendments that we propose make necessary changes elsewhere. The reason for proposing these amendments is to ensure that the judicial decision is made by a court whose members are well equipped by experience to make the necessary assessment of risk.
The background is that the cases will necessarily involve serious offending and be referred by the Secretary of State because of at least an unease about the decision of the Parole Board. That Parole Board will be made up of individuals with considerable experience in evaluating risk in the context of criminal offending. Any review or reconsideration should be conducted by a court that comprises judges with similar such experience. None of the chambers of the Upper Tribunal currently has members with that necessary experience, but the High Court does.
A Divisional Court of the King’s Bench Division deals with criminal cases in the High Court. It is almost always composed of judges who sit in the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal; that is, a Lord or Lady Justice and a High Court judge. Those judges have extensive criminal experience; in particular, when dealing with sentencing, either at first instance as trial judges or on appeal. They are used to making decisions which require them to evaluate risk and, in particular, whether an offender is a dangerous offender, which leads to a suite of different sentencing options. In those circumstances, they are well suited to the task which the Bill will empower the Secretary of State to require a court to undertake.
The Bill itself envisages that the High Court will perform this role in some cases. This amendment suggests that it would be more effective, and deliver the outcome that the Bill seeks, were the High Court always to be the destination for these referrals. I beg to move.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I agree with every word uttered by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett of Maldon. I am sure that the same words, or words to similar effect, would have fallen from the lips of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. They echo the sentiments of a number of those who have briefed noble Lords on these issues relating to the Parole Board.
I will be brief. There is one overriding principle, which is that the Parole Board should be, in effect, an independent, quasi-judicial body. A number of concerns have been expressed about the prospect of the Secretary of State having the power to refer decisions of the Parole Board to another body. One reason for the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Hamwee, to which I will turn shortly, is that concern.
The idea that this jurisdiction to consider referrals by the Secretary of State should be a matter for the Upper Tribunal, which is not a body involved with the prison system at all—it has, as the noble and learned Lord pointed out, no relevant chamber—and is not concerned with the sentencing, treatment or release of offenders, is an odd one. That decision should plainly be, we would suggest, the decision of a court used to dealing with criminal justice and with the sentencing and imprisonment of offenders. Loosely stipulating that it should be the High Court, without the division named, or the Upper Tribunal is wrong.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, briefly, I support the amendments moved and spoken to in this group by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett of Maldon, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks. I spoke on this matter at Second Reading and agreed with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, said in his speech then.
The Committee may know that, along with others, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett of Maldon, I have put my name to later amendments that question the changes proposed by the Government to the Parole Board. In my view, those changes attack pretty fundamentally the independence of that board and allow the Secretary of State to interfere in these matters to an extent that affects the separation of powers. As a rule, I argue that it is never a good idea, however tempting for Governments, for the Executive to interfere with matters that should be the role of the judiciary. Taken as a whole, these changes are unnecessary and overcomplex, and will prove to be extremely costly.
Today, we are discussing the amendments so well put by the noble and learned Lord, who speaks with such huge authority; I am pleased to support them. They argue that the Upper Tribunal is entirely the wrong body to hear these cases. The Government would be well advised, with respect, to listen to him, and to remind themselves of the powerful speech made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, at Second Reading. It is not often that this House is privileged to have the support of the last two Lord Chief Justices on a matter that they are profoundly expert in. I ask the Minister, who is always very reasonable, to think very carefully about how powerful the case that has been made this afternoon is.
Of course, I strongly agree with the amendment spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, on the necessity of a report from the Secretary of State on the implementation of these proposals, which I consider to be pretty disturbing on the whole. I ask the Minister, when he replies, to consider carefully where these amendments are coming from.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I will speak with the leave of the Committee and with many apologies; I was delayed in a committee. Amendment 143A is a probing amendment to seek to understand whether the Secretary of State will issue guidance on these matters, and if so, what that guidance will include. The Prison Reform Trust is particularly concerned about this, being aware that an overturned release decision would be likely to undermine public confidence in the parole system and so on. I am sure that the Minister will want all the actors in the sector to understand how these arrangements are intended to work and how they can be scrutinised.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, we also support this group of amendments. I want to reiterate the points made by my noble friend Lord Bach. You could not have had two more eminent Members of this Committee to table these amendments. The noble and learned Lords, Lord Burnett and Lord Thomas, are familiar with these types of decisions. I do not think I can add to the weight of the arguments put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett.
The only point I will make is about process. If the Minister says that he wants to think about this—I do not know what he is going to say—then it would be very helpful to know his thoughts before Report. From what I have heard of the argument, it seems that the Government have an uphill battle trying to defend the current position. If the Government are minded to think about this again, we really need to know what that is before Report.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, the amendments proposed by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Burnett and Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, would mean that parole referrals under the new power in the Bill would be sent to the Divisional Court of the King’s Bench Division, which is part of the High Court, instead of the Upper Tribunal, which is currently used for most cases—although not for national security cases.
Noble Lords know that the Bill introduces a new power to allow the Secretary of State to refer a top-tier case—that is a case where the index offence was murder, rape, causing or allowing the death of a child, or serious terrorism—for a second check by an independent court if the Parole Board has directed release. The question is which court that should be. Noble Lords may recall that at one stage it was suggested—I think by a Select Committee—that it should be the Court of Appeal Criminal Division. The Government consulted the Judicial Office in June 2023. The result of that consultation was that a preference was expressed for the Upper Tribunal to hear those cases. The Upper Tribunal has wide-ranging powers under Section 25 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, facilitated by the Upper Tribunal rules, which essentially gives it the same powers as the High Court. It has experience of hearing oral evidence. The Government’s view, in the light of the consultation with the Judicial Office, was that the Upper Tribunal was the appropriate court.
None the less, the Government feel that it is obviously desirable to sort this issue out in a sensible way and I am very happy to consider it further. I am even happier to say that the Government’s reflections will be shared before Report, so that everybody can consider their position. There should not be any particular controversy on this kind of point; it is a rather specialised point, if I may put it like that.
I turn to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and spoken to on her behalf by noble Lord, Lord Marks. The Government entirely agree with her that the processes ahead of us and how we are going to manage it should be very fully understood by all actors. I will briefly explain how the Government see things at the moment. First, the procedural elements of the new process may require amendments to the Parole Board rules and the tribunal rules—or the rules of whatever court we determine. That must be scrutinised by Parliament and go through a period of consultation. There will have to be a period of training of judges. We know that the referral process will need to be transparent and speedy. Work is currently in train as to how far this will be operationalised from the point of view, first, of maintaining public confidence and, secondly, on what basis the Secretary of State refers things to the relevant court—to use a neutral phrase for the time being.
Currently, the Government are working through exactly how the relevant tests would be applied. The Government propose to publish their policy on how the legislation will be applied, outlining how cases will be selected for referral and ensuring that prisoners, and importantly victims, are fully informed of who will be in scope. I envisage a transparent and open process by which the details of the new regime are sorted out.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
Could I follow that up before the Minister goes on to the next point? Does he anticipate that there will be consultation with the sector—it is a very big sector of course—on the various points that he has quite rightly referred to? That would go down rather better and be much more useful than producing a policy in its final form and saying, “Here we are”. A draft policy or ideas for consultation would be welcomed.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I hear what the noble Baroness says, and it sounds entirely reasonable. I cannot, at the Dispatch Box, go any further than I have already gone, but the point is well made.
On that basis, I hope the Committee will be satisfied that the Government intend to be fully transparent and work co-operatively with the development of this new process.
Lord Burnett of Maldon (CB)
I thank the Minister for his response. It is a delight to see him back in his place. I also thank those who spoke in support of the amendment put down by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, with my support.
I was intrigued by the Minister’s reference to consultation with the Judicial Office last June. I was, of course, in post as Lord Chief Justice then. For administrative purposes, the Judicial Office is the alter ego, as it were, of the Lord Chief Justice. It may well be—I put it no more pointedly than this—that Homer may have nodded in June, because I had thought that the proposal of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, which is supported by me and elsewhere, was not controversial. If there has been a mix-up in communication historically on that, I apologise, wearing my previous hat. I am grateful to the Minister for indicating that the Government will be prepared to consider this matter further. I am of course entirely at the Minister’s disposal to discuss any proposals that may commend themselves to the Government to be brought forward on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Thornton
“Licence conditions for serial and serious harm domestic abuse and stalking perpetrators under Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements(1) A condition of the release and licence of serial and serious harm domestic abuse and stalking perpetrators must be included in the Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements.(2) The Criminal Justice Act 2003 is amended as follows.(3) In section 325 (arrangements for assessing etc risk posed by certain offenders)—(a) in subsection (1), after ““relevant sexual or violent offender” has the meaning given by section 327;” insert ““relevant domestic abuse or stalking perpetrator” has the meaning given in section 327ZA;”;(b) after subsection (2)(a) insert—“(aza) relevant domestic abuse or stalking perpetrators,”.(4) After section 327 (Section 325: interpretation) insert—“327ZA Interpretation of relevant domestic abuse or stalking perpetrator (1) For the purposes of section 325, a person (“P”) is a “relevant domestic abuse or stalking perpetrator” if P has been convicted of a specified offence or an associate offence and meets either the condition in subsection (2)(a) or the condition in subsection (2)(b).(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the conditions are—(a) P is a relevant serial offender; or(b) a risk of serious harm assessment has identified P as presenting a high or very high risk of serious harm.(3) An offence is a “specified offence” for the purposes of this section if it is a specified domestic abuse offence or a specified stalking offence.(4) In this section—“relevant serial offender” means a person convicted on more than one occasion for the same specified offence, or a person convicted of more than one specified offence;“specified domestic abuse offence” means an offence where it is alleged that the behaviour of the accused amounted to domestic abuse within the meaning defined in section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021;“specified stalking offence” means an offence contrary to section 2A or section 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.(5) Within 12 months of the day on which the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 is passed the Secretary of State must commission a review into the operation of the provisions of this section.””
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to move Amendment 148A and speak to Amendment 148B. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for their support in this suite of amendments, both of which deal with stalking. They insert two new clauses into the Bill, and they are part of the whole suite of amendments on this.
I will be brief because my noble friend Lady Royall is in the Committee today, and she has been tireless over the years in championing this cause and using every opportunity to find remedies to deal with this pernicious crime, almost always perpetrated by men on women, wrecking lives, sometimes with fatal consequences. These two amendments, and the group following this concerning MAPPS in the name of my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, seek to bring further coherence to law enforcement, record sharing and protection for these victims.
If only the police could see stalking for what it truly is—often a stepping stone on the route to murder—perhaps they would take it more seriously. At present, I am afraid they do not—certainly, it is patchy—and stalking victims are dismissed too easily and too often. They are told, “It’s just online. It will die down. Change your number. Delete your social media accounts. It’s just a lovers’ tiff”.
I will give just one example and then sit down. When the Derbyshire police accepted that they failed Gracie Spinks—who was murdered after reporting her stalker to the police—and when they apologised to her family and promised that lessons would be learned, I could almost feel the weariness of victims, their families, the campaigners and the Victims’ Commissioner in saying, “How often do we have to be told that lessons can be learned when they haven’t been?” That is what these amendments and the ones we have already discussed are about: they seek to make a change. I beg to move.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I was happy to put my name to these to these two amendments, and I am equally happy that the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, is here. She will go into some current and fairly shocking detail about some recent examples of stalking that show that it is as pernicious and present as ever.
Both of these amendments are proposed in the clear and distinctly uncomfortable knowledge that I think all parties acknowledge: we have some way to go, to put it mildly, before we can say, with any degree of truth, that we have the measure of the huge and insidious problem that is stalking. These amendments propose some changes to MAPPA, including perpetrators in MAPPA, as a condition of potential release and licence, and the creation of a register to make perpetrators subject to notification requirements as a condition of release. The important common theme to both these amendments is the requirement for the Secretary of State to commission reviews to look at the issues and challenges around stalking in a comprehensive and informed manner.
But what is repeatedly and continuously frustrating is that we have proper on-the-ground evidence of approaches to stalking that are proving to be effective. In particular, there is the multi-agency stalking intervention programme—MASIP—which has marked a significant advance in our ability to anticipate, identify and tackle the complex issue of stalking. The MASIP model, thankfully funded by the Home Office, has pioneered this approach in London, Cheshire and Hampshire, and it works. Early evidence is compelling and extremely positive. So one just asks oneself: why is it not possible to do this more widely? The approach co-ordinates activity around both the victim and the perpetrator, and it incorporates an essential pathway to address the fixation and obsession in perpetrators that might be contributing to their stalking offending. The final evaluation proves that it works, so why is it so difficult, first, to acknowledge best practice when it is staring one in the face and, secondly, to implement it more widely?
One frustrating thing—here I refer to an article in today’s newspaper—is some news about the Government’s end-of-custody supervised licence programme, which was introduced in the autumn to relieve some of the huge pressure on our overcrowded jails, enabling perpetrators to be released earlier than their recommended sentence. It was put in as a temporary scheme, but it has apparently now been extended indefinitely. That does not mean for ever; it just means that the Government have given no indication of how long they intend to continue to allow this degree of leniency, the sole reason for which is the huge pressure on our prisons.
The Government rather inelegantly call this the problem of demand and supply in the prison population. If you were to try to explain that terminology to victims, they would find it slightly difficult to understand why supply-side economics should govern the early release of some perpetrators, particularly of domestic abuse and stalking, in many cases without the victims knowing what is going on.
We will make concerted progress only when we acknowledge the complexity of stalking and finally design a proactive and joined-up approach that is implemented consistently across all jurisdictions and agency boundaries and effectively identifies, outlaws and penalises any evidence of the unfairness and madness of what we are allowing today—effectively, a postcode lottery for victims.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I have signed Amendments 148A and 148B in this group. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for her introduction and look forward to hearing from the noble Baroness, Lady Royall. The first amendment sets out an important addition to the arrangements for Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements, or MAPPA. We will hear about the detail of these amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, but I want to add that, throughout this Bill and its predecessors in your Lordships’ House, including the Domestic Abuse Bill and the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, we have repeatedly asked for more protection for people who have been victims of serial domestic abuse and, in particular, stalking.
Laura Richards’s ground-breaking work over many years in developing the dashboard profiling and documenting the most serious repeat offenders has changed the way in which specialist police teams view these perpetrators, but—I hesitate to say this for probably the third Bill running—MAPPA are still not applied consistently across police forces. One of the aims of these amendments is to make sure that happens. As we have heard, repeat perpetrators are far too often allowed to commit further crimes, including murder. Shockingly, a couple of years ago police research found that one in 12 domestic rapists was raping outside the home. A violent and controlling man leaving a partner does not mean that the violence ends. Many have extensive histories of abusing multiple women.
Amendment 148A sets out the licence conditions for serial and serious harm domestic abuse and stalking perpetrators, saying that anyone so identified should be part of a MAPPA. Proposed new subsection (4) sets out the definition of a relevant domestic abuse or stalking perpetrator. Similarly, the other amendment says that we must have an effective register. Non-domestic stalkers always seem to be left off. I always raise this problem in your Lordships’ House; there is an assumption that stalking is carried out only by a current partner or an ex-partner—or somebody who would like to be a partner and is therefore regarded as domestic—but about 40% of stalking cases have nothing to do with that at all. As we see from many stories in the papers day after day, these days people such as celebrities face massive amounts of stalking and do not get protection. Often, when people are arrested, it appears that they have stalked others as well.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, made passing reference to the Gracie Spinks case. Derbyshire police and the police force that investigated its failings have learned from that, but we need consistency. I will give one recent example from Laura Richards. Last month a victim, Sadie, had been back in contact with her about her living hell over seven years. She is terrified that her ex will kill her children. In 2018 he was arrested for battery of her eight year-old daughter and an assault on her while she was holding her other daughter. He was convicted in 2019 and received a suspended sentence and restraining order. The police did not arrest him for stalking or coercive control. They told her that, because she had moved away, they would not arrest him for stalking and they would amend the restraining order to a lifelong RO. He has repeatedly breached it. As we discussed on earlier amendments, he then started family court proceedings.
I will not go on, except to say that she has had to flee three more times, and each time has hit problems with the new police force. There has been no consistency. He has a history of abusing others—exactly the point I made about police research finding that one in 12 domestic rapists rapes outside the home. This woman has no solution nearby to stop him continuing to behave in this way and mess up her life and those of her children. We need MAPPA to work effectively. These amendments are the first step in that direction.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendments 148A and 148B. I am late to participate in this Bill, for which I apologise, but, as has been said, I am not late to debates on the insidious crime of stalking—a gateway to rape, serious harm and murder in slow motion. I have read the excellent exchanges on earlier amendments to this Bill on stalking.
Stalkers must be put before the courts, and sentences must reflect the seriousness of the crime. When stalkers are released from prison, given the nature of their obsessive and fixated behaviour, stringent measures must be placed on them to close down all opportunities to reoffend. As part of this, they must be automatically managed by MAPPA and included on ViSOR, soon to be MAPPS, so that their information can be shared and accessed nationally.
In the past I have often cited the horrific case of Zoe Dronfield. Jason Smith almost succeeded in murdering her in her home in 2014. He is up again before the Parole Board for release this year. Zoe is terrified for herself and her children. Smith was not rehabilitated 10 years prior to her attack after the horrific abuse of an ex who was a serving West Midlands police officer. He went on to abuse other women until he targeted Zoe. Currently, Zoe knows very little about the release plan. Smith has never admitted trying to kill Zoe, so how can he be deemed safe for release? She does not know whether she is marked at high risk, whether he is still vengeful towards her or whether he will be tagged. No measures have been put in place for her, and she feels like a sitting duck.
How can this be right? He must be added to ViSOR and managed by MAPPA, and every opportunity for his reoffending against Zoe, her children and future women must be closed down. Many stalkers change their name by deed poll. He must not be allowed to do that either. Positive obligations must be placed on him, including not to change his name. I would be grateful for an assurance from the Minister that this case will be looked at so that Zoe does not have to live in fear.
In January there were two horrific cases of stalking by two vengeful men. Thirty year-old Bryce Hodgson was shot by armed officers in Southwark after he broke into the intended victim’s home. He was armed with crossbows, a knife, a hatchet and a sword and was wearing body armour. There was no doubt that he was there to kill the victim, and most likely others if they got in his way—people who might have been trying to protect her. He had already threatened the police. As soon as I heard about this case, I wondered about his background. No one wakes up one day and starts behaving like this in the third decade of life. From everything I have learned about male violence towards women and children, I believed that he would have a history.
Sure enough, it came to light that he was a convicted stalker. He had been convicted of stalking a woman last June and was subject to a five-year restraining order. Croydon Magistrates’ Court heard last year how Hodgson had entered the victim’s bedroom without consent, sent text messages demanding that she open her door to him and described his vivid sexual fantasies to her. He pleaded guilty, but was spared a custodial sentence with a 16-week suspended prison sentence; he was ordered to undergo 12 months of supervision and carry out 120 hours of community service.
He was the most dangerous type of stalker—a predatory stalker with sexual fantasies that he was acting on when he broke into the victim’s bedroom. He was one of the rare few who are arrested and charged but, rather than put him before the court for a Section 4A stalking offence for putting the victim in fear of her life, and despite his being one of the most dangerous types of stalker, the CPS put him before a magistrates’ court on a Section 2A stalking charge. Notwithstanding the wrong charge, he clearly should have been put on a register.
In another case, on 31 January a woman and her two children were attacked by Abdul Ezedi near Clapham Common. He threw a corrosive alkaline substance at the woman, who we now know was in a relationship with the suspect. She was there with her daughters; she suffered what are likely to be life-changing injuries. Five police officers were injured as they responded, as were four members of the public. This attack was targeted, pre-planned and premeditated. Ezedi stalked the victim and intended to cause her maximum distress, pain and suffering when he threw that corrosive substance at her and her two girls. He then picked up the three year-old girl and tried to kill her.
There is always a history. In 2018, Ezedi was convicted of one charge of sexual assault and one of exposure, before being granted asylum in 2020. He received a nine-week jail term, suspended for two years, for this sexual assault and, for the exposure, 36-weeks’ imprisonment to be served consecutively—which was also suspended for two years. Why was he not included on ViSOR? This has been repeatedly raised following countless horrific murders, including those of Jane Clough, Shana Grice, Hollie Gazzard, Alice Ruggles, Janet Scott, Laura Mortimer and her 11 year-old daughter Ella Dalby, and Cheryl Gabriel-Hooper, whose 14 year-old daughter was present when Andrew Hooper shot her mother dead. Hooper had a history of abusing and stalking his ex; he broke into her house in the middle of the night wearing gloves and armed with a knife. He pleaded guilty to affray and received a suspended sentence—this was stalking. Cheryl also reported him to the police for coercively controlling and stalking her and her daughter. The abuse escalated when she finally left him for good.
Separation is the highest risk time for a woman fleeing a coercive controller and stalker. We know from research and analysis of domestic homicides that if a stalker makes a threat—which Hooper did—one in two stalkers acts on that threat; that is 50%. These are the most dangerous of perpetrators, and yet his violent history was not joined up by the police. He should have been on a register, which would mean that they had to check on the perpetrator’s history.
Laura Mortimer and her 11 year-old daughter, Ella Dalby, were stabbed to death in my home city of Gloucester, on 28 May 2018, by Christopher Boon. He had a history of assaulting a previous partner and her mother, in front of two children. He received a suspended sentence for this very serious offence. Boon was a fantasist who was £28,000 in debt, and he coerced Laura into putting her income into his bank account. She reported him to the police. She was too scared to pursue a prosecution but she did ask about his history, using Clare’s law. She was told that it could not be shared, and she was sent away. Days before the murders, Laura learnt that Boon was cheating on her and she told him to leave the house. He escalated his behaviour and stabbed Laura 18 times and her 11 year-old daughter 24 times. Women are not told about these dangerous and violent men’s histories even when they report serious violence and abuse at their hands.
A new database, MAPPS, is being developed, which will replace ViSOR, and we have MAPPA, the public protection panels which police, prison and probation officers, and other agencies attend. Stalkers must be proactively identified, assessed and managed by MAPPA. Stalking experts must attend MAPPA meetings to ensure that these dangerous men are diagnosed, assessed and managed. The same tactics must be applied to serial and dangerous domestic violence perpetrators and stalkers as to organised criminals and sex offenders. Early identification, assessment and management are vital to cut off opportunities for them to cause harm, and to ensure that they face the consequences of their actions.
Currently, the law relies on victims to report the individual crimes, and the police do not flag and tag serial and high-risk perpetrators. Instead, they focus on the victims—and this does not happen with any other crime. Police must index and share information with victims about serial abusers. Each police force must proactively identify 10 to 20 serial and dangerous domestic abusers, ensure that their information is included on the local police intelligence database, and refer cases to MAPPA. Convicted stalkers must be placed on ViSOR. The postcode lottery mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Russell, must end.
I hope the Minister does not refer to guidance, which is so often a response to questions about stalking. I hope we are not told that more lessons need to be learned; too many women have been murdered. We know what needs to be done. We do not need guidance, we need action.
The extraordinary Laura Richards, who has done more than anyone else in the world to try to protect women and their children from stalkers, started a petition to include serial domestic abusers and stalkers on ViSOR and be managed by MAPPA. Some 274,698 people have now signed this petition, including victims, bereaved families and professionals. I ask the Minister: when will the Government act?
Baroness Newlove (Con)
My Lords, I support these amendments, and I am so glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, is back where she belongs, speaking on a topic that she is so passionate about.
Laura Richards has been mentioned by many speakers, and social media has a good way of reacting: I have her on Instagram as we are speaking, to give me some pointers, even though she is in California. Laura Richards is the expert on all this, and her patience to fight for victims over the years is commendable. She said she knows there is going to be change and she keeps doing it for victims—I admire this lady.
In the year ending March 2022, only 1.4% of reports to police about stalking ended with the stalker being convicted. That says a lot about how seriously stalking is taken by the very agencies that are supposed to protect victims. Most stalkers never see the inside of a prison cell; instead, they receive fines or community or suspended sentences, as has previously been spoken about. Really, for me, it is about listening to the human side of all these cases, and that is what we must never forget. It is not just about lessons learned or guidance. These are not items we pick up from supermarket shelves; these are human lives—people who have been brutally murdered, after several years of absolute hell, by someone who has done it on more than one occasion.
I really want to understand why the Government will not look at this register seriously. I spoke in the Domestic Abuse Bill when that came through. This has to be the end of it all. Instead of guidance, we must have proper risk management of stalkers and domestic abusers because, at the moment, it is virtually non-existent for convicted, or unconvicted, men who pose such a huge risk to women and children—now more than ever, we need to make sure that they feel safe and listened to. These are psychopathic people who do horrendous crimes to humans, and families have to pick up the pieces.
I am concerned about Zoe Dronfield, and I have picked up on certain things that my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, has mentioned. I will take that offline, because I sympathise with not having any control. As somebody who is still going through the criminal justice and parole system, I am very interested in the next stage of the Bill, which is about parole, and what it does and does not do. The victim has no control, or right to know what the offender is doing. We cannot find out what is going on, but the offender knows exactly where the victim is, because of exclusion zones and everything else. I do not speak for anyone else but as a victim who is watching out, for my three daughters, for offenders who are going to be released. When we are talking about stalking laws, this is important, because having no control more or less means that the victim has to shape their life around safety, whereas the system should protect victims more than ever.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for her amendment relating to Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements, and all noble Lords who have contributed to this heartfelt debate. These are horrific offences, taken with the utmost gravity by the Government.
Amendment 148A seeks to include relevant domestic abuse and stalking perpetrators on licence within the remit of management under Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements—MAPPA. That would create a legal requirement on the police and the Prison and Probation Service to assess and manage the risks posed by individuals whose offending has taken place in the context of domestic abuse or stalking, and who either have more than one conviction of this nature or are assessed as posing a high risk of serious harm.
Amendment 148B seeks to make amendments to the Sexual Offences Act 2003, imposing on domestic abuse and stalking offenders the same requirements that apply to registered sex offenders. This would require the offender to report personal information to the police, including where they are living, their bank account details and passport details.
The Government agree that robust management of perpetrators of domestic abuse and stalking is crucial to help keep the public safe. We completely agree with the spirit of these amendments; however, we believe the objectives can already be met through current provision and policy.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
Why does the Minister think we tabled these amendments?
Lord Roborough (Con)
I think I understand the point of the amendments, which is the belief that stalking and domestic abuse deserve to be treated the same way as terror and murder offences. I hope the explanation I have given shows that these offences, on a discretionary basis, can be treated with the same seriousness under MAPPA 2 and MAPPA 3. The Government have described an ongoing process of trying to improve the implementation of it.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I thank the Minister for the detail he has gone into. I am not making fun of him; I am genuinely wondering if he thinks it is all going in the right direction and fast enough. If so, we would not have needed to put the amendments down. We have tabled them because things are not moving fast enough.
Most of the examples my noble friend Lady Royall gave were not current, though some of them were. It is, therefore, perfectly all right to discuss them because they are a long time past and they show the failures of our systems to deal with and recognise stalking and the problems it poses. The reason we have tabled the amendments is because the systems we have at the moment are clearly not working and are very patchy. As my noble friend Lady Royall said, guidance does not always serve, and it does not serve in these circumstances.
I thank everyone who has spoken in the debate. It was very well informed. I think the Minister may have underestimated our determination on the matter. We may return to it at a later stage in the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
“Report to Parliament on including MAPPS as a condition of release and licence for certain offences(1) The Secretary of State must lay a report before Parliament on the Government’s progress in designing and creating new Multi-Agency Public Protection System [MAPPS] for prisoners subject to notification requirements and licence conditions under the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024.(2) The report under subsection (1) must be published within twelve months of the day on which this Act is passed.(3) The report must include a timetable for the planned implementation of MAPPS.”
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 148C. I want to speak more widely than the previous group and briefly recount my experience as a magistrate. It so happens that the last two stalking cases I dealt with were of women stalking men. I have also dealt with recent cases where MAPPA—as it was called—was relevant to the bail decisions which we were making. The reason I want to speak more widely than the previous group is because, in my experience, the MAPPA system is also used for tracking and being aware of people with mental health difficulties who are perceived as dangerous. These are not stalkers but people who may well be dangerous because of their mental condition.
In fact, the last case that I dealt with—which was probably a couple of years ago now—was of a young man with a gun obsession, but who had clear mental health problems. It was going to fall to MAPPA to make sure he was properly protected—which I suppose is the right way of describing it—because he was likely to be released into the community. In that case, I quizzed the relevant offices about MAPPA, as it then was, and what was likely to be put in place for that young man. It was absolutely clear that there were a number of agencies involved. The key was multiagency working. As a court, we needed confidence that people would indeed be able to work across the agencies to try and keep proper tabs on the young man, to make sure he did not go off the rails again—if I can put it like that.
How are the types of cases dealt with by MAPPS and MAPPA recorded? They are not all stalking-related and domestic abuse-related cases; they go wider than that. They include a lot of agencies: not just police and probation, but also housing, local authority and health agencies. The whole point of that system is essentially to provide support for people who are potential offenders, to try and stop them from reoffending. How are the types of cases dealt with by MAPPA tracked? Is the Minister confident that the tracking of those releases means that the response can be properly tailored for the individuals whom they are dealing with? It is certainly my experience that very often, when things go wrong, it is because the agencies are not working together properly. This is a repeated theme of what I have seen when cases come before me in the magistrates’ court.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I would like to put my name to this amendment, because it is a continuation of the theme around stalking which we have repeatedly returned to in the Bill, as indeed we went on at length about in the Domestic Abuse Act.
In listening to the reply of the Minister to the last group of amendments, I was trying to imagine what a robust list would look like. I was somewhat puzzled as to how it would really have any effect at all. I was also pondering the term “discretionary management”, given that if only 1.4% of stalking cases actually end up in a successful prosecution, it is quite easy for the advisers who are writing the Minister’s brief to talk about percentage increases in performance. If one knows anything about mathematics, it is relatively easy to get rather spell-binding percentage increases in performance by starting from an exceedingly low base—a base of 1.4% of stalkers being successfully prosecuted, I am not a fan of percentages in a situation like this.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said, effective multiagency co-operation is clearly not working at the moment. This amendment gives the Government the opportunity to provide the single most important thing to make multiagency co-operation work: clear, outstanding, determined and consistent leadership. Leadership which transcends politics and different Ministers being responsible for the same area as the ministerial merry-go-round continues is incredibly important. The attempts by MAPPA to create an effective multiagency co-operation environment are so far not compelling. This amendment is an invitation for the Government to sit down and reflect on the lessons of what has not been and is not working as we would wish it, to create something more fit for purpose, and—in a non-political environment—to create a form of new MAPPS which is nothing to do with politics.
If the Great British electorate—of course, we are not allowed to participate—decide on a change of His Majesty’s Government at some point in the next 12 months, I hope that the department can come up with a form of multiagency co-operation which an incoming Government, should they be of a different political persuasion, would be positive about and could run with and make effective, rather than starting the clock all over again and losing valuable time. During this time, goodness only knows how many more victims will fall to the pursuit of stalkers, many of whom have been operating and stalking for many years, and many of whom are known all too well to the victims, but whom various multiagency authorities seem to be wilfully blind to.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I have also signed Amendment 148C and thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for introducing it, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell, for his very eloquent contribution just now.
I too return to the Minister’s remarks at the end of the previous group, because it will help with this amendment. Part of the problem is that those of us who raise these issues about multiagency protection have assumed the corporate knowledge of the House about the previous six days and of all the amendments we have debated—in particular, those relating to domestic abuse and stalking. I fear that is not the case. One of the reasons we need this report is to ensure that Ministers and officials absolutely see what is happening in the data and bring it to Parliament to be held to account for it.
When I gave an example of a live case, I used the term “restraining order”. In his response to me, the Minister talked about a “stalking protection order”. They are completely different tools. An SPO is given by the police as a sort of special caution. It identifies the crime and says to the offender—there may not even be an offender at that point—that they have to mend their ways. A restraining order is given by the courts—it can happen at various levels of the courts—and is much more serious.
Most stalkers who are on restraining orders now will have been through the earlier processes, including, I am afraid, a number of stalking protection orders. While they may be a useful tool for the one stalker who is obsessed with one person but can get over it, the group of people that we are talking about in the MAPPA arrangements are completely and utterly different. They are extremely obsessed and manipulative people, who are physically dangerous in some cases, and certainly through coercive control. Not only are they a danger to the person for whom a restraining order may have been given but, in all the examples I gave in my speech on the previous group, they are known to be likely to offend with other people and to move around the country to get out of trouble and get away from the police force taking notice of them.
Given that we are talking about the most serious level of offences, whether it is domestic abuse or stalking, we need a consistent system across the country. Amendment 148C, through the report, would hold the Government—whatever Government, of whatever colour—to account, forcing them to produce data to show that they understand the difference. Until that happens, there will be Members of your Lordships’ House who will return, Bill after Bill, with horror stories of murders, attacks and everything else, but nothing will have changed.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise for not having contributed to debates on the Bill as it has gone through its various stages. I spoke to my Front-Bench colleagues and the others who have added their names to this amendment, and I want to bring my experience as the independent chair of the Nottingham Community Safety Partnership, as laid out in the register of members’ interests, by speaking briefly to this amendment.
I welcome the Government’s intention to move from MAPPA to MAPPS and all the various comments I have read that have been made throughout the passage of the Bill about the importance of change. However, the reality is that, whether it is called MAPPA, MAPPS or something else, without the sort of change that my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and others have mentioned, nothing will change.
I am sick of having domestic homicide reviews. They say exactly the same thing, time after time. It is not a lack of desire or care on the part of the people involved; the system simply does not work. We have a situation where people do not share data because they do not think that they are allowed to—even though everyone says, “Oh, that’s ridiculous. Of course they’re allowed to”. The Minister of the Crown has to get hold of this; he needs to tell people to share the data in order to save lives—because they do not do so.
I am sorry to keep going on about this, but I am sick of reading about the same problem occurring, time after time: information is not being shared and people say that they did not know about this or that it was supposed to have happened. Again, it is not the dedication of the people that is in question—they all care and want to do good—but we need to know what is happening that does not allow it to take place.
The Minister has to get a grip of this. It does not matter whether it is called MAPPS or something else; without a change, nothing will improve. I know that that is the intention of the Government—of course their intention is not to make it worse—but what are we going to do about it?
I will tell the Committee about another problem. At times, the meetings are packed—absolutely rammed—with people representing, for hours, different parts of the system. What I say is that everybody is responsible but nobody is responsible. I repeat that: everybody is responsible because everybody cares, but nobody is responsible. The question is: who holds the ring? Who is the person accountable for ensuring that something is done and delivered, whether it is a review of a domestic homicide or prisoners coming out and being subject to the MARAC or MAPPS, as it will be called?
My final point is that the delivery of this from an office—I do not mean that disrespectfully—to a house or street is absolutely crucial, and yet nobody has done anything. I will give the Committee an instance. The Government have recruited new police officers—I am not making a political point—and so we have new front-line police officers, who are often very young and very willing, with the desire to do well. When they go to a prisoner out on licence or to a domestic incident, many of them go in blind, because they are young and inexperienced and have no idea what to do. They try to assess whether there is a threat to life, but, as we know, often with domestic homicides there is no immediate, obvious threat to life. That is the nature of domestic violence and, unfortunately, sometimes of domestic homicides; the offenders do not wear a sign saying, “I am going to kill someone”. The police officer goes there, as a 999 response officer, and deals with the immediate emergency as he or she sees it. Realising that there is no immediate threat to life, as far as they are aware, the police officer leaves.
Sometimes, the information that that has happened is not passed on. Sometimes, the police officer is rung again—“Come back, there is a problem”—and they go back but there is nothing going on. It is not as though somebody is running around with a gun, ready to shoot. If that does not change, it will not make a shred of difference whether you call it “MAPPS”, “super-MAPPS”, “extra-MAPPS”, or “brilliant-MAPPS”.
The Government want to make a difference, so they have to do something about the mechanism by which everybody is responsible but nobody is responsible, about what happens with the front-line delivery, and about the sharing of data and information. That is patchwork at best. My noble friend Lord Ponsonby, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell, say that the report has to address those problems. But the Minister does not need a report in 12 months; he could get on the phone or get a meeting now and ask why it is that the law allows you to share data but you are not.
My question to the Minister is this. When people say that they cannot share data in MARACs, or whatever else, are they right? Are they in a situation where they can do that? I think that they are wrong; I think that they can share that information. As a start to what the noble Lord, Lord Russell, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and my noble friend Lord Ponsonby asked, why does the Minister not write to every single MARAC in the country and say, “Notwithstanding the Victims and Prisoners Bill that is going through Parliament, the existing law allows you to share information. Don’t worry, you will not be prosecuted or get in trouble for doing that”. They do not believe that—we may all say that that is ridiculous but that is the reality. What I want is for the Government to address on the ground the reality of what is happening. The Minister needs to get involved and do that. The Government want it to improve, as of course we all do, but that change is needed for an improvement to happen.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, might like to know that, in evidence that the Justice and Home Affairs Committee took recently on community sentences, we came across various NGOs that were stuck because they were frightened of sharing information. It held up the system; it completely stopped things working as they should and could have.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
My Lords, this amendment is important. As someone who knows first-hand what it is like to gather information and then find out that the Home Office wants to gather information about red flags, I have to say it is amazing that all that information is shared for the Home Secretary to look at on a murder case.
I agree with the passionate assertion by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, that data sharing is important. In a domestic homicide review, the families already know the information and have complained about it, but the Government have to wait for this review to come out with “lessons learned”. That is further insulting to the victims’ families and indeed to the victims, and it beggars belief that we have not moved on.
I want to tell my noble friend about data sharing. I attended a MARAC a few years ago as Victims’ Commissioner—not every MARAC is fantastic, I have to say—and what concerned me was that when a police officer gave evidence that the prisoner had been released, his offender manager, who was at that same table, was concerned because the last thing she knew was that he was still meant to be in prison. She had to leave the room to double-check, because he should not have been released. Unfortunately, I did not manage to find out the result, but the police and offender management had to try to establish whether the prisoner had even been released. That shows how important it is for data to be shared for the protection of victims. People need to understand what can be shared so they can find out whether a prisoner is even in their cell.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for his amendment regarding the Multi Agency Public Protection System, MAPPS. I understand that the debate has not really been very much to do with MAPPS, but I will first address the amendment, which does address it. Amendment 148C would place a duty on the Secretary of State to publish a report on progress of the development of MAPPS for prisoners subject to notification requirements and licence conditions under the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, within 12 months of Royal Assent.
It may be helpful if I provide some explanation of MAPPS. This will answer some of those questions, but I have better answers at the end. MAPPS is a Home Office IT project, currently jointly funded with the Ministry of Justice, to enable the improved management of dangerous offenders, including violent and sex offenders, under Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements, or MAPPA. It is intended to replace the current case management system, the ViSOR database, which has been the main IT tool used by the police, probation and prison services since 2005.
The current database, ViSOR, while stable, is now almost 20 years old. The Home Office and the Ministry of Justice began work on MAPPS in 2020 to enable criminal justice agencies to share information in real time and improve their risk assessments and the management of all MAPPA nominals. That can include domestic abuse perpetrators and stalkers, as referenced in Amendments 148A and 148B.
I am sure we all agree that it is essential that police and other MAPPA agencies have the tools they need to manage the risk posed by serious offenders, and MAPPS will do just that. The new functionality will include greater capacity; a more intuitive system with push notifications; and increased mobility. MAPPS, as a new and modern system, will be more responsive to agency needs, and adaptable to any new notification requirements.
As noble Lords would expect for a project so important to public safety, we are being diligent in our approach to MAPPS development. MAPPS is a custom product, being built to meet the bespoke needs of police, prison and probation officers as well as other MAPPA authorities. While third-party contractors are used, given other discussions on the Bill, I am sure that noble Lords will want to note that Fujitsu is not involved in MAPPS development and never has been.
We welcome the interest in the MAPPS programme and, while the work is ongoing, the Government will of course further update Parliament on its development and implementation. Given that MAPPS is already being designed specifically to meet the needs of those agencies involved in the management of all MAPPA offenders, in conjunction with those very agencies, I do not consider that the proposed report would say anything more than has already been mentioned, and it is therefore unnecessary.
I turn to the debate that we have had in Committee. MAPPA deals only with convicted offenders under four categories, but much of the debate has been about information sharing in a way that is not consistent with that use of it. In answer to numerous noble Lords—the noble Lords, Lord Coaker, Lord Ponsonby and Lord Russell of Liverpool, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Newlove and Lady Brinton—on data sharing, the PCSC Act put beyond doubt the authority of agencies to share relevant information for the purposes of assessing and managing an offender’s risk, and to enable agencies and individuals who do not have a duty to co-operate to share information where they can contribute to the assessment and management of an offender’s risk. These measures clarified existing arrangements and will ensure that agencies understand how any sharing of information for the purposes of MAPPA management interacts with the obligations contained in the data protection legislation.
In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, we are bringing coercive individuals under the management of MAPPA but it is potentially under the lower categories 2 and 3, as I mentioned in the previous debate. There have been numerous questions. I am sure I have not answered them all and I will write to noble Lords.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The amendment in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Ponsonby and Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, gives the Minister of the Crown the opportunity to jolt the system to tell people dealing with prisoners under licence or with potential domestic homicide incidents—within these multi-agency arrangements, whatever they are called or are going to be called—“You can share information in a way that you don’t believe you currently can”. If the Minister does that, it will save lives.
As I said, I am sick of reading domestic homicide reviews where people are killed and then, time after time, it turns out that it might have been avoided if information had been shared, but the people involved did not think they could do so. Why does the Minister not say to them in some way—in writing or from the Dispatch Box, using his powers as a Minister—that they can? That would make an immediate difference.
Lord Roborough (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his comments, and for his comments earlier. Everyone in this Committee has the same interests at heart. We are all trying to achieve the same thing. I think I have read out a form of words that explains how data sharing is possible at the moment, but I take the point that there is the possibility of acting considerably more vigorously on this. I will take that back to the department. His words have not gone unnoticed.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, that is a very helpful comment from the Minister—I apologise for not having intervened previously in the Bill—but, in other things that I have done over the last few years, there have been three separate areas of activity where the belief of professionals is that they cannot share the data despite the clear legislation, and despite the fact that a threat to life trumps most data protection legislation. It needs a bit more than the Minister saying, “I hear what has been said and we take it very seriously”. There has to be action to make those legal rights and that legal possibility absolutely clear.
Lord Roborough (Con)
The noble Lord makes a good point. Hardly a piece of legislation goes through this House where there is not a data protection aspect. That creates confusion and it is up to the Government to bring clarity, particularly in this area. I thank him for that interjection.
I encourage the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a useful debate because it has been focused on the effectiveness of MAPPA, soon to be MAPPS.
As the Minister said, MAPPS deals only with convicted offenders. However, in the previous group he spoke at length about domestic abuse protection orders and stalking protection orders. Those are not criminal convictions so the people involved would not get on to the system in the first place.
From my own experience as a magistrate, from the experience of the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, as someone who is currently involved with the criminal justice system, and from the experience of my noble friend Lord Coaker, who is on the Nottingham Community Safety Partnership, we are all looking at the same problem from different perspectives, but it is about one thing: data sharing and being able to monitor that data.
The Minister is addressing the Committee as a Minister of the Crown. He has authority and can follow this through. The same message has come from everyone who has spoken in this short debate: it is about data sharing. I look forward to the Minister using his authority to make sure that that message is rammed home to those people who sit on those committees. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Brinton
“Duty of Crown Court to issue a restraining order for child sexual offences (1) A condition of the release on licence of child sexual offenders must include the issuance of a restraining order preventing any contact with the victim.(2) After section 244ZC of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 insert—“244ZD Release on license of certain child sexual offenders(1) A restraining order (as defined in section 359 of the Sentencing Act 2020) preventing any contact with the victim must be in place until further order at the point of release from custody under license conditions for those convicted of certain child sexual offences.(2) For the purposes of this section, “child sexual offences” means those offences defined as in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 sections 5 to 29, and sections 47 to 51.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires a restraining order to be a condition of release for those convicted of child sexual offences.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, we now turn to the perpetrators of child sexual abuse. I have tabled Amendment 148D, which imposes a duty on the Crown Court to issue a restraining order for child sexual offences for a perpetrator released on licence for certain child sexual offences. There is a strong reason why victims of child sexual abuse should be given this protection: they are among the most vulnerable, particularly when the abuse occurs within the family. Although there is respite for victims when the offender is in prison and while subject to licence conditions—provided that these have been properly set—the real problem is that robust licence conditions are often not in place; worse, even where they are, the victim is left unprepared once they expire.
Sexual harm prevention orders do not automatically include protection for the original victims of the crime; the onus is on the original victims to apply for a restraining order against the offender after they have been released—that is extraordinary. This not only creates enormous stress and fear but costs the Government more money through new hearings that must take place, not to mention the additional CPS and court resources that are needed. A restraining order placed at the time of release will save time and money, while affording the victim lifetime safety. It also sends strong messages to the offender that they will face criminal charges and up to five years’ prison time if the restraining order is breached.
Sexual abuse of any kind is dreadful, but child sexual abuse is particularly heinous. As the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse evidenced, the victims’ lives are affected for decades. It destroys trust and lives; the fear of their abuser returning to their lives is very real.
One such case is Emily Victoria, whose father was sentenced to 14 years in prison for sexually abusing her—his daughter—and a foster child. On release under licence, conditions were put in place to prevent him from entering certain areas where the children, now adults, lived and frequented—these conditions were necessary for their safety. However, when his sentence was completed, the offender was no longer subject to any licence conditions, meaning he is legally able to contact, in person or digitally, the children—who are now adults—that he abused for their entire childhoods. They live in daily fear for their lives and live in hiding, subjected to ongoing trauma because the power has been given back to the offender.
Emily Victoria said:
“My dad horrifically abused me for the first 18 years of my life. I am now 33 and I have spent more of my life under his control than not. He has always been a violent man and pled guilty to many cases of child sexual abuse to myself and another.
His sentence came to an end on 21 November 2023. I am appalled that he has been given the right to contact me in person or otherwise. I live in fear that he’ll be waiting for me in the shadows of my home. There have been times when my home has been broken into and things have been moved around.
Right now, as a result of a prime-time documentary I presented which was aired on Channel 4, more children have come forward to say he sexually abused them. This can trigger a violent response with me as a target.
I am suggesting we impose a Lifetime Restraining Order at the time of release on license to prevent abusers of Child Sexual Abuse from ever getting in contact with their victims directly or indirectly. My dad tried to get in contact via a family member and it’s absolutely terrifying. I should not have to carry the burden of his mistakes for my whole life.
Nor should I have to go to trial/court to request a restraining order. The option to have a phone that directly calls the police because I’m in danger is enough. The restraining order for life sends a strong message of consequences to the offender that they will face criminal charges and up to an additional 5 years in prison.
I go to sleep at night worried about the safety of my child and myself – and I’m strong. For those victims whose offenders come out after just a couple of years and receive less chance of rehabilitation, it’s paramount we give the victims as much protection as possible.
True freedom for victims of child sexual abuse is in the hands of our Ministry of Justice and can be given to victims with a lifetime RO”.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I do not need to add much to the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, because she has explained exactly why this is an important matter. I was slightly astonished when I read the amendment that this was the case and that this was something that we would need to remedy, so I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for this amendment, which, as she explained, would require the Crown Court to automatically impose a restraining order on anyone convicted of a child sex offence; that would apply regardless of the type or length of sentence passed. There is no need for me to underline the horror of child sex offences and the lifelong harm that is inflicted on the victims. I therefore have a great deal of sympathy with the intent behind the amendment to do even more to try to minimise the impact of that harm, as well as protect the community from any further offending.
Restraining orders are a discretionary power available to judges to impose in cases where there is a need to protect people from harassment or conduct that causes fear of violence. The current regime allows for such orders to be imposed where there is sufficient evidence on conviction, post conviction or post acquittal. At present, applications for restraining orders are considered by the Crown Prosecution Service on a case-by-case basis, recognising that there is a need to keep a victim safe and take their views into account. Actions prohibited by the restraining order, such as going to certain locations or contacting the victim, may be a breach of the order which is punishable by imprisonment for up to five years. Variation or discharge of the restraining order must be undertaken by the court.
When dealing with child sex offences, the court has a range of sentencing options available that may include life sentences. The vast majority of offenders who are released are subject to licence conditions that could include conditions to protect the victim, such as prohibiting contact. Breaching the terms of any licence condition can result in an offender being recalled to prison.
Offenders are also subject to notification requirements, commonly known as the sex offender register, where individuals convicted or cautioned for a sexual offence must provide certain details to police, including address, national insurance number and bank account details. Furthermore, they will also be managed under Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements, or MAPPA, for the duration of those requirements that, in many cases, will be for life.
Other measures to protect victims are also available. The sexual harm prevention order, or SHPO, can be made in relation to a person who has been convicted of a broad range of sexual offences, committed either in the UK or overseas. No application is necessary at the point of sentence, but courts may consider it in appropriate cases. Otherwise, applications can be made by the police, or other agencies, in preparation for the offender’s release on licence.
The prohibitions imposed by the order can be wide-ranging, such as limiting forms of employment that may involve contact with children or restrictions on internet access. The orders may be for a fixed period not exceeding five years but are renewable. More than 5,000 SHPOs were imposed in the year 2022-23, which shows that the courts are using the tools and powers available.
While I support the well-meaning intention of the amendment, I do not believe it is necessary, because there is a wide-ranging and effective set of measures to monitor and control offenders. I also suggest that the point at which these additional measures would be needed are when someone’s licence comes to an end; until then, conditions such as non-contact and exclusion can be in place on the licence. So it would be better to take decisions on the controls necessary at the conclusion of the licensing period, rather than attempt to predict them at the point of sentencing.
Requiring the Crown Court to automatically issue a restraining order as a condition of release in every case caught by this amendment would constrain the court’s discretion not to issue an order where it was not needed or desired. From a practical perspective, a mandatory restraining order imposed on an offender at the point of sentence, which could be many years before the end of the sentence, would be a duplication of some of the other controls I have already set out and it could create practical difficulties down the line, especially where the sentence is very long.
We also must remember the voice of the victim, which plays an important part in decision-making. Where an offender has received a custodial sentence of 12 months for violent or sexual offences, which of course include sexual offences against children, victims will be automatically referred to the victim contact scheme. Where the victim is a child, a parent or guardian may join the scheme on their behalf. If they choose to join the scheme, a victim liaison officer will inform them when the offender is going to be released and help them to request licence conditions that will apply upon the offender’s release, such as prohibitions on contacting the victim or entering an exclusion zone.
In conclusion, I hope I have adequately explained the wide-ranging provisions already available to safeguard victims, which we should allow the courts to impose as they see fit, according to the circumstances of a given case. I hope that, on reflection, the noble Baroness agrees and feels able to withdraw the amendment. In saying that, I make it clear, as I often do, that I am happy to talk to her after Committee to explore these matters further.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I am very grateful to the Minister and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. I am very grateful for his explanation of the system, but my difficulty with his response is that it does not make sure that the victim does not have to be proactive to go back to the court and make a statement, if they are very clear.
I hear what the Minister says about a sentence of more than 12 months, and I may return on Report with a slightly different amendment. This is a particular problem for victims of child sexual abuse of those who are discovered to have abused others and who present other issues. It is not just a one-off case that we are trying to resolve. In the meantime, I withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Fox of Buckley
“Change in gender recorded in relevant police register(1) A condition of the release on licence of perpetrators of criminal conduct of a sexual nature is that criminal justice bodies must take all reasonable steps to identify and record any change of legal gender by such perpetrators at the point at which they are released on licence.(2) Criminal justice bodies must ensure the sexual offences register and police database record accurate name and birth sex information for perpetrators of criminal conduct of a sexual nature at the point at which the perpetrator is released on licence.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I dedicate this speech to Lord Cormack because, the last time I spoke to him, we discussed this very issue. I make no claim that he would agree with me; it is just that, as was his wont, he was very supportive of me tabling this amendment. I acknowledge that he did not agree with me on many things but he was still a great Peer.
Amendment 148E looks at identity changes and recording on registers. On the front page of Scottish newspapers over the weekend was the story of Marc Sherland, the head of the Robert Burns World Federation, who has been unmasked as a convicted sex offender who abused two boys in the past. He exploited a legal loophole that meant that Douglas Hammond, which was his name when he committed earlier offences, could change his name to get the job. Chillingly, his role at the federation allowed him access to children.
Thankfully, instances of sexual offenders changing their name to escape their past are being tackled, not least by the efforts of campaigners for Della’s law, named after six year-old Della Wright, who was raped by a man who had legally changed his name five times. I am glad that the Government have endorsed amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill that will block offenders from, for example, using deed poll to obtain a new identity.
I particularly congratulate the honourable Labour MP Ruth Jones, whose Private Member’s Bill, the Community and Suspended Sentences (Notification of Details) Bill, passed its Second Reading in the other place only on Friday, 23 February. I congratulate the Government on signalling their support for that Bill. It is designed to tackle the hundreds of sex offenders across the UK who slip off the radar because they lawfully change their names and then apply for fresh identity documents, allowing them to escape the authorities and their past and, potentially, to secure jobs working with children.
Now, you might say that, because of the Private Member’s Bill that I just mentioned and the Government’s support for it, which deal with my worries, there is really no need for my amendment. However, we are told that the Bill will mean that all offenders will have to notify their probation officers and others about any name changes, online aliases or changes in contact details when, actually, perhaps not all offenders are covered by this. My amendment probes another loophole that seems to have gone beneath the radar. I hope that the Minister will address this—I do not necessarily mean this evening, but before we get to Report.
The new arrangements that I have discussed are about not allowing sex offenders simply to change their identity to escape their past crimes. Offenders will not simply be able to change their identity on official documents. This is true for everyone, except for when a little-known exemption applies. It relates to a sensitive applications clause that applies to those who have changed their identity not simply via deed poll but via transitioning gender. This sensitivity clause can be utilised by convicted male sex offenders who change gender after committing a crime, once they are incarcerated.
I discovered this loophole from a bizarre tale that ended up being rather personal to me. Ceri-Lee Galvin is now a delightful 25 year-old mum who is training to be a paramedic, but she had a traumatic, hellish childhood. From the age of eight, she was sexually abused and raped by her own father, Clive Bundy. This horrendous ordeal went on for eight years until, eventually, in 2016, Bundy was arrested and sent to prison for 15 years. Having served only half of his sentence, Bundy was released on licence less than a year ago.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of this seemingly early release—I think it was unseemly that Bundy was released so early—one would think, after his release had been agreed, that at least Clive Bundy would be in clear sight of the relevant criminal justice agencies for protection and safeguarding. But there is a catch. Two years prior to Clive Bundy’s release, he declared himself a woman and changed his name to—wait for it—Claire Fox. For those of you who know me only as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, my name is Claire Fox, so I noticed when I heard this story.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, started her speech by talking about sex offenders changing their names frequently, and there is no doubt that this happens. I will come on to explain why I think that there is help in that. However, her amendment seems to be intending to strengthen identification of individuals on licence who have a different gender assignment from that given at birth. It implies a perceived need to know that person’s birth gender, legal gender and legal identity, and that they are relevant to the prevention of a sex crime. This is, as I think the noble Baroness is aware, highly contentious and a sensitive topic, with implications for the equality, dignity and fair treatment of transgender people.
His Majesty’s Prison Service estimates that there are approximately 2.9 transgender prisoners per 1,000 in custody. There were 281 prisoners living or presenting in a gender identity different from their birth sex as of 31 March last year. At the same time, the number of prisoners with a gender recognition certificate was only 13. HMPPS already has robust arrangements in place for identifying individuals who have undergone gender change at the point of entry to custody. That is because there are already rules inside prisons for making sure that there are no risks to the prison population—or indeed to those who have changed their gender, who sometimes are attacked as well.
Nevertheless, even if an individual somehow managed to slip through the net, establishing it would require staff checking the legal gender of every person convicted of a sex event who was released from prison—effectively trying to prove that they do not have a GRC by asking the gender recognition panel. Proposed new subsection 2 of the noble Baroness’s amendment is about the database recording absolutely everybody who has committed a sexual offence in their gender at birth. Data published on 31 December last year shows there were 14,152 people serving a sentence in prison for a sex offence. I wonder whether the Minister cares to hazard a guess at how much time would be spent if HMPPS and the GRC trawled through that lot. HMPPS is required to accurately record a person’s legal gender upon entry to custody, and the policy states that, where legal gender has not been confirmed, efforts to establish legal gender must be recorded separately when different—so both are still recorded.
Furthermore, I remember that during the course of the then Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill in 2021, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, on behalf of the Government, said:
“There are no other instances across government where there is a mandatory requirement to record both a person’s sex as registered at birth as well as their acquired gender, if that is applicable. The Office for Statistics Regulation is clear that it is for each department to decide when and how it collects data, including data on both sex and gender.
We have already stated that we do not plan to require biological sex to be recorded across the criminal justice system in our response to a recent petition calling for the biological sex of violent and sexual offenders to be so recorded”.—[Official Report, 22/11/21; col. 724.]
Given that, and given the protections that the Prison Service must follow through with every transgender prisoner, I wonder if there is actually a real reason for the need for this amendment. I appreciate the tale that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, gave us from the individual, but I am not sure that what she requires in this amendment would actually help the victim in this case.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I echo the worry of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, about this, partly exactly because it may not solve the victim’s problem that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, outlined in proposing this amendment. We have also talked a lot about the unevenness of the criminal justice system’s data collection and everything else; I wonder how on earth it would do this, to solve what is probably a very small problem—but a challenge, absolutely—and whether there may be another way of resolving it. I look forward to the Minister’s remarks.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for explaining the background to her amendment. It would require by law that the criminal justice agencies—the police, prisons and probation—identify and record any change of gender identity by a sex offender as a condition of their release on licence. It would also require the police to record the offender’s name and birth sex as a condition of their release on licence.
It may help if I outline the measures we already have in place, which I think address the spirit of this amendment. Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 requires sex offenders who have been convicted of an offence in Schedule 3 to that Act to notify the police of their personal details annually and whenever they change. Those details include information such as names, including aliases, and addresses. They also include details of activity such as foreign travel and residence in a household with children.
Sex offenders subject to the notification requirements in Part 2 of the 2003 Act are managed under the Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements. MAPPA is a statutory arrangement, through which the responsible authority—the police, prisons and probation—work together and with other agencies to discharge a statutory duty to co-operate, to assess and manage the risk posed by registered sex offenders and others living in the community.
In February 2023, the Ministry of Justice and His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service created a presumption that all transgender female prisoners, whether they have a gender recognition certificate or not, would not be held in the general women’s prison estate. The Prison Service is able to verify, with the gender recognition panel, whether an offender has a gender recognition certificate. Any difference between an offender’s birth sex and assumed gender will therefore be recorded and made known to the probation and police services through their co-operation under MAPPA.
The MAPPA responsible authorities use the VISOR database to share information about registered sex offenders. VISOR enables the recording of sex, gender identity and gender presentation. An offender’s legal sex will be changed on VISOR only if they have provided a GRC to the police, probation or prison service. However, MAPPA agencies are still able to have regard to an offender’s change of gender where it is necessary to manage their risk, or prevent or detect crime.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for the responses I have received. I will take what the Minister has said, and look at it myself, and maybe we can both clarify whether we have missed anything. I do not want to delay us too long now. I will say to the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Brinton, that if the wording of this amendment will not correctly pick up the problem I have identified, I would be happy to take their advice on how to improve it.
I think that a genuine loophole does exist, however. I was a bit concerned when the response seemed to be to suggest that there would be a lot of work involved in solving a small problem. I have listened to such passionate speeches from the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Thornton, about threats to women and girls, from stalking in particular, and about the importance of child protection and so on; I would have thought that they would have grabbed any opportunity to close down a loophole on safeguarding. I hope they will work with me.
The loophole in general of sex offenders changing identity has been identified by the Labour MP and backed by the Government. I have simply drawn attention to a loophole within that loophole that was being closed. I have used particularly the examples of DBS checks. They are very important; I have always thought that the Government went slightly over the top with DBS checks for people volunteering with the Brownies or what have you in the past but, if you are going to have them, you need to be able to rely on them. When the Minister gave his assurances, I did not feel they would capture the DBS point. That is what I have tried to do in the amendment. It will be improved; I will be back on Report. In the meantime, I withdraw the amendment—and I am glad that people appreciated the spirit of it.
Anaesthesia Associates and Physician Associates Order 2024
(9 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Markham
That the draft Order laid before the House on 13 December 2023 be approved.
Relevant document: 10th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con)
My Lords, I note that the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Brinton, have laid regret amendments and that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has laid a fatal amendment relating to this order concerning professional titles, supervision requirements and the General Medical Council as the regulator, along with constitutional concerns about how parliamentary oversight of regulatory bodies will be maintained in the future. These are important points that I will turn to shortly. I thank the noble Lords who took the time to engage with me on this order at a briefing session last week, when we had a very helpful discussion on the key issues.
Anaesthesia associates and physician associates are already a valued and integral part of the multidisciplinary healthcare team. We acknowledge that there have been some concerns around the AA and PA roles, but regulating these professions will help to increase the contribution that they can make to the UK healthcare sector while improving patient safety and professional accountability. As well as bringing AAs and PAs into regulation by the General Medical Council, this order paves the way for full-scale reform of the regulatory frameworks for all the healthcare professional regulators. This is a rare and significant opportunity to deliver a large-scale programme of reform that will implement improvements to patient and public safety, the system of professional regulation and the health and care workforce.
This order will give the GMC powers to register AAs and PAs it assesses to be appropriately qualified and competent; to set standards of practice, education and training and requirements for continual professional development and conduct for AAs and PAs; to approve AA and PA education and training programmes; and to operate fitness to practise procedures to investigate concerns and, if necessary, prevent or restrict an associate practising. The legislation provides a high-level framework for the GMC to regulate AAs and PAs and, importantly, gives the GMC autonomy to set out the details of its regulatory procedures in rules.
The GMC has committed to developing rules and processes for regulating AAs and PAs that will be subject to public consultation to enable regulation to begin by the end of this year. Once regulation begins, in keeping with the approach taken to bring other healthcare roles, such as dental nurses and dental technicians, into regulation, there will be a two-year transition period that will enable individuals to continue to work and use their relevant professional title while they go through the process of registering with the GMC. After the transition period, it will be a criminal offence to practise as an AA or PA without being registered with the GMC.
I now turn to the fatal amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and specifically to the concern that this order represents a significant constitutional change without the required parliamentary oversight. I thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its comments on this topic.
I highlight that the delegated arrangements that give Parliament broad powers to make changes to the regulatory landscape via secondary legislation have been operating effectively for more than two decades. It is important to note that prior to the Health Act 1999 there had been growing public, parliamentary and professional concerns about the healthcare professional regulators and the delivery of public and patient protection. Important reforms had been delayed by the need for primary legislation to overhaul a number of Acts dating back to the middle of the 19th century. The delegated powers afforded by Section 60 of the 1999 Act allowed a start to be made on the large task of modernising and rationalising this legislation. These powers have facilitated some important changes and improvements to healthcare regulation, including bringing nursing associates into regulation and introducing revalidation for doctors.
In using the powers under Section 60 of the Health Act, the Government are required to consult publicly for three months on any draft legislation they intend to lay. In addition to a legislative consultation, in March 2021 the Government undertook a three-month policy consultation that invited views on the aims of this work. These consultations and the extensive engagement conducted throughout the project have been clear that one of the primary aims of the legislation is to bring anaesthesia associates and physician associates into statutory regulation by the GMC.
Following the legislative consultation, the legislation is subject to the affirmative parliamentary procedure. This requires the legislation to be debated in both Houses of Parliament and is why we are here today. This is a necessary and proper procedural requirement allowing for parliamentary consideration and scrutiny of the legislation.
The Government have sought, at every stage of the process, to engage a wide and diverse range of interested parties and to be clear on what this work will achieve. In addition to the helpful discussions I had with noble Lords at last week’s briefing session, it is my sincere hope that this evening’s debate will be a further example of this vital engagement and that fellow Peers will feel reassured.
I turn to the order itself. The principles set out in this order have long been sought by the regulators and were recommended by the Law Commission in 2014. At present, for a majority of healthcare regulators, the requirement for parliamentary approval of changes to their rules means that they are less able to respond quickly to amend their processes to reflect emerging workforce trends or concerns. We are providing the GMC with greater autonomy to set out the details of its regulatory procedures in relation to AAs and PAs in rules it publishes itself. The GMC will still be required to consult on its rules but will not need to secure the approval of Parliament or the Privy Council, giving increased flexibility to rapidly adapt its processes and procedures to changing requirements.
Although the order increases the number of areas that the GMC has autonomy over in respect of its day-to-day functions in relation to AAs and PAs, we recognise that there needs to be a system of checks and balances in place to ensure that the GMC continues to act in accordance with the needs of patients, registrants and the wider healthcare sector. The legislation places a number of duties on the GMC to ensure that the new powers are used reasonably and proportionately. For example, it must discharge its functions under this order in a way that is transparent, accountable, proportionate and consistent.
The GMC will remain accountable for any function, or part of a function, it delegates to another regulator or third party. Although the GMC already has the power to set its own fees for medical practitioners, and the same power is proposed for AAs and PAs, we are also introducing a requirement for the GMC to include in its annual report the evidence it has considered of the likely impact of any changes made to fees.
We are also retaining current accountability mechanisms. For example, the GMC will continue to submit annual reports to the Privy Council and copies will be laid before each House of Parliament, which will enable Peers and MPs to scrutinise the regulator’s activities and raise any issues in the House. There is also the Health and Social Care Select Committee, which can hold the GMC to account. As noble Lords know, it has held hearings with the GMC and other professional regulatory bodies on a number of occasions to oversee their work.
The Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care—the PSA—oversees the 10 health and care professional regulators and is an independent organisation accountable to the UK Parliament. It carries out performance reviews on all the regulators to see whether they have met the standards of good regulation and publishes its findings. It also has an escalation policy that would allow the PSA to escalate serious or intractable concerns to others, particularly the Government and Parliament. Finally, the Privy Council has a power to direct the GMC where it has failed to carry out its statutory functions using its default powers. I hope these points on how oversight and scrutiny of the healthcare regulators will be maintained in future will reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and address the issues that were raised in the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report.
I turn to the role titles, which are referred to in the regret amendments tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Finlay, and the fatal amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. They have been the topic of much debate online, specifically about the use of the word “associate” rather than “assistant”. It is worth noting that AAs and PAs have been practising in the NHS for around 20 years, with the “associate” term being in use since 2019 and 2014 respectively. The titles reflect the fact that, as with nursing associates, they are part of a multidisciplinary team of healthcare professionals from various disciplines working together to deliver co-ordinated patient care.
As set out in National Institute for Health and Care Excellence—NICE—guidelines, all healthcare professionals should introduce themselves and explain their role to the patient regardless of their job title. In addition, in advance of regulation the GMC has published interim standards for AAs and PAs, which make it clear that professionals should always introduce their role to patients and set out their responsibilities in the team.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, also outlined concerns in her regret amendment around the decision for the GMC to take up the regulation of the AA and PA roles. The assessment of the appropriate regulatory body for AA and PA regulation was completed in 2019 following a public consultation. The majority of respondents to that consultation were in favour of the GMC taking on regulation, including the professional bodies representing the roles and the medical royal colleges, including the Royal College of Anaesthetists, the Royal College of General Practitioners and the Royal College of Physicians.
The GMC is the right regulator for these roles. Regulation will give the GMC responsibility and oversight of AAs and PAs, in addition to doctors, allowing it to take a holistic approach to education, training and standards. This will enable a more coherent and co-ordinated approach to regulation and, by making it easier for employers, patients and the public to understand the relationship between the roles of associates and doctors, help to embed them in the workforce.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle
As an amendment to the above Motion, to leave out from “that” to end and to insert “this House declines to approve the draft Anaesthesia Associates and Physician Associates Order 2024 because it represents a significant constitutional change in regulation of healthcare professionals by omitting parliamentary oversight and approval for regulating anaesthesia associates and physician associates; and fails to address concerns within the medical profession about the supervision and titles of the roles.”
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise to move what the Minister has correctly identified as a fatal amendment that the House do not approve this order. This is on two primary grounds: the lack of democratic oversight and the concerns of the medical profession.
Before I begin, I want to make it clear that I am not opposed to the existence of physician associates or assistants, or their anaesthetist colleagues. I am not opposed to their regulation—indeed, I am keen to see them regulated—and I respect the efforts of current and future PAs and AAs who complete their studies and have the student debt to prove it.
I also want to be clear that, unless I get an indication from the House that it wishes me to do so, it is not my intention to put this amendment to the vote. My intention in tabling it was to ensure that the many hundreds of voices of concern that have reached me personally and the more than 21,000 doctors and patients who wrote to their MPs opposing this order are heard, and that the Government consider—seriously, I hope—whether they should go forward to regulate PAs and AAs in this manner, with this order.
I will first address the second part of my fatal amendment, about the views of doctors and patients. Sir Robert Peel invented the concept of policing by consent. I want to adapt that for these circumstances by saying that we must have regulation by consent. I am sure that all noble Lords engaged tonight are aware that the British Medical Association, the Doctors’ Association UK and the EveryDoctor group are opposed to this statutory instrument, for reasons on which I am sure we will hear much more from the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Brinton, with their regret amendments.
One of the very serious concerns is about clarity for patients and the confusion introduced by the title “associate”. On that I turn to a report from the BBC, an interview with Marion Chesterton, the mother of Emily, who tragically died after being seen twice by a PA and misdiagnosed. Marion said that her daughter
“didn’t know she hadn’t seen a doctor”.
Marion added—and this is something that I think people should focus on:
“Physician associate sounds grander than a GP”.
I pick up a point made by the Minister about PAs and AAs having been around for 20 years, an often-cited statistic. If we look back to 2014 and 2015, there were fewer than 50 PA and AA graduates. There were literally handfuls in the system. It is only when you get to 2018 that you start to see the figures leaping up to 400 graduates, and the Government’s aim is to head towards the figures that the Minister cited. So we may not have seen much confusion, but there were few people to be confused about within the system. This is a situation that is arising now, and that demands a reconsideration.
However, I will largely leave the arguments about titles, and the General Medical Council as regulator, to the regret amendments. What I want to focus on is the word “consent” and the concerns of doctors and patients in the context of the state of our medical system.
We debate as junior doctors are in the middle of their 10th strike action. We debate as one in seven British-trained doctors is working overseas. We debate after a BMA poll found last year that around 40% of junior doctors plan to leave the NHS as soon as they can find another job.
We need to make changes to the system. That is something on which the Minister and I, and I think pretty well everyone, are agreed, but we can make changes to the system only with the consent of all those involved. There is a moral argument for that, but also a very powerful practical argument. The Government need to work co-operatively and sensitively, and to listen to our medical professionals rather than ride roughshod over their serious concerns—concerns that are shared by many patients and that have filled my social media feed in recent days.
The first part of my amendment is about democracy. The order got virtually no scrutiny or consideration in the other place. We, of course, have no opportunity to amend it to tackle the issues that the noble Baronesses will focus on in their regret amendments. We have only the extraordinarily rarely used option of rejecting it. I have not had any indication from the Labour Party that it would support that, and I assume that its silence on the Order Paper means that it supports the Government’s path, but I ask the Labour Front Bench to consider whether we have to take this back to the drawing board. That is a question I put to it directly.
The Minister raised the report of our hard-working and, I fear, underappreciated Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which makes it very clear that this is not just about PAs and AAs but is meant to be the model for broad and widespread changes to medical regulation in the future. The committee’s report says that this is
“the first use of powers inserted into the parent Act by the Health and Care Act 2022 to give the GMC direct powers to make and amend standards and procedures for these associates”,
while, as it says in bold,
“removing the process from Parliamentary oversight”.
It is interesting that the Committee says:
“The Explanatory Memorandum should have been more explicit on this point and on what safeguards remain”.
In testimony, under questioning from the committee of your Lordships’ House, the department confirmed that
“changes in registration processes etc will no longer be laid before Parliament in any form, they will just be posted on the GMC’s website … however members of either House can respond to consultations if they wish”.
I am glad about that.
This has really not been made clear through the process, as the committee highlights. I think it is worth focusing on the fact that had it not been for the amendments from the noble Baronesses and me we would not even be doing this in the main Chamber. We would be in the secondary Chamber, getting, as we all well know, very little attention at all.
I particularly want to highlight, in case noble Lords did not receive it, the briefing from the Professional Standards Authority, which has responsibility for overseeing the GMC’s activities. It said, in what I think one would describe in bureaucratic terms as a carefully worded briefing, that we
“need to keep under review as the reforms are rolled out the accountability framework proposed to balance the increased autonomy for regulators with greater accountability”.
I wish to make a final point to address the fear and concerns of many patient groups and communities—which the Minister alluded to—that their communities and their families will lose ready or perhaps any access to doctors and be relegated to a second tier of NHS services, with PAs with two years of medical training versus GPs with 10. In the letter following up the very useful briefing that he arranged last week—and I think him very much for that and for the letter—the Minister makes reference, as he did in his speech, to the Government’s aim of doubling the number of medical places in England to 15,000 by 2031-32.
The Minister gave, I believe, the same figures as were reported in the Observer on Sunday. These were in a leaked letter from the Health Minister and the Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education to the independent regulator, the Office for Students. The figures in that letter have been interpreted as significant back-pedalling on the Government’s final aim and total. I ask the Minister whether he remains confident and can guarantee to the House that we are on target to achieve that final figure, given that we do not seem to be taking very strong steps in that direction.
The way those figures came out can only amplify the fears of many communities that those who can pay can go private, as increasing numbers of Britons feel they are forced to do. Patients at the centre of well-serviced areas where doctors can supplement their NHS pay with private work will keep access to a service like that now available, while other areas—the kinds of areas that are often talked about as being in need of levelling up—will get a second-class service.
We have to think about the context of this. Our NHS is battered by privatisation, with nearly 10% of services, including more than half of under-18 inpatient psychiatric services, now provided by for-profit providers. We have seen the disaster of PFI schemes, now set to cost £80 billion for the original £13 billion investment—the equivalent of £1,200 for everyone in the UK. We have seen this jewel in the British crown worn away by austerity—a decade in which investment in infrastructure and new technology collapsed and the pay of junior doctors and midwives in particular plummeted in real terms.
Please let us not deliver another blow. Please withdraw this order either tonight or afterwards. Take the path of consensus. Take the path of democratic oversight. Bring this forward as legislation that can be debated, amended and properly scrutinised. Please listen to the fear of communities. I ask everyone in this debate but particularly the Labour Front Bench to consider that approach and the wisdom of it. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Young of Cookham) (Con)
I should inform the House that if this amendment is agreed to, I will be unable to call the amendments in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay of Llandaff and Lady Brinton, by reason of pre-emption.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I declare that I am a doctor registered with the General Medical Council, a member of the BMA and a fellow of the Royal College of General Practitioners and the Royal College of Physicians.
We have physician associates and anaesthesia associates seeing patients, examining them and advising them, who are as yet unregulated. All responsibility for their behaviour rests with the doctor who is their supervisor from whom they have delegated responsibility. The professional scope of practice for these associates can vary widely across the country. It is determined at a local level and patients have no idea about the variation.
There is a golden thread in clinical care that the most experienced person delegates down. They delegate down tasks that they know the relevant team member has the skills to undertake. A key skill in medicine, gained with extensive experience, is the integration of all the relevant information, evaluation of risk and prioritisation. Currently a problem in the whole of the NHS is that we expect staff to refer upwards and the boundaries are unclear.
A case of non-accidental injury in a child has been brought to my notice where the expert evidence was provided by a physician associate whose relevant experience is unclear at best. This blurring is misleading to non-medical professionals, including the police, judiciary and legal professionals. Supervision must be mandatory and stipulated in the GMC’s Good Medical Practice.
The junior doctors’ discontent, which we have heard about already from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, is boiling over. After training, medical graduates emerge with huge student debts to work a 40-hour week for just over £32,300, only to find that after a two-year postgraduate programme a physician associate typically earns between £3,000 and £11,000 more, for only 37.5 hours a week. All this has inflamed tensions—although I would say that direct verbal attacks on physician associates and anaesthesia associates, who have trained in good faith and with good intent, are not appropriate and I would not condone them.
Doctors are the only healthcare professionals who must undergo extensive, nationally stipulated postgraduate training before being appointed to a permanent senior role. Without long-term job security, these juniors rotate through departments, sometimes commuting many miles. They find that they do not belong and do not feel part of the team or valued, while patients miss out on continuity of care.
Very importantly, patients seen by a physician associate sometimes think that they have seen a doctor. The term “physician associate” gets muddled with the specialty and associate specialist doctor, who often has years of experience. Can the Minister clarify whether the term “physician associate”, which is so misleading, will become a protected title after this order passes? How can the name then be changed to revert to the more accurate “physicians’ assistant”? Currently, no medical titles are protected: “doctor” is not and grades up to and including consultant are not, which is another source of confusion. How is that going to be cleared up?
The cost-efficacy basis for these posts has been questioned in a recent paper, showing how the cost of one consultant anaesthetist supervising two operating theatres with an anaesthesia associate in each—that is, three staff—is more expensive than having two consultants doing one list each. The risk is higher if a problem arises in both theatres, especially in an anaesthetic emergency, when deterioration and brain damage can happen in minutes.
This crisis has been 20 years coming because we failed to expand medical school places or to register these new healthcare roles and define their scope of practice. What is the solution?
I fear this order will not solve all the problems. Yes, physician associates and anaesthesia associates must be regulated. It seems an outrage that people with such responsibility have been around for 20 years, unregulated, and a decade after that was recommended. The General Medical Council, in taking responsibility for regulation, must keep the register completely and clearly separate from that of medically qualified doctors. Can the Minister confirm that this clarity will be a legal requirement?
I tabled my regret amendment because it must be clearly on the record that the concerns exist, that some current regulation around the Medical Act needs updating urgently and that the GMC must be held accountable to Parliament, as has been explained by the Minister. Regulation is essential, but it is not the end of the issue; it is only the beginning.
The GMC must tackle the inappropriate way that some courses are advertised, which state that they train PAs
“to work as a safe and competent medically trained healthcare professional”
or to
“be a medically trained, generalist healthcare professional”
—which sounds awfully like a GP to me. Some courses describe working under a senior physician, but others say nothing about supervision. The anaesthesia associate courses differ slightly. They make it clear that, at present in the UK, only doctors who have specialist training in anaesthesia can administer anaesthetics and that the anaesthesia associate works as part of the anaesthetic team.
Next, the scope of practice must be clearly defined and agreed at national level, so that any employer is aware of what the associates should be doing and how the senior doctors must supervise them on site. Employers must also ensure that all patients know the qualification level of the person seeing them. Seven-day services are essential for patients.
Medical postgraduate training itself is in crisis. The royal medical colleges, the Academy of Royal Medical Colleges and the GMC must get together urgently to address postgraduate training. Perhaps it could be shortened, with post consultant-level fellowships to develop highly specialised skills and bring innovation to healthcare. Lifelong learning is essential; it is the essence of growing a good medical workforce in the long term. Medical schools, as they welcome the increased numbers, must look at how those who might wish to convert to a medical degree can be credited with their prior learning and experience, and tackle regulatory blocks in funding and timing.
Importantly, the title must be reviewed. The terms “physician assistant” and “anaesthesia assistant”, in use until 2014, clearly denoted the role as having delegated responsibilities from a supervisor. If “physician associate” and “anaesthesia associate” are to be protected terms, then we need a designation of medicine that clearly identifies a medical degree—similar to the American MD designation, for example. Patients must know who has seen them.
To summarise: patients must know the level of training of the person whom they have seen. Physician associates and anaesthesia associates must be regulated with appraisal and ongoing learning, including revalidation. The scope of practice of this new workstream must be defined to ensure that they have clear boundaries and supervision must be defined as being closely supervised on site to ensure patient safety. People must not be misled into believing that they are completely independent practitioners.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to follow both the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and I have been crossing out large chunks of what I was going to say, which I hope will be helpful to Members of your Lordships’ House.
As both of the other noble Lords have, I want to start by saying that this is not an attempt to discredit the many PAs and AAs who do an extremely good job. We need to understand that, and we need to understand that our health system must change and modernise. The issue is what is happening in our NHS and how the role of PAs and AAs is impacting not just on patients—I will come to the detail of that in a minute—but on the working of supervising doctors and junior doctors. All of those groups are in crisis, and this just seems to be adding further problems.
I echo the points made by, I think, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, about the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which the Minister referred to in his introduction. In the committee’s report to us, it says three times that the Explanatory Memorandum assumed understanding and that it was not good enough. I ask the Minister if he will work with his officials to ensure that any more Explanatory Memorandums that come forward, not just on this issue but on others, are very clear and do not assume prior knowledge.
All of us have said that PAs and AAs—I am not going to keep saying physician associate and anaesthesia associate because it takes too much time—are not a replacement for doctors, though not one of us believes that that is the case. I am going to start with the title. The Royal College of Physicians and the Faculty of Physician Associates, which sits within the RCP, has guidance on the associate title and introduction guidance for PAs, supervisors, employers and organisations. What it says is in complete contradiction to what is happening on the ground:
“It is our view that, when a PA introduces themselves to a patient or staff member, they must make it clear at the start of the interaction that they are a physician associate, as well as explain the use of the term ‘PA’ … PAs must correct patients and staff if they refer to them as a … doctor, nurse or other professionally protected role title. This includes verbal, written and other forms of communication”.
Like other noble Lords, I have been inundated with letters from doctors and patients saying that they have been misled—not in the deliberate sense, but that PAs have not been correcting the record when someone has called them a doctor. The BMA, in its very helpful briefing, said that:
“To patients, PAs and AAs and doctors may look the same and appear to be doing a similar job”.
The problem, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said, is that the title is confusing. “Physician associate” perhaps implies that they have the same level of expertise as doctors. Unfortunately, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said, this has already led to a tragedy. Emily Chesterton died, aged 30, after two appointments with a PA who she believed was a GP, where mistakes were made.
A further difficulty, particularly in GP practices, is that GPs are beginning to worry that they are going to spend their entire time supervising PAs, as well as seeing patients with chronic diseases, and will not see ordinary people at all. Trainee GPs are worried about how they are going to be supervised. How is the Minister going to ensure that the issues of supervising and training, which are very serious, will be dealt with after the passage of this SI—because I do not think any of us are planning to call a vote today?
We have heard that, across acute trusts and GP surgeries, doctors have reported 70 instances of avoidable patient harm and near misses caused by PAs. That includes fatalities, missed diagnoses resulting in terminal diseases, missed DVTs, sepsis, heart attacks and haemorrhages. Missed cancer diagnoses in primary care has therefore emerged as a significant issue. In England, 74 acute trusts have replaced doctors with PAs on the doctors’ rota. Even if those PAs are supervised, that means that doctors who should be seeing patients are supervising more and more people. It is not a zero-sum game. One trust—I think it was Leeds, from memory—had a paper on how much more beneficial PAs were on the rota because they were much cheaper than doctors.
Doctors at 24 trusts reported witnessing PAs illegally prescribing medications, including controlled drugs. That is a particular worry because they are not permitted, under their current training and qualifications, to prescribe any drugs. That must be done by the doctor. The PA can recommend to the doctor what they think, but it should be signed off by a doctor. In addition, 42 acute trusts in England have witnessed PAs introducing themselves as doctor or failing to correct errors.
We have heard about a number of issues. I conclude by saying that, earlier on today, on the Victims and Prisoners Bill, we were talking about the duty of candour, which the NHS introduced nearly a decade ago. One issue related to this is that every regulated member of staff must report whenever they believe that something has happened that either possibly will cause damage or has caused damage. One of the good things about regulation for PAs and AAs is that they will come under the duty of candour. However, in all the cases that we have been told about where things have gone wrong, there is no evidence that there were reports to the CQC by the supervising doctors about things going wrong. Therefore, yet again I say to the Minister that my real concern is about current practice inside our extremely pressed and busy NHS, to make it safe. Just providing regulation for PAs and AAs will not in itself do that. I hope that he can help your Lordships’ House to understand.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I was a member of the GMC until the end of January, so at the council meetings I was involved in a number of discussions about the responsibilities of the GMC in the lead-up to this order being laid. Unsurprisingly, I strongly support it.
I listened to the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett, Lady Brinton and Lady Finlay, and clearly they raised issues that the Minister will need to respond to. However, the combination of statutory regulation by the GMC and a proper governance framework within each employment body seems the most appropriate course for us to take. Therefore, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that passing the order is the best way to secure the safety of patients, which is why I hope the House will give it resounding support tonight.
My second point comes back to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on democratic accountability and legitimacy. The Minister mentioned that a combination of the Health Act 1999 and the Health and Care Act 2022 has brought this order before us. Since I took the 1999 Act through this House, I feel some responsibility to stand up for what it essentially aims to do. The whole problem of regulation of the professions in the health service is that it has never had the priority it deserves from the Government. The Law Commission reported in 2014, and here we are 10 years later, just about getting round to the first tranche of orders that we need to modernise the regulation of our health professions.
If you rely on primary legislation to make this kind of change, nothing will ever change. It is slow enough with secondary legislation, but with primary legislation it becomes almost impossible to get sensible change made. All the regulatory bodies are utterly frustrated that they have very old-fashioned processes and procedures, because they do not have the discretion needed to make changes that would be to both the public’s and the professions’ benefit. Therefore, I am glad we have this order and I hope we can follow it through.
My third point is about the noble Baronesses saying that they do not like the campaign of what is essentially vilification that has been going on over the last few months against the physician and anaesthetist associates. I wish they had paid a little more tribute to the members of those professions and the fantastic work they do. I have met physician and anaesthetist associates, and they are going through a torrid experience. They have been subjected to a nasty campaign and, even in their own employing body, there have been reports of bullying at work and they have been subjected to rude and antagonistic comments from colleagues.
What is the context in which we are to judge this litany of mistakes that they have made? They seem to be isolated examples and, to my knowledge, there is no comparative data on errors by consultants, principal GPs or postgraduate medical trainees. I would not like to see a list of all their mistakes. What would happen if we asked people to report mistakes made by F1 medics each August? The BMA is playing with fire in the campaign it has adopted of putting these poor professionals, who are doing their best, in this frame. I protest about this and the general lack of medical leadership from the profession when it should have been defending the associates. The way it has run away from this issue has been a disgrace. It will find that its lack of leadership and strength will bite it in future. I have not been impressed by the way in which employing authorities have dealt with this either; they have left individual AAs and PAs to withstand the pressure and bullying without the support they need.
The Minister needs to reflect on some of the points raised. First, in addition to declaring his confidence in physician and anaesthesia associates, he needs to set out a long-term plan for their contribution to the NHS, ensuring that the voices of those professions are heard. The Government’s ambitions on the numbers of AAs and PAs seem very modest. Why? Does he think we need to revisit that? Secondly, he needs to make it clear to NHS England and to employing authorities that bullying and intimidation of any healthcare professional in their employment must not be tolerated.
Thirdly, in response to the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Finlay, the Minister needs to ensure that each employing body adopts an appropriate local governance framework to deal with some of the issues that they have legitimately raised. Fourthly, we need research on the clinical outcomes of physician and anaesthesia associates and, frankly, comparative data with other health professionals. That is the only way to deal with the toxicity of these lists of mistakes that have been circulated. Finally—here I agree with the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Brinton—there clearly needs to be a plan of communication to the public to explain the role of the associates and the contribution they can make in future.
The order is important. Some legitimate issues have been raised, but equally we need to defend the associates, uphold the work they do and give them confidence about the future.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a NED of the NHS Executive. I support this order, for many of the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has just explained, but stress that I am extremely unhappy about the division between the reports from various medics and the associates that are planned. One of the big problems is that we do not value junior doctors enough. The phrase we use is inappropriate. I have been married for 43 years to a doctor who has been called a house officer, a senior house officer, a registrar and a senior registrar—those things would now be referred to as a junior doctor. I want to put that on record.
I also support what the two noble Baronesses have said, which is that we need a distinguishing factor for a qualified doctor, be that “MD” or whatever else is selected by the medical profession. I am a nurse, and I am proud of being a nurse. We have nursing associates, but I know that I am a registered nurse and I know that I have a doctorate, but I would never refer to myself as a doctor in the clinical area. These issues are difficult to deal with because we need to value people’s different experience and training.
I was appointed by a previous Secretary of State to chair the grandfathering of the paramedics on to the new register, when it came into being, and look at the success that that has been.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, I regret to say that I totally disagree with my noble friend speaking from the Front Bench, a person for whom I have the greatest respect, both as a colleague and as a previous Minister of Health in an earlier Government. He is not medically qualified; he is not a doctor who has been in practice. I speak simply as a fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh and—it seems a bit immodest to say this—I was the triennial gold medal holder at the Royal College of Surgeons in London for innovative research. I never know quite how I got that award, but I did, and it hangs in my lavatory—I probably should not say that either.
There is a very serious issue here: anaesthesia. I do not want to frighten anybody, but I am not exaggerating when I say that there is no point at which a doctor has a patient closer to death than when the patient is anaesthetised under a general anaesthetic. It is then that things can happen which are completely unexpected, and there are all sorts of ways that the qualifications of that anaesthetist are incredibly important. Doing anaesthesiology is, most of the time, deadly dull; nothing goes wrong, you sit there quietly while the surgeon carries on acting out his wonderful role leading the operating theatre and controlling everything. The person who is really at risk is the person who is under anaesthesia, and that is something we should never forget; it is really important.
We do not even understand fully how anaesthetics work. It is true to say that even though we use gas and other agents, how they work exactly on the brain is not certain and we are still learning, years after the first anaesthetics in Victorian times. We have to recognise that this is quite a strange area of medicine, and that is why I am making this speech.
I want to tell a story about an anaesthetist friend of mine with whom I worked. Before I was doing regular in vitro fertilisation, I did a huge amount of reproductive surgery—surgery in the pelvis and telescope examinations, including laparoscopy. He and I worked as a team regularly on a very large number of patients, with complete success. On one occasion, I had a young woman, who was only 19, as my patient. She had severe abdominal pain, and I wondered, for somebody that age to have that pain, whether she had some unusual condition, and I thought she should have a laparoscopy.
My anaesthetist, as he always did, went to see the patient before the surgery and examined her to make certain she was well. He took her into the anaesthetic room and started with the anaesthesia, while I was waiting in the operating theatre. Then, quite suddenly, my anaesthetist friend wheeled the patient in on a trolley and said to me, “Robert, I think we have a spot of trouble here”. That was all he said, but there was something in his tone of voice and I thought, “This is really a weird thing for him to say”. The patient was unconscious and not intubated, and she remained unconscious. Her heart went and she had, in effect, died. We got her on to the operating table and I, as the surgeon, had a decision to make: what do I do? Do I, as the person leading the team, interfere, or do I leave it to my anaesthetist, in whom I had complete trust? I asked him whether he thought I needed to do heart massage or various other things. He said, “No, hang on for a bit”.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I am very glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Winston, because he directs us to the central issue, of how we seek to ensure the safety of patients in all circumstances. What he was describing illustrates the essence of the relationship of a physician associate—or, for that matter, an anaesthesia associate—to the supervising doctor. That is a central issue as well. In the circumstances that we were just hearing about, the responsibility of the doctor or the consultant in charge of the patient is the central responsibility. It would be wrong to think that the devolution of tasks to an associate removes the responsibility of the doctor in charge of that patient.
I hope we agree that proceeding with the order is necessary because we want to bring physician associates and anaesthesia associates within the scope of regulation. This process has been very useful, not least because my noble friend and his colleagues have given us considerable time and energy in discussing the order and how it is to be implemented.
I confess to the House that when I was Secretary of State back in 2010 to 2012, and as the noble Lord, Lord Markham, made clear, there were relatively few physician associates. I remember them as physician assistants. I remember the desire on the part of physicians to have additional resources available to support them in that role. It was never to replace doctors; it was always to enable physicians to focus on where their responsibilities lie. That is still the purpose and the point of physician associates. I am less familiar with anaesthesia associates, and in those days, I do not remember understanding that they were there in the form in which we now have a number.
None of this debate is about trying to criticise physician associates, anaesthesia associates or the profession as a whole. We are setting out to make sure that as they are brought into regulation, that regulation works most effectively. From my point of view, the simple fact of being brought under the regulation of the General Medical Council was not a problem, because the General Medical Council was clearly addressing all the issues very efficiently and professionally. However, because the GMC regulates doctors, I confess that there is a worry about the idea of another profession being regulated by it. If one says, “I am GMC registered”, what do people assume by that phrase? They assume that one is a doctor. The distinction that needs to be made between the medical register, the specialist registers and the register that is to be established for physician associates and anaesthesia associates is critical.
As for myself, I am perfectly clear in my mind and would have started out by assuming that PAs and AAs would be regulated by the Health and Care Professions Council. That clearly was not the route that was chosen. In my view, it is too late to revisit that. However, the distinction in the registers under the GMC must be very clear.
Equally, the scope of practice and what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, said about the governance of the trusts and the bodies responsible needs to be absolutely clear. In particular, the scope of practice is the essence of how we can ensure the safety of patients, so that the whole multidisciplinary team understands what their respective roles are. I am not sure that there is any merit in trying to understand which professions are responsible for which mistakes. Let us look at outcomes. The outcomes are the product of the multidisciplinary team and a group of professionals working together—they are not the results of individual professionals. Let us put that slightly to one side.
The only other thing that I feel very strongly about—which has been referred to in a number of respects—is that patients and the public need to understand who the professionals responsible for them or providing the service to them are. Let us be clear: we start from a point where I suspect that most patients in most circumstances where they are looked after by PAs or AAs do not know who they are and how they fit into the professional scene. It is not that we are looking to ensure that everybody needs to be educated about that—that is probably too hard a task—but I urge my noble friend the Minister, the regulators and the professionals involved to recognise that PAs or AAs do themselves and patients the greatest service by being absolutely clear at any moment—including proactively—that they are not the doctor in charge of that patient but that they are providing care under the supervision of the doctor for the given purpose. If anybody appears to be in any confusion whatever, it is important that that confusion is remedied. For patients, understanding who is doing what to them and why is an essential part of “no decision about me without me”.
While the order enables the regulation to proceed, I hope that our debates on it are not “fire and forget”. This is about a process that we should be looking at very carefully to understand whether the problems that we have referred to, and the difficulties and worries that we entertain while the order goes through, are dealt with in the subsequent regulation.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interest as the chair of the General Dental Council. It is not for me to comment extensively on matters affecting a fellow healthcare professional regulator, but I will say one thing directly in response to what the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said about the substance of the order. Unlike the GMC, the GDC is responsible for all dental professionals, including dentists, dental nurses, dental technicians and so on in the four nations of the UK. I believe that it is helpful to the public to be assured that all the professionals they encounter when they enter a dental surgery will be registered as professionals by the same regulator and that they will have equal levels of assurance about the training and standards they can expect—and within a framework that indicates what the limits are of each of their professional responsibilities, what can and cannot be done, and how they are appropriately supervised.
My reason for intervening, however, is separate. The DHSC has made it clear that this order is the first step in the reform of the way that all the healthcare professionals are to be regulated. Indeed, it told the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee that the intent is to provide all regulators with “broadly equivalent powers”. While the GDC is some way down the queue—it is after the NMC, the Health and Care Professions Council and so on; although it is still helpful to get in early—this is potentially a template that will apply to all the regulated professions.
I make it clear that regulatory reform is welcome and long overdue. The GDC’s framework was set out in the Dentists Act 1984—that legislation is 40 years old, with only limited updating since then; somehow, the GMC is slightly more prominent and gets more updating than some of the other professions. The Government first consulted about the scope of reform in 2017, following Law Commission recommendations three years earlier. It has taken a decade to get even to this stage, and we are still a very long way off from orders being prepared to cover the dental professions. By the time the orders for all the other professionals are agreed, the model in today’s order may be outdated.
The GDC welcomes the intention to give the regulatory bodies more authority to update their procedures and processes without recourse to Privy Council approval and the delays inherent in waiting for the DHSC to draft regulations and lay them before Parliament. Such updating would of course be subject to full consultation in each case by the regulators concerned and would be only in the framework laid out in orders such as the one we are debating. We need such reforms to enable regulators to operate as effectively as possible to protect the public better in the light of changes in the way the professions deliver their services.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, I begin with a slight disagreement with the noble Lord, Lord Harris. I take his point about how dental professionals, not just dentists, are regulated by the GDC, but I agree with the comment from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, about the impression it would give if other professions apart from doctors were regulated by the General Medical Council. Hitherto, the GMC has regulated only doctors, so it would have to be clear in the register how these people were differentiated. I am afraid that the solution of having a prefix on a register would not mean anything to patients.
In the past, if you walked around a hospital, it was easy to know who was a doctor, as they mostly wore white coats; who were the nurses, because they wore different uniforms, including the matron’s uniform, which was a different colour; and who was a trainee nurse, because they wore a pink uniform, which is why junior doctors referred to them as “pinkies”. Physiotherapists wore yet another colour of uniform. However, nowadays everyone wears suits or jackets or jerseys, so you cannot distinguish from that which profession is looking after you.
I take the point that the noble Lord, Lord Winston, made, that for all of us who have done surgery, a qualified, competent anaesthetist is our friend. But sometimes—as he and I have no doubt done—we operate on pretty vulnerable patients for whom the surgery is necessary but they are not a safe bet for anaesthesia, unless by an extremely competent anaesthetist. But I interpret the anaesthesia associate as someone who does not induce anaesthesia but only maintains anaesthetic under strict supervision by a qualified anaesthetist. And that is quite distinct from what a physician associate might do, because they might be involved in different ways in assisting the physician. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Winston, is important because it is an example that shows up the importance of the scope of the practice of physician associates and anaesthesia associates.
It does not help—and this debate is an example of why so much concern has been expressed—when the NHS health careers website says, in relation to physician associates, that they will be trained in
“taking medical histories … performing physical examinations … diagnosing illnesses … seeing patients with long-term chronic conditions … performing diagnostic and therapeutic procedures … analysing test results … developing management plans”—
which I presume means patient management plans. If you see that, you can see why there are concerns and confusion over what their responsibilities will be and the limitation of the scope of their practice.
I absolutely appreciate the need for physician associates —I keep calling them assistants—and anaesthesia associates and the need for regulation, but I think this crosses the Rubicon since it is the General Medical Council that will regulate this. It is important that what it defines as the scope of the practice is understandable to patients and professionals clearly.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, commented that he took the legislation through this House in 1999, and that Act will subsequently be the vehicle for SIs to be used for future regulation. I am sorry that some of us were not here at the time because some of us might have opposed it. An Act from nearly 25 years ago cannot be the one that continues to be used. If we are going to have further reforms of the regulation of doctors and nurses—where we are talking about 1.5 million health professionals, not 3,000 physician associates or anaesthesia associates—I hope we are not going to have an SI to do that, because there are lots of issues of regulation.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, to be fair, I said that that Act had been subsequently amended by the Health and Care Act 2022. If you do not have flexibility through regulation, you will never get anything done in relation to modernising health regulation. Governments simply do not find time in primary legislation to update regulation.
Lord Patel (CB)
I hope they do find time, because that allows for better scrutiny and better ability to amend, which we always claim to be our key role—to scrutinise and amend. It is a major piece of legislation to go through using SIs, and it is inappropriate to do so. Maybe we must consider how else we could do it in a way that maintains flexibility.
Moving on from that, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, already mentioned, if this legislation is going to be the template for future legislation to regulate all health professionals, some issues will need to be discussed. This order does not require that health is considered as a category in the regulation of physician and anaesthesia associates. The statistics show that, when the GMC or, I presume, any other regulator investigates, it is a very stressful situation for the person involved. Some statistics suggest that one in three considers suicide; they are depressed by it. If the category of health is removed as a consideration when a person is investigated, as this order does, it is a backwards step. I need to ask the Minister why health has been removed as a consideration. If this is the template, I presume that this will also apply to other regulations in the future.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Patel, just said many very important things, with which I agree, far better than I would. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett, Lady Brinton and Lady Finlay, because this debate has revealed the importance of this order: it is not a minor regulatory matter that can be put through by an SI, in a back room. That it has created so much debate outside the Chamber indicates why it is important that we discuss this and that it is not nodded through behind the public’s back. I am glad of that.
I have been embroiled in discussions about this for some time. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, made a good point when he said that the discussion has become quite toxic. I thought it was perfectly reasonable to be worried about PAs and AAs; I did not anticipate this kind of savage attack on them. There has been a real scapegoating of these individuals, which is not how we should resolve this issue. We should also remember that doctors can be guilty of clinical negligence. We do not want to wander around pointing the finger at who is more negligent.
However, if there are preventable never events as a consequence of people not being fully equipped for the roles that they are asked to do—by the way, they are being asked, very often told, what to do when they are not really up to it, through no fault of their own—it is a matter for public concern. That is the way that accountability works and why we need to be very clear and have no muddle over what somebody is supposed to be doing, what they are not supposed to be doing, and what they can and cannot do.
There were a couple of things that confused me in the arguments made in the briefings we received. I lost the will to live in the rows going on about the differences between physician associates and physician assistants, as though “associate” or “assistant” was the key difference. I think the difficulty is when people think that any of them are physicians, because that means that they think they are doctors. That is the confusing bit and it shows that people can get lost in the midst of this.
It is also worth bearing in mind some context when it comes to the public. Most patients would prefer to see anyone at a doctor’s practice than wait for two weeks in pain. That makes the public vulnerable to having a lesser service. I understand that. I also thought that the noble Lord, Lord Patel, was absolutely right about a big team: when you are in hospital, you are surrounded by people wearing a million badges, different colours and lanyards. They all introduce themselves to you in great detail, but you do not care because you are ill. You want to lie back and trust them, and assume that a division of labour is going on.
Sometimes, when I was reading the briefings, it felt as though there might be a bit of vested interest about who was regulating who and what numbers were on the badges. This seemed to miss the point of the real concerns, which are whether there is sufficient clarity about the scope of PAs or AAs, or whatever we call them; that there is not too much mission creep; and that we have a clearly defined set of protocols and specific tasks allocated. I think it important that PAs in GP surgeries have a different set of protocols and scope than in hospitals—they are not the same, even though in both instances they are called PAs.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, I support this Motion and, not for the first time in a debate on health, I find myself in almost complete agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the remarks he made earlier in an extremely powerful speech. We are exemplifying the right debate here, in that this is a subtle and important issue.
I do not wish to suggest that I challenge the esteemed clinicians from a number of the different clinical tribes who have spoken this evening. I speak as a non-expert, as a manager of people, and as a patient. Non-experts in healthcare would find it completely baffling that we have 3,000 people working day in, day out in clinical roles who are currently unregulated. It cannot be right, and I have not heard any argument this evening that suggests that anyone in the Chamber thinks it is right. I think we are all united in our agreement that these hard-working, brilliant people need proper professional statutory regulation.
I hope that, therefore, the order, as it stands, passes. But it is worth dwelling on why this has created so much controversy. Fundamentally, it is because change is hard—and people change is hard and scary. There is a real danger that we underestimate how important it is to look after the people who care for us, and that what we are really hearing from a number of the different clinical tribes is fear, frustration and hurt that they are not being looked after. The real tragedy is that, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, in the process we have made 3,000 more people feel hurt, unloved and uncared for in the awful debate out in the Twittersphere or X-sphere or whatever it is called.
I will not talk for very long. I just want to register that this has been far too long unfixed, that 20 years is too long for people to be practising without regulation, and that other countries around the world are far ahead of us on this. We should be discussing how we properly define the scope of practice and how we then extend that scope of practice, with the appropriate training for prescribing rights and the ability to order X-rays, just as happens in many other countries in the world. We are all in this Chamber rightly proud of the NHS, but we must not stick our heads in the sand and convince ourselves we are brilliant when others fixed this issue 20-plus years ago.
I finish by saying that regulation is clearly not enough. I completely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay: we have to recognise that our health and care workers feel unloved and uncared for. There are far too many stories of people unable to get a hot meal when they are working night shifts or having to cancel their own wedding because they are not rostered to be allowed to take the time off. None of that requires professional regulation; that requires professional management. We need both of those.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will not mind if I say that I am very grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett, Lady Brinton and Lady Finlay, for the regret amendments and this debate today. Secondary legislation comes through the House and too often we overlook it. Every now and again we need to put a spotlight on some of the important measures that go through.
I regret two things. I deeply regret the way in which the professions of associate physician and associate anaesthetist have been denigrated in the press, in the lobbying material that has been sent around, and, frankly, in aspects of this debate. I agree with my noble friend Lady Harding and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that the feelings and sentiment of these hard-working contributors to our healthcare system have been overlooked. I was sent a very robust briefing by the BMA. I replied: “Is there nothing positive you can say about these hard-working healthcare professionals?” The reply came back—the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, was copied in on it—that there was not: there was nothing positive it could say about them. I greatly regret that tone, and wish it had not happened.
I am not a clinician and I do not have anything to rival some of the comments made by the clinicians. However, I point out that our hard-working healthcare professionals are incredibly stretched. Take GPs, for instance: 350 million appointments were conducted in primary care last year, 160 million of which were by GPs themselves. That was 50 million more than in 2019, so 44 more appointments per practice. That trend is going up. Britain is getting less healthy, and there is a large amount of immigration. The number of full-time equivalent GPs—although the number of GPs has gone up, a lot of them are working fewer hours—has decreased from 28,000 in September 2015 to 27,000 in October 2023. The complexity of many people turning up to these appointments is very high.
We have to find people from somewhere to do some of these appointments, and there are going to be people who have a lot to contribute who do not necessarily go through the 10 years of qualification to become a GP. We should be embracing them. That is what is happening in every other professional walk of life—it is happening with the astronauts who fly to the moon, the people who fly our planes, and the lawyers who run our courts. The modernisation of workforces is happening everywhere; we should embrace that. My noble friend the Minister alluded to 12,000 AAs and PAs by 2036; that would be just 8% of the number of doctors. That is not a revolution or a threat that the doctors of Britain should be worried about.
If these regulations do not go through—the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has said that they will—then it would be difficult to enforce standards, there would be years of delay to regulate the professions, there would be a reduction in the number of healthcare professionals to support our healthcare system, and training programmes would be on hold. I support the passage of this legislation, so that we can modernise the workforce, increase primary care capacity, improve the lot of our hard-pressed GPs and make it easier for a wide range of talents to make a difference to the British healthcare system.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly in favour of these regulations. I am absolutely in favour of any way in which we can leverage the ability of our doctors to concentrate on what they want to do, and what they have been highly and expensively trained to do, which is to take responsibility for seeing, diagnosing and treating patients who are ill and in need of medical help. I am also in favour of trying to reduce the exorbitant cost of locum GPs, which bleed resources from the National Health Service—resources which could be much better spent elsewhere. Some of the Government’s initiatives, such as allowing pharmacists greater and more extensive advisory and prescribing powers, are also very welcome.
I have no philosophical objection to the concept of physicians or anaesthetists being supported by assistants, whether they are senior nursing staff or others, but I share the concern that the very term “associate” implies a greater degree of qualification than is actually the case. Two years’ training post a science degree does not a doctor make. Of course they should be regulated by an organisation which enjoys public confidence, so long as that in itself does not imply a greater medical qualification.
It is easier to prevent overreach in a hospital environment, where supervision in anaesthesia should be routine, but it is much harder in general practice. The reason I rise now is because my husband was seen by a physician associate when his throat failed to heal weeks after he burned it with a hot cup of coffee. After the young man had taken a photograph and disappeared up the corridor with his phone, allegedly to see a GP, he reappeared with an ominous pamphlet entitled “Suspected throat cancer” and suggested an urgent appointment at the John Radcliffe Hospital. I am pretty sure he was not trained to be the bearer of such bad news. So undoubtedly physician associates need to be regulated, though I acknowledge it was better this way round than ignoring something and saying that there was no issue to be dealt with when there might have been.
We have 14 GPs in our local practice, in a small town in Oxfordshire: 11 work three days per week, none of them works full-time and one of them works one day per week. Perhaps we should also address the loss of 40 working days per week from any similar team, as well as putting in place things that make doctors’ working lives more rewarding and meaningful. If physician associates are part of that then I am fully supportive, so long as they are properly regulated. The Faculty of Physician Associates code of conduct, produced with the GMC, says that physician associates will always work under the supervision of a designated senior medical practitioner and that they must work within the limits of their experience. Let us make sure that these regulations will help make that happen.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I have listened to the debate very carefully. My professional experience as a former health service manager over many years is that we have had this debate about people taking on different roles in health and always the same arguments come. Whether it be physiotherapists taking on roles, nurses becoming nurse practitioners or pharmacists coming into this, the same argument always happens: that somehow this dilutes patient care and safety. The answer is that it does not if it is properly regulated, there is proper training and there is proper monitoring of what happens to patients.
I understand that there is some anxiety, but I have to say to the BMA, in particular, that its language in the briefings it has given has driven the bullying and ostracisation of colleagues in hospitals who are valued members of a clinical team. That is the word: “team”. It needs to be led by a senior doctor, normally the consultant, without ostracising people within that team. I gently say to the noble Baroness, Lady—I have forgotten.
Lord Scriven (LD)
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle—I remembered the Manor Castle because of Sheffield, but I could not remember the Bennett bit—that, twice during her contribution, she used the term “a second-rate service”. These people do not provide a second-rate service; they provide and augment the team service, to ensure that patient outcomes are as good as they can be.
On the whole, I support the fact that these orders are being laid, although there is one issue that I think needs to be thought through carefully: if the GMC is going to regulate, there is an issue about the way that the distinguishing of the registers is dealt with. I see that as a potential trip-up point if not thought through very carefully; I hope the Minister can give the House some assurance on that.
On the whole, I support the regulations. This is just a continuation of many years of different people in the team taking roles. With the correct regulation and the correct training and supervision, this will improve patient outcomes and service.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, this statutory instrument has triggered a debate that I think is happening on multiple levels. There are two meta questions around the structure of the medical professions, writ large, and the legislative process for establishing professional regulations and updating these over time. This is something on which the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, focuses, and around which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has helpfully provided some extra history.
There is one question, which I would call an adjacent question, around the treatment of junior doctors and their frustration at the moment, which they are expressing largely through industrial action. That has been mentioned, quite rightly, by a number of noble Lords, but I do not think that is core to the debate around associates; it is an adjacent question spilling over into this debate.
We have to recognise that the Government have got themselves into a mess over the junior doctor situation and that unhappiness is now having these knock-on consequences. The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, interestingly pointed out that the BMA was unable to come up with examples of the positive use of associates. I thank the Minister for bringing some associates here so that we could hear from them. I thank the consultants in emergency medicine at Leeds hospital who wrote to me and, I suspect, to other members, describing how associates work on the ground and full of praise for the work they do, which has rightly been echoed in the debate today.
There are three questions around the associate roles themselves, which are touched on more in the two regret amendments. The first is whether these roles represent a valuable innovation for the NHS and, importantly, for the patients of the NHS, and so have a long-term place in the system. I hear broad support for the answer to this question being yes, qualified by some questions around the name and the scope, which I will come to shortly. Broadly, I have not heard anybody say that they disagree with the development of these associate roles within the NHS.
The second question is whether they should be regulated by the GMC, as proposed in the statutory instrument. Here I hear a more grudging “Yes”, but still a broad acceptance that the GMC is the only game in town and that it will do a good job. I was interested to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Harris, about the role of the GDC; the comparisons between the GDC and GMC are helpful for us to consider. Certainly, there is a broad sense that the GMC will do a good job if it is the regulator; I am inclined to agree with that.
A particular benefit of the regulation is that it will provide a clear and well-established route for any issues to be investigated. Again, people have raised particular instances in the debate about where things have gone wrong. They will go wrong from time to time with any group of professionals—including politicians, dare I say? It does not matter which group of professionals it is, things will go wrong. What is important for a member of the public is that there is someone they can go to who has a clear and well-established procedure for getting to the bottom of what happened and finding a resolution. I have every confidence that the GMC will provide that for physician and anaesthetist associates and that this will add to any complaints mechanism that exists within individual trusts, which is all there is today so long as these professions are outside of a regulated entity.
Again, importantly, it has been mentioned in the debate that the GMC will provide for a regular review of these professionals to ensure that they continue to remain fit to practise. I think we all can welcome that. I hope the Minister will be able to commit to there being full transparency from the GMC about the activity that takes place on the new associates register so that we can understand how many are coming on and going off it and understand any issues that have arisen, such as the reasons they might have been taken off the register.
The Minister referred to annual reports to Parliament. In 2024, we expect a little more real-time information so I hope he will be able to commit to there being full transparency about associates coming on to that new GMC register and that we should be able to see that much more frequently than simply a report to Parliament.
The third question that has arisen and the one I want to spend the most time on—not too much given the lateness of the hour but enough to try to elaborate the point—is whether the roles are properly defined to avoid confusion and whether they are being used appropriately. Some of this is in the name, which we have discussed already, and I hope the Minister can point to some evidence about there being a lack of confusion.
It seems to me instinctively that there is confusion, partly because “physician” is not common parlance in British English—it is something we more typically associate with American TV shows. The noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, made the point about how we now talk about junior doctors. If you said to somebody, “Do you think a physician associate or a junior doctor is more highly qualified?”, I suspect a lot of people would opt for the physician associate because “physician” has a grandness.
We should be honest enough to test this with ordinary people, not people in the medical profession. That is the test we should apply and if it is true that people think that the physician associate is more highly qualified, we need either to help people understand that that is not the case or change the name. It is really important that we go out there and talk to ordinary people about how they experience those names to understand what is going on. I hope the Minister can commit to that.
More significant is the scope of the role as defined in national guidance and how that is exercised within health organisations in both the NHS and the private sector. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and others rightly raised the scope of practice. I think my most significant concern is not about individual physician associates presenting themselves wrongly but the decisions that will be made by their employers about how to deploy them. We need to look at general practices and large NHS trusts separately. With GPs, in many places we are already operating in a commercial market and in some cases physician associate roles have been growing quite significantly under the additional roles reimbursement scheme which has been operating over the last few years. I thank whoever in the department who is responsible for coming up with a scheme whose acronym is ARRS, which brought a smile to my face when reading the briefing notes late at night.
This issue was brought home starkly to me when I, along with thousands of other people, received a note from my practice telling me it is being sold by a large US corporation called Centene to a British private company, owned by private capital, called T20 Osprey Midco Ltd—very catchy. GP practices are bought and sold en masse between these corporations. I looked into the business of the Centene corporation and found that in 2022 “Panorama” did an investigation specifically into its use of physician associates and came up with some quite disturbing data around the preponderance of physician associates in practices being operated by this US corporation.
I am not a raging anti-capitalist but I do not think it is crazy to think that private businesses will try antod find whichever ways they can to reduce their costs and increase their margins. I would like the Minister to explain how the Government will make sure that these roles are not misused in general practice, especially where they are owned by corporates rather than being operated by some part of the NHS structure. In particular, I would like him to explain how we ensure that practices follow the Royal College of GPs’ position that the physician associates must work under the supervision of GPs and not be used as substitutes. That was something the Minister said in theory. I would like him to clarify in practice how he is going to make sure that happens in this multiplicity of individual contractors who are not NHS employees but operate independently of it.
There is a real concern that if there is a shortage in GP recruitment, that will clearly add to the pressure for practices to think, “I’ll hire the physician associates because I can’t get the GPs”. Again, if we follow the RCGP guidance—I hope the Minister will agree with this—if a practice cannot hire a GP, it has no one to supervise the associate so it should hire fewer physician associates, not more. The hiring of physician associates is contingent on practices hiring sufficient trained general practitioners.
When it comes to NHS trusts, the concerns relate to the decisions that the management may take. This is not intended to be NHS manager-bashing, particularly not with my noble friend Lord Scriven sat behind me; it is more a bit of Government-bashing. If the Government leave trusts with constrained budgets, managers will naturally look again at ways to keep the services running, including using less expensive staff where they can. The risk will be compounded again if the more expensive fully trained staff are not available because there is some shortfall in the Government’s training programme.
I know that the Minister will have to say, “The Government will meet their targets for training doctors and GPs”, but in the real world we have to imagine a scenario where, sadly, they fall short. Again, I want to hear assurances from him that where trusts start heading down the route of thinking that they can hire associates because they cannot get the doctors, the levers will be in place for the NHS centrally to stop that happening and to ensure that associates, who are valued and valuable members of teams, will not be left by their managers to do all of the job, rather than being part of a team with a trained medic leading it.
I hope the Minister can reassure us on the scope in both GP practices and NHS trusts. Again, the SI and this regulation are welcome but there are some questions to answer around how these measures present to people. However, the most significant questions that we may come back to in two, three or four years’ time will be around how individual trusts and general practices have decided to use these roles, rather than any questions around the professionalism or effectiveness of the individuals doing that work, whom we value.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, the point that the noble Lord, Lord Allan, has just made about respect for the professionals we are speaking about is a very good one for me to follow on from, because I believe we are at our most vulnerable when we are in the care of the NHS. We have a right to expect to be seen and treated by a competent and regulated professional, in whom we have confidence. This debate has highlighted the sensitivities and practical challenges in trying to get that right. I am sure the Minister will take note of the many valid points that have been raised.
I start by associating myself and these Benches with thanking physician associates and anaesthesia associates for their professional and continued service. I feel particularly strongly about saying that in view of the points raised by my noble friend Lord Hunt and other noble Lords on the considerable toxicity that has been generated about this issue. That has brought bullying and intimidation to these very valued members of the NHS team. I am sure that all of us in your Lordships’ House believe that this is just not acceptable.
In the debate tonight, I feel that I have heard broad agreement that regulation is important—indeed, crucial —to maintaining high standards of patient safety and care, and providing clarity around the boundaries of the functions that can and cannot be performed. Yet, as we have heard, there has been significant delay in getting there when it comes to PAs and AAs, even though regulation needed to come alongside workforce planning. Can the Minister tell your Lordships why this regulation has taken so long?
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank all the noble Lords for their contributions. The wide range of views and experience shows the House at its best. On the serious point of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, about making sure that there was a full debate, I hope noble Lords feel that this is a good example of where we have had a full and thorough debate.
I am glad to say that, within all those contributions, there was a general agreement on the importance of these roles and the vital contribution that they can make. They can allow doctors to work to the top of their profession—my noble friend Lord Bethell made that point. As the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, rightly said, they are a supplement to doctors. I hope that, when you have support and allow people to work to the top of their professions, that will cover some of the points that my noble friend Lady Harding and the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, made about good management, making general practitioners and doctors feel valued in their roles, and making them feel that they are being offered these support service. That is very much within the scope of practice here. Oh, I now see that the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, is on the Woolsack; I was looking all over for her and thinking, “Surely my speech is not so boring that I have lost her already”.
I hope noble Lords feel reassured by all this and that, as drawn out in the numbers referenced by my noble friend Lord Bethell, this represents only 8% of the GP workforce, so it is very much a supplemental role rather than a substitute.
All speakers echoed the point made passionately by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that PAs and AAs play a valued role—one always grounded, as my noble friend Lord Lansley said, in the central role: the doctor or the anaesthetist themselves.
As my noble friends Lady Harding and Lady Bloomfield said, this seeks to regulate them properly, with much clearer regulations, a defined scope of practice and the flexibility to adapt. The noble Baroness, Lady Merron, asked the very fair question of why this has taken so long; the honest answer is that I do not know, but the whole point of this is to build in flexibility. With all the will in the world, as we have seen, if it required primary legislation then, for whatever reason, there would not be time available in Parliament to make the changes quickly enough for the required flexibility. That is what we are trying to do with this order.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said that she wants to make sure all voices have been heard. I hope those voices have been well heard. During the 18 months that I have been in this role, I have had more correspondence on this than on anything else. She mentioned the Observer article on the long-term workforce plan; I assure her that there is no back-pedalling on this. The target is for incremental increases in the numbers each year. Funnily enough, the frustration expressed to me by Minister Stephenson today is that we are not only hitting the targets for this year but exceeding them. There is definitely no back-pedalling; rather, we are exceeding our targets.
I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, that we do not intend to impinge at all on specialisms. Following on from the Oral Question today, the next stage is to try to get into the detail of the specialisms.
On the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, there is some confusion around the protected titles. As we all know, “doctor” and “consultant” are not protected titles today; you can call yourself a doctor if you have a PhD, and I called myself a consultant once when I worked as a strategic consultant. There is confusion. On the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins—I see that she has now popped up by the Throne; it is like “Where’s Wally?”—we need to look at an overhaul of titles, full stop, and at some of the acronyms, such as AAs, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Allan. The idea is that all of this will be part of a full GMC consultation process over the next couple of years on this reformed legislation; we will look at all these points there.
There are separate registers. As mentioned, it is intended that there will be separate prefixes of PA and AA in the registration numbers, but I fully accept that it will not mean anything to a member of the public that a serial number is PA1234. It is a good point that there should be a more thorough consultation on the use of titles, because it is absolutely a confusing picture.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, with his experience of the GDC, showed that having one regulatory body looking after everything provides clarity. That is valuable, but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said, our Explanatory Memorandum needs to be clearer, and so I make that commitment.
Lord Markham (Con)
That is something I will pick up on. On the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, I say that the GMC, with the CQC, should be able to give the ongoing quality assurance.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said very well that the discussion on mistakes has not been useful. We are all aware that, regrettably, mistakes happen in all areas, and we need to make sure that we understand and learn from them, rather than using them to point fingers. Moving into the regulated space, where there is duty of candour, is useful.
I do not think anyone could be failed to be moved by the passion with which the noble Lord, Lord Winston, spoke about his experience. It was a very telling story. As reassurance I cite the noble Lord, Lord Patel, on the scope of the practice: it is one anaesthetist to two AAs, and the role of the AA is very much to maintain, as he explained well. In a similar way, the PAs really do need to work under GP supervision. The numbers are set out in the long-term workforce plan. We have a foot on the throttle for those training places, particularly in regulating them. We will make sure that things are properly managed so they cannot get out of control.
I absolutely agree with the points made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Watkins, Lady Harding and Lady Bloomfield, that this is a people management issue, and a lot of the heat from this debate is a feeling from junior doctors and others that they are unloved and uncared for. I freely admit that there is a wider issue that we need to look at, concerning things like hot meals; clearly, it is something trusts need to look at it as well.
I echo the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that passing this order is the best way to ensure the safety of patients. As we develop, there is perhaps scope to be more ambitious, but let us try to do this step by step, to make sure we really are happy and that the scope of practice works. As ever in a debate as long as this—it has been a very thorough one—I will write to fill in any details that I have not managed to cover. At this point, I hope and trust I have provided sufficient answers to the questions, and have demonstrated—
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
I hesitate to rise because the House clearly wants to end the debate, but I am not sure whether the Minister, in summing up, said whether the titles of physician associate and anaesthesia associate will be protected titles when the order goes through. Are they negotiable? I ask that question specifically because I had a lot of discussions with different people involved in this, particularly the GMC, and I have been concerned that if those are the only protected titles of all the grades registered by the General Medical Council, we may be storing up further problems for the future. If this is to be a protected title, can the Minister provide assurance that further statutory instruments could be brought forward if, in the light of the consultation advised by the noble Lord, Lord Allan, a different title is suggested? Could it then be changed?
Lord Markham (Con)
It is a protected title. The point I was trying to make about the general overhaul and understanding of the titles, however, is that there will be the scope to do this, as doctors and consultants are not protected titles today. I think we need to develop clarity on that, which is why the further reforms and SI changes will set out to protect other titles as well.
Lord Patel (CB)
Sorry about prolonging the debate, but is that the only protected title of all healthcare professionals?
Lord Markham (Con)
My understanding is that currently none of the titles is protected. These are the first set of titles that will be protected as a part of the secondary legislation that we are passing. The idea is to understand the hierarchy of titles and start to introduce the protections. I am happy to follow up in writing in more depth on all of this. I thank the noble Lord for his intervention.
Hopefully, this order will provide a standardised framework of governance and assurance for clinical practice and professional conduct for AAs and PAs. It will enhance patient safety and enable AAs and PAs to make a greater contribution to patient care. I beg to move.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I am acutely aware of the hour, but I am also aware there are a great many people—so social media tells me—watching this debate. There are a couple of things I need to say.
First, I thank everyone who has taken part in the debate, especially the noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Winston, for bravely telling us about the detail of their rich experience.
I will pick up on the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Merron. If you look back at my speech—I have handed over my notes now—I used the word “respect” talking about the PAs and AAs, and I talked about their study and student debt. I make it clear to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that I have not made any listing of incidents where things have gone wrong. I cited one case relating to the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Allan, of the difficulty patients have in understanding what the term “physician associate” actually means.
I highlight the words of the noble Lord, Lord Patel: using an SI to do a major piece of legislation is inappropriate. That is the whole reason I put down this fatal amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and others said we cannot get the parliamentary time for it. Well, we have talked about reform a lot tonight, so maybe we ought to look at reform in Parliament as well. I will refrain from suggesting some of the Bills that we could not be doing so we could be doing this as a Bill instead.
There are a couple of points that need to be answered. The noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, questioned part-time GPs. If GPs are working, say, theoretically four days a week, it is more than a full-time job in terms of the stress, pressure and time involved. If we are going to keep people in the profession, we have got to allow them to contribute as much as they can. That is an issue of sustainability.
The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, referred to me talking about a second-rate service. I was talking about a possible experience a few years in the future; if there is the situation of whole regions, areas and practices—like the noble Lord, Lord Allan, said—having only PAs, effectively that would be a second-rate service. That was the future context I was talking about.
Given the time, I will make one final point. The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, said the Government are looking for the number of PAs and AAs to be 8% of the total of doctors. The question, of course, is not just about the total but about the distribution. There is the point about private hedge fund owners of GP surgeries and what they might choose to do. There is also the point which I have been driving at all the way through, having for more than a decade been visiting northern cities and towns in particular, where people really feel that they are struggling to get a decent NHS service and struggling to get the staff, and they fear that they might not get enough doctors.
Again, I thank everyone. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for stressing how vulnerable patients are. My final point is that in making sure that patients understand they are being seen and treated by a PA or an AA, there has to be an attempt to understand that when people are ill, vulnerable and desperate, they may not absorb something just being done to them by rote. That is really important.
With that brief summing up, and in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
At end to insert “but regrets that the draft Order refers to “associates” rather than “assistants”, which would more properly reflect the role, scope and responsibilities of such staff and reduce patient confusion.”
Baroness Brinton
At end to insert “but regrets that the Government has failed to respond adequately to concerns over provisions in the draft Order about (1) the regulation of ‘physician associates’ and ‘anaesthesia associates’ by the General Medical Council instead of another regulator, and (2) the use of these professional titles, which risks confusion for patients over the difference between doctors and other healthcare professionals, with potential implications for patient safety.”