House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
The Deputy Foreign Secretary (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
The blue belt programme supports the protection and sustainable management of 4.3 million sq km of ocean around Britain’s overseas territories.
Dr Evans
The blue belt programme, directly funded by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, is a fantastic way not only to help with climate change but to improve our environment. One of the biggest threats to oceans is plastics, so will the Government consider strengthening the UN global plastics treaty in the upcoming negotiations?
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is interesting to note that 85% of plastic pollution in the Pacific and Indian oceans comes from just six rivers, and therefore an international treaty really matters. The point he makes is a good one, and it is at the centre of negotiations, which the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), was talking about last week in Ottawa.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The Deputy Foreign Secretary will be aware that over 90% of the UK’s biodiversity is within the overseas territories. I was privileged last summer to visit St Helena in the Atlantic ocean, where I was amazed by the natural biodiversity both on the island and in the seas around it. What more help are the British Government giving to the overseas territories Governments to ensure that their biodiversity can be enhanced and maintained?
Mr Mitchell
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has had a chance to visit St Helena—as have I in the past. It is one of the most remarkable places on Earth. On the issue of cleaning up the ocean and plastics, I can tell him that the UK is a founding member of the high ambition coalition to end plastic pollution, which is a group of 60 countries whose central aim is to stop plastic flowing into the environment by 2040. The overseas territories are not suppliers of plastic but they are receivers of a lot of it, and that is why this is so important.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
The recent Environmental Audit Committee reports—on the Arctic and the current one on the Antarctic, both of which I chair—have called attention to the excellent blue belt programme and how very important it is in the Arctic and the Southern ocean. One of our recommendations was that the programme would work properly only if all the Ministers responsible for the Arctic in different Departments got together on a reasonably regular basis to discuss it. Can the Deputy Foreign Secretary please advise on whether that committee has met or what plans he has to call the meeting?
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I am advised that the meeting is, I think, today.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Many of my constituents have written to me concerned that the UK is delaying its ratification of the global ocean treaty, which could limit human activity in what would be known as sanctuary areas in order to protect valuable marine life. Has a Minister made an assessment of how that could work with the blue belt programme to ensure that our overseas territories have the highest possible protection for their water and their biodiversity?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Lady makes a good point. The Government are extremely well joined up on that—I made the point earlier about the DEFRA Minister working closely with the Foreign Office on these matters—so I think she can reassure her constituents that that matter is very much in hand.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
The Deputy Foreign Secretary (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
The UK played a leading role in securing the passage of Security Council resolutions 2728 and 2720, which set out the urgent demand for expanded humanitarian access.
Stephen Hammond
The way to a sustainable peace, as my right hon. Friend says, is through humanitarian access. Could he please confirm what the UK Government are doing to ensure the full funding of UNRWA again, and what they will do to stop the Hamas terrorist group affecting the supply of aid to Palestinian citizens?
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend is right about the importance of aid getting in, and UNRWA is a critical organisation in achieving that. He will know that we have had a chance to look at the Colonna report, and I spoke about this matter with the UN Secretary-General yesterday when I was in New York. We are waiting for the report of the Office of Internal Oversight Services, which we expect to hear about soon, and we will then reach our conclusions on the best way of getting aid into Gaza. My hon. Friend may rest assured that we are doing everything we can to ensure that aid gets in.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
Next Sunday will mark 100 days since the International Court of Justice warned of a genocide in Gaza, yet the Israeli military continues to ignore the legally binding orders of the world’s highest court, continues to bomb Gaza indiscriminately and continues to block vital humanitarian aid, all while the UK stands by and lets the right-wing Netanyahu Cabinet blatantly undermine the court’s legitimacy.
Can the Minister explain to me just what blatantly disregarding international courts and openly violating UN ceasefire resolutions means for the rules-based order he claims to uphold, because to me, my constituents, the Palestinians and countless persecuted groups across the world, frankly these rules are now not worth the paper they are written on?
Mr Mitchell
What the hon. Gentleman says—the way he reflects on what the ICJ said—is not accurate. The ICJ called for hostage release, for more aid into Gaza and for Israel not to commit acts that violate the rights of Palestinians. The Government agree with those three points.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Will the Deputy Foreign Secretary take the message back to his boss that the insertion of British troops on the ground in Gaza will simply play into the hands of those who wish to divert attention further away from the existential conflict between Russia and Ukraine? Does he share my sadness that there is not a single mention of Ukraine in any of the questions on today’s Order Paper?
Mr Mitchell
My right hon. Friend will know that the Government are absolutely committed to doing everything we can to help Ukraine. He will have seen the Prime Minister’s announcement last week on the increase in defence spending, and where that announcement was made.
I very much hope that my right hon. Friend will not draw any conclusions from today’s Order Paper, but note specifically this Government’s driving ambition to ensure that Ukraine is successful in beating back the Russians.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
The creation of a sustainable peace in the middle east will require the establishment of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders. The Deputy Foreign Secretary will know that Prime Minister Netanyahu is now implacably opposed to the creation of such a state, so what will the UK do to oblige Israel to comply with the international peace process? Does he think a sustainable peace is possible so long as Mr Netanyahu remains in power?
Mr Mitchell
Many voices are heard within Israel, but the hon. Gentleman will recognise that the predominant view of the region, of the United Nations and of the regional powers, the great powers and the British Government is that a two-state solution is required, with both Palestine and Israel living behind secure borders in peace and safety.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
More than 30,000 Palestinians are dead, more than 100 Israeli hostages are still unaccounted for and Gaza is facing famine. The war must end now with an immediate ceasefire. That needs both sides to agree. It was Hamas, not Israel, who rejected the last internationally brokered ceasefire deal. Now a new offer is on the table, and Hamas now have the power to stop the fighting. Does the Minister agree that Hamas should accept this deal and avert a catastrophic continuation of this war?
Mr Mitchell
Yes. The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good point and, although these negotiations are fluid at the moment, he is right to say that Hamas should accept the deal that has been put on the table.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
The Minister knows that securing a sustainable peace will require a massive aid and rebuilding programme, in which UNRWA will have, and must have, a crucial part to play. Indeed, he has previously acknowledged that UNRWA has a vital role to play in providing aid and services in Gaza. Why, then, having assured this House that he will come to a decision on the future of UNRWA’s funding when he received Catherine Colonna’s interim report, has he sat on that report for 10 days and said absolutely nothing about restoring funding? He now seems to be setting us up for even further delay. It is simply not good enough. Will he now tell us when this Government will make a decision on UNRWA’s funding?
Mr Mitchell
We have been very clear that we are waiting for not one but two reports. As I say, I discussed this matter yesterday with the UN Secretary-General. We know very well, as the hon. Gentleman does, that the assets UNRWA has in terms of logistics, vehicles, warehouses and so forth, are essential for the supply of humanitarian relief within Gaza. We are considering the matter carefully. He will also know that Britain is not currently in deficit in its funding; we are fully funded at this point for UNRWA. It has also received additional resources, including private resources as well as new Governments coming in to support it. We will consider carefully both those two reports in full and then make a decision, and I will come back to the House to inform it when that decision is reached.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
The report provides a sobering account of the extreme difficulties faced by many Christians around the world, noting that more than 365 million Christians face persecution each year. As my hon. Friend knows, freedom of religion or belief is a priority for the UK, and we will continue to recognise and seek to address issues of persecution of Christians globally.
Kevin Foster
I thank the Minister for her answer. It is great to see my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Paul Holmes) on the Front Bench.
The “World Watch List 2024” laid bare the significant persecution that Christians face across the world and the increasing pressure on churches in China. During recent ministerial visits, what representations were made on this issue to the Chinese Government, alongside highlighting other aspects of their dreadful human rights record?
Ms Ghani
My hon. Friend has always been a staunch advocate not only for the churches but for all faith groups in his constituency. It is unacceptable that Christians are persecuted simply for practising their religion. He highlights China in particular, and we remain deeply concerned about the persecution there of Christians, Muslims, Buddhists and Falun Gong practitioners. He knows that I was sanctioned by China for raising the issue of the persecution of the Uyghur Muslims. The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan), who is the Asia Minister, visited China last week, where she made clear our concerns about its human rights violations.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for that answer. Open Doors produces the World Watch List reports and we are deeply indebted to it for what it does. Pakistan continues to cause concern for me and many others; there are Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus and Christians who cannot have the freedom of human rights and are persecuted across all of Pakistan. How can we exert greater influence to effect change in Pakistan and make it better for people when it comes to worshipping their God as they so wish to do?
Ms Ghani
The hon. Gentleman is already applying a lot of pressure through his chairmanship of the all-party parliamentary group on international freedom of religion or belief, which took forward a Bill just last week. My co-Minister Lord Ahmad met Pakistan’s Foreign Minister, Ishaq Dar, in March to discuss the issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised, and the former Foreign Secretary has raised the issue of the persecution of religious communities, including recent attacks against the Christian community in the Punjab. Those conversations will continue, and the fact that we have committed to continuing the role of the freedom of religion or belief envoy will provide us with the authority to do that.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)
The Deputy Foreign Secretary (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
Tackling irregular migration is a priority for Foreign Office engagement across our overseas networks, through international forums, including at the G7 and European Political Community, and bilaterally.
Nick Fletcher
Given the success of the agreement with Albania, which has considerably reduced the number of illegal immigrants crossing by small boats, does the Minister believe that more of these agreements are necessary, alongside our Rwanda policy?
Mr Mitchell
Yes, my hon. Friend makes a good point. He will have seen that on 17 April we signed an agreement with Vietnam to tackle irregular migration and reduce channel crossing casualties. The numbers of Vietnamese people coming across the channel has been one of the fastest rising groups in recent months.
Chris Clarkson
Recently, the Irish Tánaiste stated that he believed the increase in irregular migration to the Republic of Ireland was a direct result of the deterrent effect of our Rwanda policy. The Irish Government have since made moves to try to remove those illegal migrants back to the UK. What conversations has my right hon. Friend had with EU counterparts and Home Office colleagues about ensuring there is no returns policy with the EU unless a reciprocal agreement is made?
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend makes a very good point: what is sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander. The movement of asylum seekers from the UK to the southern Irish Republic would suggest that the Rwanda agreement is already having the deterrent effect we are seeking.
Giles Watling
I have been saying for some time in this place, and many other places, that a combined effort between French and English forces would be very useful on the ground in France to stop the boats from even getting to the beaches in the first place. We have the technology and we can destroy the boats; I do not see why we do not do that. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and I wish to visit Calais to meet the mayor to discuss that idea. Will my right hon. Friend join us?
Mr Mitchell
That is an unbelievably tempting invitation from my hon. Friend. Recently, we have seen a 120% increase in French troops on the ground and a 36% reduction in the number of migrants coming across compared with last year, so French troops on the ground are delivering what is required, at least in part.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The Irish Republic’s Government and their Justice Minister indicated that they believe that up to 80% or more of those who are illegally in the Republic of Ireland are coming across the land border, but that appears to have been a purely subjective figure. Has the Minister been able to establish the veracity, or otherwise, of such an exceptionally high figure, which the Justice Minister has claimed to be the case?
Mr Mitchell
We have not because, as the hon. Gentleman will understand, that is a southern Irish Government responsibility. No doubt the southern Irish Government will be pressed on this matter and will deliver an answer in due course.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
On one hand, the Minister says he wants to improve international co-operation on tackling illegal migration, but on the other hand he says the Government are not willing to come to an agreement with the Government of Ireland or any other European countries on returns of asylum seekers.
Mr Mitchell
I did not say anything of the sort, Mr Speaker. We are working together in numerous international fora, including the Global Refugee Forum, the G7, the UN General Assembly and the European Political Community summit, to tackle this matter upstream. Working upstream and working with others is critical to resolving this deeply disturbing problem.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
The only way to stop boats at sea and illegal migration is through structured co-operation with our neighbours and internationally. I welcome the signing on 23 February of the agreement between the UK and EU’s Frontex border protection service, but is it properly funded and what mechanisms are in place to review that funding as it evolves? Surely the Minister must agree with me that the best way to tackle illegal migration is to fund safe and legal routes properly. What progress is he making on a comprehensive deal to that end with our EU friends, including Ireland?
Mr Mitchell
We need to tackle this issue, as I think the hon. Gentleman is implying, on a series of different fronts. We are working upstream, as the deal with Vietnam demonstrates. Our Prime Minister has substantially repaired the relationship with France. The Calais Group has met the UK-France customs partnership. We work closely with Frontex. There are far more officials now in Britain dealing with these cases. As the Prime Minister has made clear, once this matter has been resolved, he is going to look at bringing in safe and legal routes from elsewhere.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con)
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
The Deputy Foreign Secretary (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
We have trebled our aid commitment in the past year and we are doing all we can to get more aid to Gaza by land, air and sea.
Mohammad Yasin
The Colonna review was given no evidence to back up claims by the Israeli Government that UNRWA staff were involved in the 7 October attacks. Other countries have already restored funding to the aid agency, so it can continue its work feeding tens of thousands of people who are starving in Gaza, including innocent babies who are dying without milk. Will the Minister commit to refunding today? Or will he continue to risk UK complicity in using famine as a weapon of war?
Mr Mitchell
I have set out the process by which we will judge how and when to restore funding to UNRWA, but the situation has improved in recent weeks. The hon. Member will have seen that fuel for bakeries has been restored. We are pressing for the activation of the water pipeline and, over the past week, we have been averaging more than 200 trucks each day. Progress has been made, but there needs to be a lot more progress, and Britain will continue to press for it.
Ian Levy
When Putin invaded Ukraine, the people of Blyth, Cramlington and Seaton Valley came together and generously gave what they could spare. With help from local companies, such as Moody Logistics and Storage in Cramlington, we were able to ensure that aid reached those who had lost their homes and their belongings. What plans does my right hon. Friend’s Department have in place to get aid from the UK to Gaza?
Mr Mitchell
I pay tribute to the good people of Blyth, Cramlington and Seaton Valley for their generosity, and to my hon. Friend for helping to channel that goodwill so constructively. His constituents will want to support reputable non-governmental organisations and charities working to support humanitarian relief in Gaza.
Yasmin Qureshi
Israel has forced more than 1 million Palestinians to flee to Rafah, claiming it to be a safe zone, yet for months the Israeli military have been bombing Palestinians there relentlessly and, according to the UN, killing mostly women and children. Now it is planning a ground invasion that will lead to carnage. Does the Minister agree that President Biden could stop this with one phone call, and will he press him to do so?
Mr Mitchell
President Biden has been very heavily engaged in this matter. As the hon. Member knows, both the American and British Governments have pressed Israel not to launch an all-out assault on Rafah for the reasons that she set out. The shadow Foreign Secretary rightly said that he hopes that Hamas will accept the current deal on the table, and I agree with him.
Naz Shah
An Israel ground invasion in Rafah is probable within days, leading to 1.5 million displaced Palestinians with no safe place to shelter. Children in Gaza have been starved at the fastest rate that the world has ever seen, and Members across the House, including myself, have come here time and again asking for something to be done in terms of delivering aid and pushing for a ceasefire. Time and again, the Minister says that we are trying, trying, trying, but clearly trying is not working. What will the Government do to move the dial and stop children dying?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Member will have seen the 6 April maritime announcement and she will know that Britain is ramping up the delivery of aid by land, sea and air. She will, I hope, be aware that we have a naval ship standing by with £9.7 million of aid and logistics equipment. There have also been 10 air drops already from the Royal Air Force; an 11th one is expected today. Therefore, the British Government are doing everything they possibly can to move the dial, as she requests.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
As the Minister will know, it is not only Governments and NGOs supporting Palestinians across Israel, the west bank and Gaza, but a lot of charities. I have been contacted by one such charity, ABCD, which operates a centre for disabled Palestinian children in the Nur Shams refugee camp. It tells me that its centre has been raided and destroyed not once, but several times, by the Israeli army—not by settlers. What more can the Government do to protect the facilities and personnel of British charities operating in the Palestinian territories?
Mr Mitchell
My right hon. Friend will know that we do everything that we can in that respect, but if he is able to give me some specific details about that particular charity and what has befallen it, I will look into it.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
The Prime Minister has identified getting aid in and getting hostages out as two key priorities for the UK Government. Israel is facilitating aid getting into Gaza by air, land and sea, with 468 trucks entering the area in a single day. We are seeing real progress on aid; when will we see progress on hostages, too?
Mr Mitchell
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need to see breathing space so that we can get the hostages out and more aid in; in spite of what she says, the aid that is getting in at the moment is not sufficient. That is precisely the policy of the British Government, and we will continue to pursue it with all vigour.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
Given that the Colonna report makes clear that donors should have confidence in UNRWA and that Australia, France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Japan and Denmark have all restored funding, and with Gaza facing famine, I ask the Deputy Foreign Secretary again: when will the Government do what Labour has called for and restore full funding to UNRWA?
Mr Mitchell
As I have set out, we are looking at all those reports and we will make a decision in our own time. Britain is not falling short in that respect, because we are currently fully funded on all the earlier commitments we made. We will look at the Office of Internal Oversight Services report and the UNRWA reaction to it. We are aware of non-traditional donors and private donations coming in, and UNRWA is fully funded until the end of May. When we reach our conclusion, I will be sure to inform the House of it.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
The Deputy Foreign Secretary (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
As required by the UK’s robust arms export control regime, the Foreign Secretary has reviewed the most recent advice about the situation in Gaza and Israel’s conduct of its military campaign. The British position on export licences is unchanged, but we will keep that position under review.
Owen Thompson
Given that the very purpose of the UK’s arms export licence criteria is to apply a precautionary principle to arms sales to prevent them from fuelling future atrocities, and given the extensive evidence of potential war crimes and violations of international humanitarian law by Israel in Gaza, surely it is clear that the UK export licensing system is not working. Does the Minister agree with me and the countless Midlothian constituents who have been in touch with me that the Government should now suspend the transfer of arms to Israel in order to prevent future atrocities, and does he agree that UK Government policy allows for that decision to be made at the discretion of Ministers, outside the failed export licensing system?
Mr Mitchell
Our position on the arms embargo is consistent with most of our like-minded partners, who have not taken any decision to suspend existing arms export licences to Israel. It would be an odd decision for us to take when we have used our own military weaponry to defend Israel from the attacks by Iran.
Sir Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
Exports are linked to law, of course, and the White House said yesterday that the International Criminal Court does not have jurisdiction over Israel because, rather like the USA, it is not a signatory to the statute of Rome, which set up the Court. More than three years ago the then British Prime Minister wrote an open letter saying that the UK does not accept that the ICC has jurisdiction, again because of the statute of Rome and the absence of sovereignty over the situation in the region. Can the Deputy Foreign Secretary confirm that that is still the position of His Majesty’s Government?
Mr Mitchell
I can tell my right hon. and learned Friend that we do not think that the ICC has that jurisdiction, as was set out in the letter to which he referred, but it is a matter for the ICC ultimately to reach a determination on that.
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (David Rutley)
The safety of our staff is paramount, and a decision was taken in November 2019 to move the last UK base staff member in Haiti to the neighbouring Dominican Republic. The security situation since has not allowed us to consider returning permanently. We have two country-based staff members in Haiti’s capital, who we are in constant contact with. They are working from home and there are no specific threats to them based on them working for the UK.
Fabian Hamilton
When Haiti’s transitional council was sworn in last week, the location of the ceremony had to be changed owing to gunfire erupting from nearby criminal gang outposts—a stark reminder that Haiti is a country far from political legitimacy. What steps are the Government taking to assist the transitional council in order to ensure that a new President is democratically elected in 2026 and that we do not see them targeted with violence in the meantime?
David Rutley
We are working closely with international partners, including the United States, Canada and, very importantly, CARICOM—the Caribbean
Community—and of course we are also working incredibly hard to ensure that we provide every support we can for the multinational security support mission. The Foreign Secretary has already pledged funds for our support for that important mission.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
I welcome the UK’s £5 million commitment towards the deployment of the multinational security support mission in Haiti. Will my hon. Friend tell the House a little more about how that mission is being deployed, and can he expand on the discussions that he has had with our friends in the Dominican Republic about their security on the border with Haiti?
David Rutley
I thank my hon. Friend for his important question about the Dominican Republic. I was there at the end of March and met President Abinader. We talked about the situation and the importance of the MSS. Clearly, the Kenyans will need to decide how they move forward, but as has been said, the putting in place of the transitional presidential council was an important moment.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
Half of Haiti’s population is starving, violence is rife, dead bodies lie forgotten on the street. For too long this crisis has been ignored. As the Minister knows, that grave situation risks also destabilising the wider Caribbean region, including our overseas territories, with the Turks and Caicos islands less than 200 miles away. Can the Minister confirm the UK’s donation to the UN fund—the Government missed that out of their statement—and lay out what other diplomatic support the Government are offering to address the crisis?
David Rutley
Most importantly, beyond the other things that I have mentioned, we are working closely with the UN Security Council, which is a vital forum here, and we continue to work with like-minded countries to help with the establishment of the MSS. The hon. Lady rightly highlights the importance of humanitarian support. We are one of the major donors to the UN central emergency response fund, and there has been an authorisation of disbursement of $12 million to support those affected.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
The Deputy Foreign Secretary (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
Iran’s support for proscribed groups operating in Gaza, such as Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, compromises our efforts towards a sustainable ceasefire in Gaza.
Antony Higginbotham
Iran continues to operate in violation of the joint comprehensive plan of action. Its nuclear programme is way beyond anything needed for purely peaceful processes. However, it does not end there: Iran is threatening journalists on UK streets, and its proxies in Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis continue to inflict tragedy on the region. What is my right hon. Friend’s assessment of whether the JCPOA is still fit for purpose?
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend makes a good point. Alongside international partners, we are prepared to use all options available to tackle the difficulties that he describes, including triggering the UN snapback and ending the JCPOA if necessary.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
As probably the only Member who has actually lived and worked in Gaza, I must say that I have been heartbroken over the past six months by what I am hearing from friends and colleagues there about the almost total destruction of the healthcare system and the impact of widespread starvation on their patients. With the UK having defunded the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, still supplying arms to Israel, and often defending Netanyahu’s policies, is the Minister not anxious that the UK Government are undermining international law itself?
Mr Mitchell
No. The hon. Lady will have seen how, in respect of UN Security Council resolutions 2720 and 2728, Britain’s diplomacy worked to move people into a common position. We are very clear about the importance of getting aid into Gaza and getting the hostages out, and all British policy is bent, without fear or favour, towards achieving that.
George Galloway (Rochdale) (WPB)
The Deputy Foreign Secretary (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
We are deeply concerned about the prospect of a military offensive in Rafah. We need an immediate humanitarian pause to get aid in and hostages out, then progress towards a permanent, sustainable ceasefire.
George Galloway
The Foreign Secretary is fortunate to have such an able deputy, which makes it all the more difficult to understand the inherent complacency in that answer. We are hours away from a bloodbath that will make Falluja pale into insignificance—it will be the worst bloodbath seen in the world since the second world war. Some 1.6 million people, most of them women and children, are 72 hours away from a full-scale invasion. The Minister keeps saying that we are going to press Israel; what are the Government going to do about it if it happens?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Gentleman and I first entered this House on the same day, nearly 40 years ago, and it is no surprise to see him back in his place. It has to be said that throughout that time his views have been remarkably consistent. Given the number of civilians sheltering in Rafah, it is not easy to see how such an offensive could be compliant with international humanitarian law in the current circumstances, and on his overall point, I hope he will recognise that the British Government are doing everything we can to prevent the circumstances he has described.
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)
“Sustainable calm” is the latest buzzword, but the fighting simply has to stop. In the past two days, Palestinian President Abbas has said that in order for there to be sustainable calm or a ceasefire, the United States must give a warning to Israel. What warnings have the UK Government given to Israel when it comes to a possible ground invasion in Rafah?
Mr Mitchell
I refer my hon. Friend to the comments I made earlier. He will know that the British and American Governments have been working in lockstep to prevent the situation he has described.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I recognise the distress caused to all those affected by international parental child abduction, particularly the children. The primary global mechanism for dealing with international child abduction cases is the 1980 Hague child abduction convention. Due to the persistent campaigning of my right hon. Friend, the Foreign Office has raised this matter with the Polish Government, including the Foreign Secretary raising it with his counterpart.
Priti Patel
The Minister is fully sighted on what is, frankly, one of the most tragic and appalling cases: that of my constituent, Mr Tom Toolan, whose Polish ex-partner defied a family court order and took their daughter Rhian to Poland. This case has been going on for too long—for many, many years. I thank the Department for the engagement it has been having. The Minister will also know that there are hundreds of other cases of children being abducted that are specific to Poland. With the change in the Polish Government at the end of last year, what further plans do the Minister and the Government have to give real support to my constituent? His life is being destroyed by this, and it cannot go on. It is not sustainable any more, and he has been let down by Polish court orders again and again.
Ms Ghani
My right hon. Friend’s persistent campaigning has made sure that the case of Tom Toolan has been raised regularly with our Polish counterparts. The Government have raised it many times, including on 9 April with the Minister of Justice. The Foreign Office remains committed to using every appropriate opportunity to raise issues surrounding the enforcement of court orders under the 1980 Hague convention, as well as individual cases, with the Polish Government. As my right hon. Friend will know, now that I have taken over this brief, I am absolutely committed to ensuring that we are returning children to the parents they have been allocated to by courts.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The Deputy Foreign Secretary (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
This year, the UK will nearly double its support for people in Sudan, with £89 million in aid. That is nearly double the amount we set out at the beginning of last year, but in the past quarter, we have augmented that figure as well.
Alison Thewliss
I thank the Minister for that answer. The Sudanese city of El Fasher is the western region of Darfur’s humanitarian hub, but the US ambassador to the UN has said that El Fasher
“is on the precipice of a large-scale massacre”.
What is the Minister doing to avert this impending crisis?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Member raises the position of El Fasher, and I specifically spoke about this with the UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, yesterday. She is absolutely right, and we are doing everything we can. As she will know, Darfur is a particular focus of the British Government—and indeed of Parliament, through the all-party group on Sudan and South Sudan—and, through a number of mechanisms, we are doing everything we can to try to ensure that the people in Darfur are protected.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I do not know whether the Deputy Foreign Secretary has had the opportunity to see the evidence that frontline aid workers gave to the International Development Committee last week. It was very traumatic evidence, but the one chink of light was their positivity towards the work that the FCDO has been doing to try to continue education for children displaced during this crisis. Will my right hon. Friend give a commitment that that support will continue and, indeed, be enhanced?
Mr Mitchell
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for what he has said. We are seeking to assist 500,000 children under five in Sudan. He will know that 8.6 million people have been displaced, 2 million have fled across borders and 17.7 million are suffering acute food insecurity. More widely, 730,000 Sudanese children are suffering from the deadliest form of malnutrition.
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
As we know, and as has been said, right now an offensive is under way to capture El Fasher, the last remaining city in Darfur outside Rapid Support Forces control. The risk of massacres and rapes targeted at non-Arab communities is imminent, and I fear that it will be simply appalling in scale. All arms supplies to the warring sides must stop, and we thank our tireless diplomats, alongside African Security Council colleagues, for Friday’s statement at the UN, but what mechanisms are the Government using, with our partners, every single day to build pressure for an immediate ceasefire and a sustainable peace?
Mr Mitchell
We very much hope that Jeddah 3 will be the next significant opportunity to negotiate. What we require is a ceasefire, with the troops returning to barracks, and a political track. When I was in Adré on the Chad-Sudan border a few weeks ago, I saw for myself the difficulties of supporting Darfur, including with food. The hon. Lady, and indeed the House, may rest assured that Sudan is not forgotten and that Britain, as the pen holder at the United Nations, is doing everything it can to help.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (David Rutley)
The UK is committed to defending freedom of religion or belief for all. We share widespread international concern about the suppression of human rights in Nicaragua, including the right to freedom of religion or belief. We continue to call, in bilateral and multilateral settings, for the Nicaraguan Government to respect democracy and all human rights.
Fiona Bruce
Three all-party parliamentary groups, including that on international freedom of religion or belief, recently produced an inquiry report, “The Silencing of Democracy in Nicaragua”, outlining widespread, grave and brutal human rights violations by the regime against journalists, academics, political opponents, religious leaders and wider civil society. Our report makes recommendations for the UK Government and other states. What public steps will Ministers take, both unilaterally and jointly with other countries, to challenge those violations, to support the victims and survivors, such as Bishop Álvarez, and to call to account the Nicaraguan regime for such violations, in line with our recommendations?
David Rutley
I very much welcome the report. It was good to meet my hon. Friend and parliamentary neighbour, the respected special envoy on FORB, to review the report—I read it with interest and will respond to the inquiry members shortly. She can be assured that we continue to call out this behaviour—this unacceptable behaviour—by the regime, which does not respect human rights and certainly does not respect freedom of religion or belief.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
We have called for an end to British citizen Jimmy Lai’s prosecution in Hong Kong and for his release. The Foreign Secretary raised his case with the Chinese Foreign Minister in February, and I raised it during my visits to Beijing and Hong Kong last week.
Bob Seely
Would Ministers agree that this dreadful case shows the true nature of the Chinese communist regime? Could we be doing more to really get a stout defence of British citizens throughout the world, including Vladimir Kara-Murza in Russia and Jimmy Lai in Hong Kong, who are part of political show trials in authoritarian or fascist states?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
Mr Lai has faced multiple charges to silence and discredit him, and he has been targeted in a clear attempt to stop the peaceful exercise of his rights to freedom of expression and association. My hon. Friend raises an important question about dual nationals and the challenges that our consular teams face in countries that do not recognise that British nationality. We will continue to champion them, and we have consular teams at Jimmy Lai’s trial almost every day and will continue to provide what support we can, including to his family.
Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I know that the Minister takes a close interest in this issue. Has she or any other Foreign Office Minister had an opportunity to raise this directly with the Chinese ambassador?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I have raised this issue with the ambassador, and was able to raise it last week when I was in Beijing with my Foreign Minister counterpart.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
The trial and detention of British citizen Jimmy Lai shows the symbolism and importance of getting a grip on the question of Hong Kongers and their rights. Can the Minister confirm that when she was in Beijing she was able to get the balance right between the legitimate trade interests and the importance of human rights, freedom of religion or belief, freedom of expression, and all those other moral and political duties that we have in foreign policy?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I was able to meet many different groups, from businesses to civil society and religious voices, and indeed political interlocutors, last week in Beijing and also in Hong Kong. I raised very firmly all those issues, such as freedom of expression, without fear or favour. They were robust discussions. It is so important that we are able to engage so that we can have those conversations. Our complex relationship with China and Hong Kong continues but we will continue to stand firm to make sure we champion and stand up for all those who defend those freedoms.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
The Deputy Foreign Secretary (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
The Government continue to stand up for our values, our allies and those most in need. The Foreign Secretary attended the NATO and G7 Foreign Ministers meetings and reaffirmed our unwavering commitment to Ukraine. He urged partners to increase their support in line with the Prime Minister’s pledge of 2.5% of GDP for defence. I returned overnight from the United Nations in New York as part of Britain’s contribution to the international conference on population and development 30 and our work on Sudan and securing funding to stave off a famine in Ethiopia.
Tonia Antoniazzi
Conditions in Gaza are desperate and civilians are suffering. It is now an immense issue. Water has still not been fully switched back on and famine is taking hold. The World Food Programme reports that 90% of people in northern Gaza are living on less than a meal a day. Will the right hon. Gentleman clearly outline what his Government are doing to alleviate the threat of famine and prevent its further spread?
Mr Mitchell
We are trying to make sure that the water is restored, as I set out earlier, and we are championing the provision of aid by land, sea and air, and I set out the help we have received from the Royal Air Force in that respect. But at the end of the day, the right way to get aid into Gaza is by road and we are pressing in every way we can to ensure that that access is restored.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend makes a good point. We are working closely with a number of partner Governments, including the United States of America, Cyprus and the United Nations. Maritime discussions include corridor planning for the delivery of UK aid and our package of support including equipment and the use of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Cardigan Bay.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
Last week the US Congress agreed a new $61 billion aid package for Ukraine. The bipartisan co-operation led by Mike Johnson is essential if Ukraine is to continue to defend against Putin’s illegal invasion. I am proud that this House will stand united on Ukraine for as long as it takes to win. Will the Minister update the House on progress with our G7 allies to seize and repurpose frozen Russian state assets in the UK, to support the reconstruction of Ukraine?
Mr Mitchell
The Government are seeking agreement on a way of advancing this matter with the G7. The right hon. Gentleman is right about the mechanism, and we are doing everything we can with our allies to achieve precisely what he describes.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (David Rutley)
The list of proscribed organisations is kept under review, but we do not comment on whether any particular organisation is being considered for proscription. However, the Government have taken measures to counter the threat from Iran, including sanctioning the IRGC in its entirety.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
The Government consistently raise human rights issues with the Chinese authorities, as I did during my visit last week, as I have mentioned. We also regularly raise Tibet in multilateral fora, such as in January at China’s universal periodic review and in March as part of our item 4 statement at the UN Human Rights Council.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
Mr Mitchell
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his thoughts and ideas, which he came and spoke to me about last week. He was conveying the views of the mosques in Aylesbury. We are pursuing many of the ideas that he set out, as he knows, especially on meeting the evident humanitarian needs that have rightly preoccupied the House today.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
Mr Mitchell
As the hon. Lady knows, UN resolution 2728, which was passed on 25 March, reflected the international consensus behind the UK’s position about the importance of getting aid in and the hostages out. That is what we are bending every sinew to achieve.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
Bearing in mind Lord Cameron’s unique responsibility for Libya, following our intervention in that country during the Arab spring, what are the Government doing to help the Libyan Government to tackle the enormous fraud that is taking place from the sale of oil from the Libyan state oil company?
David Rutley
We continue to work closely with the Government in Libya. Lord Ahmad and I keep in touch on these matters, and I will update my hon. Friend further.
George Galloway (Rochdale) (WPB)
Mr Mitchell
I think the hon. Gentleman is speculating in an extraordinary manner. What the Court said at the time was that the hostages should be released, that there should be more aid into Gaza and that Israel should not commit acts that violate the rights of Palestinians. That is where the Court rests at this point, and we must wait for further events.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
Ahead of the UN General Assembly high-level meeting on antimicrobial resistance, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is vital to build the political will of developed and developing countries to prioritise tackling AMR? What discussions has he had with his counterparts coming up to this high-level meeting?
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend is right. An enormous amount of work is going on in respect of AMR, which is being discussed extensively this year at the United Nations. Dame Sally Davies, who leads for Britain on this vital issue, is doing a fabulous job, and Britain is committed to doing everything it can to make real progress.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
Mr Mitchell
We have worked extensively with our partners in the Gulf on evacuations, and Britain is doing a great deal through our medical support for the field hospital we have in Gaza as well as to support other humanitarian and medical activities, which are so vital there.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
British citizen Ryan Cornelius has now been imprisoned in the United Arab Emirates for 16 years. In 2022, the UN determined that he was “arbitrarily detained”, and before the Deputy Foreign Secretary came to his current position, he signed a letter calling for his immediate release. On Saturday, Ryan turned 70, and his children have grown up without him. Will the Government please update us on what they are doing to get him home and whether they will lodge a plea for clemency, given his age and ill health?
David Rutley
I assure my hon. Friend that FCDO Ministers and officials continue to raise the cases of both Mr Cornelius and Mr Ridley with the UAE authorities. We are urgently looking into the information provided by the family and seeking expert advice. We will follow up with the people concerned when we have more information.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
The EU scheme requires people between the ages of 18 and 35—I did not realise that you were still a young person at 35—to have absolutely free movement. That discussion has been had at length both in the Chamber and during the Brexit vote. What we do have is bilateral youth mobility schemes, which we are more than happy to propose with interested parties.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
On Gibraltar, the Minister has stated that our current EU negotiations are consistent with UK sovereignty. How will that be achieved, given our defence and RAF assets as well as any nuclear naval capability that the UK has in that region? How will our sovereignty be guaranteed at the border if there is a Schengen border post on the soil of Gibraltar?
David Rutley
My hon. Friend can be assured that we will continue to safeguard the sovereignty of Gibraltar, which is much cherished. He can also be assured that in the negotiations we will fully protect the operations and the independence of the UK’s military facilities in Gibraltar. I very much look forward to discussing this more fully in front of his Committee tomorrow morning.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
David Rutley
We continue to engage with the Saudi authorities on this and, as the hon. Member knows, we push back on the death penalty being used in any country around the world.
Sir David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
When will the Foreign Office and the Home Office abandon their ridiculous pseudo security argument that is preventing the return of Shamima Begum and other women and children from northern Syria? Our allies oppose that policy because they know that it risks turning those children into tomorrow’s terrorists.
Mr Mitchell
My right hon. Friend, who knows a great deal about this matter, speaks with considerable authority on it. I have no doubt that his voice will be heard in both the Foreign Office and the Home Office.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
Spain, Norway and Ireland are ready jointly to recognise Palestine as a state within weeks. Four other European countries look likely to follow suit, and France recently voted to admit Palestine as a full member of the UN. Is it not time that the UK Government joined their European partners in recognising Palestine?
Mr Mitchell
As we have made clear, recognition of a Palestinian state cannot come at the beginning of the process, but it does not have to come at the end.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
Could the Deputy Foreign Secretary update us on the state of our relations with Djibouti, and his assessment of the impact of the UK recognising the memorandum of understanding between Ethiopia and Somalia on the development of the port of Berbera? Does he have any plans to visit Djibouti? If so, may I give him some advice?
Mr Mitchell
I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that I have visited Djibouti, without suffering the fate that I am so sorry he suffered. As he knows, we are taking up this matter with the authorities in Djibouti.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
Israel’s deliberate and wilful starvation of Gaza is a war crime, yet the Government deflect all questions on UNRWA funding by saying that it runs until the end of April. We are here—today is the last day of April. If the Government do not restore UNRWA funding, are they not aiding and abetting Israeli war crimes?
Mr Mitchell
I have made very clear the Government’s position on UNRWA. We are in a process, and after it has been completed I will report to the House.
Dame Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
Ahmed Ali Alid, the Moroccan asylum seeker convicted last week of murdering 70-year-old Terence Carney, wandered through 13 European countries before entering the UK illegally and claiming asylum. Does the Minister agree that we must redouble our efforts and work with international allies, and that we do not want criminals like that in our country?
David Rutley
I understand the hon. Lady’s concerns. I am not familiar with the case, but I will follow up and get back to her.
Port Talbot Steelworks
(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on Tata ending the statutory consultation on redundancies at Port Talbot steelworks.
The Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)
On 25 April Tata announced its strategic direction to proceed with its Port Talbot transformation, following the launch of the formal national consultation with the unions on 6 February. Technically, the consultation has not concluded at national or local level. The statutory consultation remains under way, and I understand that the company intends to move to local consultation with staff who may be affected.
This is a deeply concerning time for the Tata workforce and the wider community. I hold regular conversations and meetings with the unions and management, and will continue to do so as we develop interventions to build a brighter future for Port Talbot. On 15 September we announced an unprecedented £500 million Government grant as part of the £1.25 billion investment by Tata Steel to build a new electric arc furnace. Tata Steel employs more than 8,000 people, including at Port Talbot. All those jobs— along with many thousands more in the supply chain—would be under threat were it not for the agreement that we struck. The transformation will be difficult but the funding has saved 5,000 jobs in the company. It is not the case that we have paid money to put people out of work—we have paid a lot of money to save 5,000 jobs. We are also looking to modernise production and ensure that steelmaking in south Wales can continue for generations to come.
Going beyond that, to support those affected by Tata’s decision we have put £100 million towards the creation of the transition board, which I chair, and which includes representatives of the UK and Welsh Governments, local authorities and industry. The funding includes £80 million from the UK Government and £20 million from Tata—nothing as yet from the Welsh Government, but we hope that there will be some. It will be used to achieve the transition board’s priorities, the first of which is to support those affected employees to find new, well-paid jobs. The board’s priorities also include supporting businesses in the supply chain and the longer-term regeneration of the region.
In its most recent meeting last week the transition board endorsed a local economic action plan, which will act as a road map for how best to use the funding to support those affected. While the ongoing consultation is a matter between the trade unions and the company, we will continue discussions with all parties. We hope a resolution is found that avoids industrial action. The Government will continue to work closely with industry to secure a sustainable and competitive future for the Welsh steel sector.
I am confident of a good future for Port Talbot and the region, with the UK Government progressing the bid by Associated British Ports to the next stage for up to £160 million of funding to support our nascent floating offshore wind industry, and our progress towards establishing the Celtic freeport, backed by £26 million of UK Government funding.
Jo Stevens
Last Thursday’s news was a gut punch for workers in Port Talbot, with economic consequences that could reverberate across south Wales for decades. Last month, I met workers at the plant. The sense of the threat to nearly 3,000 people’s livelihoods was all-consuming. The wider supply chain in Llanwern, Shotton and Trostre is vulnerable, too. We again urge Tata not to make any irreversible decisions before a general election.
My hon. Friends the Members for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), for Newport East (Jessica Morden), for Newport West (Ruth Jones) and for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) have been proud vocal advocates for their constituents. In contrast, the Government have forked out £500 million of taxpayers’ cash for the loss of 3,000 jobs. That is their deal and they own it.
In addition, the loss of sovereign steelmaking is a fundamental threat to our UK economy and security. It will constrain our ability to build the floating offshore wind we need to lower energy bills, deliver energy security and create the jobs of the future.
We are now around a month away from blast furnace No. 5 potentially closing, so what assessment have the Government made of the impact of the closure on job losses at the plant and in the supply chain across Wales? With the talks ongoing between unions and Tata this week, does the Secretary of State, like me, want to see an agreement from Tata that compulsory redundancies will be avoided? What steps will he take to encourage such an agreement? He has said that no one will be left behind if they lose their jobs. Will he publish the local economic plan that the transition board has agreed as the basis for its investment decisions?
With Labour’s national wealth fund, the future of UK steel will be fuelled by the skills, talent and ambition of Welsh steelworkers, but until the country is given the chance to have its say at a general election, I want workers across Wales to know that Labour Members have their backs.
David T. C. Davies
Let me take the hon. Lady’s points one by one. First, the £500 million investment will save 3,000 jobs. We are not paying money to throw people out of work; we do not want to see anyone thrown out of work. Tata has made a decision to close blast furnaces based on the losses it is making. When it came to us, we said, “What can we do to keep people in work?” This was the plan it came up with.
Secondly, the plan will have no impact on sovereign steelmaking. The hon. Lady, if she talks to Tata, will understand—[Interruption.] She is chuntering, but all the iron ore that goes into the blast furnaces comes from abroad, all the coal that is turned into coke comes in from abroad, and all the limestone comes in from abroad. It therefore has no impact whatever on our sovereign steelmaking ability. In fact, we have 8 million tonnes of scrap steel in this country, much of which has been exported abroad. We are going to use that scrap steel and put it in the electric arc furnace, which will increase our sovereign ability.
The hon. Lady says that the plan will have an impact on our ability to create floating offshore wind. Last time, she said it would have an impact on our ability to create battleships. She needs to understand that battleships are made using steel plate and that floating offshore wind turbines are also made using steel plate. Steel plate is not made by Tata at Port Talbot. Tata at Port Talbot produces coil, which is thin and not strong enough to make either battleships or floating offshore wind turbines.
The hon. Lady asked about the number of people affected. We have been very clear about that from the start. [Interruption.] I am trying to answer the hon. Lady’s questions. She asked the questions; I listed them and I am answering them. She asked about the number of jobs affected. We have said all along that we expect it to be around 2,800, but it is for Tata to confirm that once it has gone through the statutory consultation procedure.
The hon. Lady asked whether we would encourage Tata to come to an agreement so that there are no compulsory redundancies. Of course, we would. We do not want anyone to be made redundant against their wishes. We did not want this process to happen in the first place, but as I said to her several times, Tata came to the UK Government with a threat to pull out, which would have cost 8,000 jobs and the entire supply chain.
The hon. Lady asked if the local area action plan can be published. It is not fully finalised yet—it is a road map—but she will surely be aware that the current First Minister was sitting on the board as the economic development Minister. The Labour economic development Minister in the Senedd is on the board. The local Member of Parliament is on the board, as is the local Senedd Member, the chief executive of the local authority, and the representatives of three trade unions, so it is hardly a secret document. It is not as if the transition board is meeting in conditions of great secrecy.
If the hon. Lady has any further questions, I am more than happy to answer them.
Sir John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
When will the Government do something about the very high energy prices in this country, which have been made high by regulations and taxes? Does my right hon. Friend not accept that any kind of steelmaking will be extremely difficult if we have uncompetitive energy, and is it not wrong to import such materials, because it will mean even more carbon dioxide emissions, as well as destroying jobs here?
David T. C. Davies
We have looked carefully at the losses that Tata is making, which have come about partly because of the age of the infrastructure. In fact, Tata has had to close down the furnaces at the Morfa coke ovens within the last few weeks. The UK Government are fully cognisant of the cost of energy at the moment, which is why Tata has already benefited from many of the schemes that we have introduced over the past few years, will begin to benefit from the British industry supercharger scheme shortly, and will benefit from the carbon border adjustment mechanism at the start of 2027.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
Despite what the Secretary of State may claim, the Government are investing in support of plans that will lead to approximately 2,800 job cuts, along with an irreversible cut in the capacity to produce virgin steel. Tata has announced that it will open a voluntary redundancy scheme on 15 May. Can the Secretary of State update the House on what he expects the redundancy packages to include, and will he join me in condemning threats that the company appears to have made to withdraw enhanced redundancy packages if industrial action goes ahead?
David T. C. Davies
Let me answer the hon. Gentleman’s questions directly. The value of the redundancy packages will have to be agreed between Tata and the trade unions, but Tata has made it very clear that it wants to go well beyond statutory redundancy. It has put out several figures, some of which could be more generous if there is no industrial action. I do not want to see industrial action, but I do not condemn the unions either; I think that they have played a very positive role in discussions on the transition board and outside it, and I understand the strength of feeling among people at Port Talbot.
As for the two other points made by the hon. Gentleman, let me say this again, and say it clearly, so that everyone can understand it. Tata came to the UK Government and said that it was going to pull out of steelmaking in south Wales. That decision would have cost 8,000 jobs, as well as, we think, about 12,700 in the wider supply chain. Officials from the Department for Business and Trade wanted to come up with a plan that would save as many jobs as possible, which is where the arc furnace plan has come from. That plan will save 5,000 jobs, with a Government investment of half a billion pounds. It is not the outcome that anyone wants, but it is a better outcome to see 2,800 jobs lost than to see 8,000 lost. Neither is a good outcome, but that is what we wanted to achieve.
Let me repeat that this is not really about a sovereign ability to produce virgin steel. All the elements of steelmaking are being imported from abroad. We are not about to start opening up iron ore mines. Steel is produced here with iron ore from abroad, limestone from abroad, and coke made from coal from abroad. We cannot do this by ourselves. At the same time, we have 8 million tonnes of steel that is being exported. We will be making use of a resource that is already in our country.
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)
Back home in Scunthorpe, we watch very closely what is happening in Port Talbot. What work has been done to determine the quality of those 8 million tonnes of scrap and whether it will be suitable for use in the electric arc furnaces? May I also ask my right hon. Friend to reflect on this point? When it comes to sovereign capability, the issue is not always what you are doing and choose to make; it sometimes comes down to what you may need to make at some point in the future. May I remind my right hon. Friend that we have a perfectly good mine full of coke and coal in Cumbria, and that there is an awful lot of limestone under the ground in this country as well?
David T. C. Davies
My hon. Friend is right that if we wanted to, we could probably find iron ore, coke, coal and limestone in the UK, but I do not see any great enthusiasm at the moment for opening up the mines to do that. As for the 8 million tonnes of scrap in the UK that will go into the arc furnaces, officials from the Department for Business and Trade and EY have gone over very carefully the business plan being put forward by Tata. Let me point out to my hon. Friend that not only are the UK Government investing half a billion pounds, but Tata is investing £750 million, so Tata obviously feels that there is a good, strong, commercial case for building that arc furnace, and is putting its money where its mouth is.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
The Port Talbot steelworkers in my constituency have given their life to the steel industry and to Tata Steel. The reckless deal that has been done by the UK Government and Tata is a hammer blow for them, and we hope that there is still time for the employer and the unions to come together, drop the bad deal for steel, and adopt the compelling and robust multi-union deal instead.
May I ask the Secretary of State about the role of contractors in all this? Everyone knows that for every job lost in a steelworks, between two and three more are lost through supply chains and contractors, so the figure of 2,800 that is being used is a massive underestimate of the devastating impact, as there will be job losses through supply chains and subcontractors. Does he agree that the number of job losses will be far higher than 2,800 if this reckless deal is adopted? If so, does he agree that it is time for everyone to pull back from the brink and adopt the multi-union plan, which offers us a bridge to the future, rather than the cliff edge that is currently being pursued?
David T. C. Davies
Clearly, there will be an impact on those in the supply chain; there has been absolutely no doubt about that. At the last transition board meeting, at which the hon. Gentleman was present, we discussed that, and we agreed that we would want to support anyone in the supply chain who has been affected, but we cannot start putting numbers on this. It would be irresponsible to start guessing the number of people who will lose their job, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there will clearly be an effect.
The hon. Gentleman talks about a reckless plan, but ours was the only plan on the table. He keeps suggesting that we adopt the Syndex plan, but it is not a plan unless Tata agrees to it. I have discussed the Syndex plan with senior management at Tata and with the head of Tata Holdings, Mr Chandrasekaran, in Mumbai. He does not believe that it is commercially viable, and he believes that it would be technically far too difficult to try to build an electric arc furnace on the site of the steel melt shop.
David T. C. Davies
The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I do not know what the answer is; he says that it is possible to implement the Syndex plan, but Tata says that it is not. What the hon. Gentleman has to realise is that it is not the UK Government he has to convince; it is Tata. The UK Government have never said that they would be against the Syndex plan. It is Tata that has to be persuaded.
Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend for his comments, and for reminding us that half a billion pounds is no small beer when it comes to intervention in a private industry. There are clearly difficulties with the transition, and a lot of us who care deeply about the steel industry in Wales and Britain are worried about our capacity to do what we need to in the future, as my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft) said. What ongoing discussions are there on whether Tata will keep one of the blast furnaces open for longer than is set out in the plan, in which they are to be shut down by the end of this year?
David T. C. Davies
I have had that discussion with senior management at Tata, as have members of the Labour party, trade unions and many others. Tata faces losses of over £1 million a day as a result of keeping the two blast furnaces open. It says that those losses would continue even if one was functioning, because, first, it would have to make significant capital expenditure on blast furnace 4 for that to go ahead, and, secondly, it would have to import all the coke that goes into that blast furnace, as the coke ovens were shut down with the agreement of the unions, because of health and safety concerns. Then Tata would face the additional technical problem of trying to build an electric arc furnace on the same site as a steel melt shop containing hundreds of tonnes of molten steel that is poured off into casters. That is why it has said very clearly that it will not entertain the proposal. The UK Government have never said that we would not entertain the proposal. If Tata wanted to come forward with a plan to build the arc furnace, using the grant that the Government have put forward, while keeping one blast furnace open for longer, of course the Government would be open to discussion of that.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr iawn, Llefarydd. In the Netherlands, political pressure has resulted in Tata investing in an electric arc furnace and direct reduced iron technology, all while protecting jobs and keeping blast furnaces open. The German Government are spending €2.2 billion—over four times more than the UK is spending—on transitioning the country’s steel industry towards hydrogen. Why is the UK so uniquely incapable of effective investment in our strategic steel future?
David T. C. Davies
A few people seem to have the idea that building a DRI plant would resolve this problem. The first point to remember is that if a DRI plant were built on the site, it would probably save another 200 jobs. There is a plant in Texas, run by Voestalpine, which I believe produces 2 million tonnes or so of steel every year and employs 200 people, so a DRI plant will not resolve the problem. Clearly, DRI plants require access to a regular and affordable amount of natural gas. There is, however, nothing whatsoever to stop Tata, at some point in future, building a DRI plant to go along with the electric arc furnace, if it believes that that is commercially sensible. Even if it were to do that, it would not really resolve the problem that we face: 2,800 jobs being lost in Port Talbot. At best, it would save another 200 jobs.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
I am sorry, but this Government’s lack of ambition for our steel industry is just disgraceful. As many of the Secretary of State’s constituents work in Llanwern, he should understand that decisions made about Port Talbot have a direct impact on Newport and can lead to problems with securing volume for Llanwern. We are looking at potential redundancies, and uncertainty about the long-term future of the plant. It is not too late for the Secretary of State to stand up for his constituents, show more ambition for our steel industry—as other countries do—argue for a fairer transition, and try to avoid compulsory redundancies. Why will he not do that for his own constituents?
David T. C. Davies
We have acknowledged all along that under the proposals, Port Talbot planned to close down the pickle line at Llanwern, but not until the electric arc furnace was built. We discussed that at the last meeting of the transition board, and we all agreed that just as we want to help everyone in Port Talbot, we want to help anyone affected in Llanwern.
The hon. Lady keeps talking about a lack of ambition. We can all dream about a situation in which blast furnace 4 is kept open for another six years, but what we cannot do is force Tata to continue accepting losses of over £1 million a day in order for that to happen. I have to say that there has been a lack of responsibility on the part of some Labour Members—though not any present in this Chamber—who seem to have gone around suggesting that they have a special, costed secret plan that would save all those jobs. They do not. They have not put any kind of a costed plan to any senior management in Tata. They have never sat down and said, “If you do this, we will give you this, and that way, we could save all those jobs.” They have simply gone around saying that they want to see all the jobs saved. We all want to see every single job saved, but we cannot force Tata to continue to take losses of over £1 million a day.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I come from an area of the country that suffered from industrial decline two generations ago, and the human impact of what we see happening to Port Talbot will blight the current generation. We talk a lot about a transition to a green economy. When will the Government invest in the national skills strategy that we need to provide? People in Port Talbot are about to lose their jobs, and redundancy payments do not last forever. A generation will be blighted. They need skills for the 21st century, so will the Government commit to a national skills strategy?
David T. C. Davies
The hon. Lady asks about the money to support the town of Port Talbot. I have said already that there is £500 million to build an arc furnace that will save thousands of jobs. There is £15 million going into regenerating the town. There is £26 million of funding for the freeport, £7.5 million of funding for Launchpad and, as far as skills are concerned, £80 million from the UK Government primarily to retrain people. There is another £20 million coming in from Tata. There has not been one penny from the Welsh Government towards this endeavour. They have been able to find £120 million to spend on more Senedd Members, and £30 million to spend on 20 mph road signs, and we have just learned that they have lost £60 million, having set up a bank, but they have not been able to find one penny to support the steelworkers at Port Talbot.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Is this not just the tail end of a Government who abandoned the words “industrial strategy” a decade ago when I asked questions on this matter? Why have the Government not had the ambition and the vision to realise the potential? For example, if there were a plate mill on the site, it could produce the steel for the substructures and wind turbines that are planned to be built in the Celtic sea around the Milford Haven and Port Talbot freeport? There is no industrial strategy, there is no vision and there is no joined-upness. There are just massive sticking plasters from this Government.
David T. C. Davies
There are discussions going on about the possibility of building a plate mill on the site when the electric arc furnace is completed. There is nothing whatsoever to prevent a plate mill from being built. The hon. Gentleman will not be aware of all the discussions going on, but I say respectfully to him that a plate mill will not save 2,800 jobs. We face the loss of a significant number of jobs as a result of the decision to close down the blast furnaces, and even if a plate mill, a direct reduced iron plant or a hot zinc dip line were built on the site—all of which are reasonable things to consider—it would not solve the problem that 2,800 people are facing the loss of their jobs. That is why the £500 million for the arc furnace was so important, as was the £80 million for the transition board.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
We talked earlier about the supply chain. The repercussions of this decision will be felt across south Wales, so can I ask the Secretary of State directly whether he has secured any commitment whatsoever from Tata about the future of the workers at those downstream facilities across south Wales?
David T. C. Davies
Yes, Tata has been clear that it was originally going to close those sites but it now expects all those sites to remain open. During the process of building the arc furnace, while the blast furnaces are shut down, it will be bringing steel in from elsewhere to make sure that the product is going into those other plants.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
With the closure of the coke ovens making the viable lifespan of the blast furnaces all the more precarious, and the electric arc furnace still being a long way off, we will rapidly reach a situation where Port Talbot can no longer supply the Trostre works in Llanelli in my constituency, so what talks has the Secretary of State had with Tata bosses about securing high-quality interim supplies for Trostre and securing all the jobs there?
David T. C. Davies
I have spoken to Tata on that very issue. It has been clear that it would have to import steel to feed Trostre, and it is willing to do that. The timeline for the electric arc furnace is ambitious, but work is ongoing: the groundworks will start very shortly, the application for planning permission should go in in the autumn, and hopefully it will be turned round and dealt with by early next year. It will then take about two years to build the electric arc furnace.
Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The Secretary of State casually discards 2,800 jobs and is so uninterested in the ongoing effect on the rest of the economy in south Wales that he has not even made an assessment of what the economic impact will be on the south Wales valleys more generally. Can he clear up for us precisely how many other people’s jobs are likely to be affected? Is he aware that, in the last few months, we have had 500 jobs go at UK Windows and Doors in the Rhondda and 100 jobs go in the last 24 hours at Everest 2020 in the Rhondda? As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) says, it does not feel as if the Government have an industrial strategy. Nor does it feel as if they have an anti-poverty strategy. For that matter, they do not have a levelling-up strategy either, do they? Is it not time we had a new Secretary of State for Wales, so that we can get on and have a proper plan for the economy of south Wales?
David T. C. Davies
I am sorry to have to say this to the hon. Gentleman, but it is slightly insulting for him to suggest that the tone in which I have set out the answers suggests casual disregard or a lack of interest. I assure him that nothing whatsoever in the Wales Office at the moment is more important than securing the future of Port Talbot. I am sorry, but frankly, while this Government are putting up £500 million to ensure the future of steelmaking in south Wales and demonstrating an interest in making steel, some Opposition Members are more interested in making headlines.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
My constituents who work in Port Talbot inform me that there has been no progress on enhanced redundancy negotiations between the unions and Tata. Given the scale of the public investment involved, will the British Government use their leverage to ensure that Tata treats its workforce with a degree of dignity?
David T. C. Davies
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I think that Tata now needs to come forward with a bit more information about who exactly we can expect to see being made redundant and what their current skillsets are, so that we can begin targeting the help. The challenge up until now is that we have not had the information on who is being made redundant. Tata has made it clear that it will not automatically be the people on the blast furnaces, for example, who are made redundant, because it hopes to retain some of the people who are working there but offer redundancy to people in other parts of the plant. We have not had the information as of yet, but I think the time has come to have that information. We of course want to ensure that any redundancy packages are as generous as possible.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
My constituents who work at the Shotton plant are very worried about the news they are hearing and concerned about their colleagues’ futures, but they are also wondering what it means for them. Clearly there will be knock-on effects, not just in the supply chain but in other Tata plants around the country, so what assessment has the Secretary of State made of the short, medium and long-term impact of these decisions on other plants?
David T. C. Davies
We were very clear that while the arc furnace was being built, we wanted to make absolutely certain that all those other plants around Wales were able to receive product to finish, and Tata has been very clear that that will happen. It will have to bring it in from elsewhere over the next two to three years, but that will happen. There will therefore not be the impact that the hon. Gentleman is rightly concerned about.
Of course, that is possible only because of what some of the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues have described as a reckless deal. What would have been reckless would have been for us to see Tata in an office and say, “Okay, you’re going to make 8,000 people redundant and shut down all these sites, and there’s nothing for us to do about it.” That would have been reckless. What we actually did was to come forward with a £500 million package of taxpayers’ money, and rightly so, to support the continuation of steelmaking in Port Talbot and to ensure that all the other plants in Wales—Shotton, Trostre and Llanwern—continue to receive product during that interim period, so that we do not see significant job losses anywhere else.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
It is an increasingly dangerous world, as the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft) and the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) said, so will the Secretary of State release an impact assessment on Britain losing its sovereign capability to produce virgin steel?
David T. C. Davies
It is starting to feel a bit like groundhog day here. Can I explain again that the iron ore, the limestone and the coke are all coming in from abroad? There is no sovereign capability to make steel in the blast furnaces at Port Talbot. However, we are already producing high-quality steel in arc furnaces that is used in the defence industry. I recently met Sheffield Forgemasters, which is producing steel for nuclear submarines in an electric arc furnace in the United Kingdom.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
We have great hopes and plans to build offshore floating wind structures in the Cromarty firth and the surrounding area, which would be a fantastic use of the great fabrication skills we have there, but do the Government recognise that the continued production of steel—and very probably the increased production of steel—will be crucial to this plan becoming a reality?
David T. C. Davies
Yes, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important that we have a means of producing steel that can be used to build floating offshore wind turbines. Technically, that is quite difficult to do. It would require either steel plate or a very heavily reinforced version of steel coil. I know that discussions are going on between Tata and at least one of the likely major investors in floating offshore wind turbines to ensure that the steel can be made, and we hope that we will use steel from the electric arc furnace to do just that.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his answers. It is clear that he is keen to find solutions, but obviously many on this side of the Chamber—indeed, on both sides—are a bit concerned. Bearing in mind that steel produced in Port Talbot is the backbone of much construction in Northern Ireland—which prompted the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) to highlight protocol problems with the Prime Minister in the past—I too want to express my deep concern and ask the Minister to explain where the steel for our construction sector in Northern Ireland will come from if the Government are unable to step in and save jobs in Port Talbot.
David T. C. Davies
In the short term, I assume that the steel going into the industry in Northern Ireland does not come directly from Port Talbot. It probably comes from some of the other finishing plants. I do not know the full detail of the exact grades of steel that go into the Northern Ireland construction industry, but I am happy to discuss that with the hon. Gentleman.
Tata has made it absolutely clear that it does not expect any disruption in supply while the arc furnace is being built. Everyone I have spoken to—not just those at Tata, but independent experts—has said that 90% of the grades currently produced using blast furnaces can be produced using an electric arc furnace, and that the technology of electric arc furnace steel production is rapidly improving, so I would not expect there to be any disruption to supplies in the medium or long term.
Telegraph Media Group Ltd: Acquisition
(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lucy Frazer)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will update the House on the proposed acquisition of the Telegraph Media Group by RB Investco Ltd. I will refer to the Telegraph Media Group as the Telegraph and to RB Investco Ltd as the purchaser.
As the House will know, the sale of the Telegraph is currently subject to the media mergers process. Today, I would like to confirm that the purchaser has notified me of its intention to sell the call option agreement that gives it the ability to buy the Telegraph, in effect withdrawing from the purchase of the newspaper. This step follows the intervention I made on the merger situation on 26 January 2024, both to issue a public interest intervention notice, or PIIN, and to issue a pre-emptive action order. It also follows on from my announcement of 19 March on my assessment, following the reports of the Competition and Markets Authority and Ofcom, that I was minded to refer the merger to a further, more detailed phase 2 investigation. I have taken these decisions on the basis of the evidence in the case, and I will continue to do so.
I am now updating the House on the procedures and protections for the public interest that are in place in respect of the Telegraph, given the sale process that I understand will begin shortly. I have informed the parties that it would not be appropriate at this stage for me to take a decision on whether or not to make a phase 2 reference. In my view, the relevant merger situation remains in contemplation. I therefore continue to have powers, under the order, to prevent actions by the parties to the merger that might prejudice any phase 2 reference to the CMA or make it more difficult for me to take action as a result of my final decision following such a reference. The order prohibits the parties from making significant organisational and staff changes, including to the editorial team, without my consent. These restrictions remain in place. However, I have now agreed to derogations from the order that will give the parties the flexibility and regulatory space to make all reasonable preparations for the sale of the call option agreement.
It is important to be clear that I will not be engaging with prospective buyers, nor selecting the preferred bidder. The sale process will be run by RedBird IMI alone. My decision on any further derogation from the order that RedBird IMI will need to receive to complete the sale of the call option agreement will be made according to my powers and obligations under the Enterprise Act 2002, and it will be based on the public interest, rather than a qualitative decision on who should buy the titles. Any transfer to new ownership will also potentially be subject to the media mergers regime, as set out in the Act.
It is appropriate for me to say a few words about the underlying matters. I initiated this process under the powers I have under the Enterprise Act to protect the accurate presentation of news and the free expression of opinion in newspapers. These powers are vital. The freedom of the press to express opinions, to criticise and to hold power to account are all a fundamental part of our democracy. It is often said that the freedom of the press protects not the press’s freedom but ours.
It would not be appropriate for a foreign state to interfere with the accurate presentation of our news or the freedom of expression in newspapers. Although these powers under the existing media merger regime are broad, the Government have taken action to rule out newspaper and news magazine mergers involving any influence, ownership or control by foreign states. We have done that by amending the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill, which will shortly return to this House.
As a nation, we are a proud, open democracy and a strong trading power with a vibrant economy. Although we are rightly limiting powers to interfere with our democracy, as many other states do, in terms of foreign investment more generally we remain open for business.
I end by recognising the strength of feeling in this House and the other place, and by recognising the work done by the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, and in particular by the right hon. Baroness Stowell of Beeston.
I commend this statement to the House.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of the statement.
From the very start, Labour had questions about the proposed sale of some of our country’s most highly influential and historical news publications. We share legitimate public interest concerns about the accurate presentation of news, free expression of opinion and fair competition. We cannot take those freedoms for granted.
It is disappointing that this weak Government did not do the right thing from the start. Does the Secretary of State agree that this is not about singling out the United Arab Emirates, our important partners? She said that it is not appropriate for a foreign state to interfere with the accurate presentation of news, and I am glad that she has come round to that point of view, but surely no Government anywhere in the world, including ours, should own any news publications.
Labour will always act to safeguard the UK’s strong and independent free press, regardless of any publication’s political persuasion. We will champion its right to hold us to account. We will safeguard the freedom to scrutinise, to expose wrongdoing and to speak truth to power, because this is about protecting our democracy.
We, of course, welcome investment that makes a valuable contribution to our diverse media landscape, so we will closely follow this auction process. Can the Secretary of State give us more information on the timescale for the auction? What discussions has she had with trade unions representing the staff of the Telegraph Media Group? What steps will she take to ensure that this is a free and open sale, and will she keep the House updated? What will she do to ensure a competitive media landscape into the future?
It is important that the Secretary of State gets this right. Especially in an election year, our democracy is too precious to leave to chance.
Lucy Frazer
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for welcoming this statement on the position in which we now find ourselves. I reiterate her point that the UAE is an important trading partner. The legislation relates to all foreign states. We welcome our relationship with the UAE.
The hon. Lady says that this is an important point, and I have been very conscious of this matter since it first fell on my desk. From the outset, I have raised and dealt with the concerns in this case. Although she raises it now, and I am not looking at the complete record, I do not recall any occasion on which she has raised this matter either directly with me or in this House.
Freedom of the press is an important principle that we are upholding. As I said in my statement, I was already taking steps under the broad powers in the Enterprise Act in a quasi-judicial fashion, which limits the other measures that one can take.
On the timescale, I understand that certainty is needed for the publication and for those who work for it. I expect and hope that this process will be concluded in short order, understanding, of course, that it is important for the sale process to take place. This is a regulatory process, and I will update Members and the House at appropriate stages.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and the decision of RedBird IMI, in effect, to withdraw from purchasing the Telegraph. Freedom and plurality are, of course, cornerstones of our media, and political interventions should always be the last resort, but I agree with her that it is absolutely unacceptable for foreign states to have the potential to interfere with the independence and freedom of our press. What is RedBird’s role during the period it takes for a prospective buyer to be found? Will it be able to hold a non-controlling stake in the Telegraph at the end of this process?
Lucy Frazer
The position on the governance of the Telegraph during this period is the same as it has been since I started this regulatory process. I have been concerned at all times to ensure that the independence of the directors, the managers and the editorial team remains. That is why I brought forward a pre-emptive order, which would restrict any changes in that regard. A sales process will now take place, and it will have to follow any regulations that are in force and that will govern it.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement. My Front-Bench colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), and the SNP more widely are pleased about the decision and today’s announcement. It feels as though the protection of the independence and legitimacy of the media is something people feel strongly about across the House, no matter which party they represent. I am pleased that everybody is speaking with one voice on the blocking of foreign interference in our media outlets.
I wonder about the way in which this process has happened. Is she going to have a look at how it worked and whether or not RB Investco and the UAE were able to exploit loopholes to ensure that the process took longer than it could have taken in order for this decision to be made? Will she look at whether there are ways of tightening up the Enterprise Act and the legislation to ensure that those decisions can be made more quickly and loopholes cannot be exploited?
Legacy media outlets are struggling in a lot of ways, and many of them may be looking at alternative ways of funding what they are doing. Will she make it clear that, like us, she feels that that freedom of the press from foreign interference is incredibly important, no matter what the financial situation of the companies in question?
Lucy Frazer
The hon. Lady talks about tightening up the process. We significantly tightened it in the amendment that the Government tabled in the Lords and is coming back to this House today. That will indeed make sure that there can be no ownership, control or influence by a foreign state, because, as she makes clear, that is an important part of our democracy.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that at the end of this week we have World Press Freedom Day, so her statement is particularly welcome. I congratulate her on the scrupulous way in which she has undertaken her responsibilities. She will be aware that the Enterprise Act was written before the internet existed and that it is six years since Ofcom said that there needs to be fundamental review of our media merger regime. Will she therefore say what progress has been made on bringing the entire regime up to date to take account of the massive growth of online news distribution?
Lucy Frazer
I am very grateful for all the support my right hon. Friend gave me when he was in the Department and for the expertise he brought with him on the wider media and so many other matters. He makes an important point: the media landscape is changing. That is why we are looking at whether online news should be included in the scope of Ofcom’s powers.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
A number of staff at the Telegraph Media Group will be worried about their jobs, so what conversations has the Secretary of State had with trade union representatives of staff at TMG? I have just met the amazing bright, talented students at Luton Sixth Form College who are visiting today, some of whom may want a future in journalism, so will she say what impact this statement may have on media jobs and our ability to ensure a competitive media landscape in the future?
Lucy Frazer
One measure I took when issuing the public interest intervention notice and the pre-emptive order that followed it was to ensure that, whatever decision I took ultimately on this case, TMG was not prejudiced by the potential purchase. The pre-emptive order has always said that there should be no changes to the management or the editorial team of the Telegraph without my consent, to ensure that any changes in the interim would not be prejudiced by any ultimate sale, so I can give the hon. Lady the reassurance that measures are already in place to protect the staff at TMG in terms of this purchase. By the order today, I have highlighted that that pre-emptive order in relation to those staff continues.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for coming forward with this statement and for making the right decision. Does this whole process not demonstrate what my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) said earlier, which was that we are dealing with a digital world with analogue tools and it takes far too long? It also led to the peculiar situation whereby both she and the Minister for Media, Tourism and Creative Industries, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez) have had to come to the Dispatch Box despite being unable to say anything in answer to any questions, which was slightly unfair on them. I know that an amendment is coming through on another Bill, but we really need to speed this process up by saying simply that no foreign state could own any of our media. We now need to look at the online elements of that as well if we can.
Lucy Frazer
Let me offer my right hon. Friend reassurance, because that legislation is coming to the House today. I know that a lot of Members of this House and of the other place raised those concerns, and it is right that we brought forward an amendment to put absolutely beyond doubt that fact that it would be inappropriate for a foreign state to own our news media. That is why we built on Baroness Stowell’s amendment to put that beyond doubt and to put it in a form that works well. I am grateful to Baroness Stowell for the work she is putting into her amendment. I recognise the other point my right hon. Friend made about online media and it is absolutely something we are looking at.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Thanks are due to the Secretary of State for this decision. The Spectator will be free from foreign influence and can carry on describing me as, “A languid old gent who represents a craggy constituency somewhere near Norway.” As she says, that is freedom of speech and one must put up with what one must put up with—good luck to these eminent publications. Does she realise, however, that also fundamental to democracy and freedom of speech is the continued survival of our myriad local newspapers the length and breadth of this sceptred isle? They are in difficulty and if they go down, we will be the poorer for it. I do not expect an answer now, but may I at least ask her to look at this issue as one that is important?
Lucy Frazer
I absolutely understand that and I have done a number of roundtables where I have talked to the local media sector. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that in the past we have had a local news fund. He will also be aware of the measures we have on business rates for local news media. I am very conscious of the need to support our local media, which play a vital role in ensuring that we have local democracy. He will also know that one measure we put in at the mid-term review was to ensure that where the BBC took steps in spaces where there was already a competitive media market, it should engage more widely with those it was affecting.
Sir John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I strongly welcome the Secretary of State’s clear statement of policy that foreign states should not be allowed to take over press and media in this country, which is a welcome development. I hope that in the proposals for amending the law it will be clear that the policy relates not only to Governments but to nationalised industries, public authorities or companies in which states have significant influence because of their shareholdings. If that is not set out, such bodies may try to find ways around the law. I am sure my right hon. and learned Friend is up to that, but can we please have an amendment that absolutely nails press freedom in the way we want it to exist—free of influence from foreign states?
Lucy Frazer
I understand my right hon. Friend’s points. When we bring forward legislation, it is important that it does not have loopholes. As a Department, we thought very carefully about how we can protect against that. When the Bill comes back to this House this afternoon, he will see that we have defined foreign state ownership very broadly. We have extended the definition to include not only ownership but control and influence.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Further to the excellent point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), may I press the Secretary of State? In her statement, she said that the order prohibits parties from making significant organisational and staff changes without her consent, and that the restrictions remain in place. Will she agree not to consent to any deal that involves significant job losses?
Lucy Frazer
Obviously, it would be entirely inappropriate to say what decision I might take when exercising a quasi-judicial function without looking at the evidence, which is exactly what I would do.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
I welcome the statement, not because of the UAE—after all, the UAE is a great diplomatic and trading partner of the UK—but because it gets rid of foreign involvement in our media. Will the Secretary of State say more about how online and television media will be affected by the order, because those are the growing media outlets? We have talked about freedom of the press, but will she advise us of how we can get rid of disinformation? In the UK, we have outlets such as Press TV and China Daily, which are propaganda arms of quite nefarious regimes, operating and working here. What are the Government doing to stop those nefarious activities poisoning the minds of our young people?
Lucy Frazer
There is so much that one could respond to in my hon. Friend’s question. I remind him that we are looking at the online news space, which is vital. It is important to emphasise that Ofcom already has significant powers in the broadcast space. It has already taken actions in relation to foreign involvement in our broadcast media and banned certain entities from operating. We always need to look at how we tackle misinformation, and we are doing so across Government as a whole.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for her positivity in her responses. Will she highlight what steps can be taken to ensure that the scrambling that took place to protect freedom of British speech and media from international corporations is not replicated? Will she consider providing legislative protection to that effect, which is vital as outside influencers seek to sway public perception for their own ends? That has to be recognised and protected against.
Lucy Frazer
It is important that we always have freedom of the press and that external forces do not interfere with that freedom. I will be making a speech to the Society of Editors this afternoon that the hon. Gentleman might wish to read, after I have delivered it. I am happy to consider the points he has made.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
I welcome the statement and the decision by the Secretary of State. It is in our national interest to protect our free media. My question is about transparency and understanding the logic behind the decision. The Secretary of State said that she has taken into account the evidence. What key evidence did she take into account? What were the pertinent aspects of the evidence that led her to make that decision? Knowing that would give people outside the opportunity to look at the reasoning and rationale behind the decision.
Lucy Frazer
The first decision I took was that the threshold had been passed. I was concerned about interference with the accurate presentation of news and the freedom of the press. The evidence I saw enabled me to say that the threshold had been passed, and to ask Ofcom and the Competition and Markets Authority to look at the matter more broadly. They did that and they took some time to give me a very detailed report, which I further considered. In my letter sent in March, I set out the evidence from that report and my decision that I was minded to send the matter to phase 2 investigation. The letter in which I set out the evidence on which I relied has been published, I believe.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
As a former journalist and a former member of the Society of Editors in Scotland, I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement because press freedom is vital in a democracy, as she says. The insidious influence of foreign states has to be protected against, not just in newspapers but, as we have heard, online and in television and radio. Does she agree that the matter is not settled with this step? We have to be continually aware of the danger of foreign interference and the insidious growth of that influence in our media by all means. Will the Government take that on board and continue to monitor the situation on a regular basis?
Lucy Frazer
Of course, the Government always keep matters under review. I can reassure the hon. Member that we have a robust system to deal with interference with press freedom. We had that in the Enterprise Act; my powers as Secretary of State under that Act in relation to interference with the accurate presentation of news and the freedom of the press were clear and robust. I took various decisions at each stage to ensure those matters were fully investigated. The hon. Member can also take reassurance from the fact that the legislation that will be coming back to the House this afternoon will put beyond that doubt, and set out that a foreign state cannot interfere with our newspapers. Every hon. Member who has expressed a view across the Chamber is of the view, which I share, that a foreign state should not be able to control, influence or own a British newspaper.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
I welcome this intervention that means that the UAE cannot own Telegraph Media Group through RedBird IMI, but there is a suggestion that foreign Governments could potentially interfere with free speech at universities that host institutes partly funded by them. The Government-appointed director for freedom of speech and academic freedom has warned that foreign interference at universities is going on in the UK. What lessons, if any, will be instructive for the Government’s so-called university free speech tsar?
Lucy Frazer
I am wholly in favour of free speech and ensuring that people are not shut down for their views. The hon. Member needs to take up his points with those responsible for universities.
Points of Order
(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. As our constituents look ahead to the May day bank holiday, in addition, on 1 May, Gujaratis and Maharashtrians in Harrow, across the UK and globally celebrate Gujarat Day and Maharashtra Day, marking the formation of the states of Gujarat and Maharashtra in India back in 1960. The day is a moment of pride and celebration for all Gujaratis and Maharashtrians. It is a chance to honour the rich history, culture and traditions of both states, and, crucially, the often remarkable contribution of those of all faiths in both communities here in the UK. Mr Deputy Speaker, have you had notice of any intention by the Government to mark the contribution of both communities here in the UK?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving notice of his point of order. I have not had any indication that the Government intend to make a statement on this subject, but he has placed his point on the record.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. In almost nine years in this House I have never before raised a point of order, but I am obliged to do so now because of my exasperation with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. On 6 February, I wrote to Lord Cameron, the Foreign Secretary, asking for information about the UK’s decision to withdraw funding from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. To date, almost three months later, I have had neither acknowledgement nor response. Given what is happening in Gaza, the urgent need for humanitarian aid and the role of UNRWA in that, I find that quite unacceptable.
Mr Deputy Speaker, you will know that there is widespread disquiet in this House about the fact that we cannot question the Foreign Secretary here in the Chamber. Now, not only is he not prepared to answer oral questions, but his Department is not answering written questions in a timeous manner. Can you please advise me of what action I and other Members might take to get a response from the Foreign Secretary and to hold that Department to account?
Mr Deputy Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving the Chair notice of his question. He will understand immediately that the Chair is not responsible for ministerial correspondence. I have noted what he has said, and of course it is the case that all Members should be entitled to receive timely replies. I trust that point will have been taken on board by those on the Government Front Bench.
Presentation of Bill
Tenant Farming Commissioner
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Tim Farron presented a Bill to establish a Tenant Farming Commissioner; to make provision about the powers and duties of the commissioner, including powers in respect of payments under an Environmental Land Management scheme in cases where a tenant farmer has been evicted; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 21 June, and to be printed (Bill 208).
Public Amenities (Adoption by Local Authorities)
Tuesday 30th April 2024
(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Public Amenities (Adoption by Local Authorities) Bill 2023-24 View all Public Amenities (Adoption by Local Authorities) Bill 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require local authorities to adopt public amenities in certain circumstances where specified minimum standards are met; and for connected purposes.
People living in Harrow View West in my constituency have faced a huge increase in their service charges since they purchased their properties. Built by Persimmon on part of the old Kodak site, neighbouring the beautiful Headstone Manor Park, the start of the River Crane, home to the only moated manor house in London—now Harrow Museum—and with good transport links, Harrow View West should be a great investment for the many young families who have moved into homes on that development.
Many residents, however, have been left very frustrated by rising service charges,
their powerlessness and inability to secure clear and transparent information about those service charges and other dreadful customer service. Persimmon Homes and its management company, Residential Management Group, are as a result the source of considerable dissatisfaction among the residents for their more than doubling of the service charge since the residents took ownership of their properties.
Not surprisingly, the residents now want Harrow Council to take over the ownership
of the public spaces on the development—the roads and the estate park—and the maintenance costs that are being forced on to their service charges. The residents note that others not living on their estate can access and enjoy the public spaces on the development for free, while they are being charged. Anyone can use the roads in the development to park on, to access Headstone Manor or the surrounding roads.
Despite the extra cost for the upkeep of these public spaces, residents point out that they still have to pay their council tax on top of the rising service charges. I am concerned that other developments being planned in Harrow, or built now, will see residents facing the same problems if new rules are not brought in urgently.
As the law stands at the moment, the decision as to who is responsible for the public spaces in big new developments is resolved at the planning stage. Councils all too often, and for understandable reasons after 14 years of funding cutbacks, are wary of taking on responsibility for new public space. Their negotiations with developers about how maintenance costs for any new roads, parks or playgrounds are funded often end with cash-strapped local authorities wanting those costs to be paid for first by the developer and then ultimately by the residents of the new developments. This form of leasehold has been labelled “fleecehold”, because it leads to higher costs for those living in newly built homes than for those faced by people who buy an older home on roads for which the local authorities are already responsible.
The Competition and Markets Authority has looked at this issue in detail during its market study into house building and has made it clear that it thinks that councils should have a legal duty to adopt the public spaces in new developments such as Harrow View West—the roads, pavements, play areas and open spaces. Crucially, it thinks that developers should have clearly set out responsibilities to meet high standards for those public spaces before they are handed over.
I understand why, after years of austerity, local councils want to avoid ownership of new estates and the responsibility for new public open spaces. Too often, they simply do not have the money to feel able to do the right thing. But that is not fair on those living in newly built estates who move in with great hopes, often with promises of low service charges, only suddenly to see rising service charges, which too often they have zero control over in practice. They have to deal with often unaccountable estate management companies, yet still have to pay often rising amounts of council tax.
Like, I expect, every Member in this House, many leaseholders in my constituency find themselves stuck, facing unjustified administration fees and charges, and ever-rising ground rents. Leaseholders find themselves dependent on developers, freeholders and their managing agent to take action, which often takes far longer than it should, particularly given those rocketing service charges.
At Trident Point in my constituency, residents were subject to regular and extended periods of lift outages. One constituent in the building is a wheelchair user. For him, lift outages meant that he was confined to his flat, deeply concerned about what would happen in an emergency. Leaseholders were initially told by Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing that residents would have to cover the costs of the lift refurbishment, which caused significant stress and worry. Eventually, the housing association accepted that the lifts were still under warranty, so no costs were passed on. The lifts were eventually refurbished and completed earlier this year. It took far too long to sort out, but we got there in the end. I thank Harrow Law Centre, which supported residents on this issue at the time.
In another example in my constituency—this time, Kinleigh Folkard & Hayward were the developers—leaseholder residents waited more than three years for action to be taken by the managing agent, despite, again, rocketing service charges. Another developer, Jaspar development group, has caused difficulties for my constituents. Its managing agent keeps changing, service charges keep going up, and there is still no resolution of residents’ concerns.
This is also not the first time that I have seen leaseholders finding themselves financially responsible for the upkeep of what one would reasonably assume are public parks and public amenities. In my constituency, Fairview has built another development that includes a playground bordering the main road. It is managed by a management company on behalf of the freeholder. Residents are worried that there is no fencing between the playground and the road and some have witnessed children going into the road to retrieve footballs. It would seem sensible that all options, such as signage and fencing, should be considered to keep children safe in that playground, but residents have been told that it is not the local council that should undertake this work and that it is leaseholders who would have to foot the bill through their service charges. The playground is not just for the children of residents but, rightly, for all children to enjoy, so surely that should mean that the playground is adopted by the local council.
I recognise that there has been some progress since the Law Commission published its three reports in July 2020 on leasehold reform. The Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Act 2022, which applied only to new lease agreements, was a step in the right direction, but it still leaves my constituents stuck in unfair leasehold arrangements. The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill, currently making its way through Parliament, is very limited in scope. Although I welcome that Bill, it does not go far enough: it does not ban leasehold; it does not enact the recommendations of the Law Commission in full; and, crucially, it does not tackle the problem that my constituents have faced with unadopted roads and public facilities.
We on the Opposition Benches are clear that a future Labour Government would make commonhold the default tenure for all new properties. Indeed, as my Front-Bench colleagues have made it clear, we support enacting the Law Commission’s recommendations on enfranchisement, commonhold and right to manage in full.
In addition, my Bill would deliver the recommendations from the Competition and Markets Authority that, where specified standards have been met with regard to public spaces, councils would then be mandated to adopt those public spaces. It is time for Ministers to come off the fence and implement those recommendations, for the benefit of my constituents on the old Kodak site and all those who are currently locked into this “fleecehold” model of housing. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Gareth Thomas, Bill Esterson, Yvonne Fovargue, Sir Stephen Timms, Matt Rodda, Anna McMorrin, Dame Diana Johnson, Clive Efford, Ruth Cadbury, Matt Western, Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi and Andy Slaughter present the Bill.
Gareth Thomas accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 21 June, and to be printed (Bill 209).
Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill: Programme (No. 3)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 17 May 2023 (Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill: Programme) as varied by the Order of 20 November 2023 (Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill: Programme (No. 2)):
Consideration of Lords Amendments
(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion four hours after their commencement.
(2) The Lords Amendments shall be considered in the following order: Lords Amendments 9, 12, 13, 19, 26, 27, 28, 31, 32, 38, 104, 1 to 8, 10, 11, 14 to 18, 20 to 25, 29, 30, 33 to 37, 39 to 103 and 105 to 148.
Subsequent stages
(3) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(4) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Mark Fletcher.)
Question agreed to.
Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill
Tuesday 30th April 2024
(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 View all Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 30 April 2024 - (30 Apr 2024)
15:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 273 / Noes: 159 - Question accordingly agreed to.
16:13 - The House divided: - Ayes: 276 / Noes: 161 - Question accordingly agreed to.
16:26 - The House divided: - Ayes: 274 / Noes: 162 - Question accordingly agreed to.
16:39 - The House divided: - Ayes: 272 / Noes: 162 - Question accordingly agreed to.
16:52 - The House divided: - Ayes: 273 / Noes: 163 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is engaged by Lords amendments 35, 36, 42, 112, 117, 128 and 132 to 134. If those Lords amendments are agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.
Clause 19
Power to impose conduct requirements
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 9.
Mr Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss:
Lords amendment 12, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 13, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 19, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 26, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 27, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 28, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 31, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 32, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 38, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendment (a) in lieu.
Lords amendment 104, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendments 1 to 8, 10, 11, 14 to 18, 20 to 25, 29 to 30, 33 to 37, 39 to 103 and 105 to 148.
Kevin Hollinrake
It is a pleasure to bring this groundbreaking Bill back to the House. It will drive innovation and deliver better outcomes for consumers across the UK by addressing barriers to competition in digital markets and tackling consumer rip-offs. We believe it strikes the right balance, not deterring investment from big tech while encouraging investment from challenger tech. I thank Members of both Houses for their careful scrutiny and I commend the collaborative cross-party approach taken during the Bill’s passage to date.
I will start with the amendments that the Government made in the other place. They add vital new provisions to the Bill and I hope hon. Members will agree to them. Part 1 of the Bill establishes a new pro-competition regime for digital markets, which will be overseen and enforced by the Competition and Markets Authority’s digital markets unit. Following engagement with Members in the other place, we have bolstered transparency provisions to require the CMA to publish more of the notices provided to firms designated with strategic market status, or SMS.
All interested parties will now be able to access the information contained in those notices, ensuring that there is greater clarity on the DMU’s decisions relating to SMS designation, conduct requirements and pro-competition interventions. A number of hon. Members have called for provisions addressing asymmetry of information to be introduced to the Bill, so we hope this change will be welcomed.
On part 2 of the Bill, which deals with wider competition reforms, hon. Members will recall that on Report the Government added a provision on litigation funding, whose purpose was to restore the previously held understanding of the status of litigation funding agreements under the Competition Act 1998. Those provisions were important in providing a route to justice for groups with limited resources—for example, our sub-postmasters.
That step was taken in response to an earlier Supreme Court judgment that had made litigation funding agreements unenforceable. The Government have since acted by introducing the Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill, which will deliver on our commitment to addressing the impacts of that judgment in all types of proceedings. Consequently, the provisions in this Bill have been removed, as they are no longer required.
We also introduced new measures to part 2 to address concerns about the potential ownership of UK newspapers and news magazines by foreign states, as we heard very recently from the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. The Government know that we cannot overstate the importance of those publications to our democracy and have therefore taken decisive action to preserve the freedom of the press. By establishing a new regime within the Enterprise Act 2002, the Bill will prevent foreign states from having ownership of, or control or influence over, a UK newspaper or news magazine.
The Government are extremely grateful for the support offered by Members of both Houses in the development of these new measures. In particular, we thank Baroness Stowell of Beeston and Lord Forsyth of Drumlean for their engagement, and my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), who first secured a debate on the issue in January.
Parts 3 and 4 make important updates and improvements to UK consumer law. Having consulted on a series of reforms at the end of last year, the Government amended the Bill in the other place to introduce new measures that address fake reviews and drip pricing. Many hon. Members called for the Government to address those harms through the Bill, and I am pleased to say that we have been able to do so, following our public consultation.
We have also made amendments to further strengthen the ability of public bodies to enforce consumer law. We did so by extending so-called take-down powers to a wider range of enforcers. There has been a healthy debate in both Houses about the measures in the Bill aimed at tackling subscription traps. We listened carefully to the concerns expressed in the other place about the potential impact of those measures on charities and their ability to claim gift aid. In response, the Government amended the Bill to enable the Treasury to update gift aid rules. That mitigates any concerns about the Bill’s impact on charities. We are grateful to Lord Mendoza for highlighting the issue and for his engagement.
We also made a series of amendments to provide greater assurance and clarity for businesses about the new subscription measures, including addressing concerns about exiting contracts, cancellations, reminder notices and cooling-off periods. I hope that hon. Members agree that the amendments improve the Bill.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats welcome the fact that the Government are finally acting on the CMA’s recommendation, but will the Government support amendment 104, which is backed by the Liberal Democrats? It is about imposing requirements on secondary ticket sites. Often, people purchasing tickets from the sites do so at huge mark-ups on the face value of the ticket, and the ticket in question does not actually exist. The amendment would address those issues, reducing the risk of fraud by requiring proof of purchase. Does the Minister agree that we must do everything we can to ensure that this legislation is as robust as possible, to crack down on this type of fraud?
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention and for the amendment, which I will speak to in a moment. The Government have agreed to undertake a review of both primary and secondary markets, and I will deal with those issues later in my remarks. [Interruption.] I hear from the shadow Front-Bench spokespeople, but I think that is something that Labour proposed in earlier amendments, so obviously they have changed their position on that issue—not for the first time.
Finally, the Government made a number of minor amendments to the Bill in the other place. The majority are tidying-up measures, or otherwise small tweaks to the Bill, to ensure that it achieves its policy intent as effectively as possible.
I will now set out the Government’s position on the 11 non-Government amendments that were made to the Bill in the other place. The majority of the amendments seek to reverse or alter amendments made to the digital markets part of the Bill on Report in this House. There were three aims behind the Government’s package of amendments on Report in the Commons: first, to provide greater clarity to parties interacting with the regime; secondly, to strengthen the regime’s safeguards for the extensive new regulatory powers; and thirdly, to enhance the accountability of the regulator. The Government tabled the amendments following careful consideration of the views expressed by hon. Members across the House. We remain convinced that our amendments struck the right balance between the accountability of the CMA’s regulatory decisions and the flexibility to allow for targeted and proportionate action that tackles the unique competition challenges in digital markets.
Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
My hon. Friend is right that the amendments that were agreed on Report in this House struck the right balance, and I am afraid that on this occasion I wholly disagree with the way their lordships characterised the matter in their debate. We are not arguing for a wholesale replication of the telecoms regime; we are simply making sure that, particularly with regard to penalties, which will be pretty onerous—and rightly so—there is proper discretion to allow a reviewing tribunal and reviewing court to consider the matter carefully, in a way that balances out the need for rigour and for temper when it comes to the power of the regulator.
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his intervention and his earlier engagement, when he made his position on that point clear. He is right to say that penalties can be significant—up to 10% of global turnover—so it is fair that we allow organisations to challenge penalties on the merits of the case, but maintain the ability to impose pro-competition interventions and conduct requirements on platforms. The amendments made in the other place risk undermining that careful balance. For example, amendments to revert the appeals standard for fines to judicial review principles, to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) referred, would remove a valuable safeguard on the significant new powers that the Bill gives the CMA, as would the removal of the requirement on the CMA to act proportionately. Meanwhile, amendments to the countervailing benefits exemption risk making the exemption less clear for stakeholders. Consequently, the Government have tabled a motion to disagree with those amendments.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
The point about a “proportionate” response is relevant. In the original drafting of the Bill, the word used was “appropriate.” The Government changed that to “proportionate” on Report in this House, and the Lords have sought to reverse that change. What does the Minister think was disproportionate, if you like, about the word “appropriate”? What about it struck the wrong balance? Ministers keep saying that they think things strike the right balance, but they never really explain why.
Kevin Hollinrake
We have engaged significantly, throughout the Bill’s passage and before it was introduced, with large tech and challenger tech. Our understanding is that all those cohorts are happy with where the Bill is today. Certainly, during that engagement, concerns were raised about the term “appropriate,” but the clear position that we expressed to those who raised that concern was, “Of course, there is a requirement on the CMA to act proportionately.” Putting that in the Bill does not undermine its basic principles. In fact, we understand from the situation in the European Court of Human Rights, and the property rights emanating from it, that all those things are baked in anyway, so we do not feel that the wording weakens the legislation at all, but it does strike the right balance between those two different courts.
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
It is clearly important that we understand what “proportionate” means in this context. Is the Government’s position that proportionality implies that there is more for the CMA to think about than just how effectively the imposition of a conduct requirement would fulfil the CMA’s requirements? If so, what can the Government do to make that clear, so that courts and tribunals that consider such cases do not fill in the gaps themselves? The words “appropriate” and “proportionate” could be interpreted quite widely if the Government are not clear about what they mean by them.
Kevin Hollinrake
My right hon. and learned Friend will know from his legal background that the term “proportionate” is well established in law. Of course, the courts play an important part here. We do not prescribe everything in our legislation; there is quite rightly the opportunity for people to challenge certain decisions by the CMA. Clearly, we are trying to reduce the ability of large tech to prevent investment from smaller tech. That is the balance that we are striking, but we do not want to discourage investment from big tech, so the requirement for the CMA to act proportionately is reasonable.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
The Minister suggested that stakeholders were now satisfied with the Bill. I can tell him that there is concern about the change from “appropriate” to “proportionate.” The fear is that it will enable the courts to look more broadly, and will allow more scope for challenge than was intended when the term “appropriate” was used. Can he confirm that that is not the Government’s intention?
Kevin Hollinrake
It is not our intention. Our intention is to strike a balance. As I have said, the courts’ approach to proportionality was set out by the Supreme Court in Bank Mellat v. Her Majesty’s Treasury (No. 2), when the Court described the elements to be considered, including, most notably,
“whether a less intrusive measure could have been used”
and whether there is a fair balance between the intended objectives of the measure and the effects on the business that the measure applies to. That is a sensible balance to strike. Of course, some stakeholders want to go further in certain directions, while others do not want us to go as far, and we are trying to strike that balance. We welcome big tech’s investment in the UK, but we also welcome investment by challenger tech, and through this groundbreaking Bill—the only one of its kind in the world—we are striking that balance.
We have listened carefully to arguments relating to the Secretary of State’s approval of CMA guidance. Lords amendment 38, which was tabled by Lord Lansley, adds a timeline for the Secretary of State approving CMA guidance relating to the new regime. In response, we have tabled amendment (a) in lieu, which would achieve a similar effect by introducing a statutory 30-working-day timeline for the Secretary of State to approve the necessary guidance. We believe that that addresses concerns about the ability of the digital markets regime to start tackling competition problems without delay. We hope that hon. Members will support amendment (a).
On secondary ticketing, a non-Government amendment —to which the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) referred—was made in the other place to the consumer part of the Bill. Amendment 104, which was tabled by Lord Moynihan, seeks to introduce additional regulatory requirements on ticket resale sites. Those requirements would cover proof of purchase, ticket limits and the visibility of certain required information, such as the face value of a ticket. Both Lord Moynihan and the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) have spoken passionately on that topic during proceedings on the Bill. We are hugely grateful for their work highlighting the malpractice in the resale market.
To be clear, the Government are absolutely committed to protecting consumers from fraudulent activity in the secondary ticketing market. However, it is our view that protections for consumers are already provided by existing consumer law. The law imposes specific information requirements in relation to secondary ticketing that go above and beyond those in general consumer law. That includes the requirement for all resellers—be they traders or consumers—and secondary ticketing platforms to inform a buyer about the face value of a ticket and the restrictions on its use. The Government’s position is therefore that the secondary ticketing market is already suitably regulated. That said, we recognise the strength of feeling on this matter, which has been expressed by Members of the other place and in certain quarters of this House, so we commit today to undertaking a review of ticketing practices and how they impact on consumers. The review will look at both primary and secondary markets—in other words, sellers and resellers. We believe it important to consider both markets together.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. I know that we have debated this point before, and I will discuss it further in my contribution, but I make the point again that there may be legislation, but it is not working. There have been only two prosecutions in all the time since the Consumer Rights Act 2015 was passed. If further legislation was not needed, why did we bring in legislation to protect tickets for the Olympics?
Kevin Hollinrake
It is not right to say that there have been only two prosecutions—
Kevin Hollinrake
I will just finish this answer. There have been two sentences. Two people got a £6.1 million fine. There were four more successful prosecutions in Leeds Crown court only very recently, and sentence is due to be imposed on those individuals. The hon. Lady raises important points, and did great work on the all-party parliamentary group, and I will always listen to her. We are undertaking a review looking at primary and secondary markets, and she will have every chance to give her input to that review, just as anybody else will. I look forward to hearing her representations.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
The Government claim that they are doing enough, but that is just not the case. Here is an example for the Minister: on secondary ticketing sites, three tickets for the Taylor Swift show on 21 June are going for £72,000. They had a face value of £170 each. How is the market working?
Kevin Hollinrake
I agree that some of the examples are shocking. The key question is what measures we will put in place to address them. Ireland, for example, completely banned secondary sales, yet the prices seen on the internet are equivalent to what the hon. Lady describes, so there is no perfect solution that has already been tried. However, we are very happy to look at the evidence, look at what might be done, and do something that is effective, rather than crowd-pleasing. That is what we are committed to doing.
The reality is that some organisers are simply much more successful than others at preventing large-scale unauthorised resales. The ticket market is clearly evolving rapidly. Our review will therefore consider evidence from businesses and platforms operating in ticketing and resale markets, as well as venues, artists, enforcers and consumers. The Government intend the review to take place over nine months, after which we will consider any appropriate further action. [Hon. Members: “You won’t be there.”] Members who are commenting from a sedentary position should beware of overconfidence.
I very much hope that hon. Members will support the Government’s position today. I especially hope that Members in both Houses will note our movement in two important areas: the Secretary of State’s approval of CMA guidance for the new digital markets regime, and secondary ticketing. These changes are considered and balanced, and I urge Members in the other place to consider their position on the other amendments that our motions today seek to reject. Throughout the Bill’s passage, the Government have listened carefully to the arguments presented, and in response, we have made a series of significant changes where we recognise that improvements could be made. It is important that we now reach full consensus on the Bill’s final form, so that it reaches the statute book without further delay.
Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
First, I pay tribute to my much-loved neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), who led for Labour during the last round of proceedings on the Bill, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), who led for us when the Bill was introduced.
Might I say a few words about the Minister? I do love the Minister. Members sitting on the Government Back Benches will not have been able to see the little wry smile playing on his face as he made his speech. Unfortunately, Hansard is not able to record that element of the way he presented his case. I will let the House into a secret: there are two versions of the Minister, or rather the Member. There is the Back-Bench Member, who I passionately agree with on nearly everything, and then there is the Government Minister, who has the Back-Bench Member sitting inside him somewhere, but has managed to lose him while taking on corporate and shared responsibility on the Government Front Benches. I bet that if he were in the Parliament that follows the next general election, and we debated these matters all over again, he would be articulating what I am about to say almost word for word, but today, he has articulated the Government position.
Sir Chris Bryant
Of course I will, to the right hon. Gentleman—another gentleman for whom I have a great deal of respect, and with whom I occasionally disagree.
Sir John Whittingdale
I just wonder whether the transformation that the hon. Gentleman describes, which occurs when somebody moves from the Back Benches to the Front Bench, applies equally to the Opposition and the Government.
Sir Chris Bryant
The right hon. Gentleman knows more about bobbing between the Back Benches and the Front Bench than most Members of Parliament in history, I think. It is obviously a problem; I do believe in shared responsibility of Government—we want Governments to act as a single body, and not irresponsibly—so I understand, but none the less, it is perfectly appropriate to tease the Minister when he has such a wry smile on his lips.
This Bill is a classic instance of how the Tory chaos of the past few years has been bad for Britain. It is long overdue, as the Minister said: it started in the Commons more than a year ago, on 25 April 2023, and it is so delayed that the carry-over motion had to be carried over. I cannot remember that happening for many years, but the Government had to do it last week. The Bill used to strike the right balance between the needs of different parts of the market, but the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) was absolutely right to say that many stakeholders are certainly not happy with where the Government have landed. Intense lobbying of Downing Street from some parts of the market has led to the Government tabling amendments that would fatally undermine the Bill’s purpose and make it impossible for the CMA to do the job that we want it to do, namely, ensure fair competition in digital markets in the interests of consumers, investors and wider society.
Sir Jeremy Wright
How would a tribunal consider the appropriateness of a CMA intervention without considering the detail and merit of it?
Sir Chris Bryant
The point is that either the change is necessary because a new and different measure is being adopted by the Government, in which case it is a lower threshold and therefore inappropriate, or the change makes no difference whatsoever, in which case it is unnecessary. The normal standards for deciding whether an amendment is appropriate would lead us to ask, “Is it necessary, or does it provide a good remedy?” I do not think that either is the case, which is why Labour does not support the Government’s wording.
The second set of amendments, Lords amendments 12 and 13, deal with countervailing benefits. Just to prove that Labour Members speaking from the Dispatch Box are very consistent with one another, my next sentence was effectively said by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd in a previous debate: the countervailing benefits exemption allows the Competition and Markets Authority to close an investigation of a breach of a conduct requirement if a firm can demonstrate that its anti-competitive conduct produces benefits that outweigh the harm and are therefore indispensable. On Report in the Commons, the Government significantly reduced the threshold for that exemption, removing the word “indispensable” and merely requiring that
“those benefits could not be realised without the conduct”.
It sounds the same, but it is different—subtly but importantly different. The Lords amendments would remove that paragraph and alter the next line so that it reads
“the conduct is indispensable and proportionate to the realisation of those benefits”.
I will make two points in this area. First, as I think everybody accepts, the “indispensable” standard is a well-understood concept in UK competition law: it is used in the Competition Act 1998, which I do not believe to be as outmoded as some Members have suggested. Secondly, the courts would interpret Parliament’s deliberate move away from an existing, well-understood standard as intending to create a new, lower threshold, which again will inevitably allow the big tech firms greater scope to launch complex legal challenges.
If the Government really do not see any distinction between the two thresholds, the most obvious compromise would be to reinstate the word “indispensable” alongside the Bill’s new wording and to clarify, today at the Dispatch Box and in the Bill’s explanatory notes, that the “indispensable” standard and the new form of words inserted by the Government have an identical meaning. Otherwise, there is a risk that the courts will seek to explore further whether Parliament has deliberately created a new threshold and standard.
I simply say to the Minister that I remember, when he was on the Back Benches and we had lengthy discussions about the powers of Companies House, that he was very keen on making sure that Companies House had the powers it needed to do proper investigations. He regularly made the point that lots of people have very deep legal pockets, and that does not necessarily mean that the consumer always wins out. I would argue that it is the same in this case.
Lords amendments 26 to 28 to clause 89 and Lords amendments 31 and 32 to clause 103 relate to appeals. The Bill originally had judicial review as the appeal standard for all CMA decisions under part 1, but in the Commons the Government moved to merits appeals for penalty decisions. I accept that this is only about penalty decisions, but I none the less believe that it is dangerous because, while the new regime is intended to be collaborative, it is ultimately the threat of fines that will incentivise big tech firms to comply with the CMA’s decisions. If there is no prospect of a fine, whether large or small, those large tech firms may well decide to be less collaborative.
There is the even greater danger that merits appeals on penalty decisions bleed back across the Bill into regulatory decisions, giving big tech firms greater scope to frustrate and challenge the CMA’s decisions. While it is correct that the courts are generally able to distinguish between judicial review and merits elements of appeals—that point has been made in previous debates by the former Attorney General, the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright)—it does not eliminate the concern about the two bleeding into each other, especially if the two streams take place together in the same case. If the Government are unable to reinstate judicial review appeals across part 1, as we would prefer, a clarificatory amendment should be inserted in the Bill to provide certainty that appeals on penalties cannot impact on other regulatory decisions to eliminate scope for speculative challenges.
It is worth bearing in mind that the chief executive of the CMA has made it clear that the authority wants the judicial review standard to apply. She welcomed effective judicial scrutiny of its decisions, but said:
“We think that the JR standard achieves that.”
She went on to say that her experience of merits appeals was that they result in
“very protracted litigation”,
making it
“a lot harder to reach constructive, collaborative outcomes”,
because
“all eyes are on that litigation process.”––[Official Report, Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Public Bill Committee, 13 June 2023; c. 7, 8, Q4.]
Let me come on to the matter of ticket touting, and Lords amendment 104. I start by thanking Lord Moynihan—a Conservative peer, of course—for tabling this amendment and for his significant work across many years. When I have not agreed with every sentence from my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) on this subject, I have sometimes felt the scratches on my back from her very elegant fingernails, but she has also done enormous work, and I think she is much to be praised for it. There are many others in the House of whom that is true as well, including all those sitting next to her on the back row, who I am sure will catch your eye later, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I start from a very simple principle: the value of a ticket—whether for the rugby, the football or a gig at the O2—is created by the artists, the promoters and, above all, the fans. Yes, the secondary ticketing market can help all three, because sometimes people buy more tickets than they need or are unable to attend for whatever reason, but the abuse of the secondary market can lead to artists, promoters and fans all losing out, and abuse is rife.
I will take an example of a case that has already been through the courts. It is that of Lynda Chenery, Mark Woods, Maria Chenery-Woods and Paul Douglas, who bought and resold concert tickets worth £6.5 million. They bought them on primary sites, including Ticketmaster, before reselling them on secondary ticketing platforms, such as Viagogo, at inflated prices. They used endless tricks, including sending customers ripped envelopes to imply that the tickets had been lost in transit or using fraud juice, which involved the use of Tipp-Ex correcting fluid or more sophisticated digital methods, to amend tickets. They held their customers in open derision. Having scammed one person into paying £535 for a ticket for the Harry Potter west end show, they referred to him in an email as “another idiot”. These people are despicable parasites preying on fans, and we need to go far further to address this issue.
This practice prices many fans out of the market and adds no value whatsoever to the creative process, at a time when creators are in desperate need of making a living out of their craft. In 2016, one ticket for Adele at the O2 arena in London was listed on GetMeIn for £24,840, which is 290 times the face value of the ticket. Nobody in the Rhondda would be to afford such a ticket. Incidentally, Wimbledon faces exactly the same set of problems.
Viagogo is today selling two tickets for Pink at the Millennium stadium in Cardiff on 11 June for £498 each. I think the fans could perfectly legitimately start shouting:
“What about us?
What about all the plans that ended in disaster?”
It is not obvious what the original price was for those tickets. On Viagogo, people can get one ticket for Peter Kay at the O2 on 4 May for £302, or tickets for “The Book of Mormon”—it has been in the theatre for several years, and is a wonderful, hilarious show—on 4 May at £420 each. In a way, the one that upsets me the most is that tickets for the ballet “The Winter’s Tale” at the Royal Opera House on 3 May—a Friday night—are £1,006 each, but people can buy those tickets from the Royal Opera House for £140, because there is taxpayer involvement in supporting the Royal Opera House.
We could say the same of StubHub, on which two standing tickets for Doja Cat in Glasgow on 11 June with a face value of £162 are selling at £1,002. This is a pernicious industry. It is parasitical, it does nothing for the creative industries in this country and we must tackle it.
Mrs Hodgson
I waited until my hon. Friend got to the end of all those disgraceful, abhorrent examples. Will he clarify for me a fallacy that the touts often put around about me and my hon. Friends—they will say the same about him? They say that we want to stop people being able to resell their tickets when they cannot go—they have bought them in good faith and genuinely cannot go. Will he clarify that that is not what any of us seeks to do? I of course want people to be able to resell their tickets, but at face value. Does he agree?
Sir Chris Bryant
I completely agree, and that is Labour party policy. I am used to fallacies being written about me, and I have seen many written about my hon. Friend as well. I am sure we will all get over it. Incidentally, that is why, as I shall come on to say later, it is very important that we have a free press that is able to say what it wants, free from the intervention of state owners from other countries.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course, it is perfectly legitimate for somebody who has bought a couple of tickets for Saturday night and who suddenly finds that they are ill, that they have to go to a family engagement or that they have bought tickets for the wrong night to be able to sell them on at face value, or perhaps for a little bit more simply to cover the cost of administration and things like that. However, this is a market that is not working. It is an example of market failure, not an example of market success.
Barbara Keeley
My fingernails are nothing like as bad. Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem is actually worse than just the prices he quoted, of which he gave some really good and powerful examples, because of the selling of tickets that do not actually exist—fraudulent tickets? I have heard from a number of venues about the selling of tickets that should go to carers or young people. People are turning up at events such as those at the O2 and other venues with these tickets and being turned away, often when they have travelled to London and paid for hotels. So there is all the disappointment and the financial loss of that on top of the ticket prices.
Sir Chris Bryant
I completely agree, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are terrible instances of all sorts of different scams, and—this is the honest truth—remarkably few prosecutions. Whether the number is two, four or five, it should be in the hundreds. [Interruption.] Six—half a dozen—great!
The truth is that we all know instances from our constituencies of people who have faced precisely these problems. I have had constituents say to me, “I feel too embarrassed to own up to having bought these tickets.” I remember going past the Millennium stadium in Cardiff, or Arms Park in the old days, and we all despised the ticket touts, just as we did outside a Kate Bush concert or whatever. Sometimes, however, we were just so desperate that we bought the tickets, and they of course turned out to be fraudulent or non-existent, or they were allocated to specific kinds of people that did not include us. All those points are worth making, and I would add this one: all local authorities have trading standards offices but many are now so depleted because of the state of local government finances that it is very difficult for anybody to get proper recompense and a deal.
Sir Chris Bryant
Well, we have moved on and it is about time the Government moved on—in fact I look forward to the day when the Minister moves on from Government Benches to here on the Opposition Benches. The idea of a review at the dog end of a Parliament and at the end of the regime is absolutely pathetic, and I am glad the Minister is laughing at himself for even presenting the suggestion today.
Let me end with an area of agreement. We were glad that the Government, under pressure, tabled Lords amendment 117 on mergers involving newspaper enterprises and foreign powers along the lines of measures that we and others, including a large number of Conservative MPs and peers, had called for. Of course the UK must remain an open economy; we welcome foreign investment in many sectors in the UK. But we agree that in this limited area, the state ownership of UK newspaper and media companies must be a matter for concern, which is why we support the Lords amendment. We will need to make sure in future years that it is adequate to the situation we find, not least bearing in mind many of the comments made earlier by Members on both sides of the House regarding the rather fluid world we are moving into, where newspapers are a rather outdated concept and social media and other forms of online media are far more significant. We will keep that under review, therefore, but we welcome the amendment the Government have tabled.
This long-delayed Bill could go forward with strong, unanimous support if the Government abandoned their tilt towards the few potentially monopolistic companies and set aside their objections to the Lords amendments. Those objections are either completely otiose or they are dangerous. The Minister says they make no difference, I say they do, but on either grounds they should go, so we support their lordships in their amendments.
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
May I start by saying that this was and still is a good Bill? It does an enormous number of very important things and I am glad to see that it has broad acceptance and agreement on both sides of the House, although with some minor points of disagreement. It contains many of the measures that I personally called for in my Government-commissioned review of competition policy called “Power to the people” a little while ago, and it definitely updates and makes some much-needed changes to our competition and consumer laws. However, I share some of the concerns raised today about the Government’s opposition to four of the amendments that have come back from the Lords.
I do not have worries about the Lords amendments themselves because, as we have just heard from the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson the hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant), they mainly seek to restore the effect of clauses that were in the Bill when it originally came to this House. What worries me is that the wrong people are clapping. The changes that the Government have made, in many cases by seeking to resist Lords amendments, seem to many people to be on the side of the big tech firms rather than on the side of consumers, of sharper competition, of more consumer choice and of standing up for the man and woman in the street. I therefore earnestly hope that the Minister will be able to channel his historical zeal for these things in his closing remarks and reassure me, and I am sure others as well, that that is not the Government’s intention and that they remain committed to those things—that the fire still burns brightly in his eyes to make them happen.
I start by saying that the Government have already done some of that work with amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 38—they have replaced the Lansley amendment with a version of their own—dealing with the amount of time that the Secretary of State can take in dealing with guidance put forward by the CMA to make sure it is not unduly delayed. That is extremely welcome and a very good measure, and I enthusiastically support it. However, we have already heard about two other things in particular. One is the role of judicial review in dealing with penalties. I share the concern that in moving away from a judicial review standard for penalties to a full merits review we may get bleed-across—that clever lawyers working for big tech firms may effectively be able to broaden the scope through clever use of legal techniques to prolong their attempts to walk backwards slowly and prevent justice from being done. I therefore devoutly hope that my good friend the Minister will be able to clarify that he expects to be able to show to us—either from the Dispatch Box now, or in guidance or another kind of clarification in due course—that it will not be possible for bleed-across to happen and he will be able to take any steps that may be needed.
Kevin Hollinrake
I am very happy to make that commitment. We believe the Bill draws a clear distinction between infringement decisions and penalty decisions. After taking legal advice on this matter and looking at previous competition case law considering similar issues, the Government consider that neither the Competition Appeal Tribunal nor the higher courts will have any trouble making that distinction for digital markets appeals. We have clarified that in the explanatory notes, which I hope provides reassurance that there is little risk of bleed-back from the merits appeal standard for penalty appeals to appeals on other types of decisions.
John Penrose
I thank the Minister for that intervention and, emboldened by my success so far in getting him to front up, I move on to my second point, which has similar concerns around it: the issue of countervailing benefits. We have heard from the Opposition spokesman about that, so I will not go through it all again, but it would be enormously helpful if, either now in a further intervention or in his closing remarks, the Minister could be clear about the new wording, which we have already heard about in his speech. I hope he will make it clear—again, either through clarifications now or in guidance—that it is not intended to be in any way a lower standard than what we had before when this Bill first came to the House, and that it is either the same or tougher. I am pausing just briefly to see whether he wants to intervene.
Kevin Hollinrake
The revised wording did not change the effects of the clause. Strategic market status firms will still have to prove that there is no other reasonable and practicable way to achieve the same benefits for consumers with less competitive effect.
John Penrose
We are making marvellous progress and ending up with changes being confirmed on the Floor of the House in a way I do not think I have seen before, so let us keep going.
John Penrose
I am sure this will be an equally constructive intervention, of course.
Sir Chris Bryant
Would it not be even more helpful if the Minister were to say he would change the explanatory memorandums as well?
John Penrose
I am sure the Minister will grab that opportunity in his closing remarks, if he so wishes. At least he has taken the opportunity to stand up and give us public reassurances on the record about the standard that is intended. It is clear that it is no lower than it originally was, which is an important change.
Kevin Hollinrake
The shadow Minister and I are having this debate vicariously, but I just note that the wording in the explanatory notes has not changed.
John Penrose
I am on a roll here.
The final of the four issues in question is proportionality. We have had the debate already, so I do not propose to repeat the concerns, but it would be helpful if the Minister, either now or in his closing remarks, clarified that the new and amended standard that is to be applied is no lower. I think he said something to that effect earlier to the former Attorney General, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), but it would be helpful just to nail that one down and drive the nail home, if the Minister can. It is important for everybody to understand whether that new standard is any lower at all; it should be the same or higher.
John Penrose
The Minister is nodding, but I do not know whether he intends to intervene again.
John Penrose
We will have to preserve our souls in patience for the Minister’s closing remarks. I will declare victory very shortly. It has been a helpful set of interventions, and I thank him for that.
My final point is not related to these Lords amendments, but to a commitment that the Minister made at the Dispatch Box on Report in response to an amendment on better regulation that I had tabled with the support of a great number of parliamentary colleagues. He made a commitment that a set of conclusions, matching a set of standards whose wording he and I had agreed in advance, would be in place before the Bill receives Royal Assent. Clearly we are getting close to that date—I hope very close—and I understand that a Government White Paper may be in the offing, but I am not sure whether that will arrive before Royal Assent. My point is intended not to delay Royal Assent, but to bring forward the White Paper or whatever document the Government may be thinking of.
Based on conversations I have had so far, I am also concerned that not all the commitments the Minister made from the Dispatch Box may be in that White Paper. I therefore urge him to make sure that between now and Royal Assent, he works assiduously with his fellow Ministers to make sure they have got the memo that should gone round after he made those commitments.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
Scottish National party Members continue to support this Bill, and we support each of the Lords amendments. Notwithstanding the rather dizzying pinball rattle of interventions that went on between the Minister, the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), I will be a bit of a traditionalist stick-in-the-mud and stick to the wording in the amendments and the Bill, no matter what references might be made subsequently to the ghosts of debates past in Hansard.
On Lords amendment 9 and “proportionate” versus “appropriate”, it might seem to people outside this Chamber that we are dancing on a pinhead, but such distinctions matter. It is important that decisions of the Competition and Markets Authority should be allowed to stand wherever they deserve to, but that means not allowing unnecessary wriggle room to creep in for entities with deep pockets to challenge decisions not on the basis of principle, but on the grounds of what those entities consider proportionate. We consider that replacing the word “proportionate” is appropriate in this case, and we support the Lords amendment on that basis.
Lords amendment 13 reinserts the word “indispensable”. As the shadow Minister said, that term is well understood in competition law, but it also happens to be proportionate and appropriate in this case. It is entirely possible to envisage anti-competitive behaviour that can bring about consumer benefit either as a direct or indirect consequence, but we are clear that any benefits that arise should be such that they cannot be done without or forgone and that the test should be set accordingly.
With Lords amendments 26, 28, 31 and 32, we have believed throughout the Bill’s passage that the judicial review level is the appropriate appeals standard, rather than a full merits review. That is why we support those Lords amendments.
Damian Collins
I will speak briefly on the question that I raised earlier in the debate about the change of language from “appropriate” to “proportionate” and follow on from the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose). On one level, what the Minister is saying now—similar to what the Minister in the House of Lords, Lord Camrose, said in the debates there—is that proportionality is implicit in the law anyway and that the rights an organisation would have under article 1 of the European convention on human rights would apply anyway. Ministers are saying that bringing this language into the Bill is therefore a tidying-up exercise that re-emphasises rights that people already have. On another level, Ministers are also saying that this change creates a better balance, which means that there will be some change in how things work. It is important at this point that the House is clear about what is intended with this change.
There is a concern that the change effectively opens up a full merits appeal basis, which we have been keen to avoid doing in all the debates on this Bill as it has gone through both Houses. The Government have rightly resisted calls from big tech companies to bring that in, because it is a recipe for multiple and lengthy litigations, just as with every single measure of tech regulation that exists as a whole. That is not the intention.
Let us say that a company may be guilty of overcharging in an app store, but the cost to the consumer is relatively low. Would an intervention from the CMA be proportionate? Overcharging in the mobile app market may exist, but ultimately companies are happy to pay it and it is a relatively small charge. Would a big intervention by the CMA be a proportionate response? There are so many competing priorities, and often the individual consumer cost of some of these measures would be low, but there is the business significance of a company self-preferencing a service to the exclusion of other companies from the market. The company might say, “There is no particular consumer detriment to this, because the price is relatively low”, but it drives strategic market status. We have already seen in the European Union with the Digital Markets Act that the companies are challenging the designation of strategic market status, and they are looking for grounds to challenge at every opportunity, and we must expect that they will do the same thing here as well. That is why we should be clear that we are clear about what we mean.
My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare invited the Minister to say that effectively, in terms of enforcement and how the courts should interpret it, the change should not make any difference from the original drafting. He invites the Minister to say that we should not be concerned that moving from “appropriate” to “proportionate” is moving from saying that the regulator should do what is within its rights to do—it is appropriate because it has the power to do it and it has made an intervention based on that power—to saying, “Even if it was appropriate for it to do it, it should not have done it, because it was disproportionate.” What would the grounds for that disproportionality be?
It is really important that the guidance to the legislation makes clear what we should expect on how the CMA can determine to find what it believes are proportionate responses, with that not being easy to dismiss on the grounds that the cost to consumers may be relatively low or the impact limited to a certain area of business.
Sir Jeremy Wright
My hon. Friend is, as ever, making a good case. As he knows, I agree with him about the need for the Government to be clear about what these terms really mean. One thing that we are not talking about today but which is linked to the question of definitions is what we mean by “consumer benefit”. Does he agree that there may be a difference between benefit to the current consumer and a benefit to the future consumer and that we should be clear in the Bill, should we not, that “consumer benefit” includes future consumers as well as current ones?
Damian Collins
My right hon. and learned Friend makes an important point. We could have a digital service provided for free, self-preferenced by a big company, offering a new service to its customers—how could there be a consumer detriment in that? But a consequence of that could be constriction of the market and the driving out of other businesses. The mobile mapping market is a really good example: Google Maps and Apple Maps totally dominate a market that used to have multiple competing companies in it. Now it does not, and there could be future consumer detriment in that.
That is why it is important that this is an ex-ante regime, which anticipates not just the detriment that may exist now, but future consequences. That is such an important principle for digital markets, which have tended to see the consolidation of market power in the hands of a relatively small number of players, who often do not compete against each other directly but dominate certain sections of the market, be it through the mobile ad market, search and retail.
There are only in effect two app stores, and given the lack of interoperability, they are virtually monopolies. We see those things already, and the development of large language model systems and the massive acquisition of data required for AI to run them is consolidating that market largely into the hands of the five or six companies that have enough data to be effective operators within it. That means that, in the future digital market world, any challenger tech developer will have to access its market and customers through the services provided by a relatively small number of companies. That is important.
I would be grateful if the Minister said in winding up whether he believes that the Bill offers a better balance. Has that balance changed, or has it not, and it is just a question of language and interpretation of meaning? What does it mean? I hope we all agree that, through making this change, we are not seeking to open up the legislation to wider judicial challenge, with more ruling through the courts, more lengthy delays and costs to try to bring forward the CMA’s interventions.
Barbara Keeley
I rise to speak against the Government motion to disagree with Lords amendment 104. As we have already heard, the amendment seeks to safeguard fans from fraudulent abuse, which is rife in the secondary ticketing market. It is an important amendment on an issue that, as we have heard—it is worth saying again—has had much work invested in it by my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) and her colleagues on the all-party parliamentary group on ticket abuse. It also had great attention in the music industry, which is loud in its support for tackling ticket touting. Anyone who has tried to buy a ticket for a popular concert knows the frustration of losing out on tickets, only then to see the same tickets at 10 times the price on the secondary market.
Touting goes deeper than mere frustrations: it prices fans out of attending music, cultural and sports events; it damages the relationship between venue, artist and fan; and it undermines confidence in our live music industry. Yet, despite the calls of major UK music industry bodies, including UK Music and Live music Industry Venues & Entertainment, the Government have consistently failed to act.
Last year, the Government rejected the recommendations of the Competition and Markets Authority to strengthen legislation and protect UK consumers from illegal practices in the secondary ticketing market. At the time, the CMA warned that unless there was reform, illegal reselling prices would become worse. Lords amendment 104 would implement the recommendations of the Competition and Markets Authority to provide safeguards for consumers. Those are basic protections, such as ensuring that a reseller cannot sell more tickets than they can legally purchase on the primary market, and ensuring that tickets cannot be sold without proof of purchase. It is deeply disappointing that the Government cannot commit even to those basic safeguards.
Under the Government’s watch, the situation has become much worse. In 2007, there were an estimated 150 full-time ticket touts in the UK. Now there are about 4,000 touts attacking ticket systems for UK events, using bots to harvest tickets in bulk. Instead of being used as a resale platform for fans who can no longer make it to an event, ticketing websites are increasingly being used by large-scale touts who harvest tickets on the primary platform—using bots to skip the queue—and sell them on at many times the original price, sometimes speculatively. Ordinary fans do not stand a chance against that; they are the ones who are losing out. The situation has become so bad that police forces in some areas are having to launch public awareness campaigns warning about ticket touts after hundreds of reports of ticket fraud.
Lloyds Banking Group was recently forced to issue a warning to its customers about the risk of buying resold tickets after 600 of its customers reported being scammed when they tried to buy resale tickets for Taylor Swift’s Eras tour. It has been estimated that resale for the UK leg of that tour alone has led to more than £1 million being lost to fraudsters so far. That is happening despite clear messaging from the promoters of the tour that resale tickets bought outside approved channels will be turned away at the door.
As I said earlier, the Government can claim that they are doing enough, and the Minister seems happy with that, but he should look again at those secondary ticketing sites, where he will see three tickets for Taylor Swift’s show on 21 June going for over £72,000. That obviously shows a completely malfunctioning, dysfunctional market.
The Minister cannot claim that the market is functioning for fans and artists—it is actually functioning for touts and the platforms they use. Lords amendment 104 is just one measure that would begin to counter the damage done by ticket touts. I am glad to say that Labour has now committed to going a step further.
Labour would significantly strengthen consumer rights legislation to restrict the resale of tickets at more than a small set percentage over the price the original purchaser paid for it, including fees. Labour would limit the number of tickets that individual resellers can list to the number that individuals can legitimately buy via the original platform. Labour would make platforms accountable for the accuracy of information about the tickets they list for sale, and would ensure that the Competition and Markets Authority has the powers it needs to take swift and decisive action against platforms and touts in order to protect consumers.
The Minister cannot keep sticking his head in the sand. As the Competition and Markets Authority warned in 2021, illegal reselling practices have become worse due to a lack of action. We are now getting to a situation where artists and venues are on the cusp of losing the ability to sell tickets to genuine fans at an affordable price, and working families are being priced out of seeing their favourite artists or their favourite sports team.
Music, culture and sports events must not just be for the elite—the people who can afford thousands of pounds. How can the Government and the Minister justify their opposition to Lords amendments that would keep open access for fans to sport, to arts and to culture? I hope that he will listen to Opposition Members and not press the motion to disagree with this reasonable and modest amendment.
Mrs Hodgson
I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate, and it is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), who is doing some great work in this area, formulating our policy for when we will hopefully be in government after the election. I am speaking in the debate in my capacity as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on ticket abuse and to support Lords amendment 104, which relates to the secondary ticketing market.
Before I begin, I reiterate that the sole purpose of the amendment is to protect British consumers from organised crime and to reduce the harm caused by the unlawful and exploitative activities of online ticket touts. Aspects of the amendment have already been recommended by the Competition and Markets Authority, which recognised back in 2021 that the UK needs stronger legislation to tackle the resale of tickets. It is not just me who has been banging on about this since forever—the CMA is also calling for it, having looked at the market for many years.
It has to be said that Lords amendment 104 will not come with any cost to the UK taxpayer either. If it fails to become law, the only beneficiaries will be scammers, fraudsters and the overseas websites that they operate from. So Members will be voting either in the interests of the British public or in the interests of ticket touts.
The Minister said in his opening remarks that all Opposition Members are doing is crowd-pleasing; I am sure I heard his words correctly. I think he will find that the crowd all have votes. This has been a fan-led campaign. Perhaps pleasing the crowd is not always a bad idea. We are here to represent the people, after all. For too long, this Government have allowed an online black market for ticket resale to thrive via websites such as Viagogo, StubHub, Gigsberg, Ticombo and Seatsnet. The public—the crowd, as the Minister called them—are sick to death of it.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
I commend my hon. Friend for all her work over a very long period on this important issue. It is important to support the Lords amendment because so many of our constituents are deprived of even the chance of getting a ticket for a sports match, pop concert or whatever, as they cannot beat the bots. Is that not the inherent unfairness?
Mrs Hodgson
It absolutely is. It is not a level playing field at all. I was going to come to the bots, and the fact that nobody has yet been put behind bars for having used bots, even though they are illegal, and are the tool that touts use to harvest tickets, so that they can scam the rest of the population and all our constituents. I am happy to stand here and crowd-please—I will do it until my dying breath—because that is what we are here to do. We should do the right thing for the public, and they are calling for us to regulate this market.
Sir Chris Bryant
I do not want my hon. Friend’s dying breath. Did she notice that the lovely Minister did not even present a single argument against any of the elements in the Lords amendment? He did not make the argument on why the Government do not support it, even though it is a patently obvious and sensible measure.
Mrs Hodgson
That is a good observation. To hazard a guess, the Minister probably agrees with the Lords amendment. He is a decent chap, and I think he sees the right in it, but he is sitting on the Government Benches. He is always welcome to come and join us on these Benches—it is quite a popular thing to do lately. If he wants to come over here, we will sort this out. It would be great if he was part of that, which is probably deep down what he would like to do.
All the websites that we are talking about are based outside the UK. They employ, essentially, no British staff—maybe a handful at most, but it is hard to check. They all masquerade as marketplaces where fans can buy and resell with other fans, but we know that is not true. All are dominated by large-scale online touts committing criminal offences to harvest tickets in bulk, as my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) said in his excellent intervention. That has led to a highly lucrative resale market worth hundreds of millions of pounds.
This is not small fry anymore. Face-value tickets are syphoned away from genuine fans and sold back to them at highly inflated prices. My hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) said in her excellent speech that the number of touts has gone from hundreds to many, many thousands. It is getting out of proportion. This is best summed up by Chris Allison, the former deputy assistant commissioner at the Metropolitan police. Following a four-year investigation of touts post the Olympics—those tickets were protected in law, as I mentioned earlier—he stated:
“Touts are part of organised criminal networks often involved in other crimes”.
In recent years, enforcement bodies such as the CMA, National Trading Standards and the Advertising Standards Authority have tried, with varying degrees of success, to intervene in this broken market, either to prosecute the touts who are unlawfully defrauding music and sports lovers, or to force the ticket resale websites to comply with consumer protection legislation. And, oh my, the CMA has tried so hard to force those websites to comply, using the measures that it has to hand, which are not enough. It has even asked for further measures; as we heard in the last debate on this subject, the Government rejected that.
This has become an increasingly complex situation to sort out. That is why the Labour party is seeking to follow the examples of countries such as Ireland, France and Australia by capping the price at which tickets can be resold. Let me draw the House’s attention to my private Member’s Bill in 2011, which sought to do just that: cap resale at face value plus 10%, as the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant), said. That would allow someone reselling tickets to reclaim extra costs, such as booking fees.
Contrary to what has been written about me over many years, I do not want to stop any fans from reselling their tickets if they can no longer go to the event. I just want the industrial-scale, parasitic scalping to stop. However, until we get to that point—and while the Conservatives are still in government—it is important that current legislation is made as effective as possible. They could ensure that now. The small measures that we are talking about do not go as far as we plan to go, but they would be a start in preventing consumer harm and making it harder for bad actors to thrive.
I support Lords amendment 104, introduced by my friend and co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on ticket abuse Lord Moynihan, with the assistance of Lord Clement-Jones, Baroness Jones and others. We have Lord Moynihan to thank for the amendments to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 that got through small measures that we hoped would be the panacea for all the problems in the secondary market, but nine years later, that Act has not fixed this broken market. That is why we need this amendment.
In the amendment, proposed new section 92A(1) of the 2015 Act would compel touts to provide proof of purchase to the ticketing facility, or evidence of title to the tickets offered for resale. That is common sense, pragmatic and cost-free. The provision would target traders and businesses only, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South said, would eliminate the speculative selling that is endemic on platforms such as Viagogo, and the emotional devastation and physical risk that comes with it. I have seen numerous cases of what she spoke about: people being turned away, after having travelled from one end of the country to the other at great expense, and having booked overnight accommodation. They find that they cannot get into the theatre, the O2, the concert or whatever it may be, because they have invalid tickets.
Someone wrote to me recently who got in touch with Viagogo before the event because they feared that they had an invalid ticket. They were told to try their luck on the door, regardless of the fact that it was an invalid ticket. They knew that they would be turned away at the door with this Taylor Swift ticket, but were told, “Just try your luck. If you can’t get in, we’ll give you a refund.” They would have to fight for it first, and it would take six months if they were lucky. This person was also told, “Why not sell it on? List it again, and we won’t charge you a fee.” It is outrageous that she was supposed to pass it on. I have emails between her and Viagogo to back this up. She was being encouraged to sell on a ticket that she knew was invalid, causing more victims. Those are the sorts of practices that these websites use.
In August 2022, an ITV investigation based on data from FanFair Alliance found that two thirds of festival tickets on Viagogo were fraudulently listed by just three individuals. These resellers are relatively few in number but account for 90% to 95% of the tickets sold on platforms such as Viagogo. Let us think about that: just three major touts were selling 90% to 95% of festival tickets. Other platforms, such as Gigsberg, are 100% reliant on businesses and traders, many of whom my APPG and the CMA believe are acting illegally.
Subsection (2) of proposed new section 92A would crack down on the industrial harvesting of tickets by preventing resellers from selling more tickets to an event than they can legally purchase from the primary market. That is just common sense, surely. This was first recommended by the CMA in August 2021, almost three years ago. It made the proposal after a six-year enforcement investigation that concluded, as I said, that the CMA needed “stronger laws” to tackle illegal ticket resale. This change would make it easier for genuine fans to access tickets instead of professional touts looking to make a parasitical profit.
Despite the fact that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish said, using bots and other malicious software is illegal, touts do so without fear of prosecution, as no one has yet been prosecuted for using bots for the industrial harvesting of tickets. Artists such as Ed Sheeran and Taylor Swift have repeatedly stated that they do not wish for their tickets to be touted. Artists get upset when their loyal fans blame them for not protecting them from touts, even though they do try. Both Taylor Swift and Ed Sheeran have gone to great lengths to try to protect their fans from the touts.
Subsections (3) and (4) of proposed new section 92A force touts to clearly state the face value of any ticket listed for resale—again, surely that information should be provided—and to ensure
“the trader or business’s name and trading address are clearly visible, in full, on the first page the ticket is viewable on.”
The information
“must not be hidden behind an icon, a drop down menu or other device”,
which is what actually happens. The Consumer Rights Act states explicitly—these are Lord Moynihan’s reforms, which were added to the 2015 Act—that platforms must legally provide buyers with seat locations, face-value prices and restrictions, for example. They should be provided
“in a clear and comprehensible manner”
and
“before the buyer is bound by the contract for the sale of the ticket.”
Before they purchase, consumers have a right to know what they are buying, and who they are buying it from. That is in current law, but Viagogo has a track record of hiding face value behind what we call “hover text”, or small, tiny icons marked “FV”, so you have to know what you are looking for to find it. It obscures trader identities behind a tiny star icon, and only reveals a trader’s identity after the user enters their credit card details and has gone through the CAPTCHA process, so the user has often committed to buying before they know who they are buying from and what the face value is. That is in straight contravention of the 2015 Act.
On 99.9% of other websites, CAPTCHA is used to protect consumers. On Viagogo, it is used to protect the identity of its commercial suppliers—in other words, touts. Details of any ticket restrictions—for example, the information that resale is only allowed at face value—are provided in an unclear and incomprehensible manner, and are often buried in the middle of other small print, and then negated by claims about Viagogo’s “guarantee”—that is a very loose term if you are on Viagogo’s website.
Those practices are purposely misleading for most, but even more so for those who are visually impaired, tourists who do not speak fluent English, or older people without niche technical skills, who could be buying tickets for a grandchild’s birthday. I have had lots of grandparents in touch with me. As someone said—I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South—they then feel stupid. I have had such a number of emails from people saying, “This is my fault. I was stupid. I should have known better. I should have checked.” We should not allow companies to exist that do this in such a big way. They say, “Buyer beware”; that is Viagogo’s motto, I think. It is probably hidden on its website. What is happening is not right, and it is up to us to protect consumers; that is what Parliament is for. We should not allow this to happen on such a scale.
Furthermore, experts involved with the all-party parliamentary group on ticket abuse have found that large numbers of sellers are based abroad, or have links to forms of organised crime all the way up to convicted drug dealers, money launderers and bank robbers. The secondary ticketing market is not full of “classic entrepreneurs” as a former Chancellor and former Culture Secretary, the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sir Sajid Javid), would have us believe. They are serious criminals. If Members want to see when he said that, it was in 2011 when he was helping to talk out my private Member’s Bill.
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. Friend is making a really important point. She rightly points out the degree of criminality at the highest end of the organisations that are responsible for the touting industry, and the lack of prosecutions. It is actually quite a good business proposition for them, is it not? It is relatively risk-free. They are probably more likely to get sentenced for being an international drug dealer than for selling the tickets.
Mrs Hodgson
It is very interesting that my hon. Friend has come to the same conclusion I have. I have made that exact point in many interviews over the years: why would anybody go out and rob banks or do any sort of crime for which they might get caught, when they could just be a ticket tout? They’ll make a fortune and nobody will come after them, not even the taxman. There will be no hand of the law on their shoulder. There have been only two cases and six prosecutions in all the time I have been campaigning on this issue. So yes, it is time we sorted it out. It is just not acceptable.
The recent case that I think the Minister referred to earlier involved individuals being convicted for buying and reselling tickets worth £6.5 million—£6.5 million. They have been caught, but that is because they are right up at the top end. There will be people making £1 million, half a million pounds, £2 million or £3 million who have not been caught. There are so many touts. The case involved using multiple, often fake, identities to buy large numbers of tickets with multiple credit cards. However, convictions are extremely few and far between, despite thousands of professional touts operating.
Finally, those who trade in the UK must be subject to UK laws—surely we all agree with that. Subsection (5) of proposed new section 92A states:
“A secondary ticketing facility must make it clear to traders and businesses based overseas that sell tickets to UK consumers and target UK consumers through paid or sponsored advertisements”—
in some cases using Google and trusted publications, or even sponsoring podcasts by trusted influencers—
“or paid infomercials that they are subject to UK legislation.”
The vast majority of suppliers to Viagogo and other secondary platforms are commercial businesses. A significant proportion are based outside the UK, as I said, but they target UK events to derive the highest possible profit. Likewise, none of the websites have offices in the UK. There are no UK jobs at stake, apart from a handful. It has been quite hard for me and my team to check and be sure of the numbers, as these companies are all registered in tax havens and overseas. However, the damage and exploitation occur in the UK at the expense of artists, athletes and fans, without any fear of the current toothless UK law.
Viagogo has already had its wings clipped, partially, by CMA orders over the years, but in my opinion it is nowhere near enough. It has repeatedly shown that it cannot be trusted to mark its own homework. For instance, elsewhere Viagogo was fined 7 million Australian dollars for misleading consumers, €20 million for breaking the law in Italy and €400,000 in France for breaking the law around rugby world cup tickets. Yet we heard the Minister’s colleague, the Minister for Media, Tourism and Creative Industries, spouting the Viagogo lines of defence from the Dispatch Box just a couple of weeks ago—go figure! This is all on the record, because my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South raised it in a point of order a couple of weeks ago, just after the Minister for Media, Tourism and Creative Industries did it.
Unless legislative action is taken to stop this black market, it will continue to grow and cause further damage. This modest amendment effectively plugs loopholes in legislation, and ensures that music and sport fans of all ages have the information that they need before they make that purchase. I implore everyone here today to please support Lords amendment 104 and start putting fans first—or else move aside so that we can do so.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
It is an absolute privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson)—my good friend—who has been a tenacious campaigner on this issue for so many years, and I implore Ministers to listen to her and note her expertise. I ask them please to back Lords amendment 104. A review is not good enough in the dying days of a failing Government; we desperately need action now.
It is a pleasure to speak in the debate. I proudly saw this Bill through part of its Commons stages in my previous role as the shadow tech and digital economy Minister, and it is fantastic to see it so ably steered through the House today with the support of my good friend and neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant).
As we have heard, what was draft legislation for so long has been woefully slow to materialise. It had sat on the shelf since 2018, so it is nice to finally see it brought back to the House today and to see the Government taking action. I welcome it, as does the Labour party more widely, having led the way in calling on the Government to ensure that large tech companies are governed by proper regulations to allow for competition in our digital markets. Labour has long called for measures to protect consumers, enhance innovation and promote competition in digital markets in order to unlock growth and level the playing field for smaller businesses. In the midst of a Conservative cost of living crisis, this measure could not be more timely, and the need for it has been constantly confirmed in conversations I have had with constituents in Pontypridd.
Let us not forget that it is been over a year since the legislation was first proposed here. Owing to internal chaos and conflict, the Tories have long delayed the Bill, and it is disappointing that we are now being given a watered-down version of the original Bill and that its delay is causing us to fall behind our European partners. The UK has the potential to lead the way, but the Government have instead chosen to take a back seat and to be led. To say that the Bill is overdue is an understatement. Since it was promised, we have seen the digital world continue to change, grow and expand at an incredible and exponential rate. We have seen a significant growth in artificial intelligence technology hitting the mainstream, and tech is becoming more and more central to our homes, jobs and social lives. Our post-covid world has adapted to hybrid, tech-dependent working styles, and jobs in all sectors have accommodated that preference.
Whether it be for work, shopping or our social lives, we are all spending more time online. I see that—sadly—in my own habits, as well as those of my colleagues and constituents. I believe we can all agree that a thriving digital economy in which all sectors and all businesses become digital is vital for the UK’s economic growth, but the Government have nevertheless failed to keep up. Now that they have finally decided to deliver this albeit watered-down legislation, it is up to them to ensure that it survives and, if it does, to protect it from further watering-down changes. So far, I am not convinced that that will be the case. The Government have tabled an amendment in lieu of one of the Lords amendments, but they are ignoring the remainder. While most of the disagreement relates to different semantic interpretations of the wording, it is important that we get the wording right so that the Bill works in practice and not just on paper.
I am afraid that these frustrations are not new. Many of them are not dissimilar to those that my colleagues and I raised during the Committee stage of the Online Safety Act 2023. Let us be clear: while big companies have a significant impact on our economy, that power should never be extended to our legislative process. The process of forming and scrutinising legislation should be entirely independent from any private company interest. Parliamentarians and our Government should not be influenced in any circumstances, because we as public servants should be here for our people—our constituents— rather than being here to promote and advance the interests of big companies and big tech. What is more important to the Government: appeasing big companies or acting for the good of the people they are supposed to represent? If it is not appeasing big companies, why will they not revert to ensuring that the CMA’s interventions are appropriate rather than proportionate?
We all know that this change will have a significant impact on the scope of the big tech firms to challenge CMA decisions under judicial review. Given that courts have to navigate these new and broader grounds for judicial review appeals against those decisions, big tech firms are provided with huge, limitless legal budgets and bottomless pockets to tie up the CMA in lengthy legal disputes. It is imperative that the Lords amendments remain in their original form to hold big tech firms accountable, to limit their scope to appeal and to reduce the ambiguity in relation to court interpretation about which we have heard today.
Moving beyond those concerns, this Bill is still absolutely necessary, which is why it has the support of the Labour party, as do the Lords amendments. We all know that the digital economy has opened new markets for businesses and has given consumers access to new information, but with rivals unable to compete with the world’s most powerful global companies, they do not sit on an equal footing. Google has a more than 90% share of the 7.3 billion search advertising market in the UK, and Facebook has over 50% of the £5.5 billion display advertising market. That is completely unfair, and constitutes both a challenge to businesses and a detriment to consumers.
This means that everyday consumers have little to no autonomy over their online choices, or in how much data they have to give out. As for businesses, this is limiting their innovation, as their ideas are likely to be quashed by an algorithm and they are therefore unable to compete by any reasonable and fair means. For example, Amazon’s use of its position as a marketplace, a publisher and a bookseller has been detrimental to the potential and work of independent booksellers who are pushed aside because they cannot compete with these huge companies and the advantages that the marketplace affords them. I am glad to see that the Lords amendments recognise the importance of user choice, autonomy and independence from the big companies that are pushing an agenda and escaping scrutiny.
Why, then, have the Government shied away from this? If, as they claim, the wording maintains the same high threshold, why will they not clarify the fact that the “indispensable” standard and the new standard are equal? What exactly are they afraid of? Big tech must be held accountable, and must not be able to complicate legal proceedings and escape scrutiny. Surely that point should not cause disagreement. Why have the Government again moved to a merit appeals approach to penalty decisions? This is completely unworkable. Proceedings must take a judicial review approach, which means that a decision will be judged on the basis of its lawfulness rather than its correctness or the views of a tribunal. This approach will fail to incentivise big tech firms to comply with CMA decisions.
While the Tories’ watering down of the Bill may initially appear trivial, in fact it will only encourage big tech to challenge the decisions of the CMA. If we want the Bill to be workable—to be worth the paper on which it is written—we must ensure that it is clear, precise and unambiguous. Given that the judicial review and merits elements of appeals could bleed into one another—which is causing concern—ambiguity is already rife in this Bill.
The Government must reverse their watering down of this all-important legislation or, at the very least, clarify exactly what the changes to the wording represent. That is exactly why the Lords amendments are so necessary. I urge the Government to reconsider them with the seriousness that they deserve and, at the minimum, to make efforts to compromise, as they have done with one of them. The same must be done for the other three in question.
The Lords amendments would bring small businesses on to a level playing field, and protect the autonomy and pockets of our consumers. If the Bill fails to do that and is watered down any further, it will not be worth the paper it is written on. The Government can do the right thing. They should take the opportunity to do so, and I implore them to do so.
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
Today I want to speak in support of Lords amendment 104 and the Lords amendments relating to foreign state ownership of UK newspapers, and I will raise some questions about the Lords amendments relating to consumer protections against unfair subscription practices and the use of fake reviews. I will start by setting out my overall support for the Bill and establishing a bit of context for why it is so important to get the regulation of the digital economy right.
Over the past decade, our economy has obviously been transformed by digital change. In many ways this has brought benefits but, equally, it has brought new harms—new ways that unscrupulous individuals and companies can exploit us all. People in our communities are affected by the failures of existing digital regulation, and I would argue that it is often communities like mine that bear the brunt. In Newham we have significant digital exclusion, and massive damage has been caused to family finances by the cost of living crisis.
Andrew Gwynne
It comes back to the point about bots. Even the most tech-savvy person cannot beat the bots, and once those bots get going, they sweep away all the tickets and genuine fans cannot get them. That is so unfair—almost as unfair as the extortionate prices that these companies charge for the tickets they have swept up using those bots.
Ms Brown
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have families struggling to buy tickets for their children who are desperate to go and see x band or y band, and then they find themselves ripped off and unable to have that treat, which was massively looked forward to.
I give huge credit to my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) for her years of dedicated campaigning in this area. Her work has helped to bring this issue to the forefront of debate, and to make it clear that legal change is necessary to protect our cultural industries and consumers from the touts. We on the Opposition Benches have a clear policy to stamp out ticket touting so that no one is able to charge a large mark-up on resold tickets.
Sir Chris Bryant
Is it not important to emphasise that this issue needs legislation? Lots of venues have tried their level best to get it right. For instance, the O2 Arena only endorses the use of its reseller, AXS, which is only allowed to sell tickets at 10% above the original price—precisely what we are saying should be available to everybody else—but the venue cannot stop other companies effectively nicking all the tickets because of the use of bots. That is why we need legislation.
Ms Brown
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. We have tried to nip this in the bud by bringing it to the public’s attention, putting pressure on individuals and encouraging action to be taken, but we need legislation to stamp it out.
I like the fact that in Labour’s proposed legislation there will be an upper limit on the number of tickets that an individual can resell, in order to make organised ticket touting an unprofitable practice. People who honestly buy tickets and then find that they cannot attend should absolutely be allowed to sell their tickets on—that is in the consumer’s interest and the best interests of our constituents—but culture and sports fans should no longer be gouged and exploited. Thankfully, there is a Lords amendment before us today that would ensure that very thing. It was put forward by none other than the Conservative Lord Moynihan. It would go some way to implementing these protections, but despite that the Government seem determined to oppose change and go no further in protecting consumers from ticket touts, even though they acknowledge that the problem persists.
Frankly, I know that my constituents will want to understand why the Government appear determined to stand in the way of greater protections even when they are being put forward by one of their very own noble Lords. Why are the Government ignoring the voices of fan organisations and creatives who want a fair, properly regulated market in event tickets? I think the Minister might have a job of work to do in convincing my constituents that this is about sound regulation rather than the failed free market ideology of the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss). We in this House must not forget the importance of protecting Britons from unfair practices, and we must always remember to put them first.
We know that this is far from the only area where poor regulation of our cultural and media markets poses serious risks to consumers and communities alike, so I want to say a few words about the large number of Lords amendments on the state ownership of our newspapers. I thank my Opposition Front-Bench colleagues for demonstrating leadership and pressing for action on this issue, and I welcome the Government’s amendments in the other place following those calls. It is important that there is now something like cross-party consensus on this, because we live in a world where distrust is stronger and misinformation thrives.
I know that many of us share the fear that genuine, honest journalism is becoming a rare commodity, and the impacts of that are massive right across our society. Failure to promote a trustworthy media landscape fuels conspiracy theories and extremism, and it distracts attention from the genuine, massive challenges that face us as a country and as a world. We should all fear becoming a society that is riven by division, because all our communities lose out from that. I believe that only scammers, extremists and tyrants ultimately benefit.
I am not saying that foreign state ownership of UK newspapers would lead directly to those media outlets spewing division, hate and lies, but I am seriously worried about the further impact it would have on public trust in our media. We all need to recognise the greater potential for interference in our democracy from foreign states if they own media outlets directly.
We cannot just act to block foreign state takeovers of papers—our agenda needs to be wider than that. We need to support impartial and independent public interest journalism through the BBC, including the fabulous World Service, which is so important and currently in significant financial difficulty. We need, obviously, to continue acting to improve the regulation of online social media spaces where, as we know, trust is near extinct and where so much harm is done to the most vulnerable in our communities. Amendments against foreign ownership of newspapers are only a tiny part of the solution, but they are a step forward. I welcome the action taken on this issue in the other place, which has improved the Bill.
Finally, I will speak to some of the wider amendments made in the other place to better protect consumers from scams and exploitation. As we know, the abuse of subscription services by hiding cancellation options affects people in every part of our country. People are steadily losing money, month after month, to services that they do not want but do not know how to cancel. Citizens Advice estimates that £300 million a year is being spent on unwanted subscriptions. Obviously this is of even more concern where people are not completely digitally literate, so I hope the Minister might tell us more about what work is being done to monitor and update the digital inclusion strategy. It is a bit of a shock that there has been no update for about 10 years. According to Age UK, nearly 6 million older people, including many of my constituents, cannot use the internet.
One constituent recently told me about how they missed a hospital appointment because they lost the message telling them about it. We all know that this is all too common, and that it creates unnecessary and unfair barriers to accessing so many of our public services and just taking part in everyday life.
Frankly, the examples I have seen show that anybody can be impacted, because it is often massively harder to cancel a subscription agreement than to enter one. That is just blatant and egregious, and it is difficult for any of us to navigate. Additional protections in law simply cannot come soon enough, and there is widespread recognition that greater clarity is needed in regulations. Regulators will obviously need to be more active in holding the providers of subscription services to account where they use exploitative tactics against consumers. The test is whether the Bill will deliver that.
I welcome the debate in the other place on how this will be implemented in law and, slightly unusually, I give credit to the Minister in the other place for rightly engaging with probing amendments and for seeking to maintain stronger protections for consumers. I hope the Minister here today will say more about where the Bill ultimately stands. Will the regulator have the clarity and confidence it needs to start enforcing against exploitative practices, or will we be back here in a few years after the regulations have been tested and found sadly wanting?
I argue that the lack of a clear prohibition on creating fake reviews was an omission from the original Bill. Shadow Ministers and Opposition colleagues have called for greater clarity on that since Second Reading, almost a year ago, so I welcome the measures that have now been included. In our everyday lives, when we look for goods and services online, many of us have little alternative but to rely on reviews. Fake reviews are clearly a massive threat to genuine competition, and they are effectively an open door for scammers and cowboys to rip people off further. Again, I hope the Minister might say a little more on the final position.
There was significant debate in the other place on probing amendments that questioned whether stronger provisions were needed, particularly on the responsibilities of platforms and internet service providers that host fake reviews. Is the Minister absolutely confident that those platforms are clear about the actions they must take to stop their services being abused by fake review scammers?
Kevin Hollinrake
With the leave of the House, I will respond to some of the points raised in this fruitful, constructive debate. I reassure the shadow Minister that I have lost none of my mojo or ambition to ensure a fair and level playing field for businesses. That is a vital part of this legislation. At times I may smile when I am at the Dispatch Box and there are a couple of reasons for that; not only am I generally a happy guy but I am pleased to see this groundbreaking legislation being brought into effect. It is probably one of only two major pieces of legislation around the world that does what it does. We should welcome that and the fair and level playing field that will result from it.
I do not accept what the shadow Minister says about the Government having caved in and weakened some of the Bill’s provisions. It is fair to say that some of the platforms would like us to have changed the Bill radically from how it was when it was presented to Parliament. We think we have very much held the line on its provisions and how it will ensure that consumers and smaller businesses get a better deal. We do not accept that it will bring about “bleed back”, as he puts it, between the on-the-merits provisions of penalties and other regulatory decisions. We have been clear on that and our legal advice is of the same mind.
Secondary ticketing is a key part of the debate, having been raised by various Members. We absolutely see that there is good practice in some primary markets, where there is control as to resales. We should learn from best practice, such as ID requirements on the resale of tickets. That is within the gift of those in the primary markets, so we are keen to develop the review to ensure that we look at both the primary and secondary markets, as the Opposition called for in an amendment tabled earlier in the Bill’s progress.
Sir Chris Bryant
I am grateful to the Cheshire cat for giving way. Does he oppose the Lords amendment on ticket touts because of the proposed new subsection stating that there needs to be “proof of purchase” for secondary ticket marketing, or because details of the “face value” of the ticket have to be provided? It is difficult to determine why the Minister opposes the Lords amendment other than because it is an inconvenience to government.
Kevin Hollinrake
We believe that those measures, such as on the face value of the ticket, are already covered by the current legislation and enforcement. The Government have certainly gone a lot further than previous regimes have: we strengthened the terms and guidance in 2017; we banned ticketing bots—the hon. Gentleman mentioned that but did not seem to understand that it had been outlawed in 2018; and we improved enforcement action by the regulators, as we have seen six successful prosecutions under the new regime. I remind him that where other jurisdictions have supposedly gone further in banning resale, such as in Ireland, no prosecutions have taken place. We are trying to ensure that we have a balance and that our provisions work well.
Kevin Hollinrake
I will address the hon. Lady’s points in a moment, as I am keen to respond to some of them.
Sir Chris Bryant
If the Minister goes to the Viagogo website and tries to buy a ticket, he will see on the first page that it says the ticket is £420 or whatever. Can he see the original value of the ticket? No. Can he see whether it is a validly purchased ticket? No. That is the problem that the amendment would solve. It would be simple for the Government to agree to the amendment and then we can get the Bill through.
Kevin Hollinrake
We believe those provisions are already there. I have quite happily used Viagogo on many occasions, as other people have when reselling tickets. Of course we will keep looking at the primary and secondary markets, and at the interaction between the two, so that we can develop the right way to regulate the market, in a future Parliament.
Kevin Hollinrake
I will come to the hon. Lady’s points in a moment.
On the things we are doing to hold big tech to account, I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) that the fire burns brightly in me. I do not think we have moved away in any material way from ensuring that this legislation is fit for purpose and does what it sets out to do. As I said in response to his earlier intervention, we do not believe there is any bleed-across between the merits-based approach to penalties and other regulatory interventions. The revised wording about the countervailing benefits exemption did not change the effects of the clause and did not change the guidance in the explanatory notes.
As my hon. Friend is aware, we are doing a lot of work on regulation. We have engaged on regular occasions to ensure that gets to where he wants. On costs and benefits, he will have noticed we brought forward the growth duty for our economic regulators quite recently, as well as the smart data road map. I know he waits with bated breath for the White Paper that will come forward shortly.
I thank the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson) for his support for the legislation. We do not think the change from conduct is indispensable to the benefits; benefits could not be realised without the conduct materially changing the position in any way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) said that we had moved to a different balance. I do not think I said that; I am happy to clarify my remarks about proportionality. We have provided more certainty and clarity around that position, which we always thought was part of the way the CMA would make its decisions. He made points about how the regulator would view, for example, the significant charges made across the Xbox platforms, which both charge 30% to the people who have e-commerce through those payment systems. As he said, businesses might not think that is too much, but we both know that it is not businesses that pay that ultimately, but consumers. The requirement for the CMA to make interventions for the benefit of consumers is in its very DNA, so I think it would act in those situations.
The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) talked about the secondary ticketing position. I hear her points, and the points raised by the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), very clearly.
Barbara Keeley
I counsel the Minister against what he is doing. As his colleague in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport team did recently at oral questions, he is repeating the arguments that the platforms use. It is sad to hear Ministers repeating the same lines that a global chief officer of Viagogo came out with when they were over here. In Ireland, fraud activity has not increased—because the legislation is working., and that is why there are no prosecutions in Ireland. We would be in that situation if we had that legislation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West probably wants to point out, it is alright to say that the use of bots is illegal, but nobody is being prosecuted for the illegal use of bots to wholesale-buy tickets; it is happening, so I counsel the Minister and his ministerial colleagues’ against their constant repetitions, which are not plausible to anybody outside.
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Lady is right to say that there is a difference between legislation and enforcement. We urge the authorities that have responsibility to enforce those provisions to make use of them. In Ireland, where the resale of tickets has been banned, inflated prices are still a feature of the ticket markets. Tickets for Taylor Swift’s Dublin shows are selling well in excess of their face price on the internet in Ireland, but no prosecutions have been made.
Kevin Hollinrake
May I make it clear that I was not accusing the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South of crowd pleasing? As I said in my earlier remarks, and as I will say to the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West before she intervenes, we should not simply take measures that are crowd pleasing in the hope they will work but they are ineffective. That is not to say that we do not think further measures are required.
Mrs Hodgson
On the point about Taylor Swift and whether any of her tickets have been sold on the secondary market in Ireland, I challenge the Minister to take another look at that rather than taking the word of his officials or whoever has told him. I have been told that no Taylor Swift tickets are on sale on Viagogo in Ireland. She has stated that her tickets will not be valid if they are resold on a secondary platform, so they will not be found on a secondary platform in Ireland.
Kevin Hollinrake
Yes, I have just googled sellers of tickets in Dublin, and people can buy tickets well in excess of face value on the platform. I could not find them on Viagogo, but other platforms are selling those tickets. We are trying to do something that is effective. I am very happy to continue to engage with the hon. Lady, as she makes a very compelling case. I shall continue to look at what she says and continue to engage with her. I am very keen to ensure that we get to the right place, so that we protect consumers, but allow a fair, free market to work properly.
Andrew Gwynne
I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. I want to take him back to his comment that what was needed was not new legislation, but better enforcement. The enforcement authorities would presumably be trading standards. What is the reason there are not the prosecutions that we would all like to see? Is it because trading standards has been run into the ground and does not have the capacity to do the job that he is expecting it to do? Is it because of the complexity of the market? And which trading standards is responsible: the one where the platforms are based, the one where the person who bought the ticked is based, or the one where the concert is being held? That makes enforcing this measure really difficult.
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank the hon. Member for his points. I said not that legislation was not needed, but that there was no point in having legislation without enforcement. There have been six successful prosecutions by trading standards, but is he saying that he wants to fund trading standards to a greater degree? I understand some of the pressures on local authorities across the country; there are pressures on the public finances generally. If he has a solution to that and can provide lots more money to local authorities, he should have a word with his Front-Bench team, because that has not been Labour’s policy.
Gen Kitchen (Wellingborough) (Lab)
Unlike with trading standards, many cash-strapped families and young people fall for online scams, because they are on the hunt for bargains on Facebook Marketplace and, to a lesser extent, on eBay and Vinted. They are often at the mercy of being ripped off with very little protection and little to no help from local trading standards because of that confusion over whether it is where the buyer is or where the seller is. In particular, that is because they are for more casual and lower-value transactions. Can the Minister confirm whether that will be in the review as well?
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. She makes a very good point. I am happy to look at the concerns that she raises. We will look at the concerns raised by all stakeholders, Members of this House and people further afield to ensure that, when we carry out this review, we get to the right place.
The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) seems to think EU legislation is stronger than ours. Let me point out that appeal standards consider the merits across the piece in the European Union; they do not in the UK, as they are confined to a very small element of it.
Finally, I am pleased that the hon. Member for West Ham (Ms Brown) supports the Bill and very pleased that she supports freedom of speech. Digital inclusion is very important. The Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Saqib Bhatti) is working very hard on social inclusion and social tariffs of broadband through the cross-ministerial group. We are very keen to ensure that reminder notices for subscriptions are very clear for all our consumers.
To conclude, I urge all Members on both sides of the House to carefully consider the amendment that I have proposed in lieu of those made in the other place. I hope that all Members will feel able to support our position.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Taylor Swift seems to be everywhere, even in the House of Commons, doesn’t she?
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 9.
Business without Debate
Petitions
(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Linlithgow and East Falkirk on the protection of the Amazon rainforest. The deforestation of the Amazon is a considerable environmental threat to us all and it is contributing to the forest’s inability to recover from drought, fire and landslides. The petitioners
“therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage the Brazilian Government to protect forest land and end large-scale deforestation, to prevent nearly half of the Amazon rainforest from collapsing and that these irreversible consequences for the Amazon and the planet are avoided.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of the residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that the Amazon is the world’s largest rainforest and makes up half of the planet’s remaining tropical forests, home to about three million species of plants and animals and 1.6 million indigenous people; further notes that the forest is the world’s largest natural carbon sinks, absorbing and storing an amount of carbon equivalent to 15 to 20 years of global CO2 emissions from the atmosphere; and further declares continued deforestation of the Amazon is contributing to the forest’s inability to recover from droughts, fires and landslides.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage the Brazilian Government to protect forest land and end large-scale deforestation, to prevent nearly half of the Amazon rainforest from collapsing and that these irreversible consequences for the Amazon and the planet are avoided.
And the petitioners remain, etc.] [P002964]
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
I present this petition on the popular uprising in Iran on behalf of residents of Southampton North who wish to protest against the violent repression of women and young people in Iran by the Iranian regime. More than 500 of my constituents have also signed an associated petition. These petitions note that the atrocities committed have been categorised as crimes against humanity by the UN special rapporteur. The petitioners
“therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to condemn the Iranian Government’s violent crackdown on protests led by women and youth, support democratic movements in Iran and put pressure on the Iranian regime to stop the repression.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that in response to protests and anti-regime uprisings led by women and youth throughout Iran, Iranian repressive forces have opened fire on protestors; notes that more than 750 protestors have been killed including 83 women and 75 children, as well as more than 30,000 protestors arrested; further notes that Amnesty International has reported that child detainees have been subjected to horrific torture, including beatings, flogging, electric shocks, rape and other sexual violence; further declares that the regime’s deliberate poisoning of schoolgirls across Iran is to take revenge on young girls for participating in demonstrations, with the number of executions increased to over 400 this year; further notes that the UN Special Rapporteur on Iran has categorised the atrocities during the uprising as Crimes Against Humanity; and further declares opposition to the killings and arrests of protestors, and support for the Iranian people’s uprising to achieve democracy and freedom.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to condemn the Iranian Government’s violent crackdown on protests led by women and youth, support democratic movements in Iran and put pressure on the Iranian regime to stop the repression.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002969]
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of my constituents regarding the recommendations of the infected blood inquiry. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson). She has done tremendous work and she has been a motivation for us all, and I thank her for that. There are 100 people that I know of in Northern Ireland awaiting compensation, and with each month that passes, so too does their health fail. The act itself was regrettable, and the continued paralysis in implementing the compensation scheme is reprehensible and must be rectified as a priority for this House.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Strangford,
Declares that people who received infected blood and who have suffered as a consequence have, along with their families, waited far too long for redress.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to implement the recommendations in the Second Interim Report of the Infected Blood Inquiry without delay.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002960]
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
I rise to present the petition of my constituents in Worcester. My petitioners include a constituent who lost her mother to this scandal; a dear friend of mine, who is a long-standing councillor and former chairman of my association, who lost his beloved wife and the mother of his children; and a constituent who was infected as a child with HIV and hepatitis, but went on to found the Tainted Blood campaign.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Worcester,
Declares that people who received infected blood and who have suffered as a consequence have, along with their families, waited far too long for redress.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to implement the recommendations in the Second Interim Report of the Infected Blood Inquiry without delay.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002967]
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of the residents of North East Fife. In common with those presented by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and other right hon. and hon. Members, the petition relates to the recommendations of the infected blood inquiry. Like the hon. Member for Strangford, I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) for her work on the issue.
Two of the families directly impacted in North East Fife came into my office on Friday to sign the petition. One lost his father to hepatitis C as a result of the scandal, and the other’s husband was infected as a child at school.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of North East Fife,
Declares that people who received infected blood and who have suffered as a consequence have, along with their families, waited far too long for redress.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to implement the recommendations in the Second Interim Report of the Infected Blood Inquiry without delay.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002968]
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
I am proud to also present a petition to show my support for all those who have been impacted and continue to suffer as a result of the infected blood scandal. I pay tribute to the tireless campaigning of those affected and the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) in the fight for justice and compensation.
This issue is of particular importance to my constituents in Pontypridd, both for those who have got in touch with me to advocate for justice and for those who were sadly victims of the scandal. I have the utmost respect for Gerald Stone, Meinir Elin Gooch, Jodie Sugar, Owain Llŷr Harris and Tony Lane, to name a few. They have waited far too long and they demand justice.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that people who received infected blood and who have suffered as a consequence have, along with their families, waited far too long for redress.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to implement the recommendations in the Second Interim Report of the Infected Blood Inquiry without delay.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002970]
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
I join a number of right hon. and hon. Members in presenting a petition on the same terms, on behalf of constituents in Worsley and Eccles South, who are seeking justice for families affected by the NHS infected blood scandal. I too pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) for her wonderful work.
I also pay tribute to my constituents Claire Dixon, Ian Dixon and Olivia Dixon, who are seeking justice on behalf of Claire’s late mother, Nora Worthington, who was infected with HIV through a routine blood transfusion in 1982 and who died of an AIDS-related illness in 1993. They, like other families, have waited far too long for redress.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Worsley and Eccles South,
Declares that people who received infected blood and who have suffered as a consequence have, along with their families, waited far too long for redress.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to implement the recommendations in the Second Interim Report of the Infected Blood Inquiry without delay.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002971]
Heathrow Airport: Western Rail Link
(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I am extremely grateful to your good self, Mr Deputy Speaker, Mr Speaker and the House authorities for granting me today’s Adjournment debate on the western rail link to Heathrow.
I was elected to represent the good people of Slough in 2017. In 2018, realising the immense importance of this rail link, I established an all-party parliamentary group with like-minded colleagues from across the Chamber. The House will therefore be aware that I have long championed the western rail link to Heathrow, which would link Great Western Railway’s network, and constituents in the Thames Valley region and beyond, to the rest of the world via Heathrow airport. This is not just a project for the Thames Valley or for the south-east of England; it is a levelling-up project that would benefit local, regional and national economic growth.
I wish to place on the record my gratitude to the western rail link to Heathrow stakeholder steering group, Heathrow airport, the Thames Valley chamber of commerce, Great Western Railway, Slough Borough Council, Network Rail, BAE, Transport for London, the Department for Transport, Slough Estates Group, Atkins and others for all their hard work, expertise and invaluable advice to our all-party group over several years. Indeed, as eloquently explained by the Thames Valley chamber of commerce, the proposed four-mile rail link to London Heathrow airport would connect 20% of the UK population to within one interchange of our nation’s main hub airport. This strategic development would facilitate more direct access for travellers, allowing constituents to travel direct to Heathrow, eliminating the need to travel first to London Paddington and then back out again.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and congratulate him on the work that he has done on this for a number of years. Does he appreciate that the project would benefit not just Slough and that area of England, but the west and Wales in particular? Many constituents of mine have done that journey to Paddington and then back out. I wish him well with the project and hope that interest from the Government will be forthcoming.
Mr Dhesi
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He has eloquently put on record how the Welsh Government themselves have strongly supported the link. I know that he is a strong champion for his constituents, and he has been doing that work on a plethora of issues, but in particular within our all-party group. Importantly, greater connectivity to Heathrow would bolster jobs, growth, trade, tourism, education and regeneration.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I have been a member of the all-party group since 2018. Does the hon. Member also recognise that the rail link would benefit everybody from Bath to beyond? It would also have many environmental benefits, as people could choose the public transport option rather than travelling by car, which is what many of my constituents do.
Mr Dhesi
I thank the hon. Member not just for her support and her membership of the APPG, but for her alliteration—as she said, the project will be of huge significance for Bath and beyond. I also want to outline the cross-party composition of our all-party parliamentary group. Whether we are members of the Liberal Democrats, the Conservative party, the Labour party or other parties, we realise the collective benefits to our constituents and the environmental benefits, which I will elaborate on shortly.
Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. He makes the essential point that this is not just a south-east issue; it affects Swindon, which I represent, and the western gateway. I rise in my capacity as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the western gateway, which links Wales and the west. We fully support his efforts and the work of the Thames Valley chamber of commerce. He is to be commended for his work on this issue and has my full support.
Mr Dhesi
I thank the right hon. and learned Member, whose membership of our all-party parliamentary group has given it strength. He illustrates how the benefits will have significant impact in not only the immediate Thames valley region, which of course benefits me, but Wales, the south-west, the midlands and the wider south-east.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend has not yet mentioned the benefits that the train link would bring to Bristol, but I hope that it will make it easier for people to make the journey. Heathrow has an impact on the local environment, with surface transport playing a big role in contributing to air pollution and so on. If an easier train link can dissuade people from the west country from using their cars to drive to Heathrow, that would be very advantageous.
Damien Egan (Kingswood) (Lab)
I add my support for my hon. Friend’s debate. Kingswood does not have a train station, but Bristol stations such as Bristol Parkway and Bristol Temple Meads would be well served by the western rail link. Constituents tell me that in some cases they are getting taxis up to Heathrow. Does he also acknowledge that the rail link could open up more areas for employment, because it would be a big employer, as well as helping more people to get to Heathrow?
Mr Dhesi
I thank my hon. Friend, who has been a strong champion for his constituency since being elected. I had the distinct pleasure of conversing with many of his constituents while I was out in his area. The constituents of Kingswood do not have a train station, but the benefit of a direct rail link would be that it avoids individuals from as far away as Kingswood getting a taxi. That would reduce journey times and, as he points out, have a huge economic benefit for the wider region. I thank him for his support.
James Sunderland
As the vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group, I commend the hon. Member, my neighbour and friend, for all the work that he does to make this happen. The rail link is about jobs, economic growth, boosting travel opportunities across the UK and boosting Heathrow airport. Does he agree that, in the year 2024, it is almost perverse that passengers coming from the west of England and Wales cannot travel directly to our major international airport hub? Does he also agree that the rail link will bring huge benefits to London itself?
Mr Dhesi
The hon. Gentleman undersells himself. He was the vice-chair of our all-party parliamentary group, but he has recently been elevated to co-chair, taking on the role of the hon. Member for Newbury (Laura Farris), who was herself elevated to the Government Front Bench. He highlights that the link would benefit people not just in the south-east, the west, Wales and the south-west, but in London, because it would decongest roads, as well as London Paddington, as I will explain shortly.
Adam Afriyie
We are in danger of having a love-in here, but I will not disabuse the House of that notion, because across the House, on the Conservative and Opposition Benches, there is agreement on this. My constituents would join this love-in were the western rail link to go ahead, because it would remove congestion from the roads of Windsor, as far afield as Ascot, and even in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland). I think it is a really good move and one on which the House can unite, because it will help all our constituents, it will help the environment, and, most of all, it will unclog Windsor.
Mr Dhesi
I hope that the Minister is hearing the unanimity of support—or the love-in, as my constituency neighbour has pointed out. It is important to decongest our roads. People in Windsor and Slough get in their cars, or get a taxi, to go to Heathrow—that is predominantly what happens—so it is important that we provide this four-mile rail link. Indeed, my Slough constituency, which is home to more UK corporate headquarters than anywhere else outside London, is a huge business hub, and for those key industry leaders, this vital four-mile rail link remains the No. 1 infrastructure priority. In fact, it is the No. 1 infrastructure priority for the whole of the Thames valley region.
The scheme, which has been identified as a nationally significant infrastructure project by the National Infrastructure Commission, promises to decrease train travel times, offer a consistent service of trains in each direction, vastly improve connections from across the great western network, and bring destinations within the “golden hour” for foreign direct investors. The western rail link to Heathrow would provide four trains per hour to the great western main line; significantly enhance accessibility for millions of people, from Swansea to Swindon, Cardiff to Exeter and Reading to Bristol; offer direct links to Heathrow; and shed half an hour off many journey times.
Delivery of the western rail link scheme holds the key to overcoming the barriers to growth that currently face the region, and would drive investment and unlock huge economic benefits. According to analysis from Heathrow airport, the western rail link is projected to add £800 million to the gross value added, create 42,000 new jobs and facilitate an estimated 20% shift from road to rail, as many hon. Members have highlighted. Additionally, it promises £1.5 billion in efficiency savings for businesses through reduced travel times and costs.
When Conservative Ministers announced that they would be build the four-mile western rail link to Heathrow and that it would open in 2020, the excitement in Wales was such that the then First Minister Rhodri Morgan described it as
“one of the most important announcements in the last 50 years.”
But it was yet another broken promise. The Government had invested £47 million into planning western rail before the pandemic, and, having committed to it more than a decade ago, it is about time that they built the western rail link to Heathrow for the benefit of the local, regional and national economies.
Let me outline the environmental benefits that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) touched on. The extensive benefits of this pivotal rail initiative extend beyond stimulating growth, inward investment and connectivity; it will also play a crucial part in our carbon reduction efforts. The western rail link to Heathrow is a carbon reduction project that will take cars off roads, reduce carbon emissions, and diminish passenger overcrowding at London Paddington.
The increased rail options for commuters in the Thames valley region would significantly reduce congestion on some of the UK’s busiest roads, including the M4, M3 and M25. That would reduce carbon dioxide emissions equivalent to those generated by approximately 30 million road miles per year. By helping to shift journeys from private cars to public transport, the western rail link initiative will underpin our transition to net zero and help to deliver the UK’s climate change and carbon reduction targets, as well as being a key support to levelling up in the region.
The proven business case for this project is predicated on a two-runway scenario. If a third runway were to be built, the scheme would become critical to providing surface access to the airport. The western rail link to Heathrow is a scheme of considerable importance to hon. Members in various regions of the UK and their constituents, as we have heard from the invaluable contributions to today’s debate.
Indeed, there have been various apologies from hon. Members who hoped to attend this debate, including my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), a former treasurer of our APPG, and my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), a former vice-chair. They have also expressed their support for the scheme, but as we enter the 12th year since the Government first committed to building this vital four-mile rail link, disappointingly, not a single spade has yet been dug into the ground.
Despite the Government’s failure to deliver on their promise, there remains robust cross-party support for the scheme in Parliament, as well as from business chambers across the UK. The all-party parliamentary group on the western rail link to Heathrow is a strong advocate for the economic merits of this critical infrastructure and its importance in enhancing the connectivity of residents of the Thames valley region to the UK’s main airport via rail. It is in the interest of all hon. Members to deliver tangible results for our constituents, and as MPs representing diverse constituencies, we are all acutely aware of the considerable advantages that our constituents stand to gain from this project.
I commend the leadership of the Thames Valley chamber of commerce; in partnership with key stakeholders, including our APPG, and without any public subsidy, it is co-developing solutions, and sustaining its efforts to ensure that the project remains at the forefront of all minds. That private sector commitment should speak volumes to all of us in this esteemed House. It is the private sector that has subsidised, and continues to subsidise, the Department for Transport’s work. That should be a wake-up call to the Government, showing them that this rail project simply needs to be funded and built.
There was a significant financial commitment from Heathrow airport prior to the pandemic, but the Government’s lethargic approach over the years has squandered that vital investment opportunity, bringing us all back to square one. The Government must go beyond the hollow words of support spoken over several years—words that Ministers have failed to take tangible action on. They must finally step up and make the financial commitments that will ensure the timely delivery of their promised western rail link to Heathrow. Just a few months ago, the Minister assured me in the Chamber that
“The Government remain committed to improving rail access to Heathrow”—[Official Report, 26 October 2023; Vol. 738, c. 955.]
He claimed to “recognise the importance” of the western rail link. I convey my gratitude to him for recently taking invaluable time out of his day to meet members of our APPG, but the shocking fact remains that in the 12 years since the Government first pledged to fund this vital piece of infrastructure, not a single spade has hit the ground.
James Sunderland
Does the hon. Member agree that there is strong cross-party consensus across the House, which includes colleagues I have spoken to from Wales, western England and the midlands? It is great when the House comes together. They are all as one in wanting this project to happen. Does he share my hope that, in a minute, the Minister will outline at the Dispatch Box the preconditions for the Government taking the bold step of underwriting the project?
Mr Dhesi
That was very eloquently put, and that is what we hope for from the Minister, who is, I know, a good chap and a great champion of rail, but unfortunately for several years we have faced an impasse. I have been a Member of this esteemed House for the last seven years, and there have been lots of promises. Indeed, my first ever Prime Minister’s question to my constituency neighbour the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) was on this very issue. There have been many promises, but we are yet to see a timeline, and I do hope we will hear one from the Minister. Indeed, that is what the business community is expecting.
In conclusion, the importance of building the western rail link to Heathrow cannot be overstated. It would open up significant opportunities for growth, and enhance the travel experience and connectivity to Heathrow. The scheme will bring evidenced returns on investment to the Exchequer, help boost the UK’s productivity, and improve economic stability. After 14 years of consecutive Conservative Governments, and the plethora of broken promises and economic failures along the way, we need—my Slough constituents need—this vital stimulus more than ever.
Twelve years after the Government first committed to funding and building the western rail link, we are unfortunately no closer to the goal. When will the Government stop obfuscating, and provide the people of my Slough constituency, the wider Thames valley region and beyond with a clear timeline for when we can expect the project to be finally set in action? We have had various consultations over the years, we have run through various rigmaroles, and it seemed as if we were getting to the promised land, but we are still very far away from it.
The western rail link initiative is about more than just improving journey times. It signifies the strengthening of UK-wide and global links, and of our Union; a firm Government commitment to levelling up; significant steps towards reducing carbon emissions; and the unlocking of immense potential.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Huw Merriman)
I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) on securing this debate—or cross-party love-in, as he put it, albeit with a few digs into my heart—on a western rail link to Heathrow. He has been a strong supporter of this scheme for some time, particularly, as he referenced, in his capacity as chair of the western rail link to Heathrow all-party parliamentary group. I know that the scheme is of great importance to him, his constituents, the hon. Members who have intervened, and their constituents.
I turn first to Heathrow airport, which has a key role to play in boosting our global connectivity and the UK economy. It was ranked as the second busiest airport in the world for international passengers in 2023, handling an estimated total of 79 million passengers travelling to 214 destinations across 84 countries on 89 airlines. In 2024, this number is expected to increase to 82.4 million passengers. The Government remain supportive of airport expansion where it can be delivered within our environmental obligations. However, we have always been clear that Heathrow expansion remains a private sector project that must meet strict criteria on air quality, noise and climate change, as well as being privately financed, affordable and delivered in the best interests of consumers. The Government also recognise the economic benefit that airports can bring to their area. Increasingly, airports are becoming regional transport hubs that support multiple businesses, labour markets and population centres. Reliable and efficient surface access connections are an important part of achieving that.
The Government are committed to improving access to Heathrow airport in ways that work for passengers and address decarbonisation objectives. For example, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Elizabeth line services now run from Reading, through Maidenhead, on to Paddington and through central London to the City, Canary Wharf, Shenfield and Abbey Wood further in the east. Passengers from the west on the Elizabeth line can change at Hayes and Harlington for services to Heathrow airport, and in a few years’ time, they will be able to connect to the airport, once the Old Oak Common HS2 interchange station is built and becomes operational; that will become the largest new station we will have built. That will enable even faster journey times and more connections than ever. These improvements are on top of Piccadilly line and Heathrow Express services, which connect the airport with London’s public transport network, enabling journeys from across the country.
Although I have so far talked about connections for passengers, I appreciate that the issue is also important to local stakeholders, including those in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. It is an issue not only for passengers, but for the many thousands of people who work in and around Heathrow or provide services to the airport, many of whom will be constituents of Members who spoke this afternoon. The airport provides direct employment to 76,000 people. It is important that the transport network can get those people to work, as well as millions of air passengers away to their destinations.
Let me turn to the western rail link to Heathrow scheme and the question of Government support. We have always recognised the potential benefits of the proposal, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned. The western rail link scheme proposes a four-mile link between the Great Western main line and Heathrow airport. It is promoted by local authorities and business groups in the area. It is important to note that the Government’s position has always been that any Government funding would be subject to agreement on a significant third-party financial contribution. The position pre-pandemic was that only 50% of the cost would be funded by Government. Moreover, the scheme complemented the planned construction of a new third runway and the expansion of Heathrow, forming part of the proposals to deliver better surface access and addressing the environmental impacts of a busier airport—the airport would of course have been busier if the third runway had been built.
However, Heathrow Airport Holdings Ltd is now not actively pursuing expansion, given its focus on recovery following the impact of the pandemic on the aviation sector. That has of course had an impact on the financial contribution from the private sector. As I understand it, promoters—primarily the Thames Valley chamber of commerce—are keen to revive the scheme as a majority privately funded proposal. Officials continue to work with stakeholders to support them in updating the business case for the scheme. This work is focused on updating the designs for the scheme, refreshing the cost estimates to take account of inflationary pressures over the last few years, and understanding whether there is demand, given changes in travel patterns following the pandemic and the current economic context. I expect to receive an update on that work later in the year.
The Government remain committed to investing in rail, as demonstrated by the Prime Minister’s Network North announcement, which detailed an unprecedented number of commitments. We are taking forward affordable yet transformative growth plans to increase connectivity and capacity on the railway, and have spent £2 billion a year upgrading the railway across England and Wales, including reopening previously closed sections of the network.
Given the hon. Gentleman’s points about rail investment, I remind him that since 2010, the Government—the taxpayer—have put forward over £100 billion of investment in rail. Of course, as rail Minister, I am very proud of that and support it. However, the significant changes to travel patterns after the pandemic and the challenging fiscal environment rightly require consideration of the rail infrastructure investment portfolio. Just running our railways over the last few years has cost every single household in this country £1,500, so it is absolutely right for taxpayers that we ensure that all schemes are affordable. The prioritisation of schemes and the allocation of funds in the portfolio is managed and updated on an ongoing basis.
I thank the hon. Member once more for securing this debate. Heathrow airport is an important international travel hub for the country and one of the busiest airports in the world, as I have said. That is why this Government recognise the airport’s requirement for good surface access connections.
Mr Dhesi
I thank the Minister for his response. He referred to “later in the year”. We do not seem to have a timeline, or urgency. Because of the lethargic approach taken by his predecessors prior to the pandemic, a significant contribution from the private sector was not realised. We then had the pandemic and went back to square one. Can the Minister outline a more precise timeline than just “later in the year”?
Huw Merriman
It is important to recognise what has occurred over the past few years. First, we have had the pandemic, which means that rail finances are 80% of what they were pre-pandemic. An awful lot of money is being put in. When we talk about delivering new railway, we have to take into account how to fund the existing railway. Other matters have changed. As a member of the Transport Committee, I was heavily involved in the scrutiny of Heathrow. The decision of the House was that the third runway could proceed, but after the pandemic, that decision moved. A lot of the benefits of the scheme are wide, as the hon. Gentleman has detailed, and I support them, but they also go towards the mitigation that a third runway would need. Obviously a third runway is now looking as though it will not go ahead, which makes the business case for the scheme that bit harder.
To reassure the hon. Gentleman, I hope that the case can be made, funding from the private sector is found, and we can give positive news to him and all the other Members who have spoken in this debate, and who champion this project. I end by giving him another commitment. If he, the members of the all-party parliamentary group and the Thames Valley chamber of commerce want to meet me, we can set out a timeline for the decision and what needs to be done. I can set out what is required from a private sector financing perspective, because I need to know that the money will be there if we are to do the work within Government. Let us all work together, and let us sit down and have that meeting. I will be open and transparent with him and other Members, as I always am, and we can work out whether we can get this project delivered. It has great merit, and I like to see projects like this, where the private sector and the taxpayer work together to succeed for the betterment of the whole country.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) (Amendment) Order 2024
(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister for Legal Migration and the Border (Tom Pursglove)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) (Amendment) Order 2024.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. The draft order, which was laid before Parliament on 11 March, will amend the Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) Order 2000 and remove an inconsistency between the 2000 order and the findings of a High Court judgment in proceedings brought by the Independent Monitoring Authority for the Citizens’ Rights Agreements relating to the EU settlement scheme.
In line with the agreements, the 2000 order provides for an EU settlement scheme status holder to automatically lose their immigration permission after more than a specified period of absence from the UK. For a pre-settled status holder, the specified period is currently two years’ absence. For a settled status holder, it is five years’ absence. The High Court judgment found that where a pre-settled status holder has rights under the EU withdrawal agreement, they can automatically acquire a right of permanent residence, which is another form of settlement, once the conditions for it are met, thereby benefitting from the longer period of absence.
The effect of the judgment is that the 2000 order is inconsistent with the legal position, because the order does not cater for the group of pre-settled status holders who have automatically acquired a permanent residence right. To achieve consistency, the draft order provides for all those granted leave under the EU settlement scheme to benefit from the longer absence period before their immigration permission lapses. This is irrespective of whether they hold pre-settled or settled status, and whether or not they are from the group that has acquired a right of permanent residence. We have made this change for reasons of simplicity and operational practicality.
The change to the 2000 order does not prevent the Home Office from cancelling pre-settled status where a holder who has not acquired a right of permanent residence has been absent from the UK for longer than the period permitted by the relevant citizens’ rights agreement, which is generally six months in a rolling 12-month period. The scope for this action will remain available by decision under the immigration rules, rather than by the lapsing of leave under the 2000 order.
This statutory instrument gives clarity to citizens by bringing our legislation into line with the legal position determined by the findings of the High Court judgment. It achieves this in the simplest, most sensible way, while not preventing the Home Office from taking appropriate action where a person is no longer eligible for leave under the EU settlement scheme. I commend the order to the Committee.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for bringing forward this order. Following lengthy delays and litigation, it is the latest step towards giving full effect to the December 2022 court judgment regarding the EU settlement scheme. The changes in the order would correct the discrepancy between the rights of people with pre-settled status under the EU settlement scheme, whose residency rights lapse automatically if they are absent from the UK for a continuous period of at least two years, and the rights of those with settled status, who may be absent for up to five years before their residency rights under the scheme will lapse.
Once implemented, the changes will mean that those with either pre-settled or settled status under the EU settlement scheme will now have the right to be absent from the UK for up to five years before their status automatically lapses. Notwithstanding these changes, the Government maintain their position that those who currently hold pre-settled status under the scheme but are eligible to switch to settled status are encouraged to apply for settled status as soon as they meet the criteria. According to Home Office statistics, as of December 2023, more than 745,000 people had made that switch.
Will the Minister confirm how many people have applied to switch from pre-settled to settled status but are currently waiting for a decision on their applications? We know that there is still a backlog. Will he tell us what information the Home Office has on the number of people who currently meet the eligibility criteria to switch from pre-settled to settled status, but have not yet submitted an application to do so? In July 2023, the Home Office said that its intention was
“to take steps to automatically convert as many eligible pre-settled status holders as possible to settled status once they are eligible for it, without them needing to make an application.”
Can the Minister update us on the progress of those plans? As he has acknowledged, the draft order seeks to implement a change to current legislation that is required as a result of the court’s decision in December 2022. We therefore have no reason to oppose the motion.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
I am very glad to hear that the Government have got round to bringing forward this order after the judgment in 2022. That is a long time for people to be waiting with a degree of uncertainty. I note that the case was brought by the Independent Monitoring Authority for the Citizens’ Rights Agreements. It seems to me that this is part of the Brexit gift that keeps giving for EU citizens who formerly had the right to be here—a gift that Labour and the Conservatives are both wedded to. That is a great disappointment to the people of Scotland, who did not vote for Brexit and continue to oppose the precarity that this Government have put people in who we would previously have said had every right to be here.
There has been a fivefold rise in EU citizens refused at the border, which, again, causes great uncertainty for any EU citizen when they wish to go anywhere and then return home to the UK. People have outlined very distressing stories about the way they have been treated at the UK border by Border Force officials. In that light, what guidance on this order has been given to border officials? Are they aware of these rules? What training have they been given? They will be the people on the front line implementing this order, which will have an impact on EU nationals coming in and out of the UK, as they are perfectly entitled to do.
Lastly, can the Minister give an update on virtual biometric residence permits and the virtual system that is coming into force? That adds a further layer of uncertainty and insecurity for people moving across the border—people who have a perfect right to be here. I have seen little to reassure those who will have the biometric status, rather than a physical card, that they will be able to move across the border in a simple way. For a thing that has been rolled out by the Government, there has been gey little by way of information. I appreciate that some briefing has been given to the staff of MPs, but there is an awful lot more to do. The Government are rolling out this big programme and there is very little awareness of it. I have discussed that with constituents who, as I have mentioned in the House, have taken the expiry date on their BRP card to mean an expiry date of their status, which is not the case. The Minister needs to give a good deal of reassurance, in combination with training for Border Force officials, so that nobody ends up stuck at the border when they have as perfect a right to walk through as I have.
Tom Pursglove
I think it is fair to say, and the House acknowledges, that the EU settlement scheme has been a great success. We continue to work constructively at the Home Office to make sure that we deliver on that scheme in both letter and spirit. We have gone above and beyond our obligations under the citizens’ rights agreements and are pleased that so many of our family, friends and neighbours have obtained the status they need to remain in the UK.
On the point about reform in relation to biometric residence permits, there is still more we can do to help to generate greater awareness of the coming change to digital status. Those who currently hold BRPs are receiving mail-outs from the Home Office at the moment to let them know about the change, what it means for them, and what they need to do. Applications for the new approach are coming through the digital channel. However, I am very willing to hear from colleagues across the House about what more we can do to support hon. and right hon. Members in that work to ensure that their constituents are aware of the change and what they need to do to make sure they have digital status in the way we envisage. There are enormous benefits of the move to digital from simplification and making sure that people have the documentation they need.
On the implementation of the order at the border, a Border Force officer may seek to establish whether an individual requires permission to enter the UK, whether any permission that has been given is still in force, and whether, if the individual has permission in force, it should be cancelled. That includes the ability to examine whether someone presenting pre-settled status has acquired a withdrawal agreement right of permanent residence. The officer will then consider the permitted duration of absence in accordance with the relevant status.
The order will make border checks much easier by broadly aligning the duration of permitted absence before leave lapses for pre-settled status holders. This means that Border Force officers will no longer need to undertake a complex consideration of whether an individual has acquired a withdrawal agreement right of permanent residence. Hon. Members can be absolutely assured that we continue to keep Border Force training under review and to ensure that there are opportunities for Border Force officers to receive the kind of training we would all want to see. We want this change to be delivered as seamlessly as possible. As I said earlier, we have tried to ensure that it is simple to administer at the border and that people understand their position and do not encounter difficulties.
Many specific questions were raised about statistics. If I may, I will provide the Committee with an update on the situation. The hon. Member for Pontypridd recognised in her response that this order rectifies our domestic law to reflect our position, and I am grateful for the Opposition’s support. Withdrawal agreement rights have been underlying rights, and we are remedying our domestic law so that people are not disadvantaged. This is an important step that has been welcomed by many. I continue to meet and engage with the Independent Monitoring Authority, and I am keen to sustain that engagement.
Alison Thewliss
I do not want to interrupt the Minister mid-flow, but I wanted to mention the claimant in the case, who was female. There has been no equality impact assessment with this measure. What is the Government’s thinking on the impact of this policy on women in particular? They may have caring responsibilities that require them to return to another country for a while, perhaps to care for an elderly relative, so they might be more affected by this measure than men. Have the Government done an equality impact assessment?
Tom Pursglove
If I may, I will write to the hon. Member about the equalities approach to this instrument.
On the Border Force point, guidance is in the process of being updated, and we intend to publish it so that it will be available for people to consult. To the point about the volume of pending applications and processing times, I will be happy to provide an up-to-date set of statistics for colleagues, but what I can say now is that there were 121,830 pending EUSS applications to 31 December 2023, compared with 142,430 in the previous release of data to 30 December 2022. This indicates a 14% reduction in the number of applications awaiting a decision. Application numbers have remained high. On average, over 50,000 applications were received each month in the last quarter of 2023. These are predominantly from late applicants and repeat applications, including those moving from pre-settled to settled status.
This means that a sizeable number of pending applications are from recent applicants, with 64% waiting for 90 days or less and every applicant waiting for 180 days or less. I recognise the desire to deliver this scheme and minimise waiting times for people, so I will happily provide the House with as much information as possible on the progress we make with applications. To the point from the hon. Member for Glasgow Central, we are always very mindful of equality. We want to ensure that all our policies and decisions reflect equalities issues, and I will be happy to provide an update on that, too.
Question put and agreed to.
Petitions
Road safety at the junction of B671 from Elton village onto the A605
Barclays Bank closure in Suffolk
Tobacco and Vapes Bill (First sitting)
Tuesday 30th April 2024
(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Tobacco and Vapes Bill 2023-24 View all Tobacco and Vapes Bill 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 30 April 2024 - (30 Apr 2024)
The Chair
I will begin with a couple of preliminary announcements. Hansard would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. Please switch electronic devices to silent. It goes without saying, and I can see that nobody is intending to do otherwise, but tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. Date Time Witness Tuesday 30 April Until no later than 10.05 am Cancer Research UK; Action on Smoking and Health; Action on Smoking and Health Scotland Tuesday 30 April Until no later than 10.40 am British Heart Foundation; Asthma + Lung UK Tuesday 30 April Until no later than 11.10 am Department for Education’s Secondary Headteacher Reference Group; National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers Tuesday 30 April Until no later than 11.25 am Age UK Tuesday 30 April Until no later than 2.30 pm Local Government Association; Association of Directors of Public Health Tuesday 30 April Until no later than 2.50 pm Fresh and Balance North East Tuesday 30 April Until no later than 3.10 pm British Retail Consortium Tuesday 30 April Until no later than 3.40 pm The Chartered Trading Standards Institute Tuesday 30 April Until no later than 4.00 pm Laura Young, Centre for Water Law, Policy and Science, University of Dundee Tuesday 30 April Until no later than 4.20 pm Professor Linda Bauld OBE, Bruce and John Usher Chair in Public Health, University of Edinburgh Tuesday 30 April Until no later than 4.50 pm Professor Robert West, Professor Emeritus of Health Psychology, University College London; Professor Ann McNeill, Professor of Tobacco Addiction, King’s College London Wednesday 1 May Until no later than 10.25 am Chief Medical Officers for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland Wednesday 1 May Until no later than 10.55 am NHS England Wednesday 1 May Until no later than 11.25 am Royal College of General Practitioners; Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health Wednesday 1 May Until no later than 2.40 pm Royal College of Physicians; Royal College of Surgeons Wednesday 1 May Until no later than 3.00 pm Mental Health Foundation Wednesday 1 May Until no later than 3.25 pm Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency Wednesday 1 May Until no later than 3.45 pm Inter Scientific Wednesday 1 May Until no later than 4.25 pm Professor Anna Gilmore, Director, Tobacco Control Research Group, University of Bath; Dr Allison Ford, Associate Professor at the Institute for Social Marketing and Health, University of Stirling; Dr Rob Branston, Senior Lecturer, University of Bath.
We will first consider the programme motion. We will then consider a further motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication, and a motion to allow us to deliberate in private about our questions before the oral evidence sessions. In view of the time available, I hope we can take these questions formally without debate.
Ordered,
That—
(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 30 April) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 30 April;
(b) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Wednesday 1 May;
(c) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 9 May;
(d) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 14 May;
(e) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 16 May;
(f) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 21 May;
(g) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 23 May;
(2) the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table:
(3) proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committee shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 27; Schedule 1; Clause 28; Schedules 2 to 4; Clauses 29 to 55; Schedule 5; Clauses 56 to 81; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
(4) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Thursday 23 May. —(Dame Andrea Leadsom.)
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Dame Andrea Leadsom.)
Resolved,
That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence is to be heard, the Committee shall sit in private until the witnesses are admitted.—(Dame Andrea Leadsom.)
The Chair
We are now sitting in public again, and our proceedings are being broadcast. Before we hear from the witnesses, do any Members wish to declare their interests in connection with the Bill?
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I chair the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
I do not know whether it is an actual declaration, but I did the Cancer Research 10k fun run in February—the winter run.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I am an NHS consultant paediatrician, and a member of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Con)
I am a practising psychologist, and I also chair the all-party parliamentary health group.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
Sir George, do we have to declare our memberships of any groups? I am a member of the all-party parliamentary group for responsible vaping.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Michelle Mitchell, the chief executive of Cancer Research UK, Deborah Arnott, the chief executive of Action on Smoking and Health, and Sheila Duffy, the chief executive of ASH Scotland. To begin with, I will call on Michelle Mitchell.
Michelle Mitchell: First, thank you for your openness and transparency, Sir George. It is also important to declare whether anybody giving evidence has associations with the tobacco industry; I have none. The principle of accountability and transparency is also important for the people who are giving evidence.
Smoking is the biggest cause of death, ill health and disability. It is the biggest cause of cancer in the UK. It has a huge impact on preventable deaths, the economy, productivity and of course families and loved ones. Cancer Research UK supports the legislation to create the first ever smoke-free generation and to stop young people developing addictions, risk, ill health and, of course, cancer. We believe that the rights and entitlements of current smokers are reasonably unaffected. We urge you through your considerations in Parliament to pass the legislation, as does the public, 73% of whom support the legislation.
The Chair
Witnesses may wish initially to introduce themselves or to make a presentation. I am open minded about that. I call Deborah Arnott.
Deborah Arnott: My name is Deborah Arnott. I am chief executive of Action on Smoking and Health. I have held that position since May 2003, so this is my 21st year. I have been around for a lot of tobacco legislation, and it is really impressive to see where successive Governments have brought us.
I do not know whether you want me to go on and make some key points. Would that be helpful?
The Chair
Yes.
Deborah Arnott: One thing I would say is that people have said, “Well, why do we need this? Smoking rates are going down.” The evidence is clear: if you take the foot off the pedal, smoking rates do not continue to fall. We have seen that around the world and, in recent years, we have seen that in the UK too. Indeed, our 2024 survey of 11 to 17-year-olds found that smoking rates have pretty much flatlined since before covid. The UCL smoking toolkit study is finding the same thing with adults and in particular with young adults. The smoke-free generation policy is vital to make smoking obsolete. That is the Government’s ambition, and I think it is one that everyone here shares.
I can provide you with the full youth and adult survey data, but we are still working on the detailed analysis. I was asked whether I could also talk a bit about the surveys of retailers we have done. We have published some of the data and some of this data is in addition. For many years, tobacco industry-funded trade bodies have campaigned against successive legislation, against tax increases, against the display ban and against plain packaging. ASH wanted to find out what retailers themselves thought. We commissioned NEMS Market Research to survey representative samples of managers or owners of independent shops selling tobacco. It is particularly important to understand the experiences of our small shopkeepers, as they are the ones who will have the most difficulty implementing potential legislation.
The latest survey, which was conducted in January and early February and spoke to 900 retailers in England and Wales, showed that more than half—51%—support raising the age of sale every year, with only a quarter opposing. Some 79% support fixed penalty notices for breaches of age of sale regulations, which are in the legislation, while 13% were opposed to that. Some 71% support mandatory age verification, with only one in five opposing, which is really important. The legislation does include mandatory age verification for Scotland, but not for the remaining nations of the United Kingdom. That is important because it is about creating a level playing field. It means that anyone going in to purchase tobacco knows that they will be treated the same whatever shop they go in to, which makes it easier for retailers and customers.
I was here when the smoke-free laws were being debated. There was a lot of opposition from the tobacco industry, which said those laws would be unenforceable, and that we could not stop people smoking in public places. Raising the age of sale by one year every year is a very incremental measure. Banning smoking in public places, and particularly in pubs and clubs—those of you who are old enough will remember just how smoky those places were—was a much more dramatic change. Despite that, we actually saw 98% compliance in England in the eight months after the legislation was implemented. Why? Because the measure was popular, just as this legislation is, and because it was underpinned by a good communication strategy, with clear signage in premises and guidance to business. That is what we need for this legislation. If we have that, I do not think there will be difficulties in enforcing the legislation. That is clearly what retailers think, too.
The Chair
Thank you. Finally, I call on Sheila Duffy. Unnecessary though it may seem, I ask each of our witnesses to state your name and title for the record—you could do it now, Sheila. The other two witnesses could do it later.
Sheila Duffy: Thank you, Sir George. My name is Sheila Duffy. I am the chief executive of ASH Scotland, which is one of four ASH organisations within the UK. We very much welcome this proposed legislation. These are strong and necessary measures. Tobacco is the most addictive lethal substance openly on sale, and these measures will incrementally clear tobacco from the shelves. However, it is a long-term measure. You cannot do just one thing with tobacco; we know that. You have to have a strategic, comprehensive programme of measures.
Circumstances in Scotland are different in some respects: our cessation services are in the health boards; we have a register for tobacco and vaping products; and we have fines for under-age sales. We in Scotland are particularly concerned about the huge rise in youth vaping, which has been driven particularly by the promotion and easy availability of cheap, brightly coloured, sweet-flavoured e-cigarettes. Moves are being made in Scotland—not, I hope, derailed by recent political changes—to end the sale of single-use disposable vapes, but we need to do more to create an environment that drives health for the next generation. Scotland committed to creating a generation free from tobacco in 2013, with an endgame target of 2034. I would urge you to introduce the strongest possible measures, close loopholes and resist the arguments and blandishments of multinational corporate industries whose interest is profit, not the health of your constituents.
The Chair
Thank you. I now intend to take two questions each from the Opposition spokesperson and the Minister. Given that we have very restricted time, I impress upon the witnesses that they need to be very brief in their answers.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
Q
Preet Kaur Gill
My second question is on the point that Sheila raised. Clause 61 gives the Secretary of State powers to regulate on packaging, vaping or nicotine products. Clause 62 makes regulations for the Secretary of State to have powers on substances that may be included and the flavour of vaping. Do you believe that the measures in the Bill to prevent vapes appealing to children are likely to work, and where can we learn lessons to ensure their effectiveness?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dame Andrea Leadsom)
Do you want me to ask both questions now?
Dame Andrea Leadsom
Could you talk us through ASH’s assessment of the economic cost to the UK economy of smoking? Secondly, what is your view on the importance of restricting vaping for children?
The Chair
Can we start with Sheila Duffy, please?
Sheila Duffy: In terms of a complete ban, you are talking about a ban on retail distribution of tobacco. The hope is that we will put it out of sight and out of fashion for the generation growing up. My preference is always to look at the product and the industry, rather than the consumer, so we need to maintain other issues like good fiscal policy, high price and tax.
On packaging and flavours, we know that the tobacco industry sold the sizzle on tobacco—it sold the image, it sold how it made people feel and it sold the very short-term-felt attractions and benefits. In the 1950s, people were recommended smoking to appear glamorous, to appear rugged and confident and to clear their chests in tuberculosis hospitals, and we did not know at that time how devastatingly harmful it was to health and how many years of life it would rob people of.
We must learn the lessons. It is the sizzle. It is the packaging, the marketing, the promotions that we must get on top of with vaping products, because that has driven the interest among young people, and the exponential —the doubling, tripling of regular use among children that were not smoking. There is a link between regular vaping and moving on to smoking, which I can send you the evidence for.
In terms of the economic cost, the World Bank looked at this years ago. Tobacco is not good value for any economy because the long-term costs are huge. What you are talking about is privatising the profit but socialising the costs, and that is a huge burden on the NHS and a huge burden on people’s lives. It undermines their health and the health of their families.
The final question was on the importance of restricting e-cigarettes for children. Well, let us learn the lessons from tobacco and let us take some strong steps to stop the next generation becoming addicted. I note that the devices mainly being used under-age and by children are of the highest permitted nicotine level. They are advertised with bright colours—cartoon characters in some places. They are absolutely all over social media and there is money going into influencing. These are being targeted. We are not talking about medicinal use. We are talking about recreational products, which are addictive and health-harming. We have to get on top of this.
The Chair
In view of the pressure on time, I ask the two other witnesses, if they agree with what has already been said, to say so and then make any additional points that need to be made. Obviously, if you do not agree, that changes the nature of it.
Deborah Arnott: I agree with the points being made. On the costs of smoking, the Minister has cited our figures to date—thank you for that. We have done a lot of work on this. New figures will be published next week, so we will give an update on those and on what additional costs we think there are, other than the ones that have been taken into account by the Government so far. That will be available for the Committee, too.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
Q
Deborah Arnott: I would rather not summarise it now, but it will come very quickly and we can provide it to the Committee in advance of publication, so the Committee will get the full details.
The Chair
Thank you.
Deborah Arnott: I would like to go on to talk about Preet’s question about clauses 61 and 62, and I would also like to talk about clause 63, because they are the ones that are absolutely crucial to prevent vapes from appealing to children.
I do not know whether I am allowed to do this, but I will show the Committee these things. This is a completely reusable vape and this is a completely disposable vape. They look almost identical and they are the same price. The disposable vapes ban being implemented by DEFRA will get rid of disposable vapes—
The Chair
Can I interrupt you there? The rules do not allow the use of props.
Deborah Arnott: Okay, sorry. I will share them with Committee members afterwards.
The Chair
We will overlook the fact that you have already used them.
Deborah Arnott: Sorry—I apologise. But they are just as attractive and just as cheap. Children do not vape because they are disposable; they vape because they are cheap, attractive and available. That is what we have to address.
When it comes to flavours, clause 62 is quite a difficult clause to implement. That is why the clause says that the Secretary of State will have to specify in regulations
“how the flavour of a product is to be determined.”
This is not as easy as it sounds. The federal Government in Canada—Canada has probably the best-funded enforcement authority, in Health Canada, which has a whole directorate on tobacco and vapes—banned confectionary and dessert flavours in 2018. However, their regulations do not ban the flavours themselves; they just ban the descriptors, because that is the easy bit. They are still working on how to determine vape flavours and nearly six years on they have still not succeeded in doing so.
That has to be done with care, whereas clauses 61 and 63, which relate to product appearance, packaging and labelling, are much easier to implement and that work can be done much more quickly. Under these clauses, we could get rid of the bright colouring, cartoon-like imagery and promotional names such as those Caroline has mentioned—Unicorn Shake—or sweet names such as Gummy Bears or Banana Milkshake. Those are the things that we can get rid of easily. We need to work very carefully on the regulations to prohibit flavours to make sure that they are effective, but let us get rid of the descriptors now.
The Chair
Thank you. Michelle Mitchell—again, could you just make additional points that have not already been made?
Michelle Mitchell: I am Michelle Mitchell, chief executive of Cancer Research UK. I agree with the points that have been made. I will particularly respond to the question about age and potentially the postponement above 18.
The first thing that I will say is that two thirds of people die as a result of smoking. We cannot be complacent about smoking rates among younger people. Of course good progress has been made, but we cannot be complacent. We do not want to postpone people starting smoking; we want to prevent them from starting smoking. We have seen how addictive smoking is and we have seen the impact of previous increases in the age through legislation, with a 30% reduction in the number of people smoking previously between the ages of 16 and 18 when the legislation was introduced. I think that point stands strongly.
I have a prop, which I will not use, given the Chair’s views, but it would indicate, if I was allowed to use it, the tar that goes into somebody’s lungs just from smoking 10 cigarettes a day for one year. That creates damage for families, affects the productivity of the economy, impacts the NHS in a costly way and destroys lives. Strong legislation, applied with the recommendations around the legislation, is supported.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Q
Dr Johnson
I want to ask about the passive effect of vaping. We know that if you are proximal to someone vaping you can smell the blueberry flavour, or whatever it is. Do you have any evidence on the passive health effects of vapes?
The Chair
Could we start with Michelle Mitchell, please?
Michelle Mitchell: I think Deborah is going to pick up on vaping.
Deborah Arnott: Actually, I think that question is best put to Professor Ann McNeill, who you are seeing this afternoon. It is a really technical question and needs to be answered by a scientist. In principle, though, as Michelle has pointed out, what cigarette smoke has in it—tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide—is much more harmful than any passive effect from vaping. It may be unpleasant, with the flavours, but that is something else.
The Chair
Is that the settled view of all three of you?
Michelle Mitchell: Yes.
Sheila Duffy: I just want to add to it, please. Scotland already has legislation on the books, which was fully debated and passed in the Scottish Parliament in 2016. There are three final sets of regulations to be enabled, which would allow closing down displays of vaping products in shops, on billboards and on bus shelters; ending sponsorship, which speaks to the issue of local sports clubs and so on; and stopping free samples. Scotland has the powers in law to introduce those regulations. I would hope that the Scottish Parliament and Government would move ahead with that, because it is complementary to the measures being discussed here.
In terms of aerosol and heated tobacco product aerosol, there is conclusive evidence of aerosol particulate matter, which is similar to that which has been extensively researched for air pollution, so we could expect to see similar effects. There is specific research going on, I believe in Italy, on vapour and ultrafine particles, which move differently from larger particles. We can send you further information and background on that.
I will add that, much as I respect Ann McNeill, her background is in psychology, and you probably need to be looking at air quality research. There has been some work done on that, for which I will send you references.
Michelle Mitchell: We are also happy to provide a literature and evidence review of the leading science on this issue from around the world.
The Chair
Thank you. I will take two more questions, from Kirsten Oswald and Bob Blackman.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
Q
Bob Blackman
All three witnesses have given support for the Bill. You have already suggested one change that could be made in terms of age verification, similar to the system in Scotland. Are there any other changes that you think should be implemented that could make the Bill stronger? One of the concerns that many of us have is that we get only a limited number of chances to deal with this challenge in primary legislation, so we need to get in as much as we can to make sure that we achieve the smoke-free England that we all want to see.
The Chair
We have five minutes left and I do not think there will be time for any further questions. I may have missed it, but I am not sure whether anybody responded to Rachel Maskell’s points. In responding, could you cover those as well?
Deborah Arnott: Can I just confirm, Rachael, that your question was about public health messaging, restrictions and smoke-free laws?
Rachael Maskell
Including where people can vape, yes.
Deborah Arnott: To go to that one first, I think it is really important—the chief medical officer has said this too—to make the distinction between smoking and vaping. Smoke-free laws were implemented after very strong evidence about second-hand smoke causing lung cancer and heart disease. We do not have that for vaping. It is important that regulations are in place, and we are seeing that—you cannot vape on public transport or aeroplanes or in most workplaces, and that is fine—but making it legislative implies that it is equivalent to smoking.
On the point about displays and promotion, our surveys show that children are most aware of the promotion of vapes in store and online, and that is where the priority has to be in strengthening the legislation. Restrictions on how products are displayed, and the packaging and labelling stuff that we have already talked about, are really important.
In terms of additional measures, on the vaping side, there is one thing that I would say is vital. At the moment, clause 63 does not allow for a change in the product requirements set out in the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations, following on from the EU tobacco products directive, which was designed in 2013, over 10 years ago. We need the Government to have powers to change the general product requirements, not just ones related to branding, and that is the other amendment on vaping that I think is really important. There are other things, but I have possibly run out of time, so we can share those with the Committee separately.
The Chair
That would be helpful, thank you. We are up against the clock, but is there anything additional that either of the other two witnesses want to say very briefly?
Sheila Duffy: Thank you for your time. ASH Scotland supports an increasing European movement towards SAFE—smoke and aerosol-free environments—for the sake of health. I would say, on the evidence base on tobacco, that we have 100 years of scientific evidence, and it took 30 to 60 years to see the heaviest health impacts from tobacco. We should be more cautious about e-cigarettes as recreational products. The World Health Organisation, in its call to action in December last year, suggested that they should be carefully handled as cessation products, not as a whole-population approach. We would support ambient advertising and sponsorship being closed down. In terms of what further the UK Parliament could do, use the powers you have to regulate things like social media and be very aware of the massive commercial influences on thinking, which far outweigh any resource that small third-sector advocacy organisations can bring.
Michelle Mitchell: We need to keep our eye on the big prize. We have talked about the evidence and statistics relating to smoking. This would be a world-leading piece of legislation, and we urge you in Parliament to pass it in full with the scope recommended by the Government. I think you would be leaving an incredible legacy of health, wealth and a healthy country for future generations.
The Chair
Thank you very much. Apologies that it was all a bit rushed, but the nature of these things is that we have to use the time as effectively as possible. On behalf of the Committee, I thank the witnesses for their helpful evidence and guidance. We very much appreciate it.
Examination of Witnesses
Dr Charmaine Griffiths and Sarah Sleet gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Dr Charmaine Griffiths, the chief executive of the British Heart Foundation, and Sarah Sleet, the chief executive officer of Asthma and Lung UK. We have until 10.40 am for this session. Could I ask the witnesses to introduce themselves and give their titles for the record? Then we will move into the questions.
Dr Griffiths: Good morning. My name is Dr Charmaine Griffiths and it is my privilege to be chief executive of the British Heart Foundation.
Sarah Sleet: My name is Sarah Sleet and I am the chief executive officer of Asthma and Lung UK.
Preet Kaur Gill
Q
The Chair
We will also take the Minister, and then we can answer both sets of questions together.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
I am also interested in the impact of smoking and vaping on children’s hearts and lungs in particular. I would very much appreciate hearing the professional assessment of you both of the particular vulnerability of children’s lungs and hearts, as compared with adults. I know that the Opposition spokesman and I share that grave concern, as do a number of colleagues. My second question is: do you expect the smoke-free generation policy to stop young people starting smoking?
The Chair
I do not know which order you want to take the questions in.
Dr Griffiths: I am happy for us to do a double act between us.
Thank you for such clear questions. In terms of inequality, we know that the burden of smoking falls unevenly. We have a third more smokers in the third most deprived areas, so it affects people’s health unequally. Heart disease is the world’s biggest killer, and there is absolutely no doubt that smoking is one of the major drivers of cardiovascular disease, so the picture is clear and very well established from an inequalities point of view.
In terms of young people, we share your concern at the British Heart Foundation. It scares me to think that, today, 350 young people will start smoking for the first time—and the same tomorrow and the day after, and the day after that. We know that a huge proportion of them go on to become long-term smokers. Tragically, we see the burden and the cost to life and quality of life that that causes, with about 15,000 deaths every year across the UK from heart and circulatory disease associated with tobacco. So, we are deeply worried about people starting, and it is not just us at the British Heart Foundation who are worried. We know that the majority of smokers wish they had never started, but nicotine is an incredibly addictive substance. Once people have started, it is incredibly difficult to stop, so we share your concern.
Just to cover two things on the biology, the way that smoking is so damaging to our hearts and circulatory system is manifold. It damages the lining of our circulatory system, causing our arteries to clog up with fatty deposits, which puts us at an incredibly high risk of heart attacks and strokes. We know that a smoker’s risk of having a heart attack is double that of someone who does not smoke. For stroke, the risk is three times greater, but if someone smokes 20 cigarettes a day, they are six times more likely to have a stroke. So, there is really clear evidence on the biology that smoking is damaging.
We are deeply worried about young people starting, which is where the power of this Bill comes in. What an opportunity to create, for the first time, a smoke-free generation, relieving tens or hundreds of thousands of people from the risk of death and disability from smoking. We, as the BHF, would urge for the Bill to be pushed through in full.
The Chair
Sarah, is there anything you wish to add to that?
Sarah Sleet: Yes, Asthma and Lung UK very much support this bill because the effect of smoking on lung disease is profound; it is deadly. Lung disease is the third biggest killer in the UK. Of the 100,000 people who die every year, 35% of those—more than a third—are, in effect, killed by smoking. Smoking is profoundly damaging to people, their children, and those who live around them. It is not just the person smoking who is profoundly affected; it is also the family living around them.
We know that smoking drives health inequalities and is also a cause of health inequalities. We know that smoking is responsible for half of the gap between those with the best and worst life expectancy. If you really want to tackle health inequalities, you need to tackle smoking as your first port of call. It is the biggest single driver of health inequalities. People with lung disease are most exposed to that health inequality. We really support driving this forward and support everything that the BHF have said.
The Chair
Thank you. Can Members of the Committee who want to ask a question indicate so.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
Q
Dr Griffiths: Thank you, and apologies if we did not cover that as clearly as we could have. Obviously, there is no such thing as a safe cigarette, there is no safe number of cigarettes to smoke, and there is no safe age to start smoking at all. We would emphasise our concern for children starting to smoke, because the damage starts as soon as you start smoking. There is no safe number of cigarettes to smoke. Combined with that, the fact that nicotine is so addictive that it leads to most people—over two thirds of those who start—becoming long-term smokers, worries us enormously. In terms of both the risk and the damage of starting smoking, the number of people who start and the fact that they go on to adopt a lifelong smoking habit caused by nicotine is of deep concern to us.
Sarah Sleet: It is worth thinking about children’s wider environment. Children who live in households where the adults smoke are four times more likely to smoke themselves, and find it much harder to give up. Children are getting into a cycle of deprivation and damage to their long-term health right from the very beginning. For children, stopping smoking availability is going to be profoundly helpful for their future lives, their ability to contribute to the economy and their overall prospects. This Bill, which tackles the issue from childhood up, will be one of the most profoundly important health interventions that you can make.
Preet Kaur Gill
Q
Dr Griffiths: As Deborah from ASH said, vapes are a fairly new product, so the research and evidence base, which we have in abundance for tobacco and smoking, is still forming for vaping. However, there are indications that it is not great for health. We are cautious and worried about the long-term implications. What we do know is that vaping can be an important cessation tool for those trying to quit smoking, and that many do want to quit, so we strongly encourage anything that stops smoking, but the people who are turning to vaping as an alternative to smoking for the first time is of deep concern to us. We do not understand the long-term health implications, but the addiction to nicotine deeply concerns us.
Sarah Sleet: We strongly agree. It is a very delicate balancing act between stopping the harm caused by smoking and looking to the long-term with regard to vaping. Quite clearly, smoking is far more damaging for adults and children. Anything that can steer people away from smoking will be healthier than continuing to smoke in the long run, but we do recognise that more attention and more research need to be put into vaping.
Rachael Maskell
Q
Sheila Duffy: As I said earlier, it is a delicate balancing act. We need to move people away from smoking, and anything that does that is a good thing, but we need to look at the long-term effects of vaping. The balancing act in the proposals around restricting access to vaping—making sure that nobody under-age gets access to vapes, denormalising them by taking them away behind the counter and so on—all of those are good measures to reduce the number of children moving on to vaping, but they need to be enforced. We need to make sure that we have the right enforcement action in place to make sure that that actually happens.
Dr Griffiths: You gave a great example of early science that causes us concern, and it perhaps will not surprise you to know that as a body that is based in science and evidence, we at the BHF take statistics incredibly seriously. We are worried that the body of evidence will grow. We would hugely support and welcome a position where vaping was available to people as a cessation tool, but absolutely would discourage anyone else from taking it up as a starting point for nicotine consumption.
Steve Tuckwell (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con)
Q
Dr Griffiths: It has a huge impact, and thanks to some of the previous legislation there have been some improvements that we can measure and track with great certainty. Second-hand smoke is undoubtedly a cause of cardiovascular disease, and for those people unfortunate enough to be exposed to it, it is a serious issue. Just over 15 years ago, there was a study that looked at coronary heart disease and cardiovascular disease in men. It showed a significant uplift for those exposed to second-hand smoke on a regular basis that was roughly the equivalent in risk of smoking nine cigarettes a day. So there is a very clear basis for saying that second-hand smoke causes heart and circulatory disease.
Sarah Sleet: I would add the legislation on smoking in closed places—there was of course the legislation back in 2015 about children and smoking in cars—was based on very good evidence and was introduced for very good reasons. It proved to be a popular measure. Second-hand smoke in this context as well is an important additional factor to consider in terms of the harms balanced against the need to restrict these particular products.
Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con)
Q
Dr Griffiths: Not as much as we would like. That is the headline, but I do not think it will surprise any of us to know that people follow cues in their environment. That is partly what happens around them in their social environment, but I would like to draw attention to what happens in shops and convenience stores where people buy vapes. I was looking around my local convenience store, which is not far from a school, and thinking about today. It does not take a lot to look at what is happening behind the counter and see the packaging, the marketing and the highly, brightly coloured products that are clearly labelled, named and flavoured in a way to be attractive to children, whether it be cherry cola vapes or cotton candy vapes. They are things that are deliberately sweet and targeted at children, so it causes us great concern that that will be such a huge influence on so many children. We see that playing out in prevalence. I do not know if there is anything that you would add, Sarah.
Sarah Sleet: I think you are right that there is no real evidence base around this. That research should be done and we would very much like to look at. Where smoking is very prevalent—as you say, in more deprived areas—people take cues from the people around them in terms of their behaviour. I have no doubt that look to similar cues for vaping. Are people around them smoking? Is it easy to get hold of vapes? Is it completely normalised? I think we would find a very similar pattern, but we need to get that evidence.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
Q
Dr Griffiths: We would welcome anything that stops people smoking or beginning to vape as a starting point for their addiction to nicotine. Given the scale of the devastation that that has on people personally as well as on our NHS in terms of cost burden and all the other impacts that it has, we fully support the Bill going through in full as it is now. If there are opportunities and support for strengthening it, I am sure that we would welcome that too.
The majority of people across the UK support the Bill and would love to see a smoke-free generation. The fact that you have 51% of retailers supporting it also speaks to how powerful a moment it is. We should do anything that we can to strengthen the Bill and prevent it from being diluted. We know that the tobacco industry will be campaigning in the opposite direction to limit any restrictions that would reduce its success, so we are really mindful of that. We urge the Committee and everyone who can to protect the Bill from dilution. It can save and improve lives. It is potentially a transformative piece of legislation.
Sarah Sleet: We asked our supporters who was in favour of the Bill. Bearing in mind that many of our supporters may still be smoking or are ex-smokers, 84% supported the Bill and really wanted to see it come through. Daily on our helplines we hear people saying, “I wish I had never taken up smoking.” They are completely addicted and find it almost impossible to get out of smoking, and their health is being slowly degraded over time. They are having to come out of the workforce and retire early and potentially face death as well.
Kirsten Oswald
Q
Dr Griffiths: If the Committee is minded to strengthen anything that would prohibit people from starting vaping in the first instance, where they are not doing so as a cessation tool—I hope it is really clear that we believe that, as a cessation tool, this is a product that has its place that would help thousands of smokers give up and, ideally, prevent them from losing their quality of life or, tragically, their lives; I hope that is explicitly clear—I think that could have incredible impact. What we are worried about is people using vaping as a start and an entry point to nicotine. Nicotine is so highly addictive. You see that in the number of smokers who desperately want to give up. We have spoken to such people in abundance. Anything that helps us get to that point would be welcome.
Sarah Sleet: Nicotine, we know, is as addictive as heroin and cocaine. It is a terrible addiction. However, in terms of vaping, it is going to be quite tricky to get that balancing act right. We really need to have vaping as a cessation tool. We know it is more effective than just about anything else you can have in terms of cessation. For example, when it comes to flavouring, if you make that too difficult or make it problematic for people to switch, then there is a chance that we may have a real problem in terms of stopping smoking. On the other hand, we really do not want people to be attracted into vaping who have never smoked. I understand that that bit of the legislation is in secondary legislation and can be adapted over time; I think a lot of attention is going to need to be given to how people are actually responding and how they are behaving, and then adjusting that over time.
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con)
Q
Sarah Sleet: I believe that is the system in Australia—it is prescribed. I think it is a possibility. It needs to be well researched. Would it still encourage people who need to stop smoking to use it as a tool, or would it put a barrier up to using that tool? Before we move to that system, we would need some really good behavioural evidence that it is not going to be a further barrier for people. If it is not, then that could be a really good option.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
Q
Dr Griffiths: We support the Bill exactly as it is written at the moment. It is really important to recognise that, as proposed, it does not inhibit anybody who is currently a smoker from purchasing tobacco, but it does take us on a really clear and, I believe, a transformative path to a smoke-free generation.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
I understand that, but why?
Dr Griffiths: Because it is a really clear path to make sure that we move to a situation where we have a generation that is prohibited from buying cigarettes, and who are disincentivised from doing so.
Sarah Sleet: We have heard today the evidence about just how harmful and destructive smoking is, particularly for people in more deprived areas. If we really want to tackle that, we need to remove smoking as a normalised, available, legal option going forward. This seems to me a very measured and thoughtful way of introducing a smoking ban that will take hold. It is very important for our children going forward.
Preet Kaur Gill
Q
Dr Griffiths: I would observe that there is so much variation between products and how people are consuming them. I think it is quite difficult to give advice in a standard way, and that it is part of it being an emergent product and market. As we have discussed, there is no doubt that, with nicotine being so deeply addictive, it is an incredible worry that a child has a single puff on a vape, given the potency of nicotine and where we know it leads people, having seen that over generations with smoking.
I should perhaps take a moment to emphasise that we also really support the £70 million investment being allocated to public health campaigning and cessation services, as well as enforcement. You are right that we need to be really clear with the messaging of the Bill to encourage support from parents and others around children in particular. We really applaud the decision to put resourcing behind this as well. We know that effective public campaigning can be an incredibly powerful tool. We were really proud to run the “Give Up Before You Clog Up” fatty cigarette campaign way back 20 years ago, and we know even that campaign led to 14,000 smokers seeking to quit. We know public campaigning works, and it was a great thought to allocate that resource as part of this work—it will be needed.
Sarah Sleet: The variation in nicotine levels and the method of delivery, which affects the uptake of the nicotine, is undoubtedly very concerning in vapes. I am a mother of three adult children who all vape, and I am very concerned about how often they are doing that and what impact that is having. We must also remember that, from what we know at the moment, it would appear that smoking is far and away the most damaging activity, compared with vaping. There is a little bit of concern that we overemphasise the harms of vaping to the extent that people say, “Well, I might as well smoke then. I’ll do that instead.” We need to be very careful about how we have this conversation.
Dr Cameron
Q
Dr Griffiths: That is an interesting question, and I can see the clear linkage you have described, but I am not able to provide any evidence. I am very happy to go back and provide that as a follow-up.
Sarah Sleet: I am not aware of any evidence around that either.
Dr Griffiths: It is a great question.
Dr Johnson
Q
Sarah Sleet: We have heard anecdotally that people have had issues with being around vaping, but there is not any robust evidence as to whether it genuinely triggers asthma for some of those people. It is an area we want to look into a bit further, but I would say that here is a clear case of where the law is that children should not be vaping. We need to ensure that enforcement is in place, as far as possible, to prevent that from happening.
Dr Johnson
Q
Sarah Sleet: I am not aware of any serious evidence that has been gathered around this at this stage. It probably needs to be looked at.
The Chair
I thank the two witnesses for being not only concise, which enabled us to get through all the questions, but informative. I am sure we have benefited from the evidence you have given.
Examination of Witnesses
Matthew Shanks and Patrick Roach gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Matthew Shanks: I am Matthew Shanks, the chair of the Secondary Headteacher Reference Group. I am also CEO of a MAT or multi-academy trust in Devon, Education South West.
Patrick Roach: Good morning. I am Patrick Roach. I am general secretary of NASUWT, the teachers’ union.
The Chair
We will move straight into the questions. Preet Kaur Gill will ask the first question, and then I will move to the Minister for her first question.
Preet Kaur Gill
Q
Matthew Shanks: It is an interesting question, whether vaping or smoking is more popular among children in schools. All I can say is that it has increased in the past three or four years. We see evidence of vaping; it is more difficult to catch children vaping, because of the size of the vapes, the fact that the smell is slightly different and does not set off smoke alarms in the same way, and so on. I think it is fair to say that smoking and vaping are still as popular as they were among younger children in certain areas, and vaping is being seen to be a safe alternative.
The marketing of vapes in different flavours and colours makes them akin to a progression from chewing gum for some families—with bubble gum flavours and so on. There is also anecdotal evidence of parents talking about, “If it’s grapefruit, it must be safe.” There is that evidence around it as well out there—because of the way in which vapes are marketed, and if you see them in shops, they seem safe and okay.
With behaviour, the size of vapes makes it very difficult to admonish children, because they can hide them very easily. They can look like mini hard drive sticks—I think that is deliberate targeting in how they are marketed, with the cleverness of it. Certainly in terms of behaviour, it is something else that we are dealing with, when we say to a child, a teenager, “You’ve been vaping”, but they say, “No, I haven’t”—there is nowhere for us then to go, which immediately sets up an issue.
The earlier question about toilets was interesting, because children tend to vape in toilets. It is easier for them to vape in toilets than it was for them to smoke in toilets. You just need to see people on public transport vaping—it is easy for it to dissipate and disappear quickly. So, yes, I would say that vaping is a real issue in schools for children.
Patrick Roach: I support fully what Matthew has just said. I do not think that it is an either/or; the reality is that smoking is a threat to children and young people, in terms of their health and wellbeing and their ability to participate and progress educationally, but so too is vaping.
The NASUWT, at the start of this academic year, published our own research into vaping in schools from the perspective of teachers and school leaders, and it very much reinforces what Matthew has just said, in that vaping is pretty much predominant as an activity taking place among secondary-aged pupils. But we are also seeing teachers reporting pupils vaping from as early as 10 years of age, so the primary phase is also impacted. Three quarters of teachers report a significant increase in the participation in vaping by pupils in their schools, so we are seeing an upward curve in respect of vaping activity within schools.
On the issues that have just been mentioned about the difficulty that schools have in detecting and controlling this kind of behaviour, the way in which vape products are available to pupils is that they are masquerading as hard drives, as highlighter sticks or as other things that it would be legitimate for a pupil to bring into school. This is not like a situation in which you catch a pupil with a packet of cigarettes and you confiscate it; first, you have to identify what on earth it is that that pupil has. At the end of the day, good order in schools is dependent upon there being trust and respectful relationships between teachers and students. You cannot go around every moment of every day asking pupils to turn out their pockets and then inspecting what is in them.
The reality is that we are seeing the impact of vaping not just on pupils’ health, because we are seeing pupils who are presenting as ill as a result of the overuse of vaping products—although, in fact, all of it is overuse—and therefore becoming ill in schools, but on educational participation, progression and achievement. When pupils are diving off into the toilets to vape, that interrupts teaching and learning. When pupils are late arriving at school, perhaps because they have been vaping en route, that impacts on pupils’ learning. We are also seeing bullying behaviours within schools because, quite often, vaping products are being informally circulated, exchanged or acquired. Therefore, it becomes another source of behavioural challenges for teachers and head teachers. So, from a teacher’s perspective, vaping is a serious issue within schools, and one that we are pleased that this Bill is seeking to address.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
Q
Could you therefore expand on that, in terms of the specific health impacts and, at the one end, the ability of children to concentrate on the class when they are spaced out on vapes, and, at the other end, the very real risk to children from doing something stupid with a vape that was entirely unintended, with disastrous consequences?
Patrick Roach: I very much appreciate your remarks about the research that the NASUWT has undertaken. We come at the problem of vaping from the point of view of our members in classrooms, in schools the length and breadth of the country. What do teachers need in order to be able to teach effectively and what do they believe that pupils need in order to learn effectively? They need good order in the classroom.
My perspective is not that of a medical practitioner or of someone wanting to assume that I have the knowledge about the impact of vaping on a child’s physical development. Our concern is the impact on a child’s educational development, participation and achievement. The reality is that everything you have mentioned there is absolutely right, whether it is about the way in which vaping products might be unintentionally used by pupils; or about how they seek to conceal them about their person; or, indeed, the drinking of vaping fluids, as if somehow that will get the high without necessarily being detected; or about the use of vaping products as a stimulant, which impacts not only on concentration but on behaviour and, indeed, on a child’s wellbeing in the classroom.
Matthew has already referenced the difficulty of detecting vapes sometimes, because they can dissipate very quickly; and they can also trigger fire alarms in schools. We have had plenty of examples of teachers and headteachers reporting that their school has had to evacuate the building not just on one or two occasions in a day but multiple times—five or six occasions. That is a loss of learning not just for one pupil or class of pupils but the entire school. We are really concerned about the impact of all that.
Teachers are not just concerned about a child’s educational development, though; they are also concerned about a child’s wellbeing in the round. Teachers are reporting the very damaging impact that vaping can have on a child’s mental and physical development, just as smoking can. That is one of the reasons we have spoken out—and we are pleased that the Government have responded—to say that we need to be doing more to strengthen the enforcement of rules around vaping, access to it and the availability for school-age pupils. We need to do as much as we possibly can to prevent any school-age pupil from getting access to vaping products, whether in or outside school. We are pleased that the Bill seeks to do just that.
Matthew Shanks: I absolutely echo and reinforce what Patrick has said. Also, as school leaders we are looking after teachers, but we are caring for families as well. The Bill will help families to understand that it is not okay for their children to vape. Anecdotally we have parents saying to us that they let children vape at home, because it is better than them smoking or being out on the streets; parents do not see the harm in it. It is really important that that is recognised. The banning of tobacco sale was interesting in terms of the prescription of it; I would posit that at the moment vaping is seen as safe by the general public.
Kirsten Oswald
Q
Matthew Shanks: I completely agree. The way in which vapes are marketed—the colours, flavours and so on—and the places where they are marketed suggest to people that they are safe. The fact that they are put forward as a “safe” alternative to cigarettes, the fact that parents use them and the fact that there are lots of colourful vape shops open in high streets: all those aspects promote the idea that vaping is okay.
At the same time, getting into a child’s mindset—we have all been there, as children—we like to break the rules and feel like we are pushing at boundaries. We know that it is not okay, but it is made okay. I would suggest that more children engage in vaping than in cigarette smoking, because they are not sure what the harmful effects are. That is the danger in it. I do think it leads on, because the younger children vape, but by the time they are 16 or 17, vaping might not be cool any more, so they go on to cigarettes or other things.
Anecdotally, we have heard of schools down in the south-west where people are putting cannabis into the vapes, so the addiction grows from that point of view as well. It leads to children coming out of lessons agitated. If I did not have three coffees in the morning, my agitation would be quite high. If children are not getting nicotine, as well as going through all the other things they are going through, they really do present as confrontational to staff, which makes it difficult to deal with them in classrooms and engage them in their learning. At the same time, to repeat a point I made earlier, you have parents at home who are saying, “Well, it’s okay to do.” I absolutely concur about the way it is marketed and so on.
Patrick Roach: To add to that, because those are important points: vape producers and manufacturers, and indeed those supplying vapes, are advertising freely in ways that make their products increasingly attractive to children and young people, with the way vapes are advertised and the marketing descriptors used for them. All the evidence we have, and certainly what our members tell us—our survey was of 4,000 teachers, so this is not anecdotal; it has an impact right across the system— suggests that the way those products are marketed and described deliberately seeks to entice young people to make use of them.
We believe that this is a strong Bill that very clearly sets out the societal expectations in this space, but as with any legislation, there is always scope for loopholes. If there are areas in the Bill where there is potential to further strengthen the legislation, I think the enticing way products are described, before an individual understands what they are getting themselves into, is something that needs to be considered and addressed.
From our point of view, it is about advertising, but it is also about access to these products. With the best will in the world, and no matter how they are advertised, if the products are easily available at the point of sale it makes things incredibly difficult. I remember that when I was bringing up my own children I worried about going to the supermarket with them, because they would be surrounded by candy and sweet products at the checkouts. You could not navigate your way through the checkouts. Thankfully, things have moved on: that has changed, and many parents are benefiting from those changes.
Young people are very much interacting with many of these products at the point of sale. They are in the shops that are in the vicinity of or on the route to and from school. They are being marketed in places that young people will frequent, whether that be a local café, the hairdressers or the barbers. They are in places where young people will be. They are also immediately available. The more we can do to stop the immediacy of marketing of these products and that easy availability, no matter how they are described, the better.
Dr Cameron
Q
Matthew Shanks: Absolutely: children will find any which way they can to do what they want to do. At the moment, while this is not illegal, they will gather more people to follow the crowd and go out. In my experience, the majority of children want to do as they are instructed—probably about 85%, anecdotally, over the years—but they will follow the herd. At the moment, there is a greater herd growing because of all the things we have talked about, with the marketing and colour of vapes. I can absolutely see children going out at lunchtime and spending their money on that, instead of on food. There is peer pressure to do that as well—it is taking more people with them. As Patrick said, you can see these products in the barbers, in the shops and so on.
Patrick Roach: To add to that, there are also bullying behaviours that manifest themselves. Whether a pupil is making the choice to go out at lunchtime to acquire vapes or is feeling coerced to do so, there is an issue either way. The availability of those products in the proximity of schools needs to be considered. That is a point that we would make.
Increasingly, schools have introduced systems to seek to ensure that children are being fed at lunch times, for example. We should not lose sight of that, but in some instances these products—particularly disposable vapes —are cheap as chips. I know that that is an issue of concern to the Government, and it is of concern to us and our members.
It is really important that we look at how we can ban the sale of disposable vapes entirely, because frankly no one knows what is in them, and they are incredibly cheap to acquire. Even if your parent can see what you had on Tuesday lunchtime because it comes up on their phone, how will they know if you have spent 10 minutes popping out to the local shop to acquire some vapes, particularly if they are of the disposable variety? More can be done not only to limit appeal, but to reduce the availability and accessibility of those products to young people. The more that can be done on that, the better.
The Chair
Four more people want to get in—actually, it has just gone up to five—and we have about 12 or 13 minutes left. It is unlikely that I will be able to get everybody in, but if Members put their questions as briefly as possible and witnesses respond as concisely as possible, I will try.
Rachael Maskell
Q
Matthew Shanks: Yes. I absolutely agree.
The Chair
That is really helpful.
Patrick Roach: I am not going to add to that, partly because I am here representing the interests of our members. The issue is about how we can control access to products, particularly illegal products, for school-age pupils. We therefore think that it is absolutely right that the Bill has identified the need to secure robust measures to protect the health and wellbeing of children and young people.
Bob Blackman
Q
Matthew Shanks: There are lots of campaigns that explain the harms of vaping and smoking. Sometimes people do not listen and do not engage with them. The only thing that I would say is that more people vape and smoke than take drugs, because drugs are illegal. If we are saying that tobacco is dangerous and harmful to people in our society, and our role is to protect them and educate them to see what is better, why is tobacco not illegal as well? Vaping started as an alternative to tobacco, but it is now catching on with young people. Is there a similar thing to be done with vapes? That is the view within schools on how we can help children to engage in what they should be doing at school, which is working at their education. There will be other things that have come along, but 15 years ago it was chewing gum everywhere—nicotine chewing gum was a big thing.
Patrick Roach: The reality is that schools are doing an awful lot to inform, to educate and indeed to regulate the conduct of children and young people, as well as to engage with parents and carers, but schools by themselves cannot change society. They can have a tremendous influence over wider society, but by themselves they cannot change it.
Anything that we can continue to do to educate young people about the harms and dangers of smoking and vaping, we should continue to do. Notwithstanding this legislation, that is essential, because no legislation is going to eliminate illegality. We have to continue to strive to eradicate those behaviours wherever they manifest themselves.
What other practical measures could the Bill include? I have mentioned the way in which vape products are described. We think that something could be done there. On availability—this is potentially outwith the scope of the Bill, but it could happen through other legislation and regulation—we think that the prohibition of disposable vapes is an issue that needs to be addressed.
There is also the issue of enforcement measures. There is no point in passing legislation if it is not enforced in practice. We need to ensure that the enforcement measures are absolutely robust. The proximity to schools of any retailer selling vaping products also needs to be looked at.
Mary Kelly Foy
Q
Matthew Shanks: That is happening at the moment within education, in curriculums and so on, but there is a lack of messaging around vaping, its harmful effects and its cheapness compared with tobacco. Even with the teaching of the harmful effects and the messaging compared with tobacco, there are still some families who smoke and you still see celebrities smoking. You are fighting that all the time.
It is good that we are educating young children about the harmful effects of things and the need to change, and we will continue to do that. We talk about big tobacco companies, big pharma, the global environment and so on, all within the curriculum.
Patrick Roach: The reality is that we need more space in the curriculum to do all that and to make the connections between vaping, the impact on a child’s health, and how these companies are profiteering, often from the most vulnerable. The producers of vaping products, the degradation of the environment, the way products are manufactured—all of this is very rich territory.
I would like to see more by way of permission for teachers and school leaders to engage with their pupils about the real everyday concerns that young people have. There should be more scope and space in the curriculum to do that. That is not to argue against the teaching of maths, science and languages; it is about saying that we want to produce well-rounded individuals. For us, that is the purpose of education. This is an area where educators have an important role to play.
Matthew Shanks: I would just add to that by encouraging you to visit your local schools and see what they are doing.
Angela Richardson
Q
Matthew Shanks: No, prior to now. This is very welcome, which is why we have both given our time because this is important. There was something in the papers this morning about evidence of harms of vaping for children, but it is not the headline; it is seven or eight pages in, so people will not read it.
I absolutely think that there should be more about the harm of vaping or just the unknown. You do not know necessarily what the dangers are, so therefore why would you engage in it? We talk a lot when we are doing drug prevention with children about—apologies if this offends—where the drugs come from, what the base of them is and what they contain. In the same way, you do not know what is in a disposable vape or another type of vape, so why would you put that in your body? Those are the lessons we are talking about, so we would certainly welcome more evidence to support that.
Patrick Roach: We know, from the feedback we have had from teachers as part of the research we have done, which includes both quantitative and qualitative feedback, that children are getting ill as a result of using vaping products. That is the daily reality that school leaders and teachers have to deal with.
The more that we can systematically collect and collate that data and evidence—whether that is a child who ended up being rushed into hospital because they became very ill on the school premises or, indeed, a near miss within the school—the better we will be. But the reality is, on an everyday basis, that teachers are experiencing this and having to deal with these issues and to intervene on and support pupils who are impacted physiologically by other harms of vaping products.
The Chair
A very brief final question from Dr Caroline Johnson. We have to finish at 10 past 11, so I ask the witnesses to bear that in mind.
Dr Johnson
Q
Matthew Shanks: A simple question to finish with—thank you! I think you can have both, because I would. If you look at the way cigarettes are marketed—behind a shelf with the pictures of the damage they cause—that is different from the way vapes are marketed, with their colourful packaging and excellent flavours that appeal to children. If you change the way they are marketed, you could have both, because you could still help adults with the flavourings but not make them appealing to children.
Patrick Roach: A simple answer: protect children from harm.
The Chair
I thank the witnesses for giving us a very particular perspective that we have not previously heard about on how all this impacts on teaching and the education sector in general. We are grateful for that, and I am sure the Committee found it helpful.
Examination of witness
Paul Farmer gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Paul Farmer: Good morning, everyone. I am Paul Farmer and I am chief executive of Age UK, the charity supporting older people.
Preet Kaur Gill
Q
My second question is this. I know that over-65s are much less likely to smoke. I have a constituent, Eric, who has suffered from a stroke and has suffered with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and is now a tobacco campaigner in his 80s. Why is this Bill important to the people Age UK works with?
Paul Farmer: Age UK fully supports the proposed legislation, and we have been working alongside the Richmond Group of Charities to highlight the significant health benefits of phasing out smoking, which will help individuals and have a wider impact on society. It will have particular benefits for the NHS, which as we know faces significant challenges at the moment.
Our job at Age UK is to think about not just the health and wellbeing of older people as they are now—I will come to your second question in a moment—but issues affecting future generations of older people. This is quite a rare opportunity for us to have a significant impact on those future generations for reasons we will look at later.
It is worth noting, however, that this Bill is heavily supported by older people. Polling shows that 69% of over-65s support it. Why is that? That goes to your second question. We know from older people and the work we are currently doing that health and wellbeing in later life is pretty much the top priority for older people. Age UK has recently published our blueprint for older people for the next few years, as we enter an election year. It is very clear from the work we have done with older people that health and wellbeing is right at the heart of what is most important for people.
Of course, that is logical: the ability to feel well, remain active and maintain our independence is a major determinant of the quality of life that we aspire to in later life. We also know that there is a huge gulf in life expectancy and life experiences between those who have the opportunity to age well and those who do not. I will not go into the points your earlier witnesses made about the importance of healthy life expectancy in detail, but that is right at the heart of older people’s considerations. It is important that we do something about the fact that healthy life expectancy for those who are most disadvantaged is quite so stark.
How does that affect smoking? As you know, smoking is a leading cause of death and disability. It is responsible for half the difference in healthy life expectancy between the most and the least affluent communities. People living in the areas with the lowest healthy life expectancy are 1.7 times more likely to smoke than those living in the highest healthy life expectancy areas. These are fundamental reasons why the intervention of this legislation will make a difference.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
Q
Could you give us a view, as an Age UK representative, of the sort of advice that older people who have smoked all their lives and are now bearing the brunt of the decisions they took would give to those who argue, “It’s a matter of personal choice. Everyone should be free to smoke if they want”? What would an older person say to that young person?
Paul Farmer: I think a lot of people would say that they wish they had never started. Those are certainly the conversations we have been having with older people in preparation for this session. The reason for that is that, as you enter into your later life, you start to understand the consequences of smoking through your personal experience. The list is frightening.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
Q
Paul Farmer: Very clearly, there is the relationship between smoking and multiple forms of cancer, COPD, pneumonia, heart disease, aortic aneurysm and stroke, vascular diseases, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, hip fracture, cataract and macular degeneration—and dementia. In a society where we are increasingly debating dementia’s impact, I think the relationship between smoking and dementia is a really important context.
These are in and of themselves very challenging physical health conditions, but we can also see the correlation with people who experience multiple long-term conditions. I think many older people who experience those multiple long-term conditions—who have to live with the impact of them often because they smoked in their early life—would say this impacts on the individual being able to do the things they want to do in their later life. There is a severe detriment on pursuing their ambitions of later life as a result of having smoked in earlier years.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
Q
Paul Farmer: I think different people will have different opinions about choice, and whether it was as a result of choice. I think what many older people have been telling us is that if they had known about the damaging consequences of smoking, they would not have started in the first place and would certainly have considered it in a greater way.
I want to pay huge tribute to colleagues at British Heart Foundation, who I know you have just heard from, who I think have taken the best way of trying to campaign over a long term on this issue. This is a long-term issue. Sadly today’s generation of older people is seeing the consequences of what has not happened.
Kirsten Oswald
Q
Paul Farmer: We work with people over the age of 50, which may be news to some of you here. One of the reasons why we have recently chosen to drop the age group that we increasingly work with is precisely for prevention and early intervention.
This is not the earliest intervention; you can, of course, argue that many health interventions need to take place among children and younger people. However, from an Age UK point of view, we know that there is potential to intervene in people’s lives and support them to live healthier lives—it is not just about health, but in this context it is mainly about health—which means that your healthy life expectancy can improve and, as I mentioned earlier, you can fulfil some of the ambitions of your later life. The burden on the NHS of unhealthy life expectancy is a big issue.
The bulk of our direct work is with people over pensionable age, if you like. In each of those generations, you see the differences in experiences of smoking. Somebody now in their 80s or 90s almost certainly will not be alive if they are a heavier smoker, because they probably will not have benefited from any of the public health information that has taken place under previous Governments, so that is obviously the major difference.
In terms of the different health conditions, we know that certain health conditions will increase with age. Dementia is the greatest example of that, where we know that the older you are, the more likely you are to develop dementia. In a sense, as our population as a whole has gotten healthier and lived longer, it has become increasingly apparent where those health inequalities are at their most acute.
The Chair
I will attempt one final question from Dr Lisa Cameron. I simply make the point that the briefer the question, the more possibility there is that she will get an answer.
Dr Cameron
Q
Paul Farmer: I think a lot of people made a choice without having the information in front of them. I suppose my parting thought to this Committee is that the consequences of failing to intervene in previous generations are now seen by the older people of today. If this legislation is implemented, the first generation of people will not reach 65 until 2074, but I can tell you that that generation of 65-year-olds will look back and recognise the contribution that the Government have made to changing and impacting on their long-term health in the same way that this generation looks back on the contribution of other Governments in other health initiatives.
The Chair
I thank the witness for his answers to the questions from Members, which were really helpful. They gave us not only the perspective of those who his organisation represents, but the intergenerational nature of their role in the world. That brings us to the end of this morning’s sitting. The Committee will meet again at 2 pm here in the Boothroyd room to continue taking oral evidence.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Aaron Bell.)
Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Second sitting)
Tuesday 30th April 2024
(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Tobacco and Vapes Bill 2023-24 View all Tobacco and Vapes Bill 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 30 April 2024 - (30 Apr 2024)
The Chair
We will now hear from Councillor David Fothergill, deputy chair of the Local Government Association, and Greg Fell, president of the Association of Directors of Public Health. We have until 2.30 pm for this session. I ask the witnesses to introduce themselves for the record—I do not really need opening statements, because we will have plenty of questions for you, but if you want to add a sentence to your introduction, I will not object.
Cllr Fothergill: Thank you for the invite this afternoon to speak on behalf of the Local Government Association, which speaks for all councils across England and Wales. I will present a combined view to you. I am chair of the community wellbeing board, the lead policy board, which is responsible for adult social care and health matters. I am delighted to be here. On the whole, we are supportive of the Bill, and that will be the thrust of the evidence I give.
Greg Fell: I, too, thank the Committee. I am Greg Fell, director of public health in Sheffield and president of the UK Association of Directors of Public Health, thus representing DPH. Similarly, all DPH strongly support the Bill—I have yet to find a public health professional who does not, as I do not think that one exists, particularly on the smoking elements. No other product is as uniquely dangerous as smoking; we strongly support both the smoking and vaping elements of the Bill. I look forward to talking more.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
Q
Cllr Fothergill: Our view is that enforcement is key to the success of the legislation, and enforcement has to be through trading standards. Over the past few years, trading standards has had a number of reductions in its budget and cuts, as well as a restriction on the number of people being trained to come through in this area. We believe that we need clarity from the Government as to what the responsibilities for trading standards will be, and we need clarity about the funding that will be allocated. We also want to see an apprenticeship fund set aside for the training of new trading standards officers to come through. We need a longer-term view of trading standards. It is worth noting that trading standards is responsible for enforcing more than 300 pieces of legislation, so this is just another one, but it will add strain unless we get those clear responsibilities, clearer funding and apprenticeship levy put aside for the future.
Greg Fell: I agree with all those points. There has definitely been a reduction in funding for trading standards over the years. It still exists—many local authorities spend quite heavily on trading standards—and it makes a difference. Enforcement against illegal vapes and tobacco is a clear example. Our trading standards team in Sheffield regularly confiscate very large quantities of illegal tobacco, which we know are linked to organised crime. Trading standards still exists and it does make a difference, but to make the Bill—hopefully Act—as successful as possible, we will need to invest sustainably in trading standards and other enforcement.
Preet Kaur Gill
Q
Cllr Fothergill: We fully support the local penalty notice being issued by the councils. We believe that that is the right way to go and that it will not clog the courts, but there is always the option to refer to the magistrates court if required. Our big concern is the size of the fine, which we believe needs to be reviewed: £100 or, if paid within 14 days, £50 is hardly a penalty. We argue that we need to have greater opportunity to fine those in contravention of the law. Then, we believe, there would be less and less need for the Secretary of State to be involved. The reason he or she would need to be involved is if we cannot contain it—because we cannot issue enough penalty notices to contain it locally.
Greg Fell: A similar issue would be multi-local authority enforcement scenarios. We know that organised crime networks are not linked to an individual area, so it stands to reason that there will be a need for enforcement that cuts across many authority areas, hence there is a need for networked trading standards. That might also include, possibly, the borders—stopping the imports of illegal vapes and tobacco.
Additionally, as Councillor Fothergill said, we are concerned about the size of the fine. Certainly I hear through DPH parochially, who talk to their trading standards and licensing teams, that when there is a much larger fine that may or may not be linked to the removal of an alcohol licence, that will make a retailer really sit up and think.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dame Andrea Leadsom)
Q
Cllr Fothergill: Certainly. Although we fully support the Bill, we think there could be one or two changes, which I have already referred to—we would like to see amendments—and there is the option of a licensing scheme, which we would support. If it was done on a similar basis to liquor licensing, we would be able to enforce that, because it would be backed by legislation. Of course, we would need to make sure that trading standards were fully funded for that. We would support that, if it was something that the Government brought forward.
Greg Fell: I cannot speak for the LGA’s position; ADPH does not have a formal view on licensing. I would broadly support it, but there is a danger that putting that into the mix delays getting the Bill through Parliament and turned into an Act, and getting the Bill through Parliament is arguably the most important thing.
I would broadly support that, but I come back to the complexity. Vapes are sold in hairdressers and beauty parlours and so on, so we would need to think it through. Arguably, if we are going to get into a licensing scheme, that should be for tobacco and nicotine-containing products, not just vapes; I would personally go to tobacco as well. Critically, the resourcing to make it work properly would need some very careful thought and consideration. All of that would need to be in the mix, but broadly I would support it, with those caveats.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
Q
Cllr Fothergill: Specifically on vaping, we support the move to plain packaging, moving them away from the counter and restricting flavours—we support all those things. I have to say that we recognise the role of vaping in helping people to give up smoking, but where children and younger people are involved, we want to move the vapes away and make them less accessible. Trading standards will enforce that, as long as there are clear definitions of what can be sold, where it can be sold and who it can be sold to. A lot of the work that they do is evidence-led, so they will work on people who are giving them tip-offs or where they are seeing that there is a trend in an area where those products are being sold. As long as we are resourced and we recognise that a lot of that evidence-led work is required, it is entirely achievable.
Greg Fell: I have a fairly similar view. Largely, trading standards do this work now. The easier and simpler we can make it, and the more we make sure that it is resourced appropriately, the better, but they largely do this job now pretty well.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Q
Greg Fell: Hopefully only illegal vapes contain cannabis or Spice, and not legally produced ones—I sincerely hope that is the case. I have mixed views on vaping in public. I think that Prof McNeill will talk later this afternoon. It is worth reading her evidence review for the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, which has a whole chapter on the passive inhalation of vapes. The ADPH does not have an official position on the passive inhalation of vapes, but my personal view is that in open spaces I am not too worried about it. In enclosed spaces, I might be, particularly for people who have pre-existing respiratory conditions, but I do not think that the evidence supports it being as big an issue as people think. However, that is definitely a question for Prof McNeill, who is the expert on such matters.
Steve Tuckwell (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con)
Q
Cllr Fothergill: I have already said that we believe the amount of the fine needs to be reviewed. We believe it is right to do it by a local penalty notice, which is issued locally and can be enforced. We do not believe that £100, reduced to £50 if it is paid within 14 days, is sufficient. It will not have the effect that it needs to have and it should be reviewed.
We are also keen, as part of the Bill, for a review of whether we should be brought into line with Scotland on age verification. Scotland has very clear guidelines that legally, people have to produce identification that they are of an age to buy, and we think this is an opportunity for us to bring that in as well. There are two things where we would like to see enforcement strengthened: mandatory age verification and an increase to local penalty notices.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
Q
Greg Fell: I would say that we need a licensing scheme for shisha smoking, and probably more education about the fact that it is a potent way to consume large amounts of tobacco really quickly and is quite damaging for people’s lungs. I am not sure what more could be achieved in the Bill, but I would like to see a licensing scheme for shisha bars. We enforce the law to its limits, but there are some limits to it.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Q
Cllr Fothergill: It is not a topic that we have a policy position on, but my personal view is that it would need to be a separate scheme, because it would have separate enforcement and separate legalities within it. It needs to be very clear for trading standards what they are enforcing against, whereas alcohol is quite different. We should not mix the two just because they both need licensing. I think that they need to be separate.
Bob Blackman
Q
Cllr Fothergill: I could not answer that one, I am afraid, but I would be happy to come back to you with a view on that.
Greg Fell: I have the same view. It is not my area of expertise so I would rather think about that one carefully.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
Q
Greg Fell: It is the single biggest cause of death. There is no real question about that. It may not be in many years’ time when smoking prevalence has come down, but right here, right now, it is. No other product is available that kills more than half its users when used according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Death is often preceded by a long illness—sometimes a short illness, but often a long one—often in folk of working age. Most people who die from smoking-related illnesses die too early.
Sheffield-wise—I know my numbers locally—it is a bit north of 700 deaths a year out of 5,000 or so, so not insignificant. To give you a reference, covid killed 1,500 people over the period of the pandemic. Smoking kills 700 people every year, year on year, and that is before we get into the illnesses. Aggregated across the country, that is 80,000-odd people—a Wembley stadium-sized group of people, a non-trivial number. It is also very inequitable and led by addiction. People spend enormous amounts of money on smoking, so stopping smoking would free up that money to be spent in other ways. Smoking remains the No. 1 cause of death and it is very inequitable—almost certainly causing the largest gap in healthy life expectancy and life expectancy inequality.
Mary Kelly Foy
David, do you want to add anything?
Cllr Fothergill: I think Greg summed that up perfectly.
Preet Kaur Gill
Q
Greg Fell: Years and years ago, the narrative was about raising the age of sale to 21, but I think the evidence has shifted. I hear from a number of stakeholders and sources that the tobacco industry is targeting its public relations at slightly older young people—the 18 to 25 age group. If you were to stop at 21, the tobacco industry would just change its marketing and you would therefore get a new target group recruited into smoking. Nobody thinks that that is a good idea, so the evidence is shifting.
The ban sets a really important norm. We can all remember walking out of a pub smelling of cigarettes. We cannot imagine that now, so continually shifting the norm changes population behaviour just by norm shifting, which is important and often underplayed. I would support the lifting lid—I think that is the right phrase.
Cllr Fothergill: I think Greg is absolutely right. At the LGA, we support the progressive lifting of the age as opposed to raising it to 21. We think that is the right way to go. It will then move through the population over a number of years rather than just being static at a single point.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
Q
Greg Fell: Yes, in part, in terms of the measures in the Bill. I would treat vapes like I would treat cigarettes in terms of colours and marketing, with plain packs out of sight behind the counter and strongly enforced. I would take care, though: we use and want to continue to use vapes as a route out of smoking cigarettes, so getting the balance right remains important, but I would be quite aggressive about the regulation and the deterrent.
Education in schools by itself will not be sufficient. It might or might not be effective, but it will not be sufficient. Action on Smoking and Health has co-produced with a number of local authorities a range of resource packs for parents, teachers and others, which are fairly widely used, but they are not sufficient by themselves to stop the rise in young people vaping, so we need strong regulation with the enforcement of that to boot.
Cllr Fothergill: It is not part of this Bill, but it is part of LGA policy that we would like to see a ban on disposable vapes. There are 5 million sold every week, with the vast majority sold to younger people. The vast majority are thrown away. Those that are thrown away responsibly finish up in one of our recycling lorries where the lithium batteries cause major problems with fires. It is not part of this legislation, but we think that that needs to be tackled separately; I think it will be.
Greg Fell: One point that I just remembered on the resource pack that has been widely circulated to headteachers and schools: a line was taken in that to tell the truth—not to over-egg the pudding but to tell the truth and say what we do and do not know, because in my experience scaring kids usually switches them on to something rather than turning them off something. In the pack, we have also told the truth about the methods and tactics that the tobacco industry has used to get kids hooked on vapes, and that as a rule makes kids pretty angry. It certainly makes parents pretty angry when they realise what has happened.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Q
Greg Fell: Agreed.
Dr Johnson
Q
Greg Fell: Possibly. I would need to go back to the science and have a really careful look at it. There is the danger of unintended consequences and turning people away from vaping as a route out of smoking. Outdoors it is not a thing; indoors—for me, it is a carefully balanced thing and I would want to go back to read the science. It is a while since I have read it, to be fair.
Dr Johnson
Q
Greg Fell: I am thinking of my logic now, and would agree. What I would not want is for somebody to not switch from smoking tobacco to vaping because they fear they would not be able to vape in a pub. That would be the unintended consequence I would try to avoid.
Rachael Maskell
Q
Greg Fell: I do not know that there is a lot of evidence on the gateway effect of switching from vaping to smoking. Again, there are proper experts, some of whom are sitting behind me. It might be something that you want to test them on later, but I do not know that there is lots of evidence of that. Nobody thinks it would be a good thing to do. I think it is fair to say that there is widespread misunderstanding, and occasionally misinformation, about the dangers of vaping in much of the popular press. When we read a study about immensely high doses of vape in the lungs of mice, that leads to awfully lurid headlines, and that causes people to have misunderstandings and misinformation about the relative risks and benefits of vaping compared with smoking. Sadly, I cannot stop that, but it is a problem and I do not think there is an easy solution, because the media like to publish good headlines. I get that; I understand it, but it often skews us away from what the science is actually telling us.
Bob Blackman
Q
Greg Fell: I do not have a view, Bob.
Bob Blackman
You do not? I am surprised.
Greg Fell: I do not think it is a terribly sensible thing to do. I do not think it would be possible to get it into this Bill. How one would regulate it I do not know. I shall give some consideration to that and get back to the Committee.
Bob Blackman
That would be helpful.
Cllr Fothergill: Again, from our perspective, it is not an area that we have looked at in terms of policy. We do have a policy on shisha, but we have not gone as far as the product you have just mentioned. But we will, I am sure.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
Q
Cllr Fothergill: We have to be very careful that we do not spook ourselves out of doing something that is absolutely right. If people get to the age of 40 and have to show that they are 40 to be able to buy cigarettes, that is what they should do. I am sorry to say that I am 67. I have to show a bus pass every time I get on a bus to show that I am old enough to travel for free.
The Chair
You don’t look it.
Cllr Fothergill: Thank you very much—I’ll take that.
At every stage in life, you are asked for verification, and this is just another time. It should not stop us from doing the right thing and moving the age up so that we eventually achieve a smoke-free population.
Greg Fell: It is a long time since I have been asked my age. It may throw up some tricky moments, but as Councillor Fothergill said, let’s not stop ourselves doing the right thing here. I think most people agree that it is broadly the right thing. The Bill itself is massively important for norm-setting. Even if the norm-setting achieves half of the goal, thousands of lives will still be saved.
The Chair
Greg, before I bring Andrea in again, you do not look 67 either. I want to get that on the record.
Greg Fell: Not a day over 25, Chair.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
Q
The additional things—heated tobacco, shisha and so on—that come under this legislation include cigarette papers. We all know that they can be used for rolling joints and other purposes, and that cigarette papers contain carcinogens. However, some have quite a strong desire to exclude them—I do not know why. What is the view of the LGA and ADPH on that point?
Cllr Fothergill: We believe that the scope of the Bill as it is currently written is right, and that is what we would support. We would not want to see anything excluded. Every time there is a change to smoking legislation, we hear the argument that it will increase the amount of illicit trade coming into the country. That is not a reason not to do it. It is our responsibility as trading standards to enforce, and although people always use that argument, we have to do the right thing and enforce by properly funding trading standards.
Greg Fell: If I had £1 for every time I have heard the illicit trade argument, neither of us would be here. The heat-not-burn—the clue is in the title—is a tobacco product, and I would treat it like a tobacco product. It may be safer than burned tobacco—we do not know. I would like to see some independent research. However, I would not delay the Bill until I see independent research. I would personally argue to not allow exclusions. It may seem much harder to enforce, but there will already be some tricky points in enforcement; we already know that we need to resource that properly. I would keep the simplicity and not allow exclusions.
The Chair
We have two minutes left. Is anyone burning to ask the last question? We have had very clear evidence and it has been an excellent session, but is anyone sitting on a question they have not yet asked?
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con)
Q
Greg Fell: Again, without wanting to take the fifth amendment, that is a question for some of the experts behind me, who will give you a full view based on the science. We are 20 years into vaping now—we would probably have started to see significant amounts of vaping-related harm. Cases can always be found of somebody who has terrible lung damage as a result of vaping, but they are usually the exception rather than the rule. The comparator is always tobacco smoke: is it safer than tobacco smoke on the basis of all the science that we know, 20-odd years in? Yes, unequivocally. Is it safer than fresh air? No—hence we do not recommend that people who do not smoke start vaping. As the chief medical officer has said repeatedly, the tobacco industry marketing vapes to kids is completely unacceptable. I am happy—hand on heart, I can say that ADPH pretty much follows the line that it is a route out of tobacco smoking, as we know that smoking kills half of its customers or more. Should the science change in another 10 years, then we would change our view, but on the basis of the evidence we have now, I am happy that we have got the right position.
The Chair
Thank you very much, David and Greg, for an excellent session with some very clear evidence.
Examination of Witness
Ailsa Rutter gave evidence.
The Chair
We now move on to our next witness, Ailsa Rutter, who is the director of Fresh and Balance North East. I am looking forward to find out what that is. We have 20 minutes for this session. Ailsa, could you kindly introduce yourself for the record? By all means, add some more if you wish to, but the Committee will have plenty of questions for you.
Ailsa Rutter: Thank you so much. I am absolutely privileged to be here with you this afternoon, speaking on behalf of the north-east and the many partners in the region who will give you their overwhelming support for this absolutely crucial, complete once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to have the single biggest impact in addressing the biggest cause of cancer. For those of you who might not know what Fresh and Balance is, we are a regional tobacco and alcohol programme based in the north-east of England. We have been going for 20 years, we are funded by our local authorities and our NHS trusts, and we are doing a lot of work to drive down the harms on both tobacco and alcohol.
Preet Kaur Gill
Q
Ailsa Rutter: Tobacco is devastating. It is devastating to every individual who dies way too young, and to the family who lose their loved one. In my region alone, just since the turn of the millennium, 120,000 of our loved ones have died from smoking. It is not an adult choice, but a childhood addiction. The vast majority of those smokers reach a point where they deeply regret having got hooked in childhood, not thinking that first puff on a cigarette would be so addictive. It is really important that we remember the 6.4 million remaining smokers in the UK and the fact that 350 18 to 24-year-olds will get hooked on lethal tobacco smoking today.
I would like the Committee to imagine that cigarettes did not exist. It is 2024, and here we are discussing a product that is designed to hook, kill, maim, and be completely addictive. This discussion today needs to be about the future world we want to strive for. We can talk a lot about how we will enforce it, which is very important, but for me this is about imagining that in 20 years’ time we have created an entire new generation protected from this uniquely lethal product. That is why in the north-east, all 12 local authorities, all 10 NHS trusts, our integrated care board—the biggest in the country—and our Association of Directors of Public Health have given whole-hearted, unanimous support to the “stopping the start” proposal on the age of sale of tobacco.
We absolutely recognise that smoking is much more harmful than vaping, but vaping is not risk-free. Vaping is playing a pivotal role in our region—with our higher levels of deprivation and addiction—to get people off lethal smoking, but that is not to say that we do not absolutely agree that much more needs to be done to reduce the appeal of vaping to young people. We wholeheartedly believe that we must address the inappropriate packaging that is too youth-friendly. Some of the in-store promotions are completely inappropriate, where children are really noticing it. We must ensure that we recognise that children are growing up within a family context; children do not live in isolation. There is also the importance in our region of sending clear, evidenced-based messaging. We can also see the positive impact on children’s health if we can get the parents and carers off lethal tobacco smoking and if we can reduce second-hand smoke harm. Really important as well is more money in people’s pockets, because cigarette smoking has such a negative effect on your income.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
Q
As you will know, rates of smoking during pregnancy in the north-east are some of the highest in the country. Do you think this legislation will help to reduce those very high numbers? The rate is somewhere in the region of 14% in the north-east.
Ailsa Rutter: We have made really good progress in the north-east in reducing maternal smoking; that has come through very good collaboration between our local maternity services and our local authorities, as well as the fantastic leadership from key people in the local maternity and neonatal system, the LMNS, and the direction from directors of public health.
As with anything, there is not one magic solution; it is about taking comprehensive measures. The tobacco age of sale increase will undoubtedly have a really positive impact on reducing maternal smoking. It needs to be coupled with important things that we must continue to do as well, so we also welcome the increased investment for stop-smoking services.
We hugely welcome—thank you—the reinvestment in the evidence-based health harms campaigns. We are thrilled that nationally you are using our fantastic “smoking survivors” TV advert featuring Sue Mountain. The role of financial incentives is also really important; we know that they have a very strong evidence base. This will have a positive impact on maternal smoking.
Nickie Aiken
Q
Ailsa Rutter: Gosh! There are already some fantastic elements in the Bill. The key thing for me is to make sure that we can get the Bill through—particularly the focus on tobacco. It is really good to think that there is going to be subsequent consultation on the important elements around vaping. Factoring in what colleagues said previously, we need a simple mandatory age verification scheme. That is already in place in Scotland, and I would certainly welcome its introduction in England.
Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con)
Q
Ailsa Rutter: I think we are doing some really good work in the north-east but I absolutely think that this Bill is required. I go back to the uniquely lethal nature of tobacco smoking; that is the one key argument that we need to think about. This is guaranteed to kill. For me, this is about a societal shift.
I am really pleased with the huge shift in the north-east on the social norms of smoking. We talk to people who smoke every single day, and you have their backing because they desperately do not want their own children to fall into the same trap. As I mentioned before, this is about aspiring into the future. We are all conscious of the pressure and strain on our NHS. Think about the impact—one in four beds in the north-east and elsewhere with somebody suffering from a smoking-related condition. I think our NHS colleagues in particular really welcome this.
There is another important aspect when it comes to the economic costs. We all get the healthcare costs and we also really understand the strain on social care, but actually it is business that bears the brunt of this. That can surprise people. It is about the lost productivity and people having to retire early and dying early. I would like to think about who these people are. I have mentioned the pivotal role of Sue Mountain and the showing of her TV advert, but so many other people have come forward who sadly were diagnosed in their late 40s—women in the north-east who are desperate to tell their stories. Cathy Hunt, diagnosed with lung cancer at 49; Claire Oldfield, diagnosed with lung cancer at 49. Their real appeal to you today is to think about taking this seismic leap forward and about the leadership the UK can show globally by recognising that smoking had a beginning and a middle, and it is down to us to say that it can have an end.
Mary Kelly Foy
Q
Ailsa Rutter: I think we are really fortunate in the UK. The UK has shown great leadership by commissioning evidence-based reviews that are completely independent of Government; we have had eight of those now since 2014. That has been incredibly important. Fresh is not complacent. We have been monitoring the evidence around the rise in vaping and how this is positioned in terms of public health for the last 20 years—since we were set up. I would strongly recommend that many of the really useful questions we have had today could be answered by looking at those systematic reviews from the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities. In particular, when people say, “We don’t know what’s in vaping,” there is a significant chapter on the constituent chemicals and so on in vaping, and the magnitude of potential harm.
I have forgotten the second bit of your question, Mary.
Mary Kelly Foy
It was about the use of vapes by heavily dependent smokers.
Ailsa Rutter: Yes. In the north-east, vapes have been a “game changer” for some of our heavily addicted smokers. I have permission to share with you the fantastic role that vapes have played in our biggest mental health trust, Cumbria, Northumberland, Tyne and Wear. We are talking about people who have been smoking 40 or 50 cigarettes a day, often for decades, who have really struggled to imagine that they could ever get off lethal smoking. Being able to give them something that still gives them their nicotine, but in a much purer, safer and cleaner form, has been a game changer.
Vapes are being used successfully in our drug and alcohol treatment services—on the point about alcohol, the two often go hand in hand. If we are really intent on ending smoking, we must do more on alcohol. Wearing my Balance hat—Balance is the alcohol bit—it is really important that we do not think of risk-taking behaviour in youth as just vaping. Last week, the World Health Organisation published a report that shows that across 44 countries, the UK sadly has the highest use of alcohol among 11-year-olds. I hope nobody thinks that the amount of alcohol promotion, advertising, marketing and so on is okay. I think it is quite important that we look at risk-taking behaviours in the round.
Bob Blackman
Q
Ailsa Rutter: That is a really good point. I think it goes back to not wanting to delay the progress of the Bill. It is not necessarily for legislation, but it is important that we have a very clear communications strategy. Reflecting on previous legislation, much of the high levels of compliance we have seen in this country have come from very proactive communications in advance. We need to be really careful that the narrative does not get overly confused. It worries me enormously that too many people are staying on smoking because they are scared of even trying to switch over to a significantly less harmful product. I worry enormously about scaring people. It is absolutely right that we have evidence-based messaging to children and young people, but they are messengers who go back to their parents, and we know that it is very important that they are sending clear messages back. So, I will defer on your question about additional amendment—sorry.
Bob Blackman
Q
Ailsa Rutter: I absolutely would. Fresh has been advocating a tobacco licensing scheme for many years. I do not know whether it is in the parameters of the Bill, but it is wrong that anybody can set up their car boot and sell a lethal consumer product. I would also strongly recommend that previous consultations on things such as pack inserts are looked at again: there is a strong rationale for that. Canada is leading the way with a clear message on the cigarette stick itself. Those are called dissuasive cigarettes. There are certainly other things within that realm. I would also be really willing in the future to discuss the role of a “polluter pays” levy; that is something worth considering.
The Chair
Thank you. There are four minutes left and three people have already caught my eye, so short questions and short answers please, colleagues.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
Q
Ailsa Rutter: We have a really good track record over the last two decades of collaboration and cross-party working, with fantastic support from civil society, the NHS and local authorities. The previous legislation has gone through really well, overall, because we have worked together to build up public awareness and support. It is really important that we have adequate resourcing for our important professional groups, such as trading standards.
For me, it is about the communication, the vision and the narrative that we can set. Undoubtedly, if we can get this through, it will not just stop a whole new generation starting; we also know that it will trigger many people to think, “You know what? I am going to give it another go. I am going to try to quit.” We know that it can take people many attempts to quit for good. That is why it is really good that this is being backed up by additional investment in the important stop-smoking support systems and in our NHS trusts.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Con)
Q
Ailsa Rutter: I note the aspects of the Bill that deal with flavours. We absolutely think that more should be done on the descriptors. We wholeheartedly agree that some of the description is completely inappropriate. However, flavours play a really important role. For example, in our mental health trust, it is the fruit flavours that have got addicted smokers to stop. I genuinely have not heard that come up in the north-east—parents thinking that it is somehow healthy for a young person if it has a fruit flavour. What is wrong, though, is when it is in a packet called “Unicorn bubbly shake” or whatever, with a cartoon image on it. Those are things that we should look at addressing.
On vaping by young people in the north east, I want to make the point that we need to be careful about the data. Sometimes people say that all young people are vaping, but the evidence does not stack up. All of our local authorities do health behaviour questionnaires and, across the board, around 10% occasionally vape. I am not at all saying that we should be happy with that, but the risk of a public narrative that all young people are vaping is that we inadvertently promote it as a norm. Schools North East—
The Chair
Order. I am sorry, but we have hit 2.50 pm. Caroline, I am sorry to you, too. We are not allowed to go over the time limit. Ailsa, thank you so much for your evidence; it has been absolutely first-class. We wish you well with all the important work.
Examination of Witness
Adrian Simpson gave evidence.
The Chair
We now turn to our next witness, Adrian Simpson, a policy adviser at the British Retail Consortium. Colleagues, we have until 3.10 pm for this session, which is 20 minutes—it flies by when the witnesses are so good. Caroline, you can have the first question after Preet if that would help you. Witness, would you please introduce yourself and say an additional sentence, and then we will throw lots of questions at you?
Adrian Simpson: Good afternoon. My name is Adrian Simpson. I am from the British Retail Consortium. We are the trade association for large retailers throughout the UK.
Preet Kaur Gill
Q
Adrian Simpson: Yes, the large retail sector, which we represent, is broadly in favour of the Bill. We recognise that these products do require regulation. Putting forward this Bill at this time certainly feels like the right thing to do. Our members take their responsibilities around safe, responsible retailing very seriously indeed, but we feel that, for all this to be successful, there needs to be strong and robust enforcement behind it all.
Preet Kaur Gill
Q
Adrian Simpson: I am not sure I can comment on whether the amount is right, but one thing we would like to caution on around fines is the need to make sure that businesses are adequately notified of those fines. Some of the big retailers might not always be aware that a fine has been issued at the store level. For this to be effective, we think that trading standards officers will need to work with, for example, head offices as well. Something to be aware of is that some of these fines will have substantial personal effects on the shop workers who are given them. We need to think about how that is communicated to the shop workers themselves, but also to the head offices of these large retailers.
Preet Kaur Gill
Q
Adrian Simpson: In the large retail sector, we have worked on things such as Challenge 25 for many years, so we are used to challenging consumers buying products. One thing that we would like to make clear is that this can be a very controversial issue. We know that challenging consumers for proof of age leads to violence and aggression against shop workers. We think it would be beneficial if a long period were given for these regulations to come into effect, to give retailers the chance to educate their staff on these issues and to educate consumers.
Dr Johnson
Q
Adrian Simpson: It is not an issue that we have discussed at any length in the British Retail Consortium. We are aware, of course, that there are parts of the UK where licensing is required for certain tobacco products. We are well used to the alcohol licensing that has been going on for many years. Unfortunately, I cannot comment on whether the whole sector would be in support of that. We would perhaps need to see how a potential licensing system would operate before we gave our full support to it.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
Q
May I press you a bit further on the point that Preet made about whether the fines are sufficient? You have said that it is a bit complicated and will require some lead-in time—which is obviously provided, with the 2027 date—to give appropriate training to shop staff. The quantum of the fine was intended to enable on-the-spot fines, rather than having lengthy litigation because the person who incurs the fine does not have the cash and needs to go away, may or may not pay it, may or may not have to be pursued, may or may not have to go to court, and so on. Understanding that there are different views on all sides, is the balance just about right or, if you could have put your own wish list together, are there things that you would have done differently?
Adrian Simpson: We would have liked to see more education provided to retailers who might have broken the rules. A fine can be life-changing for someone who is given one, so we like to see whether there might be a way around that; perhaps the shop worker could be educated first, rather than going straight to a fine, if at all possible. We would like to see that balance of education before strict enforcement, if possible. That would be our wish.
Steve Tuckwell
Q
Adrian Simpson: The first challenge is education of all the shop staff. Our members are the very large, household-name retailers, and it will take a long time to get that education out to the hundreds of thousands—in some cases—of shop workers throughout the UK. We also think that there will be issues to do with changing our point of sale systems, things like where we are going to store some of these products if we need to, and even things like the size and nature of the tobacco notices. Retail operates in many different ways—we think of the large supermarkets, but there are very small stores as well—so a lot of thought needs to be given to the technical parts of the legislation, which of course we always work with you on.
Preet Kaur Gill
Q
Adrian Simpson: Certainly. Ever since the point at which a potential vape ban and the rolling age restriction on tobacco were announced, we have been working very closely with the Chartered Trading Standards Institute, which represents local authority trading standards officials. Ever since the beginning, we have been in close conversation with them, talking about our concerns on the points I made about education and enforcement. Many of our members are closely linked to trading standards already, through the primary authority scheme. I am pleased to say that many of our BRC members have long-standing primary authority relationships, so they already work very closely with trading standards. Certainly at the BRC, I have been working closely with colleagues in the Chartered Trading Standards Institute.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
Q
Adrian Simpson: I think you made a wise point earlier, Minister, about the difference between a 40 and a 41-year-old. That is absolutely our concern: how will we do that? We hear a lot of things about artificial intelligence and new technology for age verification, but a lot of it is still down to human interaction—whether a human can tell the difference between 40 and 41, which can be difficult. That is certainly one of our biggest concerns. Again, we are keen to avoid situations where there could be a touchpoint for violence against shop workers.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
Q
Adrian Simpson: There certainly needs to be a bit more research into what the best methods are to keep this age restriction going. It is a new challenge in the retail sector. We have never had anything like this before, and the UK is a leader in this area. I think that, at the beginning, it will be about us all working together to try to get the age restriction going and to make sure that it is enforced, because—this is one point that I would like to make—our members are obviously very compliant and want to do the right thing. These household names are very protective of their reputations; they want to be good and to do the right thing for society. However, I certainly think that, with this new system that might come in, there could be some teething problems. We hope not, but that can naturally happen with all new systems.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
Q
Adrian Simpson: It was definitely a point that came up quite a lot when we were debating this with members themselves. I would say that we are cautiously welcoming it, just because it will then bring about a level playing field for all retailers—because we know that these measures are not necessarily directed at our members, who are, as I say, in the legitimate, responsible retail sector. It will bring about a level playing field but, as I say, we might still need to see how it would operate in practice, I suppose, before we give it our wholehearted support.
Mary Glindon
Q
Adrian Simpson: Exactly. Our membership is predominantly the household-name retailers—the large retailers; the ones that certainly would not be selling illicit vapes. We have comprehensive supply chains, and our members put a lot of effort into making sure that their supply chains are operating with integrity, so that illicit products cannot enter them. I have not seen that report, but my feeling would be that the sellers mentioned in it are highly unlikely to be members of a reputable trade organisation. They might be ones that would not be looking for the same standards that our members would operate to.
Dr Cameron
Q
Adrian Simpson: A lot of the training done by our members has been put together with the help of trading standards’ services, so there is a lot in there about the law, but also about what perhaps is termed the soft skills—how to deal with the aggression, and with violence as well. Of course, this is a high-profile issue, and it is one of the top priorities at the British Retail Consortium as well.
We know that, with new rules, new regulations and new opportunities to challenge consumers, there will always be some resistance from consumers. We will certainly make sure that all our colleagues working in our members’ stores are given all the support they need to deal with any potential aggression or any bother, and our members will comply with whatever the law says. They will not let someone who should not buy a product buy it just because they are worried, or something like that. They will follow whatever the in-store procedures are and the training from the work with trading standards.
Dr Cameron
Q
Adrian Simpson: I agree—that is difficult. It takes me back to discussions around Challenge 25, which we have mentioned. It started out as Challenge 21, and the age was raised because it was very difficult to tell the difference between a 21-year-old and an 18-year-old. Technology is evolving in this area. There are new things. We know that members are using new forms of technology to help with that. They rely on things like Government-issued ID. There are various ways of challenging someone. It comes down to things like the training and how the consumer is around the till. Are they acting nervous or like they are up to something? It is then down to the retailer to use the training that they have been given to check the ID and use their own in-store procedures, as well to try to operate responsibly.
Kirsten Oswald
Q
Adrian Simpson: Yes, we do work closely with trading standards, who are very good at doing the education side. It is not just about educating our members, but educating the public and bringing about a cultural change where it is almost expected that you will be asked for ID. If you have been in any large retailer recently, you have probably seen the badges they wear that say, “It’s our job to ask for your age”, for example. Certainly, among our member businesses, it very much is the culture to go for the Challenge 25. Although these regulations with the rolling age will have challenges, I am sure our members are well placed to overcome them.
The Chair
Adrian, thank you so much for your evidence this afternoon. It has been clear and concise.
Adrian Simpson: Thank you, Sir Gary, and thank you, everyone.
The Chair
We will now move on to our next session—I am speaking slowly to allow John and Kate to find their way to their places.
To colleagues and anyone else tuning in, we are likely to have votes in the Chamber from about 3.30 pm or 3.45 pm—we are not quite sure; it is always fluid. That might do two things. It could curtail this session and prevent us from having the later sessions. Colleagues, in this session, in which we will hear extremely important evidence from the Chartered Trading Standards Institute, we might want to be concise for the first 20 minutes in case that dreadful bell goes and we all have to scarper. We will be voting four or five times and therefore not coming back. Let us get what we can from our two excellent witnesses.
Examination of Witnesses
John Herriman and Kate Pike gave evidence.
The Chair
John Herriman and Kate Pike, will you introduce yourselves, please?
John Herriman: I am John Herriman, chief executive at the Chartered Trading Standards Institute. We welcome the Bill, as I hope has been clear from the stuff that we provided before. It provides important clarity for businesses and enforcement agencies, as well as the public. We have also welcomed the early engagement in the development of the Bill.
Kate Pike: I am Kate Pike, lead officer for tobacco and vaping at the Chartered Trading Standards Institute. I have been involved for many years on the regulatory side. I was a member of the Department of Health tobacco expert group for many years, and I am now a member of the vaping expert panel as well, so hopefully I can answer your questions—fingers crossed.
Preet Kaur Gill
Q
Kate Pike: I will separate out illicit tobacco and illegal vapes, if that is okay. Illicit tobacco is the day job, which we have been doing for years. You are probably aware that HMRC came up with the first strategy on tackling illicit tobacco around the turn of the century, and since that time the amounts of illegal tobacco consumed in this country have come down hugely. Seventeen billion illegal cigarettes were consumed in 2000 and we are now down at 2.5 billion to 3 billion— I always say that as though it is a small number, but I know it is still huge. We have the latest strategy from HMRC to tackle that. Trading standards undertakes a really important role locally on illicit tobacco—your colleagues in Birmingham will be doing that work locally—but we work closely with HMRC and Border Force overseas, at the borders and inland, so we are on that.
With vapes, however, it is a different story. Obviously, the illegal vape market is much newer. Trading standards is responsible at ports and borders, and inland. The rise of illegal vapes probably took us by surprise, but we are now getting all our ducks in a row and starting to seize the products that are illegal. We work incredibly closely with our colleagues at HMRC. The notification system is helpful—it could be better, so we welcome the Bill clarifying that it can be extended and strengthened. We are getting on to the case now. There is a huge illegal market for vapes at the moment, but we can learn from what we have done on illegal tobacco and apply it to vapes, to ensure that we tackle those as well.
Preet Kaur Gill
Q
Kate Pike: The Bill gives enabling regulations to ensure that vape products can be reduced in attractiveness to children. There will be restrictions on the flavours, on the packaging and on the display to reduce the attractiveness of vapes to children. That is really important, because no problem has ever been solved by enforcement alone, whatever industry says. The approach has to be holistic: demand reduction as well as supply disruption. No problem has ever been solved like that, so the enabling powers, on sale and supply, will be brilliant.
Other bits of legislation are going through, such as the statutory instrument to ban single-use disposables. Potentially, that is an opportunity to look at an import ban on such products. Obviously, we will never get an import ban on something that we make here and sell overseas, because that is just not allowed under international trade law, but we talk all the time about how the ports and borders are such a pinch point.
The Chair
John, did you want to say anything?
John Herriman: I want to pick up on Kate’s point about the ports and borders. One of the challenges is that stuff coming in through the ports and borders is not being detected. Something will be flagged—we produced a manifesto in the past couple of months to highlight the importance of ensuring the right level of enforcement and activity at the ports and borders. If we think about it in the context of vapes—or any other illicit product, to be honest—the reason they get on to the high street is that they come through the ports and borders. At the end of the day, we are an island, so if we have the right level of activity there, in co-ordination with other agencies, hopefully we will stop it getting through to the high street, and that reduces the burden of activity on trading standards.
Preet Kaur Gill
Q
Kate Pike: We really welcome the addition of a fixed penalty notice to our enforcement toolkit, but we absolutely want to have our own range of sanctions, which includes the opportunity to go to prosecution for persistent or egregious offenders. The fixed penalty notice can be a really quick solution, potentially against an individual salesperson, depending on the setting and the nature of the offending. I think that £100 can be quite a lot; £200 would be more. I think that is enough, given the opportunity in the Bill to increase it at a later stage if it is not working or having the impact that we want.
John Herriman: It is all relative at the end of the day. It needs to be tested first. To some illegitimate businesses, that will be seen just as a business cost. Whatever the amount is, we need to ensure that it is not seen as a business cost that can just be absorbed. It has to be a tangible deterrent: that is the key.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
Q
We have sought to get the right balance, with a £100 fine that can be reduced to £50 if it is paid on the spot. For any of us, a day when we have to dish out £50 because we have done something wrong is a significant bad day. On the other hand, there is an escalation process to criminal prosecution. I am really keen that we get the balance right up front, notwithstanding that there will be powers to change it. Can I press you a bit further: is this or is this not the right place to start?
John Herriman: Can I make a broader point, and then maybe Kate can come in on the specifics? This is all about the market surveillance activity that allows you to understand what is happening on your local high streets and your ability to take enforcement action where necessary, whether that is a £100 fine or a prosecution. Fundamentally, that is the challenge at the moment. It is about the ability to have the right level of market surveillance and the right level of enforcement activity. I am sure it is a question that will come up. It is a challenge for trading standards at the moment, because over the past decade or so it has had significant cuts, in the region of 50%.
There are two halves to this question. First, is this the right legislation and are the amounts right? Secondly, legislation is only as good as the ability to enforce it. It feels as though the legislation is right—I will let Kate comment further on that—but the ability to enforce it is critical.
Kate Pike: Absolutely. Whenever we look at a new piece of regulation—as I think somebody mentioned earlier, we enforce more than 300 pieces of legislation across the spectrum—we ask, “Do we have the powers to enforce?” In the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, yes, we do. “Are there criminal penalties in there?” Yes, there are. The key things from our point of view—the building blocks—are there.
Across the spectrum, how many businesses sell tobacco? The impact assessment for the Bill says that there are something like 60,000 or 70,000 across the United Kingdom. On that spectrum, there are big businesses that know what they are doing and do not need a lot of support from us. There is a big chunk in the middle that might need a bit of support and guidance—they may make a mistake, but we can support them, help them and train them. Then there are a small amount at the other end that are the dodgy ones. We need to focus our enforcement efforts on them, because we will never be able to put one trading standards officer outside every business to be watching all the time.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
Q
Kate Pike: The Bill will have enabling regulations on vapes, with powers and criminal sanctions. That is good, but the specifics around where the vapes are positioned in store will be down to the next stage. We get calls all the time from people saying, “There’s a shop in my area called Toys and Vapes—do something about it!” There is actually no legislation that we can use to tackle that.
If you do not want the vapes next to the sweets, legislate for it. We will enforce what it says in the legislation, but we cannot make it up. People are always saying, “That’s not right,” but we cannot enforce morals. We can only enforce the law, so get it in there. If you do not want the vapes there, for very good reasons, give us legislation and we can enforce it.
Rachael Maskell
Q
Kate Pike: Illegal drugs are not a trading standards issue. If drugs are consumed via vape or by injection or rolled up in a roll-up, that is not our issue; that is a police issue. We can only enforce the law around the products where the enforcement is given to trading standards. We have no role whatsoever in illegal drugs in vapes. But there is a huge amount of enforcement around illegal drugs in this country, with the police, and the public health approach, about ensuring that people do not use illegal drugs. However they consume them, it is really important that they are on board—
Rachael Maskell
Q
Kate Pike: If you have intelligence around a vape seller selling an illegal drug in a vape, or in any other sort of format, that should be reported to the police. The police will take action against illegal drug sales, or Border Force at the ports and borders. There is a huge enforcement body around illegal drugs.
John Herriman: It is the market surveillance point again. If you have the right level of market surveillance, which is down to capacity, you will have trading standards officers, as well as those from other agencies, out and about who will detect the stuff. Then you can take the appropriate enforcement activity by whichever agency is appropriate at that particular point.
I take the point that was made earlier. I was walking down Hackney high street with trading standards just a couple of weeks ago. About every third or fourth shop, regardless of whatever the main thing it sold was, was also selling vapes on visible display. It is about making sure that we are aware of the level of vapes being sold, and that we therefore take the appropriate action, which is what the Bill should enable us to do.
The Chair
Colleagues, we might be voting fairly soon, so short questions, please, and concise answers.
Dr Johnson
Q
Secondly, someone showed me on packets of cigarettes recently that there is a scannable code, and trading standards have a special scanner that they can scan that with. Would that sort of thing help on so-called legitimate vapes?
Kate Pike: Potentially. The track-and-trace legislation on tobacco that enables us to scan a packet of tobacco and find out if it is where it should be—it is tracked all the way through the system—could potentially work on vapes. It would be very complicated to bring in—well, not complicated; it would be a big exercise to bring in track and trace for vapes, but it is potentially something. As you know, there is a consultation out at the moment for vapes to become an excise product, so it could possibly be that we introduce track and trace alongside that for vapes.
If you look at a vape and you look at the packaging, there are lots of red flags that tell us if it is illegal. We can usually tell by the packaging alone. We are doing some market surveillance work at the moment for vapes that look as if they should be compliant; they are notified to the MHRA, to check the ingredients. So far, touch wood, we are not finding too many issues in those nominally compliant vapes. But there are so many illegal vapes out there. It is actually quite easy to see that they are illegal, when you see them. We do know how to identify them at the moment, but obviously it could become more difficult. We will just have to make sure that the new regulations are still enforceable when they come in. For example, if there is a ban on types of flavour, we would want that to be really clear. We do not want to have to go round sniffing or tasting. It needs to be clear by the description, rather than just some sort of guess along the lines of, “Is that strawberry bakewell-flavoured?” It would be very difficult for us to manage that.
Kirsten Oswald
Q
Kate Pike: I think the Bill is really good at closing some of those loopholes. It will include an age restriction on 0% nicotine vapes, for example. There are other nicotine products, such as the little nicotine pouches. The popular term is, I think, snus, but we know that snus is already banned in this country. The enabling regulations to put a regulatory framework around products like that will be really helpful. These industries are very innovative, so we just need to make sure that we are keeping up with our regulation. I think that the enabling regulation powers will enable us to keep up with new products, but it is continually little steps, and regulation chasing after innovation. We would like it to be the other way round, really.
Trudy Harrison
Q
John Herriman: I think this is all about strategic resourcing. As I have already articulated, the profession has had a significant cut in resources over the last decade or so. Actually, we now have to go into a phase where we are rebuilding the capacity. We can do this; we know that we can enforce regulations, because we have seen that we can do it successfully within the world of tobacco. It is now about what we are doing as a profession to start building back that capacity. We are taking some new steps: for example, there are now apprenticeship schemes running in England, both at level 6 and level 4, and we are supporting the level 4 apprenticeships in Scotland and Wales.
One of the things that I think is really good about the Bill, and the work that DHSC and other Departments have been doing, is the taking of a strategic view. We have to build this capacity gradually—fairly swiftly, actually—into trading standards, but we also have to be clear on expectations with businesses, so that they know what is coming and we can therefore make sure that we are moving at the same sort of pace. By taking that strategic approach, it allows us to build the capacity at the right level and make sure we have trading standards officers who are qualified—it can sometimes take two to three years to train somebody as a fully-qualified trading standards officer. That way, we have a sustainable platform to make sure that the legislation can be enforced. Essentially, that is what we are seeing here. We have not seen this level of strategic approach to resourcing and tackling a problem in many other areas, so it is quite welcome.
Preet Kaur Gill
Q
John Herriman: The Bill itself is helpful in that it has enabling regulations within it. It is about a phased approach. We cannot turn a switch overnight: we have to build it up gradually. We will need to do a lot of training—and not just training, but recruitment of new apprentices, students and trainees into local authorities, as well as doing the business education part, alongside that—and move in a very structured way. The worst thing that could happen is that we have the regulations, we have the law in place, but cannot enforce it. That would mean that it became ineffective. It is about having a phased approach, and the Bill does that quite nicely. It fits within where trading standards is as a profession. We need to build back that capacity over time. We are still waiting to hear the outcome of the discussions on funding, which are happening at the moment.
Bob Blackman
Q
Kate Pike: We pushed for tobacco licensing for many years. Since the last time we did that we have had tobacco track-and-trace sanctions come in and the regulation around track and trace, which ensures that every single business selling tobacco in the UK has to have an economic operator identifier, so that, using our scanner, we can see whether a particular product is legal for sale, or whether a business is legally able to sell. Although that is not a licensing system, it does give us many of the advantages of a licensing system that we would look for. Although there are potential benefits in thinking about a licensing system for nicotine products, I am not sure that it is a silver bullet to some of the answers. We have said before that the issues are not just around tackling supply, which licensing does; they are also about tackling demand. We just need to get to grips with a holistic approach to vapes in order to do that. In terms of licensing on the tobacco side, we are probably okay now, as long as we can make use of the track-and-trace sanctions. We might be able to use those for vapes as well, further down the line, given the vape excise duty.
Bob Blackman
Q
Kate Pike: We do enforce around products. Any tobacco product has to be notified to OHID—it was PHE when it first started. So, there is responsibility for enforcement around products that are legally allowed to be sold in the UK. If they are tobacco products, if they are not notified they cannot be sold. So, there is a role there, although it is more difficult—it is not a day job. Certain local authorities will have more of an issue than others. It is probably not going to be everywhere, but for some local authorities it is a big issue. Perhaps we need to do more enforcement around what we can already do, and see where the gaps are.
John Herriman: To go back to the first point, there is a layered approach, which I think Kate has just articulated. There is a lot in the Bill that should work, so we need to look at that and see how we can enforce it and whether it works. There is a subtlety to this whole issue, particularly with regard to vapes, given that although there are under-age sales and illicit vapes, there is also a positive public health benefit for those that are smokers. So, we do not want to withdraw that access. Trading standards sits right in the middle of that. We can do a really good job when the regulations are clear; so we would like to have that clarity at the outset, which the Bill will give us. We can see whether that works; and there are always opportunities to come back if it does not. We have proved, though, that we can make it work in other areas.
Dr Cameron
Q
John Herriman: I will let Kate answer on this one as well. There was a really good, comprehensive answer earlier from one of the people giving evidence: if this is the right thing to do, the right idea, it is something we will have to get used to doing. I think that is probably the principle that we would apply within the world of trading standards as well. We just have to get used to the new legislation and what it asks us to do, and then make sure that sellers are following that legislation. Probably the problem will be more at the business end rather than at our end, and this is where there is a really important role for business education and the likes of the British Retail Consortium, the Association of Convenience Stores and other organisations.
We must get the balance right: this is about the enforcement activity and the right level of legislation, but we also have to make sure there is an onus of responsibility and accountability on businesses themselves to solve part of the problem. I do not think it is right to put all of the problem on enforcement, for example. Therefore I would definitely be looking towards businesses to make sure that they are embracing this and making sure that they are doing the right business education and training along the way. Have you anything else to say on that, Kate?
Kate Pike: Absolutely. The other point, obviously, is about resources, which John has already highlighted. We are in discussions, but we do need to make it clear that trading standards needs more resources to enable it to deliver the enforcement in this Bill.
The Chair
I think we have received that message very loud and very clear.
Kate Pike: Good.
John Herriman: Did I mention that? [Laughter.]
Steve Tuckwell
Q
Kate Pike: We think that the tobacco age of sale should definitely apply to all tobacco products, and that the enabling regulations for vapes also allow the opportunity to add other nicotine products. The definition of nicotine is really helpful. The closing of the loopholes is really helpful. Loopholes are not helpful to enforcement, but closing the loopholes is really important to enforcement, so we are happy with that.
Preet Kaur Gill
Q
Kate Pike: Yes. As I say, we are already in the consultation that HMRC has running now about a vape excise tax. One of the questions is, “Would you want to see these products subject to track and trace?”, and the CTSI will go back and say, “Yes, but let’s get the vape excise tax in now,” because of what that is going to give us. A number of you have said your worry is illegal vapes. HMRC being involved in this enforcement picture will be a real game changer, because there will be extra boots on the ground in addition to ours, and that will really help in tackling illegal vapes.
The Chair
Q
Examination of Witness
Laura Young gave evidence.
The Chair
Colleagues, we have at least 10 minutes left—perhaps 10 or 15 minutes. We are now, by the science and wonder of technology, zooming up to Dundee, I think. We welcome Laura Young from the Centre for Water Law, Policy and Science at the University of Dundee, via Zoom. I am going to ask you to introduce yourself in a moment, Laura, and I will just say that when Division bells start ringing in about 10 or 15 minutes, we will all be dashing off. It will be nothing you have done wrong or something you have said that we don’t like; it is nothing at all like that. Laura, over to you, please.
Laura Young: Well, I am Scottish, so I will try to speak as fast as we are known for. Hello, I am Laura. I am a PhD researcher in environmental science and a campaigner, and I have worked extensively, looking specifically at disposable vapes but also looking at vaping in general over the past 18 months. I very much welcome this Bill and support a lot of what has been said, but I also think there is room for taking more action and I am happy to be giving evidence today.
The Chair
Thank you very much. You will hear first from your own Member of Parliament, Kirsten Oswald, who will ask the first question.
Kirsten Oswald
Q
Laura Young: The environmental impact cannot be overstated. Vapes are a huge issue, especially for waste, and we have seen the numbers growing and growing. Material Focus, an environmental electronics charity, did some research specifically looking at disposable vapes in 2022 and 2023 and the number quadrupled. In 2023 we were looking at about 5 million a week. Jam-packed inside each and every vape are lots of precious materials, which of course are going to waste after one single use. We know they are not being recycled, so those materials are just being wasted. We are not getting them back.
We also know that vapes pose a huge risk to our waste workers. They have lithium batteries inside them and we have seen some devastating fires already because of them. That represents what we have been hearing today. Walking down any high street you will see the prevalence of these being sold in almost every type of shop everywhere. We see them sold everywhere, wasted everywhere, and having a huge impact on the environment and the health of people and children who get their hands on them.
Preet Kaur Gill
Q
Laura Young: Of course, one of the obvious things is litter. Every single street has cigarette butts on it and that is very harmful. We do not want any litter, if possible. Disposable vapes have become an increasing site of litter as well. They are not just litter; they are electronic devices and are very damaging with lots of chemicals inside them. We have even had garage owners talking about people popping tyres with these shards of metal as they get squashed and run over, so they are very damaging.
All the way through the process of particularly vapes we see a lot of material resource—lithium, copper and cobalt, things that have to be mined around the world—put together for these devices to be used just once before they run out and are thrown away. The disposability speaks to a lot of the other problems. These are made as disposable. They are throwaway and cheap, and that leads to the fact that so many young people buy them because they are cheap, accessible and throwaway. Something that is absolutely an environmental issue with waste and litter is also a big problem in terms of accessibility for young people.
Preet Kaur Gill
Q
Laura Young: I think the regulations and how those are designed will be crucial. I know there will be follow-up legislation mopping up other parts of the issues, with disposable vapes hopefully being banned, but it is important that we look at the design. How we get the most circular economy version of vapes is crucial: limiting as much as possible single-use plastic, looking at how we can make them modular, making sure we do not just shove a charging port at the bottom and hope for the best, but actually looking at how they can be circular by design.
On design, it is also important that we are beginning to see vapes that are legal—there are the illegal ones, which are to one side—that I believe are getting around existing legislation in terms of capacity. You now see ones that have different cartridges, so it is almost like the pens that you had where you could switch between the inks. You can now do that with vapes that are being sold legally. They are getting over the limits because they are saying, “This isn’t one big cartridge. This is four small ones.” We are already seeing the industry innovating in a negative way to get around the legislation, so we need to make sure that that does not happen when we bring in environmental topics as well as all the other ones for public health.
Trudy Harrison
Q
Laura Young: This may be something that has gone under the radar: the No. 1 item littered is cigarette butts, particularly when you look by number. They have a huge environmental impact, particularly because plastic is inside the filters, and the filter is the butt that is let behind. Although there has been a lot of campaigning around the environmental impact of vapes, there have been amazing efforts to raise awareness of the environmental issues around tobacco by organisations like ASH Scotland and the Marine Conservation Society, one of which I know has already given evidence.
Globally, we also need to look at this as a huge industry. Of course, kind of like any other industry, they need to be looking at their footprint and their sustainability measures. We know of course that air pollution is absolutely key to the conversation, and that has an impact as well on wildlife and biodiversity. Neither tobacco or nicotine products, such as vaping, are good for the environment; they are very harmful to the environment. We are just beginning to see those harms with disposable vapes in particular, but we know that cigarette butts have had a longstanding impact on the environment. They are also just a nightmare to collect. They are so small and so problematic. On beaches, you will see them as much as you see sand. We definitely need a lot more action across both those sectors.
Mary Glindon
Q
Laura Young: Absolutely. The first thing to remember is that vaping is not good for you. It is slightly better than smoking, but let us definitely not push the message that it is good for you.
On disposables, that is something I got to see first hand just last week. Only one place in Scotland has the capacity to recycle disposable vapes or any vapes at all. From watching that process, it takes an individual staff member with personal protective equipment under a ventilation hood—if you remember chemistry from when you were at school—pulling them apart manually with pliers. They separate the parts of the vape out and put lots of it to the side because it cannot be recycled, and they take away things like the battery, covering it in this special type of tape to ensure that it does not combust and burn, because of course lithium is very explosive. The whole process of recycling one vape takes over a minute for one member of staff. It is a huge cost, and it is not an economically viable piece of WEEE—waste electronical and electronic equipment—to recycle.
We know that only a tiny number of vapes are actually being recycled. If all five million a week that are currently being thrown away in the UK were sent to recycling centres, it would be a huge cost to local authorities, which often are the ones collecting them, and it would take a lot of infrastructure and people hours to process them.
I will just say that nobody wants to ban things—I certainly do not want to ban things. Nobody started by saying, “Here, these seem like a bit of an issue. Should we ban them?” We actually went through the process of asking all the questions that you and many others have asked. What are the solutions? What can we do? How can we raise awareness?
Unfortunately, with an item that is just so damaging and dangerous and is the complete opposite of a circular economy, which is what we are trying to achieve, they just cannot exist. Disposable electronic devices should not exist, and that is really important. It is our job—the rest of us—to ensure that the public health messaging comes across clearly, which is, “One of the main reasons we are banning these is the environmental impact and youth access, but we still want to help adult smokers quit smoking and move to really just breathing fresh air. We want to move them completely away from tobacco and nicotine products.”
Mary Glindon
I would just like to say that vaping is 95% safer than smoking.
Dr Johnson
Q
I have two questions. First, how do we ensure that the regulations are flexible enough for us to be able to stay ahead of such measures? Secondly, could you say a bit about the effect on wildlife? My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson) has talked about puppies picking these things up in their mouths and the danger they can pose if the puppies bite into them. Could you talk a bit more about the danger that they pose to wildlife when they are thrown away?
Laura Young: Of course. On the regulations, I think that we have to think creatively and innovatively about some of the workarounds that might be being used. We are already seeing charging ports just being popped on the bottom. Of course, that might mean that the battery can be recharged a few extra times, but if it cannot be refilled with the solution, it is still, in practice, a single-use item and will have to be thrown away eventually.
The issue is about ensuring that we look at the builds and make sure that they are modular and that the circular-economy principles that we want to achieve are set in stone. I think that that means working as best as possible with the retailers and the manufacturers—although that will be really difficult—and looking to other initiatives, whether that is single-use plastics bans or treaties on plastic, one of which has just come to an end globally, to see what we can do.
I will tell you a story about the wildlife. A wildlife photographer, a birdwatcher, was taking some images of a marine bird doing a very normal activity, which was picking up a shellfish—what looked like a razorfish—and dropping it from a height to smash it open to get some delicious dinner. But after this young gull had failed multiple times, this photographer realised that, unfortunately, what it was actually picking up and dropping was a disposable vape. We are seeing not only domestic animals, such as cats and dogs and things that we love as pets, getting hold of disposable vapes and potentially breaking them open, but actual wildlife being impacted—picking them up, thinking they are shells on the beach, and trying to eat what is inside them.
That is just from the very short time that we have been paying attention and looking out for this, and from keen birdwatchers capturing it, so we know that there will be extensive wildlife impacts. We are only now scrambling around to try to find more evidence, but we know that it is already happening, and that that is just one example. The photographs are on Twitter, if anyone did want to go and find them. It is sad, but it is definitely the reality of what we are seeing.
Mary Kelly Foy
Q
The Chair
It is a fair question; it is not within scope of the Bill, but it is a fair question.
Laura Young: Yes, absolutely. Just last week, I and other leading scientists from across the UK published a piece in Science, the science magazine: a letter about disposable technology, using vapes as an example—the first in a wave of disposable, cheap tech that is having an impact—and about the need for a global effort to tackle this. That is absolutely a hot topic right now; if we do not get a grapple on it now and use vapes as an example of how to tackle it, we will just continue to see disposable electronics, which are all jam-packed full of things that we need for other devices for a green economy.
The Chair
Laura, thank you so much for your evidence this afternoon. There are no more questions—we are about to zoom off and vote right now—but you have brought the subject to life with your very colourful descriptions. Thank you so much for that.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
We apologise to the remaining witnesses, who we will try to squeeze in tomorrow.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Aaron Bell.)
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Glaucoma and Community Optometry
(6 months, 3 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
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered glaucoma and community optometry.
First, a special thanks to the Backbench Business Committee for selecting the debate for this morning. I am my party’s health spokesperson—it is no secret—and am particularly interested in health issues. As such, I secured this debate off the back of a number of people who had contacted me. What I am particularly pushing for—I am sorry for the short notice; I put the request in the Minister’s hand only two minutes ago—is that we do something now so that we can save sight further down the line. If I were pushing for one thing only, that is the one thing I would wish to have.
Optometrists in my Strangford constituency—I will send them a copy of this debate in Hansard afterwards—asked me to secure this debate. A number of bodies here on the mainland asked me the same thing. That is my purpose, but the issue of sight and sight-loss problems affects every constituency equally throughout this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Therefore, the approach to making the system more fit for purpose must also be UK-wide.
I am pleased to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), in his place. We are sparring partners, although when I say that I do not mean that we hurt each other—we fight things together. I am also especially pleased to see the Minister in his place. He has a deep interest in this subject, as well as a deep interest in Northern Ireland, which I much appreciate. He has told me about his times in Northern Ireland in the past month or so, and how much he loves going there. Indeed, every MP who visits Northern Ireland—including you, Dame Caroline—always comes back with the most wonderful memories of the occasion and of the people they meet. Just this morning, a Conservative Whip was telling me that he was in Hillsborough two weeks ago, and about how much he enjoyed it.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
I want to place on the record the fact that a month ago I made my first visit to Belfast. I had an incredible time meeting Members of the Assembly at Stormont, and going to Harland & Wolff, around Belfast and to an inclusive school. It is a remarkable place, and I just wanted to add, as the hon. Gentleman is putting on the record that everyone else has been to Northern Ireland, that so have I—although I know that is not the subject of our discussion, Dame Caroline.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (in the Chair)
Order. I gently remind Members that, charming as it is to hear about Northern Ireland—we are all wildly in favour of going there at every available opportunity—this is a debate on glaucoma.
Jim Shannon
Thank you for bringing me and us all back to focus, Dame Caroline. The reason why I said that is that the Minister has been to Northern Ireland and always has an interest in health issues, and I know that his journey was to Queen’s University to explore such issues. That is the connection. The fact it is a lovely place is just wonderful, but that is not the reason why we are here.
The approach to making the system more fit for purpose must be UK-wide. Whenever we ask for what we are going to ask for at the end of this debate, I know that the Minister and the shadow Minister will have similar ideas to mine. I understand that health is devolved in all the regions, but it is clear that we need joined-up thinking to a joint problem. That is what I wish to highlight this morning.
Visual impairment and sight loss cost the UK economy some £36 billion each year, yet we allow 22 people to lose their vision to preventable causes each week. That is the thrust behind what I am aiming for today: to stop 22 people losing their eyesight this week. We can work alongside the optometrists and the opticians, and have a partnership whereby people can have their eyesight tests done more often. I will give some examples. Maybe people do not think of having their eyesight tested regularly, but they should. Optometrists in my area have told me that they are happy to work with the NHS or the health and personal social services in Northern Ireland to make that happen.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. On the frequency of eye testing, does he agree that the issues we are discussing today are symptomatic of other parts of the health service? People ignore eye problems and get to the point where problems could have been solved had there been earlier detection and more frequent eye testing. Even if nothing else transpires from this debate, if we do a little to try to ensure that people have regular eye tests, we can prevent some of the problems we are discussing from getting worse.
Jim Shannon
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and say to the Minister: that is the thrust of this debate. If nothing else comes from this debate but the answer was along those lines, I would be more than happy. That does not mean that I will sit down now, Dame Caroline— I want to give a wee bit more background and a couple of examples.
Visual impairment and sight loss cost the UK economy £36 billion. The loss of sight is the loss of independence and confidence, and for many it is the loss of their life as they know it. If it can be prevented, it must be, so it is about prevention, early diagnosis and checks. This morning my focus—excuse the pun—will mainly be on glaucoma, a group of eye diseases that damage the optic nerve, usually due to changes in pressure inside the eye, or ocular hypertension. Data from Specsavers revealed that there have been some 30,000 referrals for glaucoma in people aged 40 to 60 just in the last year. Many more have been missed, accounting for nearly a third—30%—of all glaucoma referrals.
Some years ago I spoke at an event in Cambridge. I was asked to come along as a health spokesperson to an eyesight and visual impairment event that took place at a university in Cambridge—not the University of Cambridge but one of the other ones. They were doing tests and I got my eyes tested for glaucoma. It was rudimentary, but the guy said, “I don’t want to worry you, but I think you need to go and have your eyes tested when you get home.” Whenever I got home I went to my optician right away. I could not understand it, because I had seen the optician a month before and was sure that my eyesight was okay, but the Cambridge guy had given me a wee graph that seemed to show that there were issues relating to glaucoma that needed to be addressed fairly quickly. Why is that important? Because my father had glaucoma, and they say it needs to be checked because it is hereditary and passes from generation to generation.
When I got home I went to see my optician right away and told her what was going on. I explained the circumstances and took her the graph. She said, “Look, Jim, I checked your eyes. I do not see anything wrong with them, but do you want them checked thoroughly?” I said, “Yes, definitely.” So she sent me to the eye clinic in Belfast’s cathedral quarter and I got my eyes checked. Everything is done there, 24/7—all the eye checks that are humanly possible. For ages after, my eyes were stinging. The guy came out after an hour and said to me, “I have done every possible check on your eyes. There is nothing wrong with them.” That was good news after a very thorough check. Since then, my optician has done a thorough check for glaucoma on my eyes, simply because it is hereditary and to ensure my peace of mind. I tell that story because it worked out well for me, but it does not work out well for everyone.
Typically, there are no symptoms to begin with, as glaucoma develops slowly, affecting the periphery of the vision at first. That means that hundreds of thousands of people in the UK currently have glaucoma. Betty in my office gets an annual eye test because her father had glaucoma and she was aware of the issue. When I asked my younger staff when they had last had their eyes tested they said, “Not since school. I don’t need glasses so why should I get an eye test?” I immediately asked them to book a test, and told them that it is like an MOT that needs to take place. The MOT tells us if our car runs okay and what repairs we need; it is the same when we get our eyes tested. The eyes may be known as the window to the soul, but they are also undoubtedly the window to the view of overall health that can be found in an eye test. Eye tests are imperative for finding an early diagnosis of diabetes, for example, and a host of other health concerns.
I remember two occasions when opticians saved the lives of gentlemen who came to see me in my office. One guy I know well came in and he was a terrible colour. I said, “Are you okay?” and he said, “To tell you the truth, I don’t feel at all well. I have been to the doctor who told me to see an optician, and I’m going there now.” I said, “I hope you’re okay.” He was as grey as a badger and it was really quite worrying to see him. He went straight from the optician, who referred him, just up the road to the Ulster Hospital. He had a tumour close to his eye and brain, which was removed in an urgent operation. The other person, who went to a different optician in Newtownards, had the same problem, was also referred to the hospital and also had a tumour removed.
Tests at the optician’s are incredibly important. They can diagnose not only glaucoma but many other things, so it is important to have them. Optometrists have a key role to play because they can spot the early signs of glaucoma during routine tests. For patients with stable glaucoma, optometrists have a role in monitoring eye health and helping them to manage their condition.
Alarmingly, a fifth of the population—some 21%—still do not know how often they should visit the optician for a routine check-up. The same percentage either cannot remember their last eye examination or have never had one. Opticians in my Strangford constituency, and particularly in Newtownards town, have told me they are anxious and keen to ensure that people have regular tests. It is about how to ensure that can happen. I hope the Minister will respond to requests, including from the shadow Minister, and is able to reassure us on how we can encourage a UK-wide method to help.
For those with glaucoma or suspected glaucoma who are referred to hospital, long NHS waiting lists, exacerbated by the pandemic, remain a problem. Alarming figures show that around 650,000 people are waiting for NHS ophthalmology appointments. Will the Minister indicate the steps that can be taken to reduce that number and help those 650,000 people to retain their eyesight? There are steps that we can and must take. I always try to be constructive; it is important to come with a positive attitude on how to do things better. We should be big enough to accept that changes need to be made, and then we can do it.
Although optometry services remained open for urgent care during the covid-19 pandemic, the number of sight tests dropped by 4.3 million in 2020—my goodness—which was a 23% decline compared with tests administered in 2019. In respect of that dramatic drop and the need for improvement, perhaps the Minister could suggest methodologies to address and target those who have fallen out of the system. The drop in the number of eye tests resulted in large reductions in referrals from primary care to hospitals. That is where the fall seems to be, and perhaps where it needs to be addressed. As a result, sight loss has increased hugely since the pandemic.
How can we increase referrals from primary care to hospitals? If we do that, we will have moved a long way. I will give some examples from Northern Ireland—not about how nice it is to visit, Dame Caroline, but about the issues of vision and health. In Northern Ireland there are two glaucoma referral and refinement pathways. By contrast to England, they are available at all community practices, as long as clinicians have the right accreditation in glaucoma care. It is fortunate that my GP service and many others have such access. Through the services, patients have their glaucoma tests completed in the community, and the results are then shared securely with the patient’s ophthalmologist. This joined-up approach helps to streamline the experience for the patient and ensures that optometry practices and ophthalmologists work together for the benefit of the patient. I always try to be constructive in my comments and give examples of what we do, because if we do something well, others need to know, and if the Minister does something well here on the mainland, we need to know about that in Northern Ireland as well.
There is also an ocular hypertension monitoring service in the community across Northern Ireland. The scheme allows optometrists to manage in the community patients who would previously have been seen by the hospital eye services. A significant number of patients—some 2,000 to date—have been discharged to the scheme. That is an example of how it is proactively engaging and working. It has helped to free up the capacity in secondary care to manage more complex cases.
Those successful services show that community optometry, alongside other primary care providers, is responsible for delivering the shift from secondary to community care and is able to do so at almost no cost to the taxpayer, given that it uses existing capacity. What we have is an example of how things can be done—and perhaps spread across all of this great United Kingdom—in a better way. Those working alongside optometrists, who wish to ensure that people have their tests regularly, are keen to assist and to make changes. When the Minister speaks to the Association of Optometrists—as he probably already has—I believe he will find that he is pushing at an open door and that the ideas that he and the Department have are ones that optometrists have too.
Overall, Northern Ireland has shown how a model focusing on glaucoma care in the community can be effective. The challenge in Northern Ireland is that these services sit outside the general ophthalmic services—GOS—contract, which means that they rely on non-recurrent funding and are not subject to a regular uplift in fees; indeed, fees have never been reviewed. Given the success of these services, the push in Northern Ireland is for their funding to be put on a more stable, recurring footing and to be subject to the same process for fee uplifts as GOS. I have another ask to put to the Minister, in a constructive fashion: will he see whether the fees in place can be reviewed and how best the system could be used to improve things?
I know that the shadow Minister will make an incredible speech. By the way, I am not giving him a big head; that is what he always does, because he understands these issues incredibly well and brings forward his own ideas and his party’s ideas to this process.
I want briefly to highlight the difficulties arising with cataract surgery. It is wonderful how cataract surgery can improve people’s eyesight. I am a type 2 diabetic, but some years ago, before I was a diabetic, I went to see about surgery, not for cataracts, but to improve short-sightedness. I did not have the surgery, because I was not entirely confident about it, and shortly after, I became a diabetic. I tell that story because a good friend of mine in Greyabbey—I will not mention his name—was a type 1 diabetic and went for some corrective surgery to his eyes. Unfortunately, he ended up losing his eyesight; that is not the fault of anyone, but the diabetes complicated the issue, and he is now registered blind. Again, there are complications in relation to eye surgery for those who are diabetic, just by the nature of what happens.
Cataract surgery is currently the most common NHS elective surgical procedure, accounting for the majority of the large ophthalmic backlog facing the NHS. My mother has had one of her cataracts removed; she has a second one to remove, but I suspect that, unfortunately, her state of health means that the second procedure will not be done. Between 10% and 15% of those with cataracts suffer from concomitant glaucoma, and I am bringing the issue into the debate because cataracts are often treated separately. I suggest that we consider how we could do the two together—the glaucoma and the cataract surgery.
I have been informed by a company named Clarity that there is an opportunity to treat patients for cataracts and glaucoma at the same time. It is obviously more cost-effective, and although I know we should not always dwell on the cost, we cannot ignore it. If there is a way of doing simpler, easier and cheaper surgery more effectively, let us look at that. I am ever mindful that the Minister has four competent members of staff behind him, who will clearly keep him right, so might they be able to do some research on that?
Treating cataracts and glaucoma together expedites patient backlog reduction and helps save people’s sight by preventing the further progression of glaucoma. The treatment is quite innovative, new and effective, and it is important that we should do it. Micro-scale injectable therapies produced by Glaukos can advance existing glaucoma standards of care and improve patient safety by removing the need for invasive secondary surgery and tackling ophthalmic backlogs. So many people wait for their cataract operations and for improvements to their glaucoma. If we catch things early, we can save the sight, and that is a critical factor. Again, can the Minister look at that and ascertain whether the approach I have just referred to could be a cost-effective way forward? I am sure he knows about it, but if he—and indeed the shadow Minister and others—does not, I would be happy to have a response later. The treatment seems to me to be a win-win, so will the Minister confirm whether the Government will initiate it urgently?
Local optometrist services form a vital part of the eye care patient pathway and of directing patients to vital sight-saving medical technologies. It is incredible to live in an age when 50% of all cancer patients can survive and people’s eyesight can be saved if it is checked and their problems with glaucoma are diagnosed. Are we not fortunate to live in this age? Although I am not the oldest person in the room—I suspect that my colleague on the left-hand side, my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), might just be a tad ahead of me by a couple of years—I have seen the great advances we have made in medical technology. We are doing great things, and we could do more. Is it not incredible that all we really need is to check? It is not terribly costly, but if we check, we make the difference.
Optometrists are the ones who are properly trained in the pathway. We must ensure that pathways are clear and that funding is available to ensure that, instead of 22 people a week losing their sight in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, no one at all loses their sight and their independent life—something that could have been prevented. I know that the Minister shares my goal and that the shadow Minister definitely shares it, as does my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry. As a result of today’s debate, I hope we will have a progressive strategy going forward, and I am anxious to hear what the Minister and the shadow Minister have to say, so that we can feel that they understand the path towards achieving this goal and will focus on and direct it.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
I start by passing on the apologies of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill), who leads for the shadow health team on the issues we are focusing on today. She is otherwise detained on the Tobacco and Vapes Public Bill Committee, which is taking place at the same time.
I sincerely thank my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—I know that the custom in this place would be for me to call him “the hon. Gentleman”, because he is not of my party, but he is a friend—for securing this crucial debate and for the positive spirit he always brings to these proceedings. Glaucoma is a common yet serious condition that, if left untreated, can cause real damage. Anyone is at risk of developing glaucoma at any age, but it particularly affects people as they get older.
I declare a bit of an interest here: my grandmother had glaucoma. Because my mum died at the age of 50, they do not if the condition was hereditary, so every time I go to my opticians I have to have the glaucoma test in case it is hereditary. However, it is really important that people are tested routinely, because it is a serious condition that, if left untreated, can cause real damage.
Several factors increase an individual’s risk of glaucoma, including a family history of the condition; being of African, Caribbean or east Asian origin; and having long or short sight, diabetes or blood pressure problems. Glaucoma tends to develop gradually, and it is often entirely symptomless for a long period. As a result, many glaucoma patients are diagnosed only during routine eye tests. The impact of glaucoma can vary greatly, ranging from misty or blurry patches in vision to struggling to complete day-to-day tasks such as reading, and permanent sight loss.
When it comes to accessing basic care, many glaucoma patients face significant challenges. Across eye care, more than 600,000 patients are currently on waiting lists for treatment. Given the risk that glaucoma poses if left untreated, such extensive waiting lists are a serious threat to patient outcomes. Sadly, that statistic shows no sign of changing, and demand for ophthalmology services is set to increase by more than 40% in the next two decades. Given an estimated annual cost to the economy from sight loss of more than £25 billion, the case for action could not be clearer.
I have a degree of frustration with the Government’s approach to the issue. Given the statistics, I would like to see the Minister commit today to turbocharge access to ophthalmology services and make eye tests more commonplace for people who do not routinely test their eyes, but also to get people access to eye care services once conditions have been diagnosed.
The next Labour Government are committed to reforming the system so that those with glaucoma and other eye health conditions can access care when and where it is needed. We will provide 2 million more operations and appointments on evenings and weekends, paid for by clamping down on tax dodgers, so that patients can be seen on time again. We will have a laser-like focus on prevention, tackling the social determinants of ill health and ensuring that eye conditions such as glaucoma are tackled at source. We will ensure that the NHS shifts from an analogue to a digital service, embracing the latest developments in technology and artificial intelligence to provide the best possible care and deliver the best possible patient outcomes.
Again, I declare an interest: being a bespectacled Member of Parliament, I obviously have routine eye tests. I am short-sighted, although age is catching up with me, and this is the first time that I have had varifocals for reading and for distance. However, my optometrist, Dr Shen of Boots opticians in Denton, has brought in and embraced some of the latest technological advances for testing different eye conditions. At my last eye test, I was amazed at the wizardry and machinery they have brought in, revolutionising the way they can diagnose.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Gentleman is speaking very powerfully and I endorse those comments. What I have seen with optometrists in Newtownards in my constituency of Strangford is the amount of money and investment that they have put in. They have not asked for any help from the NHS for those things. They are doing it themselves. I think there is a wonderful opportunity for a partnership with optometrists who are investing money—all they need is the people to come in for testing—and that, I believe, is a role for Government.
Andrew Gwynne
I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. Boots Opticians in Denton is a franchise, and the owner of that franchise has invested in this remarkable technology. I have now seen parts of my eyes that I never believed it would be possible to be able to see. It is incredible digital technology, and it allows opticians to diagnose eye stroke. That is particularly important for people with diabetes, glaucoma, high blood pressure and cardiovascular disease. The technology can also be used to diagnose diabetic retinopathy, in which people’s retinas are leaky, which can lead to temporary vision loss, and age-related macular degeneration. That detailed eye care allows other eye problems, which ordinarily would have gone unchecked, to be found and the appropriate treatments to be provided. I have seen how transformative the use of modern technology by my own optician can be for testing for a whole range of conditions and eye health.
That is why this debate is relevant and why changes across the system are clearly needed. That is most evident in community optometry. There is a real potential to utilise, as the hon. Member for Strangford has said, the existing capacity on our high streets and in our town centres—crucially, where people are—to get a firm grip on the crisis in eye care. That is why the next Labour Government have committed to seeking negotiations with high street opticians to strike a deal to deliver more NHS outpatient appointments. That partnership, which the hon Gentleman was rightly discussing, will underpin Labour’s eye care policy.
With 6,000 high street opticians serving communities across the country, we cannot afford to sit back and waste their incredible potential. We will work with high street opticians to beat the backlog and to get the system moving again. By utilising community capacity, we can free up specialists in the NHS to support those patients with the greatest need, providing greater accessibility, convenient care and, most importantly for all of us taxpayers, better value for money for the public purse.
This approach is backed up by evidence, proving the tangible impact of community-based eye care and eye health services. A 2014 study of the introduction of minor eye care services in Lewisham and Lambeth showed how significant that impact is. GP referrals to ophthalmology specialists in Lambeth decreased by 30%, with an even greater reduction—75%—in Lewisham. Costs in areas without minor eye care services increased, while there was a drop in costs in Lewisham and Lambeth of 14%.
Given that the sector is in clear need of reform, with patient outcomes continuing to suffer, will the Minister back Labour’s plan to unlock the potential of community optometry? With more than 550 patients suffering sight loss because of delays in the NHS since 2019, does the Minister accept that further inaction is simply not an option? These are people whose lives, and those of their loved ones, have been fundamentally changed through no fault of their own. We owe it to them to fix this system once and for all, working in partnership with the devolved Administrations across the United Kingdom, as the hon. Member for Strangford says, so that there is not a postcode lottery on these services, and we get the best outcomes for all British citizens across the United Kingdom. We owe it to them to ensure patients with glaucoma and other eye health conditions get the care they need, when they need it, and where they need it.
We will support the Government in the remaining weeks or months that they have to get this policy right, but mark my words: the next Labour Government see this as a priority and we will act.
The Minister for Health and Secondary Care (Andrew Stephenson)
It is always a pleasure to see you in the chair, Dame Caroline. Can I start by thanking the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for raising the importance of eye health to the wellbeing of people across our United Kingdom. No Westminster Hall debate is the same without him. I also thank the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), for their contributions.
Losing one’s eyesight can be devastating. I pay tribute to the charities that have done so much to help people living with glaucoma, or which are researching a cure: Glaucoma UK, the Glaucoma Foundation and the Royal National Institute for Blind People to name just a few. This morning, we are focusing on glaucoma and the role that can be played by community optometry. This afternoon, there will be a debate on the broader issue of preventable sight loss. I am responding to both debates on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), who is the Minister responsible for primary and secondary eye care services. She is otherwise engaged, as she is a member of the Tobacco and Vapes Bill Committee. I know she would want me to put it on the record and reassure Members throughout the House that that remains one of her top priorities.
As I am standing in today, I want to reassure Members that this is a subject close to my own heart. Glaucoma affected several people on my father’s side of the family—my great aunt, Emily Stephenson, lost her eyesight in her 60s because of glaucoma. I remember visiting her as a child and seeing the RNIB talking book cassette tapes, which she loved, and I am delighted that that service continues today in more formats and with more titles than ever before. My mother, too, lives with glaucoma, so I take this issue very seriously.
Up and down the country, community optometry plays an essential role in protecting people’s eye health. It also plays a key role in the early detection of glaucoma, as most glaucoma patients are identified through routine sight tests. Glaucoma cannot be felt—it does not cause any symptoms, and the eye pressure does not cause any pain. That is why regular sight tests are essential, so that problems such as glaucoma can be diagnosed and treated as early as possible.
As the hon. Member for Strangford suggested, everyone should have a sight test every two years. The NHS invests over £500 million every year in providing sight tests and optical vouchers. Between 2022 and 2023, we delivered over 12 million NHS sight tests free of charge. The tests are widely available for millions of people and the budget is entirely demand led, meaning that there is no cap on how many we will provide. We understand that some people may not prioritise sight tests compared with other healthcare, or they might not know that eye tests are recommended every two years. That is why we are always looking for opportunities to remind the public to have a test, through social media and other campaigns. Sight-test providers such as Specsavers and others on the high street display information about NHS sight-test eligibility.
We are committed to making greater use of community optometry to help to alleviate pressures in secondary care. Many integrated care boards are already commissioning a greater range of services on the high street, including minor and urgent eye care services, pre and post-cataract checks, and glaucoma referral filtering and glaucoma monitoring.
Glaucoma referral filtering schemes have delivered fantastic results, with additional tests that double-check whether a patient really needs to be referred to secondary care. These are tried-and-tested schemes that can save patients time and worry while freeing up space for those who most need specialist attention in hospital. Devon is a great example of that. An old Nightingale ward has been repurposed with equipment to screen large numbers of glaucoma and medical retina patients. The diagnostics hub has demolished the hospital’s backlog from just under 4,000 in April 2022 to just below 500 in October 2023—almost a 90% decrease. In Milton Keynes, 70% of suspected glaucoma patients were discharged following refinement of initial referrals made on the high street. About 50% of integrated care boards currently have a version of those schemes in place, and we are assessing the potential for encouraging the roll-out of those schemes even further.
It is vital that patients who need secondary care have access to timely diagnosis and any necessary clinical treatment. The hon. Member for Strangford is right to say that those services suffered during the pandemic, just as they have across the NHS. That is why we have set an ambitious target to recover services through the elective recovery plan, supported by more than £8 billion of dedicated funding, and it is why we have expanded surgical hubs and harnessed the capacity of the independent sector, so that more patients can be seen more quickly. That has been particularly successful for cataract surgery.
Our plan is working and it is delivering results, as waiting times are falling. The number of patients waiting 78 weeks or longer for ophthalmology has been reduced by 96% since its peak, but we know that we have to go further. As well as cutting waiting lists today, we are looking at how we can reform eye care services to meet the demands of tomorrow. NHS England’s transformation programme is running seven projects across each integrated care system area, such as those that test how improving IT links between primary and secondary care could allow patients to be assessed and triaged virtually, saving them time and freeing up more hospital capacity for patients who need specialist face-to-face care the most. NHS England is gathering data and evaluating different interventions, looking to develop a convincing case on what works best and supporting further expansion.
We are going further and faster to free up hospital capacity. Today, many glaucoma patients often have their condition managed in hospital, but in some cases, where clinically appropriate, there is no reason why they cannot be seen somewhere else in their community that is more convenient for them. In England, it is up to ICBs to commission services based on local need, and some ICBs are already trying new ways of working to do just that.
Finally, on research, I want to recognise just how much potential there is for research and innovation to change the lives both of people who suffer from sight loss and of their families. The UK leads the world in research; we could not be more committed to pioneering new treatments and improving our understanding of sight loss. We put our money where our mouth is by awarding the Moorfields Biomedical Research Centre £20 million to carry out another five years of world-leading research in December 2022. Thirteen out of the 100 leaders and innovators in ophthalmology across the world who were included in The Ophthalmologist’s “Power List 2023” were researchers from Moorfields, and we should be proud that that centre of excellence is right here in London.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for his very positive and helpful response. The shadow Minister referred to ophthalmology services increasing by 40% over the next 20 years—those figures might not be entirely accurate, but I think that is what he said. That certainly indicates to me that we need to have a progressive and active programme to ensure that people can get tests in partnership with opticians. The Minister mentioned ICBs and how that will be done; I say this respectfully, but can we have some meat on the bones as to how that would work? I am ever mindful that the Minister wants to see that, but we wish to see that as well.
Andrew Stephenson
NHS England is looking at a range of different interventions across the country. One of the benefits we have across England, and of course across the United Kingdom, is that we can try different things, such as models of delivery, in different parts of the United Kingdom and learn lessons from one another.
The current strategy pursued by the NHS is to look at different programmes across England and evaluate them to see what delivers the best outcomes for patients. That will help us to improve access for patients and deliver quality treatment. We hope that that evaluation will enable us to suggest best practice. It will still be up to ICBs to commission services—we believe they should be commissioned locally—but we hope that by providing an evidence base for them they can take decisions in the best interests of their local communities. To address the point made by the shadow Minister, that will address the growing demand for services. We recognise the fact that there will be more demand in the years to come. It will also help to address some of the backlogs with which we have struggled since the pandemic.
I hope I have said a few things to convince the hon. Member for Strangford that, while we still have much to learn from Northern Ireland, the Government take glaucoma extremely seriously. Community optometry is helping us manage the flow of glaucoma patients and it is already deployed effectively in many areas across the country to support patients.
We should be under no illusion about how many people watch Parliamentlive.tv. I think it was Stanley Baldwin who once said that the best way to keep a state secret was to announce it on the Floor of the House of Commons. Nevertheless, I wish to end with an appeal to anyone watching this debate at home: remember to take an eye test and please check the NHS website to see whether you are eligible for help. In preparing for today’s debate, I decided to do just that and I will be having my eyes tested tomorrow morning.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (in the Chair)
That is good to know; thank you very much. I call Jim Shannon to wind up the debate.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister. That appeal was a wonderful way to end this debate. I began the debate today by asking that we move towards measures to getting more people tested. The Minister has just done that. He has thrown out a challenge to everyone across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, to do just that.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) is well aware, as I am, of the merits of what we do in Northern Ireland, of the investment that optometrists are making personally and the need to work together. I am encouraged by the helpful contributions of the Minister, the shadow Minister and my hon. Friend.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) referred to the fact that routine glaucoma testing can save eyesight. We all know that, and that is the purpose of the debate. We need more people to take the test—that is the purpose of the debate. The response from the Minister outlined a plan. I loved the term the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish used when he referred to turbocharging access to ophthalmology services. Wow! That is exactly what we need: a turbocharger. The Minister, in his response, turbocharged the challenge of eye tests and optometry.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish also referred to Labour’s commitment to making eye care a priority, which I welcome. I think that is where we are, and that that will follow hard on what the Minister and the Government are doing. The hon. Gentleman also referred to the 6,000 opticians on the high street with whom we can have a better partnership, and he stated that inaction was not an option—how true that is. He said that it was important to ensure there was not a postcode lottery, and he said that Labour would act.
The Minister always tries to be helpful, positive and proactive in his responses. That is what I like in any Minister, and it is what I particularly like about this Minister. It is helpful to have something to be encouraged by. The Minister has grasped the modus operandi of the debate, and why it is important, even though the subject is not in his portfolio. He referred to the need for people to have an eye test every two years, and said that the Government were working with high street opticians to ensure ICB involvement. He also said that the Government were pushing to increase the number of ICBs engaged with that. He said that the pandemic had created some problems, but also referred to an increase in cataract surgery. I think that is positive. Another positive that is sometimes forgotten, to which the Minister referred, is research. Well done, Minister and well done to the Government.
The Minister referred to £5 million of pioneering technology from the United Kingdom. We lead, across the world, in relation to that. He also referred to a new model within the NHS: proactive, progressive ICB best practices.
Today, we have been encouraged by the Minister. We are very pleased with his response. I can tell people who watch this debate on Parliamentlive.tv or who read Hansard—people will get copies from me in my constituency —and want to know what we are doing that we do not need to do anything really expensive. We just need to be proactive.
I look forward to the implementation of the plan to which the Minister referred, and I very much welcome the turbocharged priority that the shadow Minister and his party are prepared to give to the issue. I thank you, Dame Caroline, as always, for your chairship. You make so much of these debates and we appreciate that.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (in the Chair)
Thank you very much.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered glaucoma and community optometry.
Sport Horse Industry: Import and Export Controls
(6 months, 3 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
Dame Caroline Dinenage (in the Chair)
I will call Helen Morgan to move the motion, and then I will call the Minister to respond. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up at the end.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the impact of import and export controls on the sport horse industry.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Caroline. Horses are among the most travelled animals in the world, and in the UK we are lucky to have a thriving competition and breeding industry. My constituency of North Shropshire is home to a significant amount of that activity in the sport horse sector, with centres of excellence for both artificial insemination of mares and competition training.
Implementation of new import controls went live today. They have been causing consternation in the industry, with an additional issue around export controls for live animals and animal products, which are also having a significant impact. I will come to each in turn. I note that the issue of export controls is for the Department for Business and Trade and not necessarily for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. When I sought this debate last week, the former did not want to take it and advised that I speak to DEFRA.
I will focus a bit more on import controls because that is the Minister’s area of expertise. I hope he will take on board some of my points about export, and work with his colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade to consider some of the challenges being faced in the industry in that area.
First, on imports, we all recognise that there is a serious risk of disease, and that biosecurity is a top priority. I am not here to suggest otherwise. More than 95% of sport horse mares are artificially inseminated using chilled equine semen. It is important to have checks on that, so that we do not import unwanted diseases into the country. However, it is important to remember that these are high-health animals that are carefully monitored here and on the continent. There has never been an incident of disease imported in this manner. When looking at the type of checks that might be suitable, we can take that into account and consider what is proportionate to the risks. The logistical challenge of classifying those products as high risk at the border control point has the potential to cause havoc in the importing process.
I am grateful to Ministers in DEFRA, including Lord Douglas-Miller, who met me and one of my constituents who is affected by this problem. A pilot scheme is being run from today, with checks on those products carried out by the inseminating vet rather than at the border control point. I hope that pilot is successful, because it would remove some of the logistical problems of importing a product that has to be used within 48 hours of collection. It is collected in Europe and it takes time to transport it to the UK. The logistics of getting it to its courier and destination are very tight. The pilot is a welcome development and I thank the Department for listening carefully.
It is important to note that getting to this point has been chaotic and that the change of process was made with only weeks to go. I understand, from speaking to the British Horse Council earlier this week, that that process is being piloted at East Midlands, though not at Stansted airport, where a smaller proportion of these goods come through. We now have a dual process, which is not ideal because there is scope for confusion and for the process to break down at Stansted. Businesses affected by this problem have wasted considerable time in getting ready, and expended much worry over the potential outcome, so the process has not been ideal.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The hon. Lady is outlining a specific case, but we in Northern Ireland also have a specific case, which the Minister will know, in terms of the protocol and the Windsor framework, which has curtailed the movement of livestock within the UK. Does the hon. Lady agree that while her case is specific to her and her constituents, we have a specific case too? Might the Minister in his answer also consider how movement of livestock, and particularly of horses, from Northern Ireland to Great Britain can be addressed?
Helen Morgan
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. As always, it is highly relevant to the issue. There is an issue around Northern Ireland, because there is a risk that with different controls we compromise our biosecurity and that people use Northern Ireland as a back door to circumvent those controls. It is therefore important that we have consistency between all the devolved nations, including Northern Ireland.
We are talking about an £8 billion industry in the UK, so it is not such a niche issue and it is well worth ensuring that the industry can operate effectively. We have had a lack of clarity on charges. It is my understanding that both East Midlands and Stansted border control points are not Government-run and that there is a lack of clarity about the level of charges. Again, it is difficult for businesses to plan for a big change that is coming in if they do not know exactly what it will involve.
A lot of the effort has focused on the import of germinal products, but we have stallions in this country whose products are being exported. If we streamline and make the process of import cost-effective, which is very important, we are unfortunately putting our exporters at a disadvantage compared with European producers. This is therefore the point when I ask the Minister to work closely with the Department for Business and Trade to see if we can streamline the export process and put our own stallion breeders on a level playing field.
One of the reasons there has been concern about the process is that vets did not have access to the TRACES system—a database maintained by the EU and used to monitor health and travel documents in 90 countries. Will the Minister clarify whether the UK systems will be able to interface with that system and whether that has been properly tested? Also, out of interest, why did we not stick with the TRACES system, which might have reduced some of the cost in the process of moving horses in and out of the country?
We have talked about germinal products, but I also want to talk about live horses. As I mentioned at the beginning, sport horses are some of the best-travelled animals in the world. They go to Europe frequently to compete, and this is essential for breeders to prove their breeding and competition credentials; thousands of horses go every year. A couple of weeks ago, I was lucky to meet Safira from Springfield Stud in North Shropshire, who has been selected for the Brazilian Olympic team. She travels backwards and forwards to Europe regularly and it costs hundreds of pounds each time because she has to have export documentation and a veterinary check. That process is not streamlined and it is expensive.
That is also an issue for the thoroughbred industry, about which I confess I know less. Thoroughbred horses have to be naturally covered, which means a lot of international movement is required in the industry to ensure gene pool diversity, leading to a huge associated cost every time a horse moves in and out of the country. There has been an estimated 18% reduction in imports of thoroughbred horses, which shows the scale of the problem and its potential impact. There is also evidence of a reduction in the number of European horses coming here. UK businesses, such as Springfield Stud in my constituency, are considering moving to northern Europe to avoid some of the cost and red tape involved. That is hugely damaging to the industry and has the potential to affect North Shropshire in particular.
I want to return to the point that, in this debate, we are discussing high-health animals, whose health is continuously monitored. Many are held in quarantine before they are used to produce semen, and they must have high levels of documentation and accreditation to go and compete with other horses across Europe, so the risk around them is potentially quite low. I therefore ask the Minister: how can we slim down the process and reduce the cost and red tape involved so that breeders stay in Britain and continue to effectively compete in Europe?
The identification process, I am informed, is one such area for improvement. There are about 70 passport-issuing bodies in the UK feeding into a central database, and because there are so many bodies involved, the data is inevitably of variable quality. My understanding is that the Government have accepted that this needs to be simplified and improved and the industry is waiting on the statutory instrument needed to do it, but it has been repeatedly delayed. I wonder whether the Minister could give us a date on which that change will come in, so that we can see a more streamlined database for health and travel documentation.
I also want to touch on the point that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made about the importance of consistency. My understanding is that Wales is set to follow the same set of rules as England. Obviously, that is very welcome, but it is very important that the Government work with their Scottish counterparts to ensure that we have consistency throughout the whole United Kingdom and that we do not see people trying to get through loopholes and back doors because of a lack of joined-up thinking. When that happens, our biosecurity is put at risk. It is important to ensure that we have the same types of controls across the whole country.
We have a threat to the efficient operation of a valuable and thriving UK industry that we are all proud of. I have a particular interest in it, because eventing and show-jumping horses are important and thriving in North Shropshire. DEFRA is moving in the right direction on some of these issues, but the process so far has been more chaotic than we would like. We want the Department for Business and Trade to be involved as well, because horses move backwards and forwards and we do not want to disadvantage our own breeders.
Before I finish, I would like to thank David Mountford from the British Horse Council, Claire Sheppard from the Thoroughbred Breeders’ Association and Jan Rogers of the Horse Trust for making sure I was well informed before this debate. I also thank my own constituents, Tullis Matson from Stallion AI and John Chambers from Springfield Stud, for taking the time to explain their concerns and their issues to me in so much detail.
The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Sir Mark Spencer)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Caroline. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for securing this important debate. I recognise the great economic, social and cultural benefits of the sport horse industry to this country, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the Government’s support for it.
On the introduction of the new import controls under the border target operating model, the introduction of biosecurity controls on imports is not optional. Now that we have moved away from the EU’s rigid biosecurity, surveillance and reporting systems, we are responsible for protecting our own biosecurity from threats such as foot and mouth disease, African swine fever and the African horse sickness virus, which we must remain alert to despite it never having reached these shores. Otherwise, such threats could devastate UK industries and cause significant damage to the environment, public health and the wider economy. We remember the impact of foot and mouth in 2001, which cost British businesses nearly £13 billion in 2022 prices. It caused massive disruption to many industries, including the sport horse industry.
Biosecurity controls are also essential to protect our exports and international trading interests. Our trading partners want to be reassured that we maintain the highest biosecurity standards. Maintaining our reputation for high biosecurity standards is in the interests of the sport horse industry, to ensure that we can continue to move first-class animals and germinal products in and out of the country.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) on securing this important debate. I declare my interest as a veterinary surgeon. The Minister will be aware that a couple of years ago the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee published our report on the movement of animals across borders. There is a balance between allowing the smooth movement of animals and protecting the biosecurity of our animals in the UK. We looked at the key issues of trying to replicate the tripartite arrangement, which allowed for the smooth movement of high-health horses between the UK, France and Ireland, and progressing the digital identification system for horses, both of which would allow smooth but safe movement. Government progress in those areas would help to protect our industries and our biosecurity.
Sir Mark Spencer
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention and for his work in this subject area. He is very informed on these matters and the House benefits a great deal from his expertise. We will continue to work with the sector. We want to have as much freedom of movement as possible, but in a way that protects our biosecurity. I am sure there will be more opportunity for us to benefit from my hon. Friend’s expertise as we find solutions to the challenges.
The new controls begin today. They require high-risk consignments, including equine germinal products from the EU, to enter GB via an appropriately designated border control post, where 100% documentary, 100% identity and 1% to 5% physical checks are undertaken. We are aware that the sport horse industry and its representatives, including the hon. Member for North Shropshire, have been concerned about the controls coming in during the peak season for the import of equine germplasm. We have been glad of their engagement on this topic and for their having drawn their concerns to our attention so that we can address them and make sure we get the implementation right.
The import of equine germinal products provides for genetic diversity and the rapid genetic improvement of British breeding horses. Using the chilled rather than frozen product enhances conception rates, as the hon. Member for North Shropshire pointed out. We know that the movement of these goods is highly time sensitive, if they are to be successful, so we have to consider appropriate measures that work for the sector. We have considered that in the context of the new BTOM controls.
Thanks to representations from the hon. Member for North Shropshire and others, we are aware that on some import routes logistical challenges mean that some checks required by the BTOM cannot currently be undertaken within the required timeframe for the products to reach their destination mare. DEFRA officials have therefore worked closely with the main importers of chilled equine germinal products, port health authorities and the British Equine Veterinary Association to develop and secure approval for a temporary contingency measure with an optional additional adaptation. That will facilitate trade while maintaining essential biosecurity controls.
The contingency measure temporarily reduces the requirement for official identity checks from 100% to 20%, and allows them to take place at a border control post or at the destination, using the optional temporary adaptation pilot process with the BEVA. As a result, the consignments, which also benefit from 100% documentary checks before arrival in GB, complete official import controls in the minimum time possible.
On the movement of live horses—which the hon. Member for North Shropshire was keen to address—in planning and implementing controls we aim to reduce any disruption or administrative burden as far as possible. We recognise that in the case of the sport horse industry we can often rely on robust industry processes that are in place to assure the health of the animal. For that reason, when new border controls on live animal imports come into force, we have developed and agreed, with the help of industry, an exemption for certain horses that meet a definition of high health. Verified equines used in racing, competition, breeding and sales can all qualify for that facilitation if arriving from the EU and sanitary group A countries.
We estimate that approximately two thirds of equine imports will be eligible for the exemption. They will be cleared for import on the basis of a documentary check, and their identity as a high-health horse will be verified with industry databases. That provision will allow them to avoid attendance at a border control post for a physical inspection unless a concern raised during the documentary check triggers such an inspection.
We are also focused on ensuring that the border control post infrastructure, which we will have in place for equines that must come through one, works as well as it can for the animals and their requirements. It is intended that the existing airport BCPs will be supplemented with Government-run BCPs at Holyhead and at Sevington in Kent, which will have the additional impact of assisting animals transferring from the island of Ireland and our friends in Northern Ireland. We are confident that we will have sufficient infrastructure, given the planned exemption for high-health horses, but we will continue to test that position over the intervening months.
We have already been fortunate to have had the benefit of the expertise within the industry to help to shape the physical design of the equine facilities at Sevington, and we have made many adaptations because of that advice. That co-design will undoubtedly make the site more effective in the way it operates. We hope to continue that joint work to test and challenge the operational procedures at the border control post in relation to the way horses travel to the site and are handled and inspected. Of course, that will be an area of focus for our work over the coming months.
We continue to welcome the open and supportive dialogue that we have with the sport horse industry. I again thank the hon. Member for North Shropshire for securing the debate. This is an important set of issues, and I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss them.
Question put and agreed to.
Social Cohesion and Democratic Resilience: Khan Review
(6 months, 3 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
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Khan Review on threats to social cohesion and democratic resilience.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Mark. I am grateful for the opportunity to talk about this important topic. The UK’s democracy is the oldest and most established in the world. We have set an example for countless countries to follow. Brave men and women from these islands and the Commonwealth fought and died in defence of the values that have shaped our great nation. However, as the Khan review sets out, we cannot get complacent. Advancing our democracy and ensuring that it is safe requires constant vigilance.
In the United Kingdom, Europe, the United States and further afield, democracy sadly continues to be under threat. Elected representatives in this country are being threatened like never before. This year we have seen MPs from across the political divide intimidated and threatened by extremists intent on tearing apart our democratic framework. Very tragically, in the past decade alone we have seen two Members of Parliament, Jo Cox and Sir David Amess, killed by the far right and an Islamist terrorist respectively.
Across the western world we have seen a shocking rise in antisemitism and anti-Jewish hate in the wake of the 7 October terrorist attacks committed by Hamas. In the UK specifically, the House of Commons Library notes that police forces in Manchester, Yorkshire, the west midlands and Merseyside reported an increase in antisemitism. I am horrified by reports that the Jewish community are scared to visit the capital city of this country and that Jewish schoolchildren are hiding badges on their school uniforms for fear of being discriminated against.
In Stoke-on-Trent we have seen very real threats to our own democracy and social cohesion. At a recent fundraising event for Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire’s Conservative police and crime commissioner candidate Ben Adams, protestors hijacked a local Conservative party dinner in Shelton. Some protestors were known to have been supporters of Hizb ut-Tahrir, which the Government have now rightly proscribed as a terrorist group. They managed to enter the facility, threatening local activists and behaving aggressively in the presence of children of the attendees. That is a clear example of malign actors threatening social cohesion. They are capitalising on tensions and unrest caused by events in the middle east to push their dangerous and divisive agenda at home.
As the Khan review points out, “freedom-restricting harassment” is threatening social cohesion and testing our democracy like never before. When the Prime Minister stood on the steps of Downing Street on 1 March this year, he made it clear that we have seen
“a shocking increase in extremist disruption and criminality.”
That is why the Khan review is both timely and necessary. The geopolitical environment has become increasingly unstable and unpredictable, which exacerbates the threat of social media to social cohesion. The tragic events of 7 October, when Hamas committed the worst pogrom since the holocaust, have presented us with an immense challenge.
On reading the Khan review, I was deeply concerned that the continuing activity of far-right and Islamist groups poses serious challenges to cohesion when they capitalise on the backdrop of geopolitical instability to stir division. These malign groups have sophisticated networks. Community spaces such as gyms are used as a recruiting ground, and vulnerable young people are targeted. If we want to tackle these challenges head on, we must be prepared to consider the findings of the Khan review and work constructively to deliver social cohesion once again.
On the steps of 10 Downing Street in March, the Prime Minister stated:
“Immigrants who have come here have integrated and contributed.”
I see that at first hand in Stoke-on-Trent, where we have a thriving migrant community who work in our NHS, schools and other civic institutions. However, our city’s multi-ethnic and multifaith community is being deliberately undermined by forces intent on tearing us apart.
Far-right organisations play on people’s real concerns about the economic impacts of migration to make the case for their narrow-minded and nationalistic worldview. In the same way, radical Islamist groups will use fear to stoke up division in favour of their nihilistic worldview and argue that institutions set out to undermine minorities’ personal freedoms and individual liberties. Soaring immigration levels currently make it virtually impossible for people to properly integrate into British society, and with huge unrest in our streets we cannot build a more cohesive society built around British values like democracy, the rule of law, respect, tolerance and individual liberty unless we control the number of people coming in from overseas.
As the Khan review points out, cities like Stoke-on-Trent will fall through the gap if there is no coherent approach to national security. That demonstrates the urgent need for stronger borders, which will help to facilitate social integration and stop malign groups exploiting the immigration question to push their divisive agenda. In April 2023, the deputy director of Prevent, Katherine Elsmore, informed me that Stoke-on-Trent City Council would no longer receive money to deliver Prevent strategies in Stoke-on-Trent; the Khan report suggests it would be useful to revisit that decision. My hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) and for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) and I have written jointly to the Home Secretary to make that case.
While I have time, it is worth while to put on the record what we believe to be the arguments for reintroducing Prevent funding in the city. First, as outlined in Dr Khan’s review, the far right puts social cohesion at serious risk in the city. Groups such as Combat 18 and Stoke-on-Trent Infidels always seek to exploit domestic and international instability to suit their own ends. In 2002, the city elected its first councillor from the banned far-right British National party, and by 2009 had nine BNP councillors. I am proud that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South led the fightback against them in the city, to offer a true centre-right conservatism option on the table. That led to the final expulsion of those extremists, and therefore allowed proper centre-right debate, alongside our colleagues in the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties and others, who are much more in the mainstream of party politics.
Alongside the clear threat of far-right extremism, radical Islamist groups also have a footprint in the city. The starkest reminder of that to me was when Usman Khan stabbed Jack Merritt and Saskia Jones on London Bridge near Fishmongers’ Hall in November 2019, tragically taking their innocent lives. Sadly, that terrorist was born and grew up in Stoke-in-Trent and Staffordshire, where he had links to Islamist groups such as al-Qaeda and al-Muhajiroun, which has close links to Anjem Choudary, the face of militant Islamism and Islamic extremism in Britain. Given that 80% of counter-terrorism police networks’ live investigations are of Islamist terrorism, it is vital that we remain vigilant to the threat of other people who could be influenced by divisive and malign actors.
Earlier in the year, I welcomed the Home Secretary’s proscription of Hizb ut-Tahrir as a terrorist organisation. That vile antisemitic organisation encourages terrorism and praises the abhorrent terrorist attacks by Hamas on 7 October. Given that that vile group has a strong footprint in Stoke-on-Trent, where it runs local gyms and community centres, I fully support the Prime Minister’s decision to ban it. Sadly, that heinous group seeks to use events in the middle east to argue against values that underpin the UK as the world’s most successful multi-faith and multi-ethnic society.
To me, all that suggests that Prevent should review its decision to suspend funding for Stoke-on-Trent, because there is a clear threat to democracy and the rule of law from malign actors, from the far right and radical Islam, that needs attention in our city. Given that Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke have historically had some of the lowest turn-out rates for general elections in the UK, it is of paramount importance to help to ensure that people have trust in democracy, as well as in those who are elected to represent them. In part, that is about core issues such as levelling up so that people in our industrial heartlands no longer feel they are being left behind when competing with other areas, like London and the south-east.
The Khan review makes it clear that the financial vulnerability of one in five councils across the UK means that
“the potential impact on social cohesion in the short and long term could be destabilising to our country.”
Without doubt, that makes the case for levelling up, in respect of which we need continued investment, as we have seen recently in the Potteries, to improve socioeconomic conditions and regenerate areas that fall behind. Alongside boosting local economies and getting more people into work, we need to ensure that we have systems in place to stop people being influenced by malign groups that are intent on undermining our way of life.
The Khan review makes it clear that prevention is
“far more effective than cure”.
Given the unprecedented threats posed to democracy and social resilience, I urge the Minister to ensure that Prevent is aware of the new challenges that Stoke-on-Trent faces, so that we can help to promote social cohesion in the Potteries. The review makes it clear that it is essential have a co-ordinated approach to support vulnerable people in areas such as Stoke-on-Trent. That involves rejuvenating the local economy so that people feel the Government are supporting them, and having adequate systems in place to ensure that people from all faiths and ethnic groups believe in our democracy and play a role in it.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Mark. I thank the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) for leading this debate on an issue that is so important in modern society. It is also important that the lines on unity and solidarity do not become blurred.
I am blessed to represent my constituency of Strangford. We are a multicultural community. We have welcomed many people from Latvia, Lithuania and Poland, and in particular from Ukraine, as well as from Bangladesh, over the last number of years. Also, under the Government’s scheme for Syrian refugees we took in a number of Syrian families. Those families have integrated into Newtownards with a real positivity, and the people of Ards and Strangford have embraced them as well.
Last Friday night I was invited to attend an event in St Patrick’s hall, which is a Roman Catholic chapel hall up on the north shore in Newtownards. There is a very strong Indian diaspora in my area. I never realised how big it was until Friday night. More than 100 people are part of it, all of whom live in Newtownards. Every one of those people is here with a visa and the status that they have to have, and they contribute to our health sector in the hospitals in Ards and throughout Ulster, including the Royal Victoria Hospital in Belfast. I make that comment because I see lots of positivity at the same time; it is not all negative.
I will give three examples. They do not necessarily embrace my constituency but do embrace the situation in Northern Ireland. I think they clearly illustrate what the hon. Gentleman referred to and the problems that arise. But last Friday was a wonderful occasion for us all, including elected representatives, to come together and have a really good and fun time. I cannot remember an occasion when I have laughed as much in a long time. It was wonderful and that is what communities can do if they come together.
At the same time, across the UK and indeed globally there are so many democracies and communities that face internal polarisation, so it is great that we can look at the Khan report and apply it to modern society, in order to assess what more can be done to ensure that all opinions are represented.
A large majority of the public—85%—believe that freedom-restricting harassment currently occurs in the UK, with 60% believing that the problem is worse than it was five years ago. I see a change in society and I am not quite sure whether covid was the main reason, but it was certainly part of it, when people were able to make comments at a distance, and interaction and social engagement were lost to a certain degree. Some 44% of people have witnessed freedom-restricting harassment online, and 44% say they have witnessed it in person, so there is something difficult in society. The issue the hon. Gentleman has brought forward is about social cohesion and democratic resilience, and it is really important that we try to encourage those things and do not dwell on the divisions.
There is absolutely no doubt that social media plays a massive role in the opinions that are gathered and eventually expressed, which often provoke controversy in society, and there is no doubt that a conversation must be had regarding people’s disillusionment with democracy and about how we can restore confidence in it. I think that is what the hon. Gentleman is seeking to achieve. Hopefully after the shadow Minister—the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist)—and others have spoken, the Minister can give us some encouragement about the Government’s way forward to try to make the situation better and to engage people in society.
We had a debate in Westminster Hall yesterday on assisted dying—or assisted suicide as I call it, and as many others also call it, by the way. I have a very clear opinion on that; other people have a very different but clear opinion on it. What I think we need, and what I always seek to achieve, is that we at least respect each other’s viewpoints. “Agree to differ” is the terminology that I often use, because it is not always good to dwell on the things that we disagree on, and we must at least be respectful and understanding.
There are two main dimensions to social cohesion: the sense of belonging in a community and the relationships with others in that community. The event on Friday night was an example of what we can do if we commit ourselves. There has been a natural shift in societal norms, which is welcome, but those who hold what are seen as traditional opinions or conservative views, like me and many of my constituents, feel that they no longer have a right to express them—that it is no longer acceptable or welcome. I have tried all my life to be respectful of other people. I do it in this House—I never attack anybody in this Chamber or the main Chamber. I try to respect people, and even if I do not agree with them and they do not agree with me, we have an understanding of how to do things.
Everyone has the right to express their belief in a rational and respectful manner. In Northern Ireland, we recently discussed changes to the relationships and sex education curriculum. The legislation was passed here, and the Northern Ireland Secretary then reflected that in Northern Ireland. We expressed a lot of concern about how that was done, but now that the Assembly is up and running again we can, I hope, move forward. Last week, we discussed changes to the RSE curriculum proposed by the Alliance party, which many parents feel incredibly unsettled about; so many people have written or emailed me, expressing their concerns. A meeting was held to inform and discuss the issue with those parents, and Eóin Tennyson MLA of the Alliance party summarised the Let Kids Be Kids campaign as a
“disgusting dog-whistle to the far-right”—
a disgraceful comment. We are not, and my constituents are not, on the far right. They are parents who have concerns about their children’s education and teaching, and care about our opinions. I want to put that on the record, because the number of parents who have emailed me to express their concerns has been incredible.
I had a staff member sit in on the meeting and listen to every word that was said, and I can assure the public that those who have such concerns are not far right. They are parents, they are carers, who are invested in protecting the innocence of children, as is their right. I would expect every parent to do that with zest and enthusiasm, as they have a commitment to protect their children. The fact that freedom of speech allows those people to be called far right shows how far wrong we have gone.
The threat from extremism has been growing for many years, and what has been described as the pervasiveness of extremist ideology in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on Israel on 7 October 2023 has highlighted the need for further action. At the outbreak of the Israel-Palestine conflict, I received calls and emails to my office about an incident that occurred at the city hall in Belfast. I remember it well. I reported it to the police; I was on to the police on a number of occasions about it. I say this because it is an example of how evil and wicked some people are in their intentions. There were pictures and videos going around on social media of Lasair Dhearg activists—those of a nationalist opinion—projecting on to city hall an image of Hamas fighters paragliding into Israel, alongside the words “smash the Zionists”. I think it was wrong, and I made a number of complaints about it. I contacted the Police Service of Northern Ireland to ensure that they took action to detain those involved and ensure that those who displayed those inflammatory comments on Queen’s University, the city hall in Belfast and other places were held accountable for their actions.
Some people displayed on the city hall the statement “From the river to the sea”. We all know what that means. That means death to Jewish people—death to Israeli people. That, I believe, is inflammatory; I believe that the police needed to take action. To be fair, the police did immediately take action, but the fact that it was allowed to happen in the first place—to the annoyance, the anger of many of my constituents who were in Belfast doing their shopping, and other people from my party as well—was outrageous.
I raised that issue with the PSNI, and a section of the Jewish community contacted local representatives stating that the antisemitic language frightened them. So that is the society we have. When the hon. Gentleman brought forward the debate, he did so for a purpose: to factually and evidentially record the things that are happening. I have recorded those two things because I think it is important from the point of view of how my constituents feel.
To conclude, those are just a few examples of how democratic resilience can be improved—yes, it can be improved—and how we can improve social cohesion to ensure that people feel protected within their communities. I look to the Minister, who is a genuine man and who has the same impression as the rest of us, to try to make people’s lives better and to have a society where we can live together in such a way that we do not have to fight or be antagonised. I look to him for the reassurance that he will do his best, as I know he will, to ensure that all forms of rational and respectable opinion are upheld within society. I look forward to the contributions by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Blaydon, who is a dear friend of mine—she knows that—and others to the debate.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Mark, and to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend and city colleague the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) on securing this important debate.
The Khan review is welcome, and we can all be grateful to Dame Sara Khan for the considered work she has done. I am grateful to her for taking the time to visit Stoke-on-Trent and speak with community groups and various organisations in our city. Also, she has spent a considerable amount of time meeting MPs, including myself, for which I am grateful. She has helped shine a light on some of the serious challenges we face around social cohesion and countering extremism. There is much to agree with in her report and much to support in her recommendations, but there are also points that need to be raised and highlighted for the sake of further clarity, and that is what I intend to do in my remarks.
I echo my hon. Friend’s words about the foolhardy cessation of funding for Prevent and its work in our city of Stoke-on-Trent. That followed the previous removal of counter-extremism support. The report makes it clear that:
“Without such support, places like Stoke fall through the gaps despite the permissive extremism environment and harm it is causing to the city.”
It is not nice to have to say that our city still needs the close attention of Prevent. It would be wonderful to say that Prevent’s job was done and dusted, but the reality is that there are those in the city who reject our liberal, western, democratic values. Worst of all, there are those who have been prepared to act on their hatred by engaging in, or attempting to engage in, murderous terror. I am very concerned about the robustness of the decisions taken by the Home Office and how it is prioritising resources across the country.
Sadly, we have seen both Islamic extremism and far-right extremism in Stoke-on-Trent. Hizb ut-Tahrir and al-Muhajiroun have been active in some communities in Stoke-on-Trent, radicalising young people and attempting to spread their perverse view of religion. That is why it is welcome to see the Government take action recently to proscribe Hizb ut-Tahrir, and I hope they will continue to closely monitor those who are now seeking to get around the proscription and continuing such activities under another guise.
There is also a history in the city of far-right activism, with the BNP, the English Defence League and a number of other organisations that my hon. Friend mentioned, which has in some cases resulted in the permeation of more serious radicalisation. In 2010, we saw attempts to blow up the City Central Mosque. Fortunately, those attempts were stopped, but that demonstrates an undercurrent of extremism that the far right has propagated.
Concerningly, we have seen attempts from extremist groups to undermine and control our democratic systems. Cases have been reported of Islamic extremists attempting to discourage participation and interfere with elections. With the far right, as my hon. Friend mentioned, we saw the BNP get up to nine councillors in 2008-9. The reason for their electoral success was their exploiting the political vacuum left by a declining Labour party. Many hundreds, indeed thousands, of voters in Stoke-on-Trent felt that voting BNP was the only way to make the main political parties listen to those voters’ mainstream concerns. Of course, the BNP was only too keen to take advantage of that situation. Our city felt forgotten and left behind. People felt that they were being told they were wrong to be proud to be British. They felt that a metropolitan and globalist London elite was sneering at traditional working-class communities. I am glad to say that we have won those voters back to mainstream politics, and we must keep those voters with mainstream concerns within mainstream politics.
I know that Dame Sara has expressed concern about the mainstreaming of extremism. There are concerns that engaging with extremist groups or individuals gives them legitimacy. She also highlighted a number of serious concerns about freedom-restricting harassment. It is particularly concerning that the report suggests that this problem is getting worse, stating that 60% of people feel that the problem is worse than it was five years ago.
I would like also to see more of a focus on what, for want of a better turn of phrase, I am going to call “extreming of the mainstream”. This is something that my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford, I think, was touching on, where we see the alienation of hard-working, patriotic communities. It is not extreme to want to hear “Rule, Britannia” at the Last Night of the Proms, or to sing it when and wherever you like in the UK. It is not extreme to fly the St George’s cross or to have an England flag tattoo. Rather, it is extreme to want to ban “Rule, Britannia”. It is extreme to want to ban the flag of England. And yet we all know that there are attempts to chip, chip away at our shared icons, heroes and ways of life.
The same can be said for religion. It should not be considered extreme to have strongly held religious beliefs, whether Christian, Muslim or of any other religion. Most faith is about peace, tolerance and respecting others. We have often seen faith communities throughout north Staffordshire come together in the toughest of times, when this cohesion is challenged, resisting fundamentalists and calling out those who attempt to cause and sow division.
I am glad that the Cass report has also brought public debate about life-altering medical interventions for minors back to the mainstream place of sanity and biological objectivity. It was beyond bizarre that it took legal action to determine that Maya Forstater was worthy of respect in a democratic society for her perfectly mainstream recognition of biological reality. That is an area in which I would like further clarity. The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has already said that of course “gender-critical” and, indeed, non-voluntary trans activist voices would not be affected by the definition of extremism. However, if a new body is created to report back on extremism annually, and to promote cohesion and so on, what is to stop that body becoming another national institution that is captured by those with extreme views of their own, which it wants to present and push as being mainstream and anti-hate? I hope we can hear how that will be safeguarded against.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North said, the UK is one of the most open, multicultural and freedom-loving countries in the world. The rule of law, religious freedom and free speech are some of our core democratic British values. However, we cannot take these values for granted, especially at a time when we see these values under increasing threat around the world. Democracy is fragile. We must redouble our efforts to protect our shared values and democratic rights, and we must see robust action against those who threaten to undermine or suppress our way of life—something I have made very clear to Staffordshire police and others.
In conclusion, I welcome the important review and I look forward to hearing further from the Minister how the next steps will be taken. We must be wary of extremes, particularly those that bring violence with them, and we must also be wary of attempts to paint the mainstream as extreme, because doing so pushes mainstream voters into the arms of extremists.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I congratulate the hon. Member on Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) for securing this important debate.
Our democracy faces significant challenges threatening social cohesion and wellbeing, with the rise of extremes on all sides, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) outlined. The rampant spread of dangerous conspiracy theories and disinformation, alongside unregulated technological advances in artificial intelligence, pose a direct threat to our democratic ability and stability. Additionally, as we have seen in more recent times, politics and politicians at large, across the globe, have utilised populism to boost their own political gains at the expense of minority communities and those on the receiving end of their political attacks.
The Khan review uncovers a phenomenon of freedom-restricting harassment, where individuals are coerced into self-censorship through abuse and intimidation. That harassment is reported as suppressing the freedom of expression of individuals. Eighty-five per cent of the public acknowledge its presence in the UK and 60% perceive it to be worsening over the years. The report highlights a link between the erosion of democratic resilience and the absence of a national strategic framework.
The recommendations in the report for protecting victims of harassment and incitement are welcome and to be encouraged, as is the recommendation for a new independent office for social cohesion that genuinely works, in good faith, to balance the rights and freedoms of all with the need for social cohesion across the United Kingdom. In addition, schools should be safe havens for learning, free from intimidation. I therefore also support the review’s proposal for buffer zones around schools, to curb protests and provide support for staff and students. However, while aspects of the report are welcome, it completely ignores the role that the Government are playing in breaking down social cohesion in this country.
The recent statement by the Secretary of State, Michael Gove, on a proposed new definition of extremism is concerning, particularly due to the approach that he presents, which targets Muslim groups. On one hand, the Government acknowledge there is a problem with social cohesion and people policing their ideas and opinions. On the other hand, we have a Secretary of State targeting Muslim organisations and dangerously labelling them as extremists without an evidence-based approach or any right to appeal.
In addition, the Secretary of State fuelled speculation in the media that he would label the Muslim Council of Britain as an extremist organisation. He also took away funding from the Inter Faith Network and its work because a member of tits board was linked to the Muslim Council of Britain. The irony is that an interfaith charity that champions the work of social cohesion had to close down because the Government ended its funding—the same Government who acknowledge we have an issue with social cohesion.
It gets worse. The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology used her position to target a professor over her support for Palestine by wrongfully accusing her of extremism. The result was the taxpayer footing a bill for £34,000 to pay for the price of the right hon. Lady’s libellous attack. Let us not forget that a former Home Secretary tried to silence hundreds of thousands of genuine people demonstrating for a ceasefire in Palestine by labelling the protests as “hate marches”.
Do the Government want to be part of a solution, fixing social cohesion, or part of the problem? The evidence is stacked on the latter. It is difficult to look at top Conservative figures today and not find someone who is actively working to damage social cohesion in this country. Seriously—how can we advocate for social cohesion in the UK with Susan Hall as the Conservative candidate for Mayor of London? The Conservative nominee for Mayor of London embodies a hard-right politics profoundly disconnected from the essence of London, its diversity and its values. She endorses Donald Trump, Boris Johnson and Suella Braverman. She perceives London’s diversity as a weakness. Susan Hall spouts Islamophobic tropes that have stirred up division and hatred against Muslims. She likes tweets about Enoch Powell, and a tweet by Katie Hopkins describing Sadiq Khan as “the Mayor of Londonistan”.
Susan Hall is actively involved in Facebook groups sharing antisemitic, white supremacist content and racially charged threats against Sadiq Khan. That is the Tory mayoral candidate for London. The election is only a few days away, yet the Government want to lecture people on social cohesions and the impact it has on society, and the Tory candidate for London epitomises the very definition of divisiveness.
I am a proud Bradfordian, a proud Muslim, and a proud Member of the British Parliament. When we talk about community cohesion, there are vulnerabilities that Dame Sara Khan references—the issues of job security, and the issues that make communities feel threatened, and people feel otherised. These issues require people to know that they matter, that they belong, and that people care. Instead, what we have is senior people like the former Home Secretary and the former Prime Minister who compared women to letterboxes and other things. As a result of his column, there has been a 335% increase in attacks against Muslims. I associate myself with the comments that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North made about antisemitism, but I add to that the increase in Islamophobia. That is led right from the top.
When we are elected, we as politicians are expected to lead with authenticity, with congruence, with leadership that unites people. The definition of cohesion is sticking together, working together, tackling problems, and mutual support for positive futures. That is the definition of community cohesion, but is that the rhetoric we get from the Tory Benches? No, it is not. The Government need to understand the role they have played to get to the point where this report was even needed. I have been in this House since 2015— I just started my 10th year —and it is a slippery slope every year, pandering to hard-right narratives, with Members of Parliament having to apologise to the Leader of the Opposition because they have retweeted far-right conspiracies.
I get it—I completely get it. I understand why MPs ask whether a career in politics is worth it, because of the abuse we get. People are stepping down in this place, but that did not start on 7 October, and the conversation about the ceasefire—that started when Brexit was happening. That started when people in this place and the media were perpetuating headlines about people being traitors, and there was no response from the Government then. There was no condemnation then, when all those things were happening, yet here we are, with this whole review, and the Minister will stand up and say how committed the Government are, when they cannot tackle the rot from their own Front Benchers to temper their language or epitomise leadership, walk the walk and show what it looks like to lead. We certainly have not had that from the Government.
I will simply finish on this. It is not just about the issue of the mayoral election going on in London right now. Social cohesion is imperative for Great Britain, but that means leadership, and calling out people like the former Prime Minister who rubbed shoulders in America with Steve Bannon, who said, “Tommy Robinson is our hero”. Tommy Robinson is putting out videos of him fixing his tie in the House of Lords—people like that, entertained in our Palaces! That is why we have to fix social cohesion. The message comes right from the top, from the media, and from social media platforms. I am afraid that this Government certainly do not do that. It is important that the Government learn the lesson, lead by example, and do not preach something that they do not practise themselves.
Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)
Thank you. Before I bring in the Front Bench spokespeople, I remind Members that referring to other Members by name is not correct. They should use their title, ministerial positions or whatever role they occupy in the House.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark, and I thank the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) for securing this important debate.
Dame Sara Khan’s report does not make for easy reading, but it is vital that we tackle extremism and radicalisation head on. I hope the Government will take this opportunity to reflect, and to consider how we can work constructively to build more cohesive, resilient communities. At its heart, this is about how we as a society live well together. It is not only a matter of security, but a matter of public health, and speaks to our fundamental wellbeing.
I thank all those who have contributed to the debate. We heard from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis), who talked about the importance of the review; from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who looked the experience of his own constituency, and talked about the importance of democratic resilience and social cohesion; and from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton), who also talked about the Khan report and the situation in his constituency. Finally, we heard a very spirited speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah), who talked about the importance of language and how people speak about things, as well as the need for a national strategy. She also discussed Islamophobia, and, in a very passionate speech, said that the Government needed to walk the walk.
To say that this has been a challenging period for our communities would be an understatement. We continue to see the impact of the ongoing conflict in Gaza on community relations. Meanwhile people are finding it tough to make ends meet, and our public services have been struggling. The Khan review’s position on this point is clear: these difficulties risk undermining our social contract, fuelling disillusionment with our democratic system, and allowing extremism, disinformation, and conspiracy theories to take root. The House can, and should, work together to tackle these serious issues, and the Minister can be assured that my party is ready and willing to engage in good faith with these discussions. We are here to represent our constituents, and we should come together to reject extremists who seek to undermine these efforts.
That involves recognising the shortcomings in the Government’s work on this to date. As the Khan review clearly outlines, those shortcomings have left local authorities to deal with the fallout following the most challenging incidents of community conflict. We must remember that it is councils that are dealing with these issues on the frontline, whether that is fulfilling their statutory duties by organising community safety partnerships and safeguarding boards, or developing more bespoke partnerships in response to local issues. The unprecedented levels of demand that councils currently work with have made it more difficult to carry out the broader upstream work that is desperately needed.
Meanwhile many councillors face appalling levels of abuse and harassment simply for serving their communities. We heard about the impact on Members of Parliament, too, as they go about their work, and how sadly, in two cases, Members have lost their lives. It is imperative that central Government work as a supportive partner with local government on this, providing the space for local authorities and other agencies to come together to share best practice. The reality, as Khan says, is that
“there is no strategic approach within Whitehall’s machinery to deal with these threats to social cohesion and our country’s democratic resilience.”
We have had review after review, and still no sense of where tensions are, how to prevent them, or how to rebuild after conflict. The constant political turbulence certainly has not helped matters. The integrated communities action plan has had some success, but of 70 commitments listed in it, just 14 have been delivered. We were told that the cross-ministerial group responsible would meet every six months, but in the end, it met only once. This is part of a wider pattern: we are still waiting for an update on the hate crimes strategy, promised in 2020, and it seems that the anti-Muslim hatred working group and the antisemitism working group are no longer meeting. I hope that Sara Khan’s review gives the Government an opportunity to refocus and demonstrate the political will needed to make lasting preventive change. Actions speak louder than words. We need to see that this is made a priority.
The review also invokes the Government’s record on housing asylum seekers and the Home Office’s failure to communicate effectively with local authorities before placing asylum seekers in their areas. Shockingly, some local authorities told the reviewer that far-right groups knew about local asylum hotels before they did. We desperately need a new approach, which has to include new strategies on counter-extremism and community cohesion. The Secretary of State has said that the Government will be publishing a more detailed action plan, which will include funding commitments to support organisations on the ground working to build community resilience. I look forward to hearing about the progress made on that, but in the meantime, I want to ask the Minister the following questions.
First, the review is clear that we must take a more proactive approach to community cohesion. That includes learning more about what makes local areas particularly vulnerable or resilient to extremism. Will the Minister say what his Department is doing to address those knowledge gaps? The recruitment of a new Islamophobia adviser continues to be in doubt. Will the Minister shed some light on any progress made on that issue?
Technological innovations have created further challenges in maintaining cohesive communities. What steps is the Minister’s Department taking to tackle new forms of radicalisation, including radicalisation that takes place online? The tensions that we are currently seeing are playing out at all levels of our society, including in our classrooms. What discussions has the Minister had with colleagues in the Department for Education about providing the support that teachers need to manage difficult conversations? Finally, can he tell us whether the Government have given up on refreshing the hate crime action plan?
Social cohesion is not a “nice to have”. If we do not show leadership and support local authorities to address concerns within their communities, extremists will fill the void. We must start thinking about how we approach proper preventive work that engages communities, rather than waiting for flashpoints to occur. I hope we can work together on these most fundamental issues.
The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety (Lee Rowley)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I begin by thanking all hon. Members. In particular, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) for securing the debate, for opening it in such a temperate and balanced fashion, and for asking some immensely reasonable questions relating to his own community and, more broadly, the importance that we all attach to ensuring that social cohesion is strengthened across the country and that we make progress on this hugely important agenda.
The first thing to say is that the battle against extremism and the rise of extremist ideology across our country is something that everyone here cares passionately about, as all hon. Members who have spoken today have articulated. In particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North powerfully underlined in his opening speech the need to counter the spread of extremist beliefs among young people in our schools, the importance of confronting issues when young people fall victim, the importance of the Prevent programme to ensure that communities are cohesive and strengthened and, more broadly, the importance that, as a Government and a country, we must attach to making progress on these hugely important issues over time.
That is one of the reasons why we commissioned the Khan review, why we gave Dame Sara Khan the space, the time and the support to look at these matters in the round, and why we welcomed the publication of her report a number of weeks ago. She was charged with examining these issues in greater depth, to investigate the scale, the causes and the impact of extremism in local communities, and to provide insights into how we can build resilience to better support those involved, local authorities and civil society.
As a number of Members have said, the report outlined some of the challenges we face, not because of decisions that the Government have made—I will come back to the point that the hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) made in a moment—but, if we are going to have a mature debate about this, because of long-term issues that are impacting western democracies across the world and will impact this democracy whoever is in power. As a consequence, the hon. Lady should be careful about some of the statements that she makes. Those who seriously want to make progress will deal with the issues in front of them rather than calling others who are involved in the conversation names.
The report highlighted particular issues around disinformation, harassment and intimidation; the climate of self-censorship that hon. Members have outlined, not just among people in this place or associated with politics, but across all walks of life; a wider disillusionment with democracy that is starting to seep into parts of our civic society; and decreasing trust in politics, particularly among the young. All of that aggregates to create a vacuum that extremism and extremist ideology can fill.
The Government very much welcome Dame Sara Khan’s work and we thank her for it. We wholeheartedly agree that democracy is a precious asset. That is a view that all of us in this place—right hon. and hon. Members who have the privilege of representing communities up and down the land in Parliament—would share.
The report shines a light on some fundamental gaps in our system, and it clearly sets out Dame Sara’s view of what the Government should do to address those flaws. As has been articulated, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities recently set out measures that will ensure that the Government do not inadvertently provide a platform to those who want to subvert our democracy and deny other people’s fundamental rights. That is just the first of a series of steps the Government will take in the coming weeks and months to tackle extremism and protect our democracy, including the publication of a full response to the Khan review before the summer break. While I am not able to go into the details at this stage, we have committed to publishing a response to the review in the weeks ahead.
I want to turn to some of the individual points that hon. Members have made. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North raised a number of hugely important points about the need to ensure cohesion, and drew upon the experience that he and his colleagues in Stoke-on-Trent have over the long term. I wholeheartedly endorse many of those points.
My hon. Friend has a specific concern with regard to Prevent funding. He will be aware that I am unable to speak absolutely about Prevent funding from the perspective of the Department that I represent, but he indicated that he has written to the Home Office, and I will certainly make sure that, yet again, those points are telegraphed to my equivalents in the Home Office. I recognise that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton), and those involved in Stoke-on-Trent politics in general, feel very strongly about that.
I understand that part of the restructuring of the Prevent funding was about regionalising some elements of the funding, and there are still elements of the support that are available to all local authorities. I understand—at least from the notes that I have been given, accepting that I am not the lead for Prevent—that Stoke-on-Trent City Council may not have taken advantage of all the support that is available. I know that my hon. Friends will make sure that the council does that if it has not done so already, recognising the very valid points that they made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South outlined in even more detail the very long-term challenges that were created with the rise of some of these extremist ideologies in his home town, the time and effort that it took to try to beat those back, and all the work that was done to do so. He rightly highlighted the importance of giving space to very mainstream views that are shared in places such as Stoke-on-Trent, Bradford, the north-east and definitely in my part of Derbyshire. We must not suggest that it is illegitimate to be proud of this country and to celebrate its history, its culture, its institutions, its norms and representations of it. Those who over the past 20 years have tried to diminish those things, remove them and pretend they did not happen—those who suggest they are old-fashioned and have no place in our society—are absolutely wrong and do nothing for community cohesion. They do nothing to build the strength and tolerance that our country has thrived on for many decades.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South is absolutely right: like many others, I may not choose to go to the Proms or to indulge in “Rule, Britannia”, but it is vital that we have a shared understanding of the norms, culture, history, traditions and identity that we share in this country, which have brought us to the place we are today. We should be immensely proud of that.
My hon. Friend highlighted some of the read-overs to other areas. Fundamentally, there is an ideology—postmodernism—that has seeped out of our universities over the past 50 years, and which seeks to dismantle the nation state as a concept. There is absolutely no underpinning logic to it; it is essentially a play—a game, an attempt to twist things—and it does not actually help us build communities. It does not seek to build things up; it seeks only to tear down institutions that have worked so well for centuries on end, and to eliminate the concept of the nation state.
Too many people in this place and elsewhere do not understand the incredibly nefarious effect that postmodernism will have on our society if we are not clear about it. That ideology seeps out of universities, moves into our institutions and infects parts of our public sector, and then moves out into civil society as a whole. It explicitly encourages people to have no shared understanding of our history—it effectively wishes to abolish history—to have no shared lexicon and to play with words to such an extent that reality is completely subverted because we say something is one thing on one day and then pretend it is something else on another. There are entirely arbitrary rules underpinning it, which change based upon the fashion, whoever shouts the loudest, and the time of the day and the day of the week. That is an ideology that will fail, and if we allow it to infect our institutions, our civil society and the work we do in this place and elsewhere, our country will be much weaker, poorer and less able to build the kind of cohesive society that we want.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we have not had a discussion in this place or elsewhere about what we must do. When people play with the building blocks of civic society, words, institutions, basic concepts and shared endeavour, how can we build the kind of cohesive society that we want? Whether it is expressed in a temperate way, like my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent North and for Stoke-on-Trent South did, or in a more emotive way, like the hon. Member for Bradford West did, we have a shared endeavour, but postmodernism absolutely prevents that from happening. We should call it out, stop it and say it has no place in our country and our academic and civil institutions, because it will fail and will lead to a less cohesive society.
Naz Shah
I was just thinking about the Minister’s warning that I should be careful. I am just trying to work this out. There is this idea that we should have a shared history, but we are not teaching our history in its entirety to our children. We are not talking about togetherness. The Minister might want to read the lecture by the first Muslim Cabinet member, the former Tory chairwoman, Baroness Warsi, who talked about the idea that Muslims do not matter. Does the Minister agree that, if we want a cohesive society, language is key, and the message has to come right from the top in 10 Downing Street? Muslims must not be otherised. Does he not include Muslims in that conversation, because it certainly feels like that?
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, because she articulates yet again the care that is required in language and assertions, which has been sadly absent from her contributions to the debate, both a moment ago and previously. Of course Muslims matter. Of course people of all faiths matter. It is frankly outrageous that there is a suggestion that that is not the case. Of course they matter.
Those of us who are trying to build a cohesive society—an endeavour that I know the hon. Member for Bradford West shares—believe that such statements should not be made. They send a message to people who are listening today that, for some reason, there is some kind of fundamental difference and that those of us who have the privilege to sit in this place do not believe in cohesion and want to separate people out on the basis of the skin or the religion they have, and that is fundamentally untrue.
What I find most offensive, most outrageous and most egregious in this culture of grievance that is perpetuated by comments such as the ones put forward a moment ago is the separation of people within our community into backgrounds or experiences or skin colour.
Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)
Order. The Minister talks about being temperate and using temperate language. Could I please remind him to observe that when he makes his comments?
Lee Rowley
With absolute pleasure, Sir Mark. I absolutely intend to do so. As has been outlined, my concern is that it is important that we are very clear and very careful about the language we use, which I have sought to be, and about suggestions as to the motivations of others, which I have sought to be. Equally, it is important that we are robust about calling out cases where that care is not taken. All of us have a responsibility in this place and elsewhere to utilise the best and most careful language, assertions and arguments. Today has been an indication of where that is not occurring in places, and I will come on to that more in a moment.
Lee Rowley
I will make some more progress before doing that.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised a number of important points and made some very strong points about social media. We are all dealing with our interaction with social media, its importance now and its pervasiveness in daily life, as well as with the opportunities and challenges it brings as a whole. The reality is that social media is entirely embedded in our daily lives, in the way it was not even a few decades ago when I was growing up. The situation is extremely different, most obviously for children, who are having to learn how to deal with it as they grow up, but also across society as a whole. That is something we will have to grapple with for the rest of our lives, and it will not be immediately clear for many years exactly what that means. We are all going to have to learn, and to take things extremely carefully, as we try to understand how we ensure that social media is embedded in our life in a way that accentuates the positives and minimises the negatives.
The hon. Member for Strangford also talked about the challenges of cynicism about democracy, and I accept that point as well. From my personal perspective, one of the challenges in recent years is that there has been a baselining of issues in our country that we actually need to debate much more often. The rights that people talk about quite freely—often too freely in many instances—which I support, and which I know everybody in this place and beyond supports, do not just appear; they are not guaranteed.
Lee Rowley
I will give way in a moment. Those rights are hard won and hard fought for—people have died for them—and we must continually repeat and confirm that in order to ensure that people recognise that these rights are not automatic. All of us involved in politics and the political process have work to do. The situation we are in, including the relatively benign environment we have grown up in, and our right, when we go home to our respective communities, to have the kind of debates and discussions we want, need to be nurtured. If they are not, they wither on the vine; they ossify, and they do not work. We cannot get away from this principle—this indulgence—that if we do not accept that all of that is built on the concept of the nation state, the United Kingdom and the values our country has, ultimately it will not work in the long run.
Naz Shah
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He is right, and everybody has that right, including me. I represent the great people of Bradford West, and 60% of my constituency is Muslim, as I myself am. I find it really offensive that the Minister is offended that I am stating facts. I am demonstrating that the Government are not walking the walk when delivering on their so-called cohesion policies or their so-called attempts to deliver equality. In fact, I am even more offended at any suggestion that my interventions are about a grievance narrative, when they are actually all about Muslims just wanting equality. We are not talking about special treatment; nobody in my constituency wants special treatment. What they do want—will the Minister give it and agree?—is equality.
Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)
Order. Interventions are meant to be short.
Lee Rowley
I thank the hon. Lady, who makes some of my case for me. However, turning to her comments, I agree with some of what she says. It is important that we build a shared understanding and a shared set of values in this country. I agree that we should be temperate with language. Where she has called out inappropriate behaviour—I do not agree with all her points—I accept that no party is perfect. I accept that some of my colleagues will have made mistakes. I accept that some words have been looser than they should have been.
However, I hope the hon. Lady will accept that that is not limited to my party or to the Government—there have been multiple examples. However, if we just trade off on the basis of who said what where, or make some kind of case that one political party is worse than the other, when we know that they have all had significant issues with community relations over many years—only one party got into the place it did with regard to antisemitism a number of years ago—we will be much poorer in the debate about this issue.
The hon. Member for Bradford West referenced facts, and I am happy to talk about some of the challenges around the facts she provided a moment ago. She knows that the Inter Faith Network’s funding was withdrawn because of a decision to appoint somebody who had a background in a particular organisation—that was a choice that the organisation made, and it appointed that person. The policy of non-engagement with the Muslim Council of Britain has been in place since the Labour party was in power. Indeed, it was the former Labour Member for Salford—the Secretary of State in the predecessor to my Department—who started that policy of non-engagement with the Muslim Council of Britain in 2009, which my party continues to this day. It is perfectly logical to extend a policy that was introduced and endorsed by the Labour party, on the basis of logic put forward by the Labour party, because of the challenges that we now have. The hon. Member for Bradford West shakes her head, but those are the facts on the assertion that she made.
Lee Rowley
I am afraid I will make progress. I have given way a number of times.
The hon. Member for Bradford West made a number of comments about populism and raised a number of concerns about extremism and its definition. When she next speaks in debates like this, she needs to define the specific issues she has with the definition of extremism, because that was not part of her speech when we strip back all the criticisms about individuals. We can always have a robust debate, but if we want to have a mature one, which the hon. Lady claims she does, it would be better to focus on concerns about the specific definitions the Government are trying to bring forward, and what they do and do not achieve, as opposed to spending much more time talking about individuals.
I will probably leave it there. I have many more things I could say about the hon. Lady’s speech, but maybe it is better to deal with those in another forum at another time. I will just say that I do not agree with much of her speech, and I hope that, in time, she will reflect on many of the points that were made.
Putting aside some of the challenges mentioned in Members’ speeches, and what was contained in at least one of them, I think today has shown that all of us feel extremely passionately about ensuring that we build a society that is cohesive and resilient for the long run, and about seeking to utilise what the Government can do to move forward the things we see in our individual communities, whether that be Stoke-on-Trent, Blaydon, North East Derbyshire, Bradford, Strangford—the hon. Member for Strangford is no longer in his place— or elsewhere. We also want to identify the issues that we need to deal with in the years ahead, which is exactly what the commissioning of the Khan review sought to do.
Despite the robustness of the debate, and despite my fundamental disagreements with some of the points that were made, I think it has been a useful debate and a good debate. Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North for giving us the opportunity and space to have the debate, and I am glad that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South have had the opportunity to raise specific they are concerned about within their great city. I hope that such robust debates—next time, the language will hopefully be slightly more cautious and temperate—highlight the interest and need of everybody, wherever we sit on the political spectrum, in terms of getting this matter right and making progress for the long run, which is something we all want to achieve.
Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)
I call Jonathan Gullis to wind up the debate.
Jonathan Gullis
Thank you, Sir Mark. I thank all Members who took part in this important debate, and I thank the Minister for his words and reflections, particularly on the Prevent funding for Stoke-on-Trent, and for saying that he will pass on our comments to the Home Office. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) and I will continue to push for that additional uplift, to make sure that we can retain that important service.
I want to reflect on a few of the things that have been said. First, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is no longer in his place, should rightly be horrified to antisemitic tropes, words and images projected on to buildings in Belfast, as we sadly saw happen here on Elizabeth Tower. It is completely abhorrent that that kind of thing is taking place, and the police must crack down on it.
I visited the hon. Gentleman’s constituency—in fact, I gave a talk to members of his party, as well as to the wider community—and it was great to be surrounded not only by passionate patriots and Unionists, but by members of the community who have lived side by side. They may have different religious or nationalistic views, but they have ultimately grown up side by side as neighbours, friends and colleagues, and I am immensely proud to see the way that that country has moved forward.
My own stepmother, Janet Harbison, set up the Belfast Harp Orchestra, and a member of her family was once an Irish nationalist Member of this Parliament—as you can imagine, our dinner table can be quite interesting at times. She wanted to take part in the peace process by using culture as a way of bringing the community together, and she faced death threats from the IRA, despite coming from the Republic of Ireland and despite her family’s recent history of representing people wanting a united Ireland at that stage. Even she was targeted, with people sending her images of her younger sister, alongside death threats, letting her know that they knew where her family lived. That was truly shocking.
When Janet married my father, who is half-Irish and half-English by birth, they were targeted with abuse and threats; bomb threats were literally made against them, which saddens me to my core to this day. That meant that I was not able to visit my father as much as I wanted to, purely for my own safety. Rightly, my mother and stepfather, and my father and stepmother, wanted to make sure that I was safe.
That shows how far the country has now come, which is why what happened in Belfast is so sad. To see such things being played out again—although in a different guise, using what is happening the middle east as a background—is very sad indeed for a community that has been divided on the basis of birth or religion.
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South, who is fellow Stokie, although I am obviously an import—my accent gives it away—while he is from there by birth and by breeding. In fact, “Brereton” is all over the bloody roads and in the names of streets, because my hon. Friend’s family were responsible for building many of them in the not-too-distant past. It is great to see him standing up again for the community that we serve, and he is right to do so.
I am proud to wear or wave the St George’s flag, as I am the Union flag. I am proud to say that I am British and English. I am proud to sing “Three lions on a shirt” as much as I am to sing “Rule, Britannia”, which will not come as a shock to the Minister. I am proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with many fine patriots across our great community of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke, 73% of whom voted to leave the European Union in the 2016 Brexit referendum. I appreciate that there were unfair comments, and the hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) talked about people being called “traitors” in this place. I was not in this place at the time, but I of course entirely understand that it would have been completely inappropriate to refer to people in that way.
It is important to understand that there was a groundswell of anger among the public, including people like myself, who voted to leave and who campaigned to leave the European Union. We felt that this place was, sadly, not hearing or representing those views and that others in this place—not the hon. Lady but others, who are no longer here—were pushing the idea that people were somehow thick, uneducated or racist in wanting to see that democratic right delivered. That fed into some of those far-right extremist groups, which were able to proliferate off the back of that.
It has taken a long time to rebuild that trust. These things led to an undermining of our democratic system, which is why 42% of people still chose not to cast a vote in the 2019 general election. That is very sad indeed and was used by groups such as Hizb ut-Tahrir, which actually encouraged people not to take part in the democratic process—sadly, in this case, the Muslim community, in particular.
It is very important that we use the opportunity we have in this place. I taught religious education for eight years in secondary state schools across Birmingham and London, and Islam is a religion of peace. It is stated very clearly that to take one life is effectively to take the lives of all humankind. It is therefore entirely appropriate to make it abundantly clear to extremist groups—those on the far right, but also those in the Islamic community that pursue a twisted perversion of what Islam is actually about—that that is simply wrong and abhorrent. The word “jihad”, which is sadly now used in terrorist atrocities, actually has a very different meaning—that if, God forbid, holy war is required, innocent women and children of all races and faiths are to be left aside, and all religions are to be left in peace. Ultimately, it is only done in the defence of one’s faith—
Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)
Order. Could the hon. Member wind up his speech, rather than start another debate on a related subject?
Jonathan Gullis
I do apologise, Sir Mark. I appreciate the point. As I say, I wanted to make sure that I use this opportunity, because as Members of this place, our words carry a lot of importance. I represent a large Pakistani and Muslim community, and given the recent tensions around what has unfolded in the middle east, its members may feel that I do not advocate their particular view as much as they would like me to. I want to let them know that I do, and I will always stand up for the positive nature of that community and what it has done. Indeed, for the first time in Tunstall, we have seen the election of a member of the Pakistani-British community, Councillor Tabrase Din, who is doing great work on trying to make our streets safer and tackling the backlash in recent times, particularly around extremism.
The hon. Member for Bradford West made an impassioned speech. I would just remind her that political parties across this House have people in them who have done very silly things, and he who is without sin may cast the first stone. I remind her that it was, sadly, the Labour party that was found to have breached or undermined the human rights of those in the Jewish community, in particular. I saw that with my predecessor, Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, who suffered tremendous antisemitism at the hands of extremists, who had, sadly, proliferated in her party. I commend the fact that the Leader of the Opposition has done a lot of work to try to drive that out, despite what we saw recently in the Rochdale by-election.
No party can sit here and say that all its members have been perfect, and we have all seen and needed to call out extremism in all its forms. However, I kindly remind the hon. Member for Bradford West that calling people such as Donald Trump or Boris Johnson extremists is completely wrong and drives the feeling that they need to be marginalised even further. They are mainstream, centre-right politicians who have a view and who were democratically elected by overwhelming majorities in both their nations at different times, and they should be respected, even though we may have political differences about what they did.
It is important that we continue to have this informed debate and that we make sure that all sides of the argument are heard. Most importantly, however, we must allow mainstream views to continue to be held by mainstream parties in a good-quality, good old-fashioned democratic debate, rather than allowing the wider public to feel marginalised, so that they look to the extremist elements of society, thinking that their views will be heard or supported there. It is for us in this place to make sure that people feel that they can be heard and that their views are supported, and we will continue to do that.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the Khan Review on threats to social cohesion and democratic resilience.
Life Sentences: Public Understanding
(6 months, 3 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
Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)
I call Dr Kieran Mullan to move the motion and will then call the Minister to respond. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the member in charge to wind up.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered public understanding of life sentences.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I welcome this opportunity to discuss crime and justice, one of the topics that motivated me to enter politics and that I have focused on in my time as an MP. As the son of a policeman, and having spent time volunteering as a special constable, I am acutely aware of the way that crime can destroy families and upend the lives of decent, law-abiding people. Wanting the victims of crime and their families to benefit from a more just justice system is something that I feel passionately about. I always aim to contribute to the debate and to edge the system in a direction that I think better delivers the justice that it should be set up to deliver. I have spoken before in this place about my concern that all too often the victims of the most serious crimes and their families do not see justice done.
Before I speak about the use of the term “life sentences” specifically, I will set out the background. My time campaigning in this area has taught me that there is what I have described previously as “intellectual snobbery” about people who think that our justice system is at times insufficiently punitive. There are well-meaning and in many respects important groups that lobby hard to make the system less punitive, and nothing that I believe invalidates their arguments or counteracts efforts to deliver reform and rehabilitation of offenders. If such efforts work and overall there are fewer victims of crime, that will be a good thing, but as a Conservative, I believe that we should keep one eye on reality as well as one eye on the ideal future. Criminal behaviour is not going anywhere any time soon, and even the best rehabilitative systems see recalcitrant and very serious offenders.
Also, we have to recognise that, in and of itself, punishing offenders is a public good; in fact, it is recognised in the law as one of the purposes of sentencing. Whether we like to admit it or not, it helps victims and their family and friends to feel that justice has been done, and in the aftermath of a serious crime, whatever comfort we can bring to victims’ families is incredibly important. I would argue that punishment is fundamental to our system. It tells victims and their families that they should not take matters into their own hands, because the justice system will deal with things fairly.
Of course, there are no black-and-white answers stating what that will mean in every case, but almost nobody who argues for less punitive measures would suggest, for example, that a murderer—even one who we could guarantee would not offend again—should spend just four weeks in prison. Nearly everyone accepts that punishment is necessary, and it is easy to suggest outcomes that 99% of people would agree instinctively are too lenient. In the most serious cases, there is in my view a huge—indeed yawning—gap between what most fair-minded people would think constitutes justice and what actually happens.
I am also concerned that the Department itself—the Ministry of Justice—does not sufficiently engage with this issue. That engagement is sometimes missing from impact assessments and policy changes, and perhaps even more worrying is its absence from the MOJ’s own annual report. The focus is on victims’ experiences of the processes of the justice system, which is of course important and to be welcomed, but I think that what most victims and their families want most of all is for justice to be done, and the MOJ has little to say on whether or not the justice system as it stands is actually delivering that. I have suggested before that we could start by at least asking people what they think about this issue, but there has been little appetite for that.
I will never forget what the father of Sarah Everard said when the murderer of his child was sentenced to a whole-life order—a very rare thing in our justice system. He said that it was the only thing that brought him any comfort. I do not think that he would have felt any different if the perpetrator had not been a policeman, even though it was only because the perpetrator was a policeman that a whole-life order was given. I believe that the view that father expressed is common among the families of murder victims.
Because this is a subjective issue, I think that the views of victims’ families and the public at large should act as a powerful and important standard against which we hold ourselves, albeit it should not be the only consideration. I remember discussing this question with Elsie Urry, a lady whose three children were brutally murdered in 1973 by a man who she thought was then sent to prison for the rest of his life, only for him to be released in 2019 when he was considered to be no longer a danger to others.
That brings me on to the use of the term “life sentence”. The first thing we need is transparency about what our justice system is actually delivering. Without it, the public do not necessarily know what is happening, and if they do not know what is happening, politicians will not be held to account properly, which is very unfortunate in a democracy. The focus of my debate is to highlight the fact that, in the current system, what is happening is frequently misreported and misunderstood, giving the impression that our justice system is more punitive than it is, particularly when it comes to the most serious offences.
What is called a life sentence is in fact, in sentencing practice—a sentence of a minimum term of imprisonment, after which there is an opportunity for release with the remainder of the offender’s life spent on licence. But what is actually reported? What do the public get told? I was pleased to be able to explore this issue in more depth in the Justice Committee’s report, “Public opinion and understanding of sentencing”, which states:
“The use by major news outlets of the phrase “jailed for life” when they are not referring to a whole life order is an example of how media coverage risks perpetuating misunderstandings of the law on life sentences among the public. Reporting of sentencing that potentially inflates expectations of how long a person will serve in prison risks damaging public confidence.”
A whole-life order is a term of lifelong imprisonment; it is different from a life sentence.
Since late last year, my office has regularly monitored this issue, and I am afraid that it is not just the media that spreads this misunderstanding. Even more concerning is the fact that police forces and, on one occasion, the Crown Prosecution Service have incorrectly used the phrase “jailed for life” to describe a life sentence. Just today, Nottinghamshire police force released a statement with a headline saying that two murderers had been “jailed for life”. That is simply not true. The two individuals had received life sentences with minimum terms of 16 and 19 years. That is very different from being jailed for life, as we can reasonably expect both of them to be released.
Since October 2023, we have had to contact eight police forces for using the phrase “jailed for life” in their headlines about 13 cases. On six occasions, the police forces in their opening paragraphs failed even to explain the minimum tariff set by the courts, and once a police force failed entirely to mention that there was a minimum tariff. I am pleased to say that three police forces admitted their mistake and subsequently changed their statements after we contacted them, but the majority have not. That matters. People do not always read all the details of a news article, let alone of an official press release from a police force. Every time “jailed for life” is used of someone subject to a life sentence, people get a false impression of what is happening.
I do not want to diminish the many positive things that this Government have done to introduce what I think are fairer punitive elements into the system, not least the big step change away from Labour’s halfway early release to a two-thirds release for the worst offenders, and the introduction of a whole-life order for premeditated child murder. I welcome the planned introduction of whole-life orders when there is a single victim whose murder involved sexual or sadistic conduct, instead of the existing requirement for two victims.
There is much for me to welcome, but I am clear that we must go further on child murder. I think the requirement for significant premeditation is too high a burden, as it excludes, for example, a parent battering their own child to death in a rage. In addition, where multiple offences are involved, our system is too quick to have sentences served concurrently. We have seen this in cases of historical child sex abuse, where there are sometimes dozens of victims and hundreds of offences. Measures need to be in place to impose whole-life orders in some cases of that type.
Such changes are difficult to make. They are expensive changes for the Government, and there is always pressure on prison places. We can hope for success only if people understand how rarely whole-life orders are used, and that life sentences are not in any way comparable, especially given the usual minimum terms. If most people serving a life sentence did in fact spend most or all of the rest of their life in prison, this would be less pressing, but they do not. On average, they serve 20 years.
Some people will argue that the term “life sentence” is accurate because it describes the rest of an offender’s life being served on licence. When we make that argument, however, we risk offending the victims and their families. Families of victims of murder are really serving a life sentence of grief, trauma, and terrible memories of what happened to their loved one. Someone serving their sentence on licence out in the community is basically just being asked to do what all of us are asked to do, which is to not offend. That is a burden that we all face, and I do not see it as in any way equivalent to spending time in prison. None of this is an issue for those familiar with legal jargon, but when a member of the public who is less well informed of what the terminology means reads “jailed for life”, they are being misled.
I am aware of an almost diametrically opposed view of the public understanding of sentencing, though. A commonly made argument is that, broadly, away from the issue of what a life sentence means, the public underestimate sentencing lengths and think we are less punitive than we are. That is undoubtedly driven by media reporting, where journalists, who have a good innate sense of what the public will think is reasonable, are quick to report cases where they sense that that has not happened. Often, however, an unjustified logical step is made by advocates of less punitive approaches: that because of that, we do not need to make the system more punitive. That approach forgets that two things can be true at the same time: people can think our system is less punitive than it is, but they can also think, even when presented with the reality, that it is not punitive enough.
There is another argument based on research in which the public are asked to go through more detailed theoretical cases and sentencing exercises. Studies suggest that people agree with the sentences normally given when they have the full picture. However, almost universally, these exercises look at less serious offending and cases that are full of mitigating circumstances. My focus has always been on the worst and most serious offending. I do not think I have ever seen one of these exercises take someone through the case, for example, of a serial rapist in and out of prison who refuses to engage in behavioural change programs, or of a parent who batters, tortures, neglects and then murders their own child. That leaves me still firmly of the view that, in the most serious cases, the problem of misreporting remains important.
There are things we can do about this. First, as part of the Justice Committee’s inquiry into the public understanding of sentencing, the Committee travelled to Finland and the Netherlands to speak to officials and stakeholders about how they approached reporting sentencing to the public, including the role of media or press judges engaging with the media on reports. The press judges undertake their media duties in addition to their role as a judge, so that when a sentence is handed down, communication with the media is managed by a press judge rather than the sentencing judge. I was not able to be there, but I know the Committee heard that press judges actively engage with the media on public interest cases in particular, even participating in interviews. Committee members also visited the Helsinki District Court, where judges were encouraged to write their own press notices following the passing of a sentence, in order to take the news into their own hands. As a result, early reports on a sentence were often based upon the judge’s press notice, ensuring greater accuracy in initial media accounts of the sentencing decision. That is something we could consider.
Ultimately, we have to accept that the term “life sentence” is at the root of the problem. It is too easily misunderstood and therefore too easily misreported. If terminology is causing a problem, we should change it. We just do not need the term. The judiciary can describe and report what they are doing: passing a minimum term with an opportunity for future release, followed by continuous monitoring on licence. I do not expect extinguishing the term to cause an overnight change. The media and public bodies are used to using it and “jailed for life” is a catchy headline, but over time we could see a change and have a more honest understanding of our judicial system.
It may be that I and those who share my views have no more success in making the case for changes on the matter of substance—the sentences actually being served—but at least we will be making that case in a more honest environment. I am arguing for transparency in sentencing, because I know that that is important to victims of crime and their families, and to the public. I hope the Minister sees the value in that, and will reflect on what I have said and try to find a positive way forward.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Gareth Bacon)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I start by thanking and congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) on securing a debate on this important subject. I commend him on his excellent work supporting victims, bringing these important issues to the attention of parliamentarians, and campaigning for sentencing changes. I completely agree that sentencing fitting the crime and improving public understanding is vital to public confidence in the justice system. As he mentioned, he is an active and engaged member of the Justice Committee, whose vital report, “Public opinion and understanding of sentencing”, I will refer to later in my speech.
A life sentence is the most severe punishment that our courts can impose. It is vital that the public have confidence in sentencing, and are able to understand the circumstances in which sentences are given and how they operate in practice. Our efforts to ensure that the justice system is open and transparent are embedded in the working cultures, procedures and practices of our courts and tribunals; consequently, such considerations will always form part of the ambitions for reforming the justice system.
The availability of judgments and the accessibility of sentencing remarks, including those given in life sentence cases, are key components of the principle of open justice, helping to build understanding and confidence in sentencing. The Sentencing Act 2020 puts a duty on the courts to explain how they have determined the sentence and what the sentence means for the offender.
My hon. Friend has extensive knowledge of the sentencing framework, but it may be helpful if I set out some information on life sentences. Life sentences, which apply to a range of offences, usually have a minimum term, which is set by the court, as my hon. Friend said. This period must be served in prison in full before the offender can be considered for release, at the discretion of the Parole Board. The minimum term is for the purposes of punishment and deterrence. It is essential that sentences for the gravest offence—murder—and other offences sufficiently serious to attract a life sentence have a minimum term that punishes the convicted offender and acts as a deterrent to others.
Mandatory life sentences must be imposed on anyone convicted of murder. Schedule 21 to the sentencing code contains the statutory framework for setting the minimum term. The schedule includes starting points depending on the circumstances surrounding the murder and non-exhaustive lists of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. For adult offenders, those range from 15 years right the way through to a whole-life order, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich said. Many offenders on life sentences remain in prison beyond their minimum term, and some may never be released. If they are released, they will, as my hon. Friend said, remain on licence for the rest of their life and will be subject to recall to prison at any time if they breach any of the conditions of their licence.
We have delivered and continue to deliver several initiatives aimed at strengthening public understanding of sentences, some of which we set out in January in response to the insightful report produced by the Justice Committee, of which my hon. Friend is a member. Our response described a wide range of actions that we have taken. I want to focus on a few specific issues that my hon. Friend has raised today, especially the terminology in sentencing and the points he raised about the murder of a child.
Sentencing terminology is at the heart of today’s debate. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important that this terminology should always be accessible and comprehensible to the public. On terminology used for life sentences in particular, the Government recognise the concerns raised by my hon. Friend around understanding how life sentences work and the phrase “jailed for life”. We acknowledge his concern around the lack of understanding that the minimum tariff set by the judge represents the punishment part of the sentence, and the decision from the Parole Board concerns only the public protection element after the minimum tariff is served. It is not an avenue for early release, as some consider it to be; however, I accept that it can be misunderstood by the general public.
We have also noted that the Justice Committee’s report highlights the Sentencing Academy’s work to review the terminology of sentencing, which is an important piece of work that could contribute to broader initiatives or proposals in this domain. The Government, like the Justice Committee, await its findings, and will review them with great care.
Most important, as I am sure my hon. Friend would agree, given his speech, is the question of how we can support victims in understanding this terminology. Under the victims code, victims, including bereaved families, are entitled to be told the sentence the offender received, including a short explanation of the meaning and effect of the sentence by the witness care unit, which is a police-led function. If they have any questions about the sentence that the witness care unit is unable to answer, the victim will be referred to the Crown Prosecution Service, which will answer their questions for them.
To ensure that agencies know what is expected of them, the Victims and Prisoners Bill places a statutory duty on the relevant agencies to provide services in accordance with the victims code, unless there is good reason not to. It introduces a compliance framework by placing a new duty on criminal justice bodies to collect and share code compliance information with police and crime commissioners. We will hold a full public consultation on the code once the Bill receives Royal Assent, which I hope shows how seriously we treat today’s topic.
It is important that we turn for a few moments to the role of the Parole Board, which determines whether to release offenders eligible for automatic release by deciding whether it is necessary for the prisoner to remain confined. The Victims and Prisoners Bill, which is currently before Parliament, introduces a range of reforms to the parole process that are designed to help to protect the public and to bolster public confidence in the system. Through the Bill, we will codify the release test, making clear that minimising risk and protecting the public are the sole considerations for release.
The Bill introduces a new power to allow Ministers to direct a second check by independent courts in cases where the board has directed the release of one of the most serious offenders, which would, of course, include those convicted of murder. We hope that this measure will reassure the public that the process is as rigorous as possible, and that there is an extra safeguard in the release process for the most serious offenders.
In recent years, the Government have introduced several policies to improve the openness, transparency and public understanding of the parole process. In 2018, we introduced decision summaries, which enable the Parole Board to provide victims and others with an explanation of the reasons for its decisions. In 2019, we introduced the reconsideration mechanism, which provided a way to challenge a parole decision if it appears legally or procedurally flawed. Finally, in 2022 we amended the Parole Board rules to enable parole hearings to be heard in public, if it is in the interests of justice to do so. There have been four such hearings to date.
I now move on to my hon. Friend’s points about child murder. I want to acknowledge that all murders are terrible acts, but those where the victim is a child are particularly so. The murder of those most vulnerable in our society causes extreme grief and devastation for the loved ones left behind. I understand entirely why society feels it necessary to ensure that those responsible for these terrible crimes are properly punished.
As my hon. Friend set out, under section 21 of the Sentencing Act 2020 the starting point for the murder of a child involving sexual or sadistic motivation, or their abduction, is normally a whole-life order. There may then be aggravating factors that could result in an increase to the minimum term due to the victim being a child. I understand my hon. Friend’s concern that a requirement for premeditation is too high a threshold for imposing a whole-life order, but I contend that it is right that we set a high threshold in legislation for the imposition of such an order, which is the most severe punishment that our courts can impose.
In this way, the requirement for premeditation is on a par with the other circumstances that govern when the murder of a child would normally attract a whole-life- order starting point—namely, the murder of a child if the abduction of the child is involved, or sexual or sadistic motivation. All cases of child murder are rightly punished severely by the courts, and all those who are convicted and given minimum custodial terms face long prison sentences, possibly with no prospect of Parole Board release.
Dr Mullan
I recognise what the Minister says, but if he cannot express an opinion from the Government on whether the situation should change, that does leave a yawning gap. The cases that most upset the public can be when a parent kills their own child, and the circumstances are very often without premeditation. When the public have heard us wanting to deliver a promise on child murder and see these cases reported without the whole-life order being applied, does he think that will lead to further frustration, even if he thinks it is justified frustration?
Gareth Bacon
I am a father, and I read some of the cases of child murder with the same level of horror that my hon. Friend does. I have to say that if my child had been brutally murdered in that way, I would expect and hope for a whole-life order.
However, the point that has to land in the Chamber today is that judgments are made, particularly in the press and in the general public, that are not based on full knowledge of the facts presented to the court. That is why we are trying to educate the public on how and why sentences are being given in the way they are. It is not possible to do that in every case, but it must be done based on the facts presented to the court for the jury to find the defendant guilty.
The Government have also increased the powers available to the courts by raising the maximum penalties for acts of cruelty. As I mentioned earlier, I just want to reiterate that there is no early release for those who commit child murder and are given a life sentence. The minimum term must be served in prison in full before the offender can be considered for release at the discretion of the Parole Board.
In the time that I have remaining, I want to touch quickly on my hon. Friend’s point about concurrent sentences. Judges will generally impose concurrent sentences where there are multiple offences arising from the same incident, or where there is a series of offences committed of the same or similar kind, especially against the same person. Consecutive sentences are generally imposed where the offences arise out of unrelated-factor incidents, even if they are part of a wider pattern of behaviour.
As I hope my hon. Friend will appreciate, however, sentencing is a matter for our independent courts. Parliament has provided them with a broad range of sentencing powers to deal effectively and appropriately with offenders. Courts also have a statutory duty to follow sentencing guidelines developed by the independent Sentencing Council for England and Wales.
Although sentencing is a matter for independent judges, the Government have committed to locking up the most dangerous criminals away for longer—to protect the public and deliver the justice the public expects. Since 2010, average sentence lengths have increased by 49% to the year ending June 2023. We have introduced tougher punishments for the worst offenders, including extending whole-life orders to premeditated child murders and ending the automatic halfway release for serious crimes, which my hon. Friend acknowledged in his speech.
We are going further still, and the Sentencing Bill will ensure that rapists and serious sexual offenders serve their full custodial term in prison. As acknowledged by my hon. Friend, in the Sentencing Bill we are also adding murder with sexual or sadistic conduct to the list of those offences that will become the subject of a new duty to impose a whole-life order, unless there are exceptional circumstances.
In conclusion, I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to this debate, to my hon. Friend for securing it and to others for attending—although I think they may be here for the next debate. I found the debate very valuable in my consideration of the issues at hand, and I hope I have reassured my hon. Friend and those in attendance, at least to an extent, that I and the Government continue to take these issues into account as we strive to improve the criminal justice system.
Question put and agreed to.
Preventable Sight Loss
(6 months, 3 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
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered preventable sight loss.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I would like to begin this debate by asking Members who have good eye health to consider these questions. How would you feel if you lost your sight? How would it affect your life and your ability to connect with family and friends or earn a living, travel independently, enjoy the place you live in, the hobbies you have or visit new places? If you were to lose your sight, how would it make you feel to subsequently find out that it actually could have been saved?
Sadly, hundreds of our constituents are going through this very experience. In England, over 600,000 patients are currently on NHS waiting lists to begin treatment for ophthalmology—the branch of medicine concerned with the diagnosis and treatment of disorders of the eye. A survey by the Royal College of Ophthalmologists from this year shows that only 25% of NHS ophthalmology departments feel able to meet patient need, and 70% of departments are more concerned about out-patient backlogs compared with 12 months ago. These are incredibly alarming statistics. Alarming, too, is the fact that it was reported last year that, in 551 confirmed instances, patients had lost their sight as a result of delayed appointments since 2019.
Alongside the problems with ophthalmology in the NHS, we have seen the growth of the independent or private sector. I ask Members to consider the impact that the increased use of private sector provision is having on eye care. Independent sector providers now deliver almost 60% of NHS-funded cataract procedures. That has more than doubled from around 25% before the coronavirus pandemic. Although it has helped to bring down cataract waiting lists, the Royal College of Ophthalmology has found that 67% of NHS ophthalmology departments reported that the impact of independent sector providers on patient care in their area is negative. Let us reflect on that: over two thirds of ophthalmology departments in the NHS believe that the impact of independent sector providers on patient care is negative. It is important that we understand why.
The three aspects those departments have said they are most worried about are training opportunities for junior doctors, funding for the NHS ophthalmology department in which they work, and the available workforce. They believe that these will hamper the long-term ability of their departments to deliver sight-saving care for patients. Every Member of this House should be concerned about that.
The Royal National Institute of Blind People has said that the role of the independent sector has been associated with significant challenges that pose an increasing risk to the sustainability of comprehensive eye care services in the NHS. I believe that the impact on many of our constituents could be, and is likely to be, devastating.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the use of the independent sector creates a postcode lottery as well? More affluent areas get to the front of the queue more quickly, and we see regional variations where the independent sector is stronger. That is a real concern for people waiting to have this treatment.
Margaret Greenwood
My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I will touch on regional variations later.
A paper published last month by the Centre for Health and the Public Interest reported that in the period 2018-19 to 2022-23, the NHS paid the private sector around £700 million for cataract treatments. While cataract operations are very important and can transform people’s lives, it is crucial that those responsible for health policy consider whether the increase in the number of them being delivered comes at the expense of other sight-saving treatments.
We must ensure that the NHS is comprehensive in the range of treatments that it provides. The Centre for Health and the Public Interest warns that the increase in the percentage of the NHS budget being spent on cataract operations is likely to mean that there are fewer resources available to treat other eye care conditions, such as glaucoma and macular degeneration, which are generally considered more serious and lead to irreversible sight loss. Ophthalmologists have also told me that it is impacting capacity for the treatment of conditions such as cancer care, urgent treatment and the treatment of newborn babies.
Data received by the charity from 13 NHS trusts has shown that waiting times for some irreversible conditions have increased between 2017-18 and 2022-23, including for glaucoma and diabetic retinopathy. Waiting times have also increased for cataract operations. The charity also reports that the rise in expenditure on cataract services has been accompanied by an increase in the number of private, for-profit clinics, which have been established to deliver NHS cataract services. Its paper states that 78 new private, for-profit clinics have opened over the past five years.
It is not surprising that some senior ophthalmologists have raised concerns that the increased expenditure on NHS cataract provision, carried out predominantly by the independent sector, is being driven not by patient need but by the commercial interests of the companies delivering it. Last December, Professor Ben Burton, president of the Royal College of Ophthalmologists, warned that the entire commissioning process needed looking at, with local integrated care systems unable to effectively control their use of resources, resulting in some patients with
“very mild cataracts getting surgery at the expense of other patients going blind”.
He added that the approach of unplanned commissioning means that
“the NHS is losing consultants, money and trainees to the private sector”
and that the profit margin is “too high”, meaning that
“companies can pay three times the NHS overtime rate...So, unsurprisingly, people are dropping sessions in the NHS and doing cataract surgery at private companies.”
Professor Burton further warned that:
“We are trying to train the next generation of cataract surgeons, but they’re not getting any straightforward cases to train them on, because the NHS is being left with the more complex cases, with the less complex ones being outsourced.”
That very much chimes with the arguments raised by the Centre for Health and the Public Interest. In other words, the independent sector is cherry-picking the less complex work.
When he responds on behalf of the Government, will the Minister set out what discussions they have had with NHS England about sorting out the perverse outcomes caused by the unplanned commissioning that Professor Burton has highlighted? Unless we see a change of course by policymakers as a matter of urgency, there are real concerns that we will see the breadth of eye care provided within the NHS diminished to the point where some complex sight-saving treatments are no longer available on the NHS. They might be things such as the treatment people need when they are in urgent care after a road traffic accident, the treatment needed for newborn babies or treatment for cancer.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for bringing forward this debate. First, this is a terrific subject. She will know that this morning I had a debate on optometry care, which is a similar topic, and the issue is clear. In that debate, I said that 22 people weekly lose their sight to preventable loss. The hon. Lady knows that. Does she agree that the annual eye test should be pushed as forcibly as a dental check-up, and that the message should start in schools and resound right through the community? I think she will agree that optometrists and opticians want to be part of that move forward. If that is the case, we need the Minister and his Department to work alongside them to push for appointments from an early age.
Margaret Greenwood
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention; it was characteristically appropriate. I particularly welcome his call for the message to start when children are in school because it is massively important.
In the not too distant future, we may face eye care deserts in some parts of the country, in much the same way as has happened with dentistry, with some people missing out on crucial treatment. That is exactly what Professor Burton has warned could happen. He said:
“There is a risk that the NHS loses ophthalmology completely, like it has dentistry, in terms of it being a service which is available free at the point of delivery.”
It is not difficult to see how such a conclusion has been arrived at. The great tragedy we face if that happens is that some people will lose their sight from treatable conditions.
The use of the independent sector for ophthalmology has tended to be more prevalent in some parts of the country than in others, so Members representing constituencies in those areas may be particularly concerned. A regional analysis of trends published by the Royal College of Ophthalmologists in 2022 found that in 2021 the north-west of England had the highest proportion of NHS-funded cataract procedures delivered by independent sector providers, at 61%. The midlands, the north-east, Yorkshire and the south-west of England also had figures over 50%. Those figures have increased greatly since 2016. Although there is regional variation, we should be concerned about that right across the United Kingdom.
NHS staffing levels for ophthalmology are also a matter of extreme concern. As I said earlier, NHS ophthalmology departments are worried about training opportunities for junior doctors and the available workforce. In response to a recent written parliamentary question, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), failed to provide clear information about the Government’s plans for specialty training places for ophthalmology. She said:
“A decision regarding which specialties these places will be allocated to will be made nearer the time that the places are required for the expanded workforce. NHS England will work with stakeholders to ensure this growth is sustainable and focused in the service areas where need is greatest.”
Will the Minister clarify that? When Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care spoke of stakeholders in that context, was she talking about the independent sector as well as the NHS? If so, will the Minister ask NHS England what progress it is making towards meeting its commitment, set out in the 2023 elective recovery taskforce implementation plan, to
“track, monitor and evaluate independent sector’s impact on the long-term NHS capacity landscape”?
That is an incredibly important matter, and if the Minister is not able to reply today, I would welcome it if he can write to me on that point.
How confident is the Minister that the full breadth of ophthalmology expertise will be there in the NHS for any one of us in five or 10 years? Data from the most recent workforce census from the Royal College of Ophthalmologists shows that there is real cause for concern, given that 76% of NHS ophthalmology departments report not having enough consultants to meet patient need. In reality, NHS ophthalmology departments are increasingly relying on costly locums to cover workforce gaps, and nearly two thirds—65%—use locums to fill consultant vacancies.
Typically, UK-trained ophthalmologists will have undertaken the vast majority of their training in the NHS, including those now working for independent sector providers. There are concerns that the increase in NHS staff working in the independent sector on cataract provision is reducing the availability of training opportunities that enable NHS staff to train in more complex areas. That is potentially a time bomb for the future, and could mean that we will not have anywhere near enough staff trained to carry out work on treatment for conditions such as glaucoma and wet macular degeneration.
It is clear that we are facing a sight loss health emergency, and there is an urgent need for a national eye health strategy. The RNIB has suggested that the goal of such a strategy should be to establish eye health as a public health priority, and it should aim to prevent irreversible sight loss.
As the Royal College of Ophthalmologists pointed out, it is imperative that NHS ophthalmology departments across the UK are supported to deliver high-quality and timely care for all patients, regardless of their condition and where they live. Among other things, it is calling on policymakers to support the development of a multi-disciplinary eye care workforce fit for the future. That should include delivering an additional 285 ophthalmology training places in England by 2031 and boosting investment in the ophthalmic practitioner training programme so that more eye care professionals can work to the top of their licence.
The royal college is also calling for better integrated eye care through investment in digital solutions such as interoperable electronic patient records between optometry and ophthalmology, and a further development of integrated pathways for optometry so that patients receive the most appropriate and accessible care and are prioritised based on clinical need. It is calling for the reform of commissioning, tariff and data reporting systems, which it believes will ultimately help the NHS ophthalmology services. All those things should be part of a national eye health strategy.
The strategy must be inclusive and must address the needs of everybody. The charity SeeAbility has pointed out that people with learning difficulties are 10 times more likely to have a serious sight problem than other people, but are far less likely to have a sight test. What is happening to ophthalmology services in the NHS is clearly a matter of extreme concern and is one example of just how damaging the privatisation of NHS services is to the delivery of a universal and comprehensive national health service.
The increasing use of the independent sector to treat NHS patients leaves us vulnerable to the vagaries of the market. Under this Government, the use of private-sector companies in health has increased. Indeed, the Health Service Journal reported last December that the amount spent by NHS trusts on outsourcing activities to other providers has almost doubled from £2.4 billion in 2019-20 to £4.7 billion in 2022-23. The HSJ stated that independent providers are
“likely to make up the bulk of the spend”.
The Minister will say that the Government are not privatising the NHS, but that is smoke and mirrors. The World Health Organisation defines privatisation as
“a process in which non-government actors become increasingly involved in the financing and/or provision of health care services”.
We have seen that in ophthalmology, with the commercial interests of private companies driving the increased expenditure on NHS cataract provision. That is the view of ophthalmologists. No doubt the Minister will say that the Government are providing the national health service with record levels of funding—again, smoke and mirrors. The fact is that, as pointed out in the 2023 report “The Rational Policy-Maker’s Guide to the NHS”, NHS spending has not been enough to keep pace with need when we factor in and combine the effects of inflation, population growth, population ageing and increased morbidity.
I ask Members to think about the questions I raised at the beginning of the debate. How would you feel if you lost your sight, how would it impact your life, and how would you feel if you then found out that the loss of your eyesight could have been prevented? How would you feel if you found that you could not get the treatment you need because less serious conditions were being treated as a priority in the independent sector by specialists who were lured there, away from the NHS, due to how commissioning works and because the market is increasingly influencing what is and is not treated?
RNIB figures show that every day, 250 people in the UK start to lose their sight. We need the national eye health strategy, the goal of which should be to preserve vision and prevent irreversible sight loss. I call on the Government to address those issues as a matter of urgency. The Government must invest in the national health service and strengthen it as a public service to ensure that it is universal and comprehensive. For that, they must build the capacity of expertise within the NHS so that we can be confident that the service is there to treat all eye conditions. In the words of Professor Ben Burton, the chief executive of the Royal College of Ophthalmologists,
“the key to ensuring long term capacity to deliver patient care is to invest in comprehensive NHS services, workforce and infrastructure.”
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) on securing this debate. That was a comprehensive and detailed, but succinct, assessment of where we are at. Sometimes, the role of Members of Parliament is to identify an issue before it comes into crisis so that we can advise Government on the action that is needed, and that is exactly what my hon. Friend has done.
When some of my constituents identified this topic as the subject of an Adjournment debate, they approached me to raise an issue I have been dealing with for the last 20 years: people whose eyesight has been damaged as a result of refractive eye surgery, or laser treatment, as some know it. The refractive eye surgery sector is now a huge profit-making industry. Many gain through the use of refractive eye surgery, and their eyesight is benefited, but there are many others—in fact, thousands every year now—whose vision is damaged as a result of the surgery.
Many years ago, a campaign called My Beautiful Eyes was launched by a woman called Sasha Rodoy. Some people will know of her if they have dealt with these laser treatment issues in any way. She is a heroine. Each year, we organise a lobby of Parliament called Bad Eye Day. We bring together individuals whose eyesight has been damaged by refractive eye surgery and their families. When I say “damaged”, for many of them, it is to the point where their eyesight is nearly lost. Many others have heartbreaking stories of losing their employment or being severely disabled.
In 2004, Frank Cook, who was then a Labour MP, introduced a private Member’s Bill to address the issues confronting people whose eyesight had been damaged by refractive eye surgery. I co-sponsored the Bill, which basically called for regulation of the sector. In 2013, I produced a ten-minute rule Bill that reflected many of the proposals that Frank had put forward. We have had debates, meetings with the royal colleges and ministerial meetings. All we have been asking for over the past 20 years is greater regulation—effective regulation—but progress has been limited. Even in the Government’s own inquiry into cosmetic surgery, Sir Bruce Keogh identified laser surgery as something that should be subject to further regulation. To be frank, nothing has followed from all those ministerial meetings and debates, from all the legislation we put forward or from the Government’s own inquiry.
We need effective regulation that runs through every aspect of the process. The first aspect is the marketing and advertising of these treatments. As Sasha Rodoy says, the industry is notorious for making outlandish claims about the effectiveness of surgery. On a few occasions, we have taken companies to the Advertising Standards Authority and they have been found guilty of exaggerating their claims about the treatment.
Secondly, we want regulation of the advice provided to people who commission the surgery. It is about getting appropriate advice, and about whether the individual’s eye is appropriate for the type of surgery. At one stage, we found that advice was being provided by members of staff who were not qualified and were simply selling the product. We want the provision of advice to be regulated, supervised and monitored.
We also want surgical practices and professional standards to be supervised and monitored. I have dealt with several cases in which professional standards have fallen below what we would expect and people have been harmed as a result. When things go wrong, the company will often fail to put things right adequately. It will delay its response and will often try to get beyond the limit when legal action can be taken. Those individuals then have to fall back on the NHS.
Time and again, the NHS has to address complex injuries as a result of laser treatment, yet the financial burden falls not on the companies but on the NHS itself. We have argued that the performance records of those private companies and, if necessary, of the surgeons involved should be published to identify where harm has been caused as a result of action taken. Where NHS involvement is needed to correct or address the concerns that people have been left with, maybe there should be a levy on those private companies so that the cost burden does not fall on the NHS.
We are now 20 years on from that first piece of legislation, which Frank Cook brought forward because—if I recall rightly—he had gone through that experience and was interviewed by the media about it. All of a sudden, he received a flood of correspondence from people saying, “The same thing’s happened to me: I’ve had the same sort of injuries.” When I raised the issue in 2013, I had literally hundreds of emails coming in. We have a national lobby each time, and some of the stories are absolutely heartbreaking.
I know that there are demands on the Minister’s time, but it would be really useful if, like some of his predecessors, he met victims of refractive eye surgery who have become campaigners and the professionals they work with, so that we can address the current situation, get an objective overview of where we are and then agree a programme for reform. All that people are asking for is adequate regulation based on monitoring of professional practices, so that they feel protected. At the moment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West said, there is a real risk of eyesight loss. It is one of the worst things that can happen to people, because they become completely isolated from the world. It is incredibly distressing.
That request fits with the demand for a national eyesight strategy, which is desperately needed. What my hon. Friend described is happening across the country. There is a fear that if we do not address it now, we could quickly get into a crisis as a result of the loss of professional staff to the NHS in particular. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) also mentioned the postcode lottery of access to those services. I hope that the Minister will agree to meet campaigners on this issue, which is worth addressing, so that at least they can have their say and he can take advice on the programme of reform that we need.
Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)
We now move to the Front-Bench contributions.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Thank you for chairing the debate, Sir Mark. If my voice goes during my speech, I will just sit down, and hon. Members can assume that the rest of it would have been fabulous.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) on securing this important debate. As the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said, it is important to highlight these issues before we get to the point of total crisis. I will talk about what has been happening in Scotland on preventable sight loss.
I thank and commend everybody who works in eye care, whether they work as optometrists or in ophthalmology in hospitals, and everybody who provides those incredibly important services to people. We recognise the hard work and dedication that they put in to ensure that as many people as possible continue to have the best possible eyesight.
As the hon. Member for Wirral West said, whether someone can see properly has a significant impact on their life. When I was eight years old, I lost my eyesight completely over a week. I had optic neuritis, which is incredibly unusual for an eight-year-old. For a short period, I genuinely could not see almost anything. Thankfully, I was treated well and helpfully by the team at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary and got my sight back entirely, which does not always happen with optic neuritis. Although I did not have to deal with that situation in the long term, I am aware of how terrifying it is. It has a major impact on people’s lives.
With our public platform, we should do everything we can to encourage people to get their eyes tested regularly and have regular eye examinations. Eyesight is important, but most people probably take it for granted most of the time. Regular checks can ensure that optometrists and community optometrists discover any possible future eye conditions and that people are given treatment as early as possible. Eye checks can also highlight more serious conditions such as cardiovascular issues, high blood pressure or diabetes. In Scotland, we have free universal NHS eye checks in community optometrists. Those check-ups are available for everybody—UK residents, refugees, asylum seekers and some eligible overseas visitors— and people do not have to pay. I encourage people to get their eyes checked regularly: it is important to go along.
I will talk about our strategies and workstreams for ophthalmology. In Scotland we have what is called the national ophthalmology workstream, which has brought together the views of a huge number of people working in ophthalmology, particularly around hospital care, to ensure that the best possible service is provided to everyone. There are workstreams on things like cataract surgery, which the hon. Member for Wirral West has mentioned, to ensure that people are given the best cataract surgery as early as possible. Successful surgery in the first instance also reduces the need for follow-up appointments.
The strategy tries to ensure that, even with Scotland’s fairly unique geography, as many conditions as possible can be treated close to people’s homes and in their communities. If hospital appointments are needed, they should be there, but if the need for hospital appointments can be reduced by providing the same or a similar service closer to home, that is encouraged.
We recently had a pilot of the NHS glaucoma service in communities, which started in Glasgow and has been rolled out across Scotland. It aims specifically to ensure that the number of hospital appointments is reduced. Going to hospital when you do not necessarily need to can be stressful. If someone can be treated in a primary care setting that they are used to, it is easier and better for everybody. It takes some of the stress off NHS services, ensuring that the necessary services are delivered and that capacity matches demand where possible. As I say, it is about providing the best possible services that suit people, as close to home as possible. We cannot get away from the fact that there is a capacity and workforce issue, not just in England but across these islands, but we have been doing what we can to recognise that. The strategy has been in place since 2017 and is leading to real differences and real improvements for people.
We have a couple of other things in place in Scotland. The See Hear strategy is specifically about ensuring that services are improved for sensory-impaired people. Under the See4School system, every pre-school child has their eyesight tested to ensure that they are as ready as possible to learn when they go to primary school and that those conditions can be picked up as early as possible.
Lastly, I encourage everybody to please get their eyes tested. For anyone who has not been for some time, I thoroughly recommend going. It is not just about being able to see incredibly well with 20/20 vision; it is about ensuring that conditions are picked up. I ask everybody to encourage their constituents to go.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Mark. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) on securing the debate. She is a fierce campaigner on bringing down NHS waiting lists, and for an NHS that remains true to the principle on which it was founded: to be a service that is there for everyone when they need it and that is free at the point of use. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who made a powerful speech about how eye care is often a neglected topic.
The RNIB estimates that more than 2 million people in the United Kingdom live with sight loss. Shockingly, at least half of that sight loss might be avoidable. A recent Royal College of Ophthalmologists workforce census found that 63% of eye units estimate that it will take at least a year to clear their backlogs; a quarter of them estimate that it will take more than three years. Across our country, the demand for ophthalmology services has risen rapidly and is set to increase by 40% over the next 20 years. The economic cost of sight loss is estimated to be £25.2 billion a year. Surely that is too big a price not to act.
The current Government have treated eye care as an afterthought. Today in England, 619,000 people are on a waiting list for a hospital eye appointment, and 250 people start to lose their sight every day. Yet this Government have no strategy for eye health in England, unlike every other UK nation.
The next Labour Government will take eye health seriously. We will crack down on the tax dodgers and use the money to bring down waiting lists. We will train a new generation of doctors, nurses and midwives to treat patients on time. We will double medical school places to ensure that we have the workforce we need, including across ophthalmology. We will reform the system, too, so that everyone can access the right care when and where they need it.
Moving more care to the community will help to support those who are suffering sight loss, as will focusing on the provision of non-clinical community support to complement the work of community optometrists, ophthalmologists in hospitals and rehabilitation officers. That is why the next Labour Government will seek to negotiate a deal with high street opticians to deliver NHS out-patient appointments for eye conditions such as glaucoma. There are currently 6,000 high street opticians in England, equipped with specialist staff and kit that can get patients seen faster. We will put them to work to beat the backlog and free up hospital specialists to treat the patients in serious need. That will all mean greater convenience for patients. As these are routine appointments, it will be less expensive to the taxpayer to deliver them on the high street than in hospital.
We know that delivering eye care in the community works. A 2014 study considered the impact of the introduction of minor eye care services in Lewisham and Lambeth on ophthalmology hospital departments. GP referrals to hospital ophthalmology decreased by 75% in Lewisham and by 30% in Lambeth. Costs in areas that did not have a minor eye care service increased, but costs in Lewisham and Lambeth decreased by 14%. A separate dataset from Hereford in 2022 showed that 92% of referrals to eye casualty by GPs could have been seen by an optometrist via the minor eye care services, and 83% of self-referrals could have been seen by MECS.
Perhaps the Minister can say today whether he backs Labour’s plan to try to strike a deal for high street opticians to deliver additional clinical services. Has he made an estimate of how many people now on hospital waiting lists are waiting to be seen for issues that could easily have been seen in community optometric services? According to a report published last year, more than 550 patients have suffered sight loss since 2019 because of NHS delays. That is absolutely tragic.
It is not just patients who stand to benefit from Labour’s plans. GPs stand to benefit from the removal of low-value, time-consuming paperwork that could be dealt with in opticians’ shops by optometrists themselves. Patients can already go directly to sexual health clinics, as well as to physiotherapists in some parts of the country, without seeing a GP; in Greater Manchester, where lung cancer is the biggest killer of people under the age of 75, patients with risk factors can now get walk-in chest X-rays. Opticians who spot a problem should not have to send patients to their GP for referral to an eye specialist instead of referring them directly. Why is direct referral not the case everywhere? Labour’s plans will see best practice adopted everywhere to allow opticians themselves to refer patients to eye specialists, meaning that patients can be seen faster and GPs can get on with more important and meaningful work.
We know how important eye care services are to our communities. Vision loss in older people has been proven to affect their physical and mental health and to increase the speed of cognitive decline. We know that sight loss can be a symptom of serious disease. The Government must set out a plan for these services, with a mix of strengthened community-based care and prevention policies. It is right that we address the gaps in care co-ordination that disproportionately affect those with the greatest need, to give everyone the best opportunities to access education and employment and to live well in older age. Let us give everyone a right to sight.
The Minister for Health and Secondary Care (Andrew Stephenson)
It is always a pleasure to see a fellow Lancastrian in the Chair, Sir Mark. I thank the hon. Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) for bringing forward the debate. This is the second debate today on eye health to which I am responding on behalf of the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), who has been busy in the Tobacco and Vapes Bill Committee. I also thank those who contributed to the debate—the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill)—for their thoughtful contributions.
Preventing sight loss remains one of my right hon. Friend’s top priorities, and it is right that we should dedicate parliamentary time to this important issue. Losing one’s eyesight can be devastating, and I want to pay tribute to some of the charities that I did not have time to mention in this morning’s debate—Fight for Sight, the Vision Foundation and Sightsavers, to name just a few more.
About 2 million people live with sight loss in our country. That number is projected to double by 2050, mainly because of our ageing population. We are doing a huge amount to reduce the number, through preventive measures and early detection. One of the best ways to protect eyesight is through regular sight tests. That point was made eloquently by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, and I am pleased to confirm to her that I am having my next eye test tomorrow morning.
This debate is why the NHS invests more than £500 million every year on free eye tests for people on benefits, people over 60, and people at risk of serious conditions. That investment delivered more than 12 million NHS sight tests to those groups between 2022 and 2023, and extensive discounts on glasses and contact lenses for children and people on income-related benefits, through NHS optical vouchers.
We have also taken great strides in preventing some of the causes of sight loss, including smoking and obesity. As I mentioned at the start, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire is taking our landmark Tobacco and Vapes Bill through the House, and we are backing quit-smoking campaigns with unprecedented funding and support.
On obesity, we have taken a raft of measures on sugar reduction and healthy eating. We have made strong progress in reducing the average sugar content in soft drinks through the soft drinks levy, and almost halved their sugar content between 2015 and 2019. For two years, we have also been restricting the placement of less-healthy products in shops and online, thereby helping consumers to make healthier choices.
Our wider prevention work goes hand in hand with our efforts to catch eye problems early. Glaucoma—which was covered in the debate this morning—and diabetic retinopathy are two of the main causes of preventable sight losses, and both can cause blindness if left untreated. That is why we are offering screening tests to nearly 4 million patients with diabetes at least once every two years. Since 2010, the number of adults between 16 and 64 who became visually impaired from diabetic retinopathy fell by almost a fifth. Our approach has been commended by the World Health Organisation, and we will build on that progress. In October, we begin phasing in optical coherence tomography scans as part of the screening programme, to reduce unnecessary referrals to hospital eye services and improve the quality of the service overall.
It is vital for patients who need to be in secondary care to have access to timely diagnosis and treatment. That is why we have set ambitious targets to recover services that suffered over the pandemic, through our elective recovery plan, which is backed by more than £8 billion of funding, and why we have expanded surgical hubs and harnessed capacity in the independent sector so that more patients can be seen more quickly. Our plan is working and it is delivering results. Waiting times are falling. The number of patients waiting 78 weeks or longer for ophthalmology treatment has reduced by 96% since its peak. But we know we have much further to go.
While we work to recover from the pandemic, we are reforming eye care services to be fit for the future. NHS England’s transformation programme is currently funding seven projects across each ICS area, testing how improved IT links between primary and secondary care could allow patients to be assessed and triaged virtually. Where appropriate, that would keep patients out of hospital, freeing up hospital eye-service capacity for those who need specialist care the most.
The initiatives have shown promising results. For example, the project in North Central London ICS has improved the flow of information from community optometry to Moorfields Eye Hospital, reducing the triage time from 11 days down to one. The appropriate use of clinics has doubled to more than 70% and reduced the waiting time for first appointments by up to 35 days. NHS England is now using the data from the projects to build the case for a wider roll-out.
Kirsty Blackman
I appreciate what the Minister is doing in this policy area. Some of the initiatives he just mentioned, such as electronic assessments and triaging electronically, were put in place in Scotland seven years ago. We decided that they were working and that we would roll them out. Has he spoken to Scottish colleagues and looked at the work done in Scotland in order to ensure that the Government do not have to replicate the same pilots that we have proven do work, so that people can get treatment and things can be put in place more quickly?
Andrew Stephenson
As a proud Unionist, I am always happy to learn from different parts of the United Kingdom. After I was appointed to my role, one of the first things I did was to go to Edinburgh and visit various universities and companies across Scotland, and I saw some of the great work going on in Scotland. I also met the then Health Secretary, Michael Matheson, to talk about areas where we can work together, particularly on things such as research. However, we can also trial different things in different parts of the country. Many people in this House talk about regional variations, which can be a concern. Nevertheless, one of the benefits of being able to trial different things in different regions is that we can learn the lessons, learn what works and then build on that best practice.
As well as helping our primary and secondary care sectors to reach their full potential, we have a long-term plan in place to support our workforce and put it on a sustainable footing, which is the first ever long-term workforce plan for the NHS. We have again increased training places for ophthalmologists in 2024 and improved training for existing staff, helping them to deliver for patients while reaching their full potential.
The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington raised what sounded like a very important and serious issue. He will forgive me for saying that this area is not my specialist subject, but I am happy to raise his concerns with my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire. However, I will say now, in response to his comments on laser eye surgery, that refractive laser eye surgery is not generally available on the NHS. Doctors who perform such surgery must be registered with the General Medical Council and the Care Quality Commission. All locations where refractive eye surgery is carried out should be monitored and are required to report any adverse events. As I say, I will be happy to relay his concerns to my right hon. Friend.
John McDonnell
I appreciate the Minister’s response; that is really helpful. It would also be useful if a Minister met some of the families who have experienced issues in this area, because over the last 20 years we have had the same ministerial response with regard to regulation, and there have just been too many examples where that regulation and monitoring have not worked and therefore people have been endangered. That is why in the Government’s own report Professor Sir Bruce Keogh recommended further regulation; I think we need to revisit that.
Andrew Stephenson
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for making those points. I am not instinctively anti-regulation; indeed, just a few weeks ago I put through this place the statutory instrument on the regulation of physician associates and anaesthetist associates. There are certain parts of the healthcare sector where regulation is very much needed and I would very much advocate for it. As I have said, I will defer to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire. This is her ministerial responsibility, and I am sure she will read the right hon. Gentleman’s comments with interest and may want to take the discussions further.
Finally, on research, the Government are backing scientists and researchers to take strides in understanding sight loss and in making new treatments available. Two years ago, we awarded £20 million to Moorfields Biomedical Research Centre to undertake another five years of vision research, and almost £6.5 million to Moorfields Clinical Research Facility to support cutting-edge treatments for all eye conditions.
Eye care services face challenges and we are taking decisive action to address them, both now and in the long term. The hon. Member for Wirral West and I will never agree on the use of the independent sector. I strongly believe, and think the Labour Front Bench team strongly agrees, that using the independent sector enables us to fully realise our healthcare system’s capacity and to reduce the time that patients spend on waiting lists. I would argue that that does not represent any move to privatise our NHS. As I have said on the record before, the overall proportion of NHS England’s spend on independent sector providers has not increased significantly in recent years. In 2013-14, 6.1% of total health spending was spent on the purchase of healthcare from independent sector providers; in 2022-23, the proportion was 6.5%.
This morning, the shadow Minister in the first Westminster Hall debate, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), talked about making better use of the independent sector to help to ensure that we deliver the best outcomes for patients, and the shadow Minister in this debate, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston, reiterated that point. On the use of the independent sector, then, I gently say that it is something on which there is broad cross-party support. While recognising that there are always challenges with the use of the independent sector, it is not in any way a privatisation of the NHS.
I firmly believe that through prevention, innovation and investment in our workforce, we will deliver for all our people across the United Kingdom access to the important healthcare services, including ophthalmology services, that they deserve.
Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)
I call Margaret Greenwood to wind up the debate.
Margaret Greenwood
The Minister said that he is never going to agree with me on the use of the independent sector. Will he look back over this debate and consider the points I have made—and not just my views but those of the Royal College of Ophthalmologists and the RNIB—and the outcomes that are arising as a result of the increased use of the independent sector? He takes an ideological position, but what I am asking him to do is look at the practical outcomes of what is going on.
I thank all Members who contributed to the debate, including my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and in particular my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for his work on behalf of those who have had their eyesight damaged through laser surgery. I hope the Minister will pick up on his call for further regulation and for a meeting with the victims of that treatment. I also thank the many organisations that contacted me in advance of the debate with their thoughts and briefings. It is vital that we do all we can to ensure the provision of comprehensive and universal eye care in the national health service.
The growth of the independent sector in delivering almost 60% of NHS-funded cataract procedures is having a negative impact on patient care, as more than two thirds of NHS ophthalmology departments have said. As a result, treatment for other eye care conditions in the NHS—such as glaucoma and macular degeneration, which are generally considered to be more serious and which lead to irreversible sight loss—are being adversely impacted. We must also consider the potential impact of the availability of treatment for people in urgent care after, for example, a road traffic accident; the treatment needed for newborn babies; and the treatment of cancer both now and importantly for future generations.
Currently, the market is influencing what is and is not treated, and private companies are cherry-picking the treatment that they want to deliver. This is no way to protect and strengthen the national health service. We need a national eye health strategy to preserve vision and prevent sight loss as a matter of urgency. We need a comprehensive and universal national health service that is there for us all when we need it for eye care and all other areas of health. I thank everybody who contributed to the debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered preventable sight loss.
Written Correction
(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Ministerial Correction
(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Health and Social Care
(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Andrea Leadsom
There is also a strong economic case for the Bill. Every year, smoking costs our country at least £17 billion, far more than the £10 billion of tax revenue that it draws in. It costs our NHS and social care system £3 billion every year, with someone admitted to hospital with a smoking-related illness almost every minute of every day, and 75,000 GP appointments every week for smoking-related problems.
[Official Report, 16 April 2024; Vol. 748, c. 265.]
Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom):
Dame Andrea Leadsom
There is also a strong economic case for the Bill. Every year, smoking costs our country at least £17 billion, far more than the £10 billion of tax revenue that it draws in. It costs our NHS and social care system £3 billion every year, with someone admitted to hospital with a smoking-related illness almost every minute of every day, and 75,000 GP appointments every month for smoking-related problems.
Written Statements
(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Notification of Contingent Liability
(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Jeremy Hunt)
The independent Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England decided at its meeting ending on 3 February 2022 to reduce the stocks of UK Government bonds and sterling non-financial investment-grade corporate bonds held in the Asset Purchase Facility by ceasing to reinvest maturing securities. The Bank ceased reinvestment of assets in this portfolio in February 2022 and commenced sales of corporate bonds on 28 September 2022, and sales of gilts acquired for monetary policy purposes on 1 November 2022. The sales of corporate bonds ceased on 6 June 2023, with the majority of the portfolio sold. A small number of remaining short maturity corporate bonds were held through to maturity and these have since all fully matured on 5 April 2024. Therefore, the APF is now comprised solely of gilts.
The Chancellor at the time agreed a joint approach with the Governor of the Bank of England in an exchange of letters on 3 February 2022 to reduce the maximum authorised size of the APF for asset purchases every six months, as the size of APF holdings reduces.
Since 3 November 2023 when I last reduced the maximum authorised size of the APF, the total stock of assets held by the APF for monetary policy purposes has fallen further from £750.9 billion to £704.2 billion. In line with the approach agreed with the Governor, the authorised maximum total size of the APF has therefore been reduced to £704.2 billion, which is now comprised entirely of gilts.
The risk control framework previously agreed with the Bank will remain in place, and HM Treasury will continue to monitor risks to public funds from the APF through regular risk oversight meetings and enhanced information sharing with the Bank.
There will continue to be an opportunity for HM Treasury to provide views to the MPC on the design of the schemes within the APF, as they affect the Government’s broader economic objectives and may pose risks to the Exchequer.
The Government will continue to indemnify the Bank, the APF and its directors from any losses arising out of, or in connection with, the facility. Provision for any payment due under the liability will continue to be sought through the normal supply procedure.
A full departmental minute has been laid in Parliament providing more detail on this contingent liability.
[HCWS435]
Stop and Search and Detention and Questioning
(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
The Government are today launching a statutory consultation on revisions to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Codes of Practice A and C. Strip search involving the exposure of intimate parts is one of the most intrusive powers available to the police. The Government recognise that these powers are needed in order for the police to prevent harm and effectively investigate crime. However, it is vital that these powers are only used where necessary and proportionate, and that any such search is conducted in a fair and respectful manner, without unlawful discrimination, and with full regard for the welfare and dignity of the individual being searched.
These considerations are particularly important where the individual being searched is a child or vulnerable person. Findings by the Independent Office for Police Conduct, the Children’s Commissioner for England, and the City and Hackney Safeguarding Children’s Partnership show that too often when strip searches involving the exposure of intimate parts are conducted, safeguarding and child protection have not been sufficiently prioritised.
The revisions proposed in this consultation are intended to strengthen the safeguards for children and vulnerable persons who are subject to searches involving the exposure of intimate parts, and emphasise the importance of safeguarding, without hindering the police’s ability to keep the public safe.
Code A concerns the exercise by police officers of statutory powers to search a person or a vehicle without first making an arrest. Code C concerns the detention, questioning and treatment of persons by police officers.
The proposed changes under consultation include the following:
A new requirement that any search of a child or vulnerable person involving the exposure of intimate parts conducted under stop and search power must be authorised by an officer of at least the rank of inspector.
A new requirement for police custody officers to consult an officer of at least the rank of inspector prior to conducting an EIP search of a child or vulnerable person in custody.
A requirement that if at any time an officer has reason to suspect that a person may be under 18, in the absence of clear evidence to dispel that suspicion, they shall be treated as a child for the purpose of the code and any other code.
A new requirement that police must, where practicable, notify a parent or guardian regarding an EIP search of a child, unless to do so would put the child at risk of harm.
An explicit reference to the safeguarding needs of any child who may be subject to an EIP search, and to the potentially traumatic impact that the search may have.
A new requirement to notify an officer of the rank of at least superintendent following any EIP of a child or vulnerable adult where, because of urgency, an appropriate adult was not present.
A new requirement that a safeguarding referral must be made whenever an EIP search of a child takes place.
A clarification that appropriate adults of the opposite sex can only be present during strip search if known to the detainee.
Replicating as far as is relevant in Code A the Code C provisions on the conduct of a strip search, to ensure that provisions on EIP searches in Code A are self-contained.
Requiring that where more than outer clothing is removed from a detainee in custody due to concerns for the detainee’s welfare, to preserve evidence, or any other reason set out in Code C paragraph 4.2, the appropriate provisions in Annex A shall apply.
The consultation will run for six weeks, and the Government will publish their response later this year. The consultation and Codes A and C are being published on www.gov.uk.
[HCWS433]
National Crime Agency: Dealing with Corruption
(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Tom Tugendhat)
The National Crime Agency is the national lead agency for tackling serious and organised crime, tasked with reducing the impact it has on the UK, and thereby protecting the public from the highest-harm criminals we face. To achieve that, it manages intelligence and information that requires the highest levels of security, and provides sensitive intelligence and covert tactics to law enforcement from across the whole of the UK.
His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services has finalised its 12th inspection of the NCA. It assessed how effectively the NCA is at dealing with corruption, and specifically the NCA’s effectiveness and efficiency in helping and working with police forces and other law enforcement agencies to identify and tackle corruption involving police officers and staff.
I have asked HMICFRS to publish the report. It will be published today and will be available online at https://hmicfrs.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/publications/national-crime-agency-vetting-and-anti-corruption-part-2 I will arrange for a copy to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
The inspection found the agency works well with partners to identify and tackle corrupt police officers and staff, that the agency understands the threat posed by corruption to law enforcement, and that its anti-corruption unit employs effective policies and approaches to tackle corruption. However, it found that the intelligence the agency receives could be improved, and its ACU could strengthen its approach to identifying and prioritising investigations. I expect the agency to ensure that it has dedicated sufficient resources to meet future demand, and has the procedures in place to support law enforcement on the most appropriate and serious cases.
The inspectorate also found that a new nationally co-ordinated approach to collating and assessing intelligence relating to corruption in police forces and other law enforcement agencies may strengthen our understanding of this issue and our collective ability to address it. My officials are considering the feasibility of this suggestion with the NCA and relevant partners.
Overall, the inspectorate has made five separate recommendations. These are designed to better enable the NCA to effectively support law enforcement in addressing corrupt police officers and staff, an issue that poses a significant threat to fair and effective policing, and ultimately public safety. These changes will enable the NCA to have the intelligence, resources and approaches it requires to robustly address with partners this threat to police forces and wider law enforcement.
[HCWS434]
House of Lords
Sewage Pollution: Lakes and Rivers
(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Quin
To ask His Majesty’s Government what recent meetings they have had with environmental organisations to discuss measures to reduce sewage pollution in lakes and rivers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Douglas-Miller) (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. Defra Ministers and officials consult extensively and routinely with a wide range of stakeholders, including environmental organisations, on this very important issue. For example, since March my officials have met with Surfers Against Sewage, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and the Shellfish Association of Great Britain. We all agree that the current volume of sewage being discharged into our waters is unacceptable. Reducing sewage pollution in British lakes and rivers remains a top priority for the Government.
Baroness Quin (Lab)
My Lords, since the House last debated this subject, there have been reports that sewage discharges have doubled in many of our rivers over the last year and that England’s largest lake, Windermere, has a very bad pollution problem. There have even been warnings to the Oxford and Cambridge boat crews about the health risks of the water of the River Thames. Given recent reports and publications, does the Minister have urgent plans to meet the Rivers Trust, Friends of the Earth and Sustain to review their recent findings and discuss urgent measures and long-term strategy?
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I assure the House that the Government are taking huge steps to improve the quality of our waterways. We have driven environmentally sensitive farming through the environmental land management schemes to reduce pollution from the agricultural sector, introduced a range of new targets and laws, including 100% monitoring of storm overflows, increased Environment Agency resources for inspections and introduced new legislation to curb dividends and bonuses. We have created a water restoration fund and fast-tracked £180 million of new funding to improve infrastructure this year. Perhaps most importantly, we have also created a long-term vision through our Plan for Water, which marks a step change in our approach and will see £60 billion of investment into infrastructure over the next 25 years. Notwithstanding that, as I said in opening, we have met an enormous number of individuals, environmental groups and interested parties, including the Rivers Trust, which the noble Baroness mentioned. I have met that organisation personally on a number of occasions, although not specifically on this issue.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that a sea change happened when the legal advice from the Environment Agency was made mandatory? Will the Government agree to accord the same legal status to advice from water companies on when it is unsafe for pipes to be connected to the existing sewage works of new build, including major developments of up to 300? When will the Government bring forward regulations to end the automatic right to connect and a mandatory requirement for SUDS, which will ensure that many sewage works work properly and the sewage does not enter lakes, rivers and the sea?
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
My noble friend raises a very good point; the water companies are consulted on these issues on a regular basis.
The Duke of Wellington (CB)
My Lords, I think the Minister just said that there is 100% monitoring of storm overflows, but my understanding is that, whereas the quality of water coming into the rivers from sewage plants is indeed monitored, outflows from the combined sewage overflows are not completely monitored and should be. That still needs further monitoring. Will the Minister meet with the Environment Agency and suggest that it accelerates the programme of installing monitoring of the combined sewage overflows?
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
The noble Duke has a profound knowledge of this issue, so I will bow to that on this occasion. I commit to speaking to the Environment Agency on this issue and will take that point forward.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, there should be a general principle of transparency and openness where water companies are concerned. A tribunal recently overturned the ICO’s decision to support a water company’s attempt to withhold sewage flow data. It is unlikely that water companies will publish information unless forced to do so. Will the Minister change Ofwat’s strategic statement to make it clear that transparency—the routine publication of sewage data—is a condition of licensing?
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
I will certainly commit to taking the noble Baroness’s suggestion back to the department.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, have not the regulator and Ministers allowed the water companies to rip off the general public for the last 13 years? Can the Minister guarantee that no water company will be nationalised, and that they will wait for them to be bankrupt and then take them into public ownership?
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
My Lords, the Government are committed to a system of independent economic regulation and have no plans to bring the water companies into public ownership. Since privatisation, the private water sector model has unlocked around £215 billion of investment and delivered a wide range of benefits, including a fivefold decrease in supply interruptions to customers and a reduction in leakages by one third.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that much of the pollution of many rivers emanates from the effluent from chicken farms? What specific targets do the Government have in mind to reduce this, and will they take legislative action to ensure that they are binding and produce the results necessary?
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
The noble Lord is quite right: there is a significant issue with chicken manure in the Wye valley. There has recently been a proposal to put together a Wye river plan, and I will ensure that this goes ahead.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, is it beyond an advanced country such as this to have an ambition and a determination to have zero leakage of sewage into our rivers? Have the Government got such an ambition and a plan? If so, I would be interested to know.
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
Yes. I point the noble Baroness to the plan for water, which lays out very clearly the 25-year strategy to reduce storm overflows to zero, and the investment plan that goes with that.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, for the last couple of years the Government have talked a lot about all the action they have been taking, but the situation seems to be getting worse. How is all the monitoring that is happening actually going to be used to drive forward change and reduction at last?
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
Regarding one of the issues the noble Baroness raises, we now have a lot more information available to us to look at. When we did not have storm overflow discharge information, we were ignorant of the amount of sewage that was going into our rivers, lakes and other waterways. If you look at the results for the bathing water test, for example, you can see a significant improvement over the last 15 years because of all the measures we put in.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
Does my noble friend not recognise that we will make no progress on this matter until the directors of the water companies are held personally responsible and they are fined, instead of the consumer having to pick up the cost of the fine?
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
My noble friend is quite right, and that is why the Government have taken a number of actions recently to introduce restrictions on dividends and bonuses. I will take his point about personal responsibility back to the department.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the advisory board of River Action, which is committed to cleaning up our rivers. The Minister said that it is a top priority for the Government, and I assure him that, on doorsteps and on the streets, it is also a top priority for people—for voters. The issue of public ownership keeps coming up. The first time a water company fails—for example, Thames Water—why not take it over, load the debt into the company so that it can gradually pay off its own debt and ensure that no dividends are paid out?
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
The noble Baroness raises a very interesting prospect, which I will consider carefully and take back to the department.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned the River Wye. The great news is that a citizen science army of people has been monitoring the whole of that catchment area. Do the Government encourage that model? If so, how will they encourage the Environment Agency to spread that great exercise to other catchments in the country?
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
The River Wye action plan, which the noble Lord refers to, is firmly supported by the Government. Any citizen science groups are very welcome to interact with the Environment Agency at any time.
Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures
(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Willis of Summertown
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in exploring how best the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures framework can be incorporated into UK policy and legislation in line with their commitment in the 2023 Green Finance Strategy.
Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)
I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and refer to my declaration of interests in the register.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, the Government remain a big supporter and funder of the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures. At COP 26, the UK backed the International Sustainability Standards Board to bring much-needed harmonisation to global sustainability reporting. I am pleased that the ISSB recently confirmed that it will explore a nature standard, drawing on the work of the TNFD. The Government have established a framework for once that standard is developed to assess the ISSB’s standards for suitability in the UK context.
Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)
I thank the Minister for his response, but I worry that we are just not moving fast enough. For example, last week the Green Finance Institute published a report that found that UK firms are now highly exposed to nature risk and that nature degradation could slow down our GDP, with an estimated 12% loss in the near term. Putting that into context, that is a greater drop than we saw during the Covid pandemic. Does the Minister agree that ambitious policy is urgently needed on this, as well as mandatory disclosures against the TNFD, to enable UK companies to understand better their impacts on and risks from the environment, particularly nature and the ecosystem services that it provides?
Lord Benyon (Con)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right. Assessing the Materiality of Nature-Related Financial Risks for the UK is an outstanding report, which needs to be read by chairmen of risk companies all over the world. It identifies precisely that this problem is not just about the environment but about risk. The net-zero economy grew by 9% last year. The value of net-zero technologies is now £74 billion, and the same will happen for nature. Therefore, there is an economic imperative as well as one that should drive us because we need to do the right thing for nature.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, the UK was an early adopter of the TNFD framework, and it is great that more 300 businesses have now signalled their intention to sign up. What actions are the Government undertaking to promote and champion the framework internationally, particularly at key global functions such as the G7 and the G20 summits this year?
Lord Benyon (Con)
Climate and nature finance are raised at all those fora. The most important thing is that the Government have put a large amount of money in. We have backed the Green Finance Institute, a wonderful organisation, with £4.8 million to do a number of different pieces of work for us. This is being talked about in all sorts of fora and was mentioned last week at the World Bank spring meetings. It is now embedded in how risk is talked about as well as in how Governments are supporting a global endeavour to get some universal baseline which companies can understand and which is not overburdensome but which makes them look at their supply chains.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. I want to ask the Minister specifically about financing for deforestation. The green finance strategy committed the Government to organising some round tables to discuss how to tackle this problem. Can the Minister update me as to how those round tables are going and what the outputs are?
Lord Benyon (Con)
There is a lot of talking about it but there is also a lot of action. Any day now, we will publish our forest risk commodities regulation, which will be debated by this House and will be an effective way of making sure that consumers here know that they are not using commodities that will result in rainforests being destroyed. However, there is a lot more to be done. I give the example of the Congo Basin, where I was recently. The UK is a major funder towards protecting that extraordinary, vast ecosystem which if it was allowed to collapse would impoverish all sub-Saharan Africa. It is really important that we work internationally on these matters.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Does the noble Lord know how many UK entities or investors have already signed up to the framework and are making progress towards the appropriate disclosures?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I do. At the TNFD’s early adopters moment at the World Economic Forum in Davos in January, 320 institutions from 46 countries publicly confirmed their commitment to adopt the TNFD recommendations. Of those early adopters, 46 were UK- headquartered organisations, which is more than in France, Germany and the United States combined.
Baroness Northover (LD)
ShareAction has reported on insurance companies. The insurance industry is obviously very big here in London, but the report shows that they are very weak across this sector, despite some of the things that they have been saying. Does the noble Lord agree that the insurance industry should be brought into this, and that they need to disclose in the way that other businesses are expected to do?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I entirely agree with the noble Baroness. A sector whose currency is risk should be at the forefront of this. This is about making sure that investments of whatever form are investable, and if an insurance company is not thinking about that, it is way behind the curve. This will not just be imposed on them; they would need to do it even if we were not pushing it, and insurance companies are key.
Chemicals Strategy
(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
To ask His Majesty’s Government when they intend to publish the chemicals strategy to which they committed in their 25-year environment plan of January 2018.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Douglas-Miller) (Con)
My Lords, protecting human health and the environment from the risks posed by chemicals is a priority of the Government. The Government will meet their commitments on chemicals set out in the Environmental Improvement Plan 2023. The short delay in publishing the chemicals strategy is due to the new Secretary of State being more ambitious with its scope. We continue to engage regularly with industry, we have a draft strategy just here, right behind me—I do not want to do a spoiler alert—and we aim to publish it very shortly.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, it is now over six years since the chemicals strategy was first promised, to set out the UK’s approach post Brexit to ensure that chemicals are safely used and managed, with the promise of a world-class system. However, this month, Hazards magazine published data on workplace exposure limits for chemicals, which found that not a single new protective workplace exposure limit has been introduced into Britain since the UK left the EU. Worryingly, in 10 instances, the British standard was weaker than the new EU occupational exposure limit. Can the Minister confirm that when the strategy is finally published, it will urgently address this in order to reassure our British workers?
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
This is a complex area. I entirely agree with the noble Baroness’s thoughts and will take them back to the department to see whether we can get that included if it is not already there.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, the Minister characterised the delay with the strategy as a short delay. Let us talk about another delay—the delay in publishing the 2023-24 UK REACH work programme. The Minister is relatively new and will not be aware of the saga of his department’s regulating and authorising the use of chemicals. The Minister sitting beside him, the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, has suffered it rather more. That annual work programme was published 10 months late. This is a vital document for the chemical industries to work out what they need to do to meet safety and regulatory concerns. Will the Minister promise that the 2024-25 report, which is due in the summer, will be published on time?
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
Again, the noble Lord raises a very good point. This is serious stuff which needs to be adhered to in great detail, so I will take his comments back and ensure that we strive much harder this year to get that report out on time.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, antimicrobial resistance is a major global health problem, including in the UK. What are His Majesty’s Government doing regarding surveillance for antibiotics and their residues in aqueous environments and to reduce the contamination of those aqueous environments with antibiotics and residues, which can spread and facilitate the development of antibiotic resistance in humans and animals?
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
Antimicrobial resistance has been raised a number of times in the House. I have had several meetings with the noble Lord and his colleagues, talking about the UK’s success story in this area. Antibiotic use has been reduced by more than 50% over the last five years. However, there is more progress to be made and the noble Lord raises a series of very valuable points, which I will write to him on.
Lord Deben (Con)
Does my noble friend agree that if we do not get some of these things out pretty quickly and the European Union goes on improving its situation, many people will ask whether there was any point in taking back control in the first place?
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
That is certainly an interesting perspective but not one that I would agree with, I am afraid. Now that we have left the UK, we will follow the best—
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
I think that your Lordships spotted my mistake. We will follow the best scientific advice and adopt the most appropriate approaches for the UK.
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that firefighters have a cancer risk that is conservatively estimated to be two to three times higher than that of the general population and that one key factor in that higher risk is the presence of “forever chemicals” in firefighter foams and PPE? Can the Minister confirm that consulting with the FBU on issues such as regular health checks, and a strategy to mitigate and, ideally, prevent that risk, is in that draft updated strategy that he has next to him? Does he agree that dithering and delays in this strategy cost lives?
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
The noble Baroness is quite right. Forever chemicals are a serious concern. They are linked to a number of different firefighting products—the foam and chemicals that come out of the extinguishers present a particularly serious issue, and not only to those who are using them, for that product gets inextricably linked to the environment around it. A number of issues which will come through in the strategy are in place to address that.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, how long do the Government plan to keep granting emergency exemptions from the ban on neonicotinoid pesticides? When are they planning to ban these dangerous substances permanently?
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Earl knows, restrictions preventing the general use of three neonics in agriculture have been in place for several years. The Government continue to support these restrictions and have no intention of reversing them. A neonic seed treatment, Cruiser SB, is allowed to be used on sugar beet in England only if yellows virus is predicted to pose a threat to that year’s crop. This decision is not taken lightly and is based on a robust assessment of the environmental and economic risks and benefits.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, in the last four years, the EU has added 31 substances to its list of substances of very high concern and has banned eight substances on that list outright. The UK is reported to be considering adding four to its equivalent list of substances of very high concern, by 2025 at the earliest. Analysts have suggested that this is because of either the Government’s general reluctance to regulate or the lack of Civil Service capacity. Will the Minister change either of those two factors?
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
I believe there might be choices other than the two that the noble Baroness highlights. One is that not all those substances are necessarily being, or will be, used in the UK; therefore, banning them seems in no way appropriate. However, I take the noble Baroness’s point and will look into it further.
Baroness Redfern (Con)
My Lords, since leaving the EU, we have the freedom to phase out the most harmful and persistent pollutants. Are we on target to eliminate the use of polychlorinated biphenyls next year?
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that question. It might be best if I write to her with the details.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I always get the impression that chemicals regulation is at the bottom of Defra’s in-tray. Its performance since Brexit has been atrocious. I also get the impression that the Government’s strategy now is to lighten the burden on industry by reducing the amount of information that is put on UK REACH, but that has a lot of other effects. Can we not get to a point where we save real money for the UK chemical industry, which exports into the EU, by finding a pragmatic way—I mean pragmatic—to align with EU REACH, so that the industry can really perform, export and save a huge amount of money; in fact, billions of pounds?
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
The noble Lord raises a bigger point, and this is exactly what the chemicals strategy aims to achieve. I hope that when it is published, and it will be shortly, the noble Lord will be satisfied.
Universities: Sensitive Research
(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Cookham
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to protect sensitive research at universities from national security threats.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Viscount Camrose) (Con)
The Government are implementing a range of legislative and non-legislative measures, including the Research Collaboration Advice Team, which provides advice to academia on national security risks in international collaboration. The integrated review refresh committed to review the effectiveness of existing protections. The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology is leading this review, and the Deputy Prime Minister announced last week that the Government will consult on the response in the summer.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend, but are our universities not compromising their independence by becoming overreliant on China? Some 25% of the students, or 10,000, at UCL are Chinese, which risks the infiltration of academic research and, in the words of the Deputy Prime Minister, coercion, exploitation and vulnerability. While I welcome the recent Statement, what steps will the Government take to replace lost Chinese funding for our universities, so that the UK remains at the forefront of technological research?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I thank my noble friend for the question. The first thing to say is that the independence of universities is absolutely critical to the quality of their research. While the integrated review refresh has of course indicated a great many concerns about working closely with China, and necessitated a reduction of academic collaboration with China, I hope our recent reassociation to the Horizon programme, and a number of other third countries also considering or being very close to associating with Horizon, will go some way towards providing a new pool of collaboration partners in academic research.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure that all of us agree with the noble Lord, Lord Young, that we need to protect scientific development from malign actors. But is there not a real problem here—that new technology and advances in scientific knowledge not only require international collaboration, on a scale hitherto unknown, but that most of it, ever since the bow and arrow, is dual-purpose? In other words, it can be used for benevolent or malign reasons. How do the departments charged with this responsibility distinguish between these two, so that in protecting us from the misuse of scientific advances, they are not smothering scientific research as a whole?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
The noble Lord is absolutely right in his analysis of the problem, which I agree with wholeheartedly. The most powerful tool we have at our disposal in this is RCAT—the Research Collaboration Advice Team—which provides hundreds of individual items of advice in these areas, where it can actually be quite subtle whether something is dual or single-use or has a military or defence application. It is not something that can be very easily defined up front, and does require a certain wisdom and delicacy of advice to provide that.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, last week the Statement did not seem to say very much about which actors might be under consideration. The noble Lord, Lord Young, has already mentioned China, but do His Majesty’s Government also think that Iran and other countries might be a problem—not by giving funding, but by researchers and students coming? If that is the case, can His Majesty’s Government really expect universities to vet individuals? Is that not the role for government? I declare my interest as a professor at Cambridge.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
The noble Baroness raises a very important point; it is not about naming one or more countries and targeting them. The non-legislative and legislative elements of the entire approach to this are about being actor agnostic, and simply looking at the cases as they arise.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, further to the points made by my noble friend, the Government said they are taking a range of measures, but if you take an area like biosecurity, which I am sure the Minister will agree is a very significant potential future threat, with people perhaps developing pathogens, aided possibly by using AI technology to do them more easily and quickly, is there not a case for mandatory surveillance over, for example, access to materials, which would indicate where somebody might be trying to do something that has that dual purpose—in other words, something bad rather than something good? Does the Minister agree that a voluntary scheme, such as I understand exists at the moment, may not be enough?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
Indeed, and we must recognise that there are limits to a voluntary scheme, particularly where actors are genuinely malign. I reassure the noble Viscount that any research contracted for purposes of defence, or indeed for purposes that might be used for defence, would be subject to vetting in the usual way. Depending on the nature of the research, the greater the vetting.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as an honorary fellow of the University of Strathclyde. This challenge to our universities is both fast-moving and intensifying in complexity. Now, the Russell group comprises some universities across the United Kingdom, but not all. Universities UK represents many universities across the United Kingdom, but not all. Is there, or are there plans for, a United Kingdom Government security portal, accessible to all universities across the United Kingdom, for immediate advice and information, if they have concerns?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that. Yes, the university sector absolutely does go far beyond just the Russell group. We must take account of all its needs. The review of protections for higher education and academia is now entering its second phase. There will be consultation on that over the summer. An area it will look at is precisely the mechanics that my noble friend puts forward as to how this kind of transparency can best be delivered with the minimum possible administrative overhead.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, does the noble Viscount recall that, as long ago as September 2023, his noble friend Lord Johnson of Marylebone, in conjunction with King’s College, produced a report warning about the dangers which the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, mentioned to the House? It called for diversification of the population base of our universities, which had become too reliant on money flowing in from China. Will he also comment on the case that was raised in the media last month of Professor Michelle Shipworth, who was banned from teaching what was called a “provocative” course at a prestigious university, UCL, simply because it might compromise commercial interests—that is, the flow of money from China?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I certainly recognise the concern that overseas undergraduates tend to come very largely from a small number of countries, and the value of diversifying from that. I am afraid I am not familiar with the case the noble Lord mentions. I am very happy to write to him about it. It sounds extremely concerning.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, upholding national security is the first duty of any Government. To that end, we welcome the Government’s recent briefing for vice-chancellors and the intention to consult on how better to protect UK research from academic espionage. Given the importance of and the likely increase in these threats, does the Minister think it would be reasonable for the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State to offer similar briefings to their shadow counterparts?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I would be very happy to raise that with them and ask them to do so. I take the noble Baroness’s point. There is nothing more important for us to do than look after our security, and research security is a very serious component of that.
Baroness Manningham-Buller (CB)
Would the Minister recognise that it is extremely important that his department works closely with the Home Office on this? I noticed last week the warning, from my successor but three at MI5, to vice-chancellors of the threat from Chinese espionage in universities, much of which will be by students under coercion. If I may answer the noble Baroness’s question about who you can go to, there is an organisation but such is my senility that I cannot remember its name. I will look it up. It is connected very closely to MI5, but it is the public-facing organisation to which you go with concerns. It starts “National Protective Security”, I think, but a quick look on my telephone has not revealed the answer, so I will talk to her later. The Minister probably knows the answer, but I am afraid I do not.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I am consulting the lengthy list of acronyms that I wrote down in preparing for this, but I am not sure I have the right one. I take the noble Baroness’s point very seriously. We work extremely closely on this with the Home Office. A number of the legislative provisions keeping our research secure belong to the Home Office and we continue to work closely with it. As to the exact agency she mentioned, I will find out from my officials and write to her.
Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Bill
Tuesday 30th April 2024
(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Act 2024 View all Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 29 April 2024 - (29 Apr 2024)
Victims and Prisoners Bill
Tuesday 30th April 2024
(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 View all Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 57-III(a) Amendments for Report (Supplementary to the Third Marshalled List) - (29 Apr 2024)
15:33 - Division on Amendment 96 - Ayes: 214 / Noes: 208 - Amendment 96 agreed.
15:56 - Division on Amendment 101 - Ayes: 222 / Noes: 222 -
17:26 - Division on Amendment 113 - Ayes: 238 / Noes: 217 - Amendment 113 agreed.
18:05 - Division on Amendment 119AA - Ayes: 209 / Noes: 209 -
19:39 - Division on Amendment 119HA - Ayes: 67 / Noes: 175 - Amendment 119HA disagreed.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes
“Review of requests for counselling information relating to victims(1) The Secretary of State must prepare a report about the operation in the review period of Chapter 3A of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 (requests for information relating to victims) (inserted by section 24 of this Act) in relation to counselling information requests.(2) The Secretary of State may discharge the duty in subsection (1) by arranging for another person to prepare a report about those matters.(3) As soon as is reasonably practicable after the end of the review period, the Secretary of State must—(a) arrange for the report prepared under subsection (1) (or under arrangements under subsection (2)) to be published, and(b) lay the report before Parliament.(4) In this section—“counselling information request” has the meaning given by section 44A(3B) of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022;“review period” means the period of three years beginning with the day on which section 24 comes into force.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires a report about the operation of Chapter 3A of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, inserted by section 24 of this Act, in relation to counselling information requests to be prepared, published and laid before Parliament.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes
“Victims’ rights in relation to data(1) The UK GDPR is amended as follows.(2) In Article 21 (right to object), after paragraph 1, insert—“1A. The data subject shall have the right to object on grounds relating to his or her particular situation, at any time to processing of personal data concerning him or her, or a third party where that party is a child for whom they have parental responsibility, which is based on points (a) to (f) of Article 6(1), including profiling based on those provisions, if exceptional circumstances apply.1B. The exceptional circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1A are—(a) that the processing of the data was connected to, or reliant upon, conduct which could reasonably be suspected to constitute a criminal offence, or(b) that the processing of the data was connected to, or reliant upon, conduct which could reasonably be considered as being intended to cause harassment, alarm or distress to the data subject or another living individual.1C. The Secretary of State may by regulations subject to the affirmative resolution procedure prescribe other exceptional circumstances where the right to object mentioned in paragraph 1A applies.” (3) In Article 17 (right to erasure (“right to be forgotten”)), after paragraph 1(c), insert—“(ca) the data subject objects to the processing pursuant to Article 21(1A).””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would allow victims of third party harassment to request the deletion of any personal data which was gathered or held as part of activity which could be considered criminal conduct. The aim of this amendment is to prevent third party reporting from causing ongoing distress to victims.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Con)
My Lords, I am sorry that due to a family matter I could not be in the House for the Committee stage of this Bill to move the similar amendment tabled earlier. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Finn for speaking to that amendment. This amendment was tabled in the House of Commons by Stella Creasy MP based on her experience as a victim of harassment, but it is not unique to her situation. I am grateful, and I know she is too, for the continuing support for this amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and my noble friend Lady Finn, and for the engagement we have had with the Opposition Front Bench. I am also very grateful to Ministers and officials who have engaged with us in recent weeks on the issues raised by this amendment.
To recap briefly, just to put the amendment in context, if an individual makes a malicious complaint about someone to the police, the police can act to remove that record, but malicious reporting to other organisations, whether social services or an employer, as part of a campaign of stalking and harassment, does not carry the same safeguard. As a result, data is retained on individuals who have been targeted maliciously, whether that be workplace harassment, stalking or some other malicious behaviour. Such harassment, stalking or malicious behaviour might well include allegations about the parenting capacity of the victim, but it often takes other forms.
Many victims find that even if the person targeting them has been convicted, their harassment continues because such records remain in existence. This is because current data protection rules mean that records such as this cannot always be deleted. The retention of this data has long-lasting consequences for all individuals involved. In fact, having to repeatedly disclose the existence of the complaint, even if it has been proven to be part of a campaign of stalking or harassment, is in many ways a repetition of that harassment.
I think that where we are now, after that engagement with Ministers and officials, is that there is now a recognition by the Government that reporting by a third party can be used to perpetuate harassment or as part of a stalking campaign, and also that victims should be better supported to have those reports deleted. I understand that the Government’s concern has been to strike a balance between the right to erasure of data held as a result of malicious conduct or intent and the need of organisations to retain data that could become relevant in some future safeguarding context, particularly involving children.
That is why the proposed new clause before the House seeks to enable the deletion of data where a clear threshold is met to show that the report was the result of malice and its retention would continue the harassment. I think all those involved in the discussions, including the Government, agree that the threshold would certainly be reached in the case of a criminal conviction. Many of us also believe that the threshold is reached in the case of a civil order, where such an order is applied for by the police or made by the court, and where a breach of that order is in itself a criminal offence. It is important that we do not put victims off having such orders applied for in order to stop the harassment or stalking behaviour.
It is also important that the burden of getting the data deleted is not placed back on the victim of the stalking and harassment. Careful amendments to statutory guidance and the victims’ code would also be very welcome to ensure that in the right circumstances there is a presumption for the removal of data and the relevant authorities are given clear guidance on how to treat victim applications where malicious reporting is involved.
Having said all that, I shall now listen carefully to the rest of this debate, particularly to what to my noble and learned friend the Minister has to say in reply to these points. This is an important issue that we can do something about in the Bill to support victims of this malicious behaviour, and I hope that the House, Ministers and the Government will take the opportunity to do so. I beg to move.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I was happy to add my name to this amendment, to which several of us spoke at Second Reading and in Committee. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, and Stella Creasy MP for the dogged way in which they have pursued this issue. I give the Government and the Bill team credit for being worn down to the extent that a degree of accord, and indeed a recognition of this particular form of invasive behaviour, have been reached.
There is a lot in the press at the moment about a phenomenon known as sextortion. I would almost call what we are talking about in the amendment a form of domestic terrorism. It is somebody making a completely unfounded allegation about, in this case, somebody else’s fitness to be a parent of small children in order to, in a sense, force a situation in which an investigation has to take place. Even though the investigation finds that there is absolutely no basis in the allegation, the allegation remains on that individual’s record, and that individual is compelled to reveal that allegation in a variety of situations in which they are required to provide due diligence. In each case they have to explain that it was malicious and the result of harassment. That is what we are trying to avoid.
I too am looking forward to what the Minister will say in response. I hope that at Third Reading there will be an amendment that we can all agree with. Your Lordships will be aware that, as Stella Creasy was surprised to find out, we in your Lordships’ House are able to table an amendment at Third Reading. We very much hope that will not be necessary, because we are sure the government amendment will meet what is required. To that extent, the sooner we are able to see the wording of the government amendment and have a further dialogue about it if necessary, so that we are all on the same page at Third Reading, the better. I thank the Minister and the Bill team for being so accommodating.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I spoke in Committee on behalf of my noble friend Lady Morgan and I support her amendment today. I commend the tenacity of Stella Creasy, my noble friend and other noble Lords in engaging with various government departments, and I thank my noble friends the Ministers for engaging with her and Stella over some of the more complex issues involved.
I appreciate that this is not completely straightforward, but the fact that it is difficult to reach a conclusion should not prevent us tabling the amendment and getting it right. While it is disappointing that we do not yet have a government amendment to scrutinise, I thank my noble and learned friend the Minister for agreeing to table an amendment that we hope will cover all the areas of concern at Third Reading.
It is hard to overemphasise the toll that malicious complaints take on individuals, their mental health and their family life. I take a real case of someone who suddenly, out of the blue, received a call from the local police sharing details of a complaint made about the treatment of her children. Despite the false claims being robustly rebutted—her children had attended school, were taken to the dentist and were registered with their local GP, despite allegations to the contrary—this mark remains on her record and that of her children. She describes it as feeling like “the sword of Damocles hanging over my head”. It is a constant worry. It is simply not right that many victims find that, even if the person targeting them has been convicted, their harassment continues because such records remain. The retention of this data has lasting consequences for all individuals involved.
I am not going to repeat all the arguments but will quickly emphasise three points. First, limiting this amendment to victims of crime where the data is linked to that crime would ensure that it does not become open to abuse, but stalking and harassment involve many actions by perpetrators, so it is important that the drafting of these amendments should not be too narrow. Secondly, while there needs to be a clear threshold to show that the retention of data will continue the harassment, the removal of data should not be confined to criminal convictions. My noble friend Lady Morgan has made the case for the various thresholds very clearly.
Finally, if an individual makes a malicious complaint about someone to the police, the police can act to remove that record. If chief constables have clear guidance that covers the removal of malicious allegations, it should surely be possible to have similar guidance for malicious reporting to other organisations. I am very grateful that my noble friend the Minister has agreed to explore this further.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, it was an honour to sign this amendment and to join in some of the meetings with the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, and colleagues and Stella Creasy. Other colleagues have already explained the progress that has been made. We are hoping to hear from the Minister shortly, but I just want to say that, should the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, decide to call a vote, we on these Benches will support her. If she does not, we look forward to seeing an amendment at Third Reading.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I am only going to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan. I think she has shown huge patience and persistence. I am not surprised, because my honourable friend Stella Creasy has those qualities too. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said, should the Minister not satisfy the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, we on these Benches are ready to support her in a Division.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, I do not think that any message could have been conveyed more loudly and more convincingly than the one I have just received. I thank my noble friend Lady Morgan for this amendment and thank the other speakers on this topic.
As your Lordships have heard, the amendment seeks to revise current data protection legislation so that victims of malicious complaints involving third parties can prevent the processing—and subsequently request the deletion—of personal data from that complaint. The issue has been raised previously in the other place and discussed in your Lordships’ House in Committee. As my noble friend Lady Morgan has just said, the Government indeed recognise that complaints of this kind can be used to perpetuate harassment and that victims should be better supported.
In addition, as my noble friend also pointed out, we have to strike a balance between the processes for erasure and removal of all traces of such complaints and harassment on the one hand and the need to have regard to safeguarding concerns on the other. The issue is how we strike the balance. The Government’s present view is that the amendment as drafted is not one that we can accept because it is too wide and poses some operational and safeguarding issues. However, we have heard the concerns and, although we cannot accept the amendment today, I commit the Government to bringing forward an amendment at Third Reading to address these concerns.
To explain a little, if I may, we have to triangulate several different aspects: the nature of the harassment concerned, the provisions and procedures of the GDPR, the child safeguarding issues that are the concern of the Department for Education, the different procedures for various criminal and civil orders, the relevant police procedures and a number of other considerations, so it is not entirely straightforward. However, although it is not ideal to bring forward an amendment at Third Reading, this is a complex area and we should take the time to find an appropriate solution.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy very much for that wording. I also thank all those who have spoken in this short but perfectly formed, deeply efficient and extremely tenacious debate for their support, which has been much appreciated. Perhaps I might say that this has also been an instructive lesson to Members from the House of Commons as to how we get things done here in this Chamber.
We need to see the wording and I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for saying that. We will of course engage with his officials. I am also deeply grateful to my noble friend Lady Barran for her engagement already. I am very grateful that the Government now see the need to update the law to take into account this very real situation. Any amendment needs to be clear that the process of applying for deletion must be accessible to victims of malicious complaint. The threshold, as we have heard, is not just criminal convictions but, potentially, other orders so that we do not create a perverse incentive for victims not to have certain orders sought on their behalf. I also appreciate that any amendment obviously needs to safeguard protection and rights for children.
On this basis, we will see whether the government amendment goes far enough when we see it before Third Reading—I hope we see it well in advance of that—and, if not, I reserve the right to table our own to continue the debate. I am grateful for the support. I will even take it to a vote at Third Reading if we feel that the Government’s amendment is not fit for purpose. But, for the purposes of today, I will withdraw Amendment 95.
Baroness Meacher
“Victims of specified offences: data-sharing for immigration purposes(1) The personal data of a victim of a crime mentioned in subsection (3), which is processed for the purpose of that person requesting or receiving support or assistance related to the crime, must not be used for any immigration control purpose without the consent of that person.(2) The personal data of a witness to crime mentioned in subsection (3), which is processed for the purpose of that person giving information or evidence to assist the investigation or prosecution of the crime, must not be used for any immigration control purpose without the consent of that person.(3) The crimes referred to in subsections (1) and (2) are—(a) domestic abuse as defined by section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021;(b) an offence under any of sections 2, 2A, 4 or 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 or section 42A (1) of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001;(c) an offence under any of sections 1, 2 or 4 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015;(d) an offence under Part 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003; (e) such other offences as specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.(4) Paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 to the Data Protection Act 2018 does not apply to personal data processed for the purposes of subsection (1) or (2).(5) For the purposes of this section, the Secretary of State must publish guidance about the effect of subsections (1) and (2) to—(a) persons who are victims of or witnesses to the crimes in subsection (3),(b) persons from whom support or assistance may be requested or received by a victim of crime in the United Kingdom,(c) persons providing support to, or conducting investigations or prosecutions with the support of, witnesses of crime in the United Kingdom,(d) persons exercising any function of the Secretary of State in relation to immigration, asylum or nationality, and(e) persons exercising any function conferred by or by virtue of the Immigration Acts on an immigration officer.(6) The Secretary of State may from time to time revise any guidance issued under this section.(7) Before issuing or revising guidance under this section, the Secretary of State must consult—(a) the Domestic Abuse Commissioner,(b) the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses,(c) the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, and(d) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(8) Subsection (7) does not apply in relation to any revisions of the guidance issued under this section if the Secretary of State considers the proposed revisions of the guidance are insubstantial.(9) A person exercising public functions to whom guidance issued under this section relates must have regard to it in the exercise of those functions.(10) For the purposes of this section—“consent” means a freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous indication of the individual’s wishes by which the individual, by a statement, signifies agreement to the processing of the personal data.“immigration” means the exercise of any functions of the Secretary of State and of immigration officers under the Immigration Acts within the meaning of section 61 of the UK Borders Act 2007.“support or assistance” includes the provision of accommodation, banking services, education, employment, financial or social assistance, healthcare and policing services and any function of a court or prosecuting authority.“victim”, in relation to a crime, means the particular person who appears to have been affected by the crime, and their dependent, where that dependent is also affected by the crime.”Member’s explanatory statement
This probing amendment seeks to ensure that the personal data of a victim of a crime is not used for any immigration control purpose without the consent of that person.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
I intend to press this amendment to a vote, so I need to explain it. We have already debated it but, very briefly, the amendment seeks to protect migrants who help the police by preventing their personal details being used by the immigration authorities. With that, I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Bellamy
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 5, page 4, line 27 and Clause 18, page 17, line 17.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 5, page 4, line 27.
“(ii) in subsection (3)(a), for “required to do anything under the code issued under section 32” substitute “who is subject to the duty in section 5(A1) of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 (duty to provide services in accordance with victims’ code)”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 5, page 4, line 27.
Baroness Brinton
“Duty to inform victims and families of the unduly lenient sentencing schemeAfter section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, insert—“36A Duty to inform victims and families of the unduly lenient sentencing scheme(1) The Secretary of State must nominate a government department to inform victims and their families of their rights set out in section 36 (reviews of sentencing).(2) The information provided under subsection (1) must include the type of sentence and the time limit for application, and advise that applications must be made to the Attorney General.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment will ensure that victims are aware of the Unduly Lenient Sentencing scheme which presently has a strict 28-day timeframe in which to apply, there being no power to extend the time.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to lay Amendments 100 and 101 for your Lordships’ consideration. As we had a considerable debate on them in Committee, I propose to outline only the briefest reasons why I have re-laid these amendments originally laid by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst.
The whole object of the Bill is to give victims some rights that would at least go some way towards matching the rights for offenders and other participants in the criminal justice system. At present, the permissions for a victim to argue and challenge a sentence for being unduly lenient are completely different from those of everybody else involved in the system. For example, offenders can exceed a 28-day timeframe by exceptionality—all they and their counsel have to do is demonstrate that there really are exceptional circumstances. But, for victims, there is no such exception at all, even if they were not informed by the police or the courts about the sentence itself but were left completely in the dark.
We know from the many stories that were retold in Committee that there is a real sense of injustice. One victim had received notification of the sentence on the 28th day by which she had to apply for a challenge. It was delivered to the Attorney-General’s office, and nobody was there, even though it was within the timeframe. Because it was not opened, she was not permitted to challenge the sentence.
I am very grateful to the Minister for the discussion we have had, and I look forward to hearing him speak from the Dispatch Box. What we seek through these two amendments is to make sure that victims have the right, as everybody else in the criminal justice system does, to say, “Please will the Attorney-General reconsider this sentence for this crime, because we believe that it is unduly lenient?” I beg to move.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
I am happy to add my name to these two amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. There is no need to speak at length about them; it is essentially about trying to ensure that victims have equality of rights, in this case with prospective prisoners. At the moment, frankly, they are disadvantaged and are put through a series of hoops—if, indeed, they can find out what in theory they are entitled to. I shall say no more than that I entirely support everything the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has said, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, we had a very full debate on this issue in Committee. From these Benches, we are deeply committed to these two amendments. This is a victims’ Bill, and it seems to me that we really need to be doing things to support victims, which is what these two relatively modest amendments do. If the noble Baroness decides to test the opinion of the House, we will support her.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 100 and 101 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, seek to extend the current time limit for applications under the unduly lenient sentence scheme, which currently must be made within 28 days of sentencing and require a nominated government department to inform victims and families of the scheme, including the relevant time limits.
Having a fixed time limit reflects the importance of finality in sentencing for both victim and offender. While we will keep this limit under consideration, there are no current plans to remove the certainty of an absolute time limit for victims and offenders alike. However, the Government recognise that there is uncertainty over how far in advance of the time limit expiring a victim must ask for a sentence to be reviewed, given the fact that the Attorney-General must refer the case to the Court of Appeal within that fixed time limit. We also recognise that the number of requests made to the law officers and therefore the number of sentences they consider has increased in recent years, due in part to increased awareness of the scheme.
The Government are therefore tabling an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill which will amend the time limit in the unduly lenient sentencing scheme so that, where a request is made to the Attorney-General in the last 14 days of the 28-day limit, the Attorney-General will have 14 days from receipt to consider the request and, if appropriate, make an application to the Court of Appeal for a sentence to be reviewed. This will benefit victims as it will ensure that the Attorney-General will be able to consider requests that are made up until the end of the 28-day period.
As for informing victims about the scheme and the time limits, as I said in Committee, the victims’ code is already clear that victims should be informed about the scheme by the police’s witness care units at the same time as they are told about the sentence. This is expected to be done within six days of sentencing. However, I can go further and commit that when revising the victims’ code, the Government will look at the information about the scheme that is provided to make sure that it is as clear as possible. I hope this reassures the noble Baroness that action is being taken to address the issues she raised very eloquently in Committee and again today. Consequently, I respectfully ask her to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to all speakers, especially for their brevity. I particularly thank the Minister for outlining details of how the Government are considering changing this, but we are seeking parity of rights between offenders and victims here. Offenders can still appeal outside 28 days in exceptional circumstances, those exceptional circumstances being judged by the Attorney-General. That is not on offer at the moment. There are not going to be floods of victims applying via these amendments if they have concerns about the finality of sentencing, but for a few victims of very serious crimes, this would provide a small amount of discretion. We heard examples that show how rigid the current system is. Under these amendments, the Attorney-General could easily decide, as they do at the moment for offenders, if there are genuine exceptional circumstances. It is true that the 14-day proposals assist the Attorney-General’s office and the CPS; however, the fundamental injustice remains. Victims, and only victims, still have only 28 days to apply. On these grounds, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Brinton
“Unduly lenient sentences: time limitIn paragraph 1 of Schedule 3 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, at end insert “, subject to paragraph 1A. (1A) The time limit of 28 days shall be extended in exceptional circumstances, which may include but not be limited to a failure of the relevant body to inform the victim and families of their rights under section 36 (reviews of sentencing).””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would allow for the 28-day timeframe to be extended in exceptional circumstances, and prompt criminal justice agencies to meet their obligation to inform the victim and families of their rights and the tight time limit.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, with apologies to the House, it was Amendment 101 that I meant to divide on. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
My Lords, there being an equality of votes, in accordance with Standing Order 55, which provides that no proposal to amend a Bill in the form in which it is before the House shall be agreed to unless there is a majority in favour of such amendment, I declare the amendment disagreed to.
Lord Garnier
“Compensation for victims of fraud and other economic crimes(1) The Secretary of State must, within one year of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a review of victims of fraud, bribery and money laundering offences.(2) The purpose of the review under subsection (1) is to identify how victims of such economic crimes could be better compensated without such victims needing to pursue civil action.(3) The Secretary of State must provide for a public consultation on the review.(4) In this section “victims of economic crime” includes United Kingdom and overseas victims of complex corruption cases where the harm caused by the offending is not easily quantifiable.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause requires a review to explore how domestic and overseas victims of fraud, bribery and money laundering offences could be better compensated without the need for civil proceedings to recover their losses or compensation.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, I wonder whether I can achieve such a satisfactory result at the end of my little outing.
For my noble friends on the Front Bench, listening to me speaking about this subject, which includes the proposed new clause in my Amendment 101A, it must seem as though they are listening to a cracked record—but for me it is like banging my head against a brick wall. For both of us, it will be nice when it stops.
In brief, my proposed new clause intends to require
“a review to explore how domestic and overseas victims of fraud, bribery and money laundering offences could be better compensated without the need for civil proceedings to recover their losses or compensation”.
I will hardly speak at all about the reasons behind the amendment and the good sense for it, because I already did so in Committee and trailed it, more or less verbatim, prior to that at Second Reading in December. Your Lordships will be pleased to hear that I will not say it a third time. However, what I will say a third time is a matter of formality relevant to the amendment: I declare my interest as a member of the Bar who practises in the field of economic crime.
I thank my noble friend Lord Roborough on the Front Bench, who very kindly arranged for me and Sam Tate—the partner of Reynolds Porter Chamberlain, RPC, the London law firm, who has studied this question with me and others—to meet him last week, along with a number of his officials. We had a very useful and friendly discussion, as one would expect. The conclusion was that there would need to be—guess what?—further discussions before the Government would be prepared to do very much.
I fully understand, and I fully understood then, the difficulties in which the Minister found himself in having the discretion to move this thing forward, but I think we both understand that this needs to be dealt with. It is a matter of morality and good law, and it has nothing whatever to do with party politics. This is not an area of political discord but just a matter of common sense and getting it done.
Essentially, I am trying to make it possible for the victims of fraud and other economic offences that impact on people overseas to be compensated by our English courts. The headline points are these. According to research done by Sam Tate and others at RPC, approximately £1.5 billion has been paid by corporates in fines and disgorgements of profits in the United Kingdom in relation to international corruption cases over the last 10 years, but only 1.4% of that money—about £20 million —has been paid to overseas state victims in compensation.
As I said, I will not repeat what I said at Second Reading and in Committee about the complications that may follow with trying to arrange for compensation to overseas victims to be implemented. It is not an utterly easy thing to do but, equally, it is not utterly difficult. It just requires effort, political will and drive. I hope that the meeting I had with my noble friend the Minister last week and the brevity of my remarks today will encourage the Government to just use a bit of oomph to get this thing going.
If the public listened to what I am saying now— I quite appreciate that they do not—they would realise that it is mad that we prosecute people here for things they did overseas but we do not compensate the victims who are overseas. There are hospitals and schools to be built, and other infrastructure and good causes to benefit from the compensation that ought to be paid.
I will leave it there, because I know that my noble friend the Minister would like to say some very encouraging things about what the Government are going to do, very shortly and certainly before the election, to ensure that this programme is moved forward. I have a draft letter, which I will send to the chairman of the Sentencing Council and which my noble friend has seen; he has heard all my arguments many times before. I just hope that, this third time, I will be able to persuade him to move a little more than an inch towards that milepost that I can see not very far away. I beg to move.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier for raising this issue in Amendment 101A and for taking the time to meet me the other day to discuss this important issue further. As he is well aware, cases linked to foreign bribery are inherently complex, and the suggestion and detail that he has provided are being given careful consideration by my officials. Given the range of departmental interests engaged, His Majesty’s Government need to give it the consideration it is owed and welcome further conversations once they have digested my noble and learned friend’s points further. I will briefly lay out the Government’s position, which I did not cover fully in Committee.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend on the Front Bench for his response. I take on board precisely what he has said. This is complicated but it is not as complicated as he perhaps has been led to believe. It is easy to say that it is all too difficult, put it into the “too difficult” box and leave it. I simply urge my noble friend the Minister to move it just a bit into the “let’s have a look at it quite seriously” box. There is an awful lot of good that we can do, both for the victims of such overseas criminal activity and for our reputation as an honest place in which to do business and from which to do business.
I have troubled the House about this subject quite enough during this Bill, so will draw my remarks to an end by asking the leave of the House to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Wills
Lord Wills (Lab)
My Lords, I shall combine my remarks on Amendment 102 with those on Amendments 103, 105 and 106.
Amendments 102, 103 and 105 seek to remove an unfair and irrational restriction on the role of the independent public advocate. I spoke in Committee at some length about how my original conception of this position in my Private Member’s Bill was driven by the pressing need for greater support and agency for those have been failed by the state and by public authorities in major incidents. Those who can avail themselves of the services of the advocate must include those for whom harm continues after a major incident, even though the major incident occurred before the passage of the Act.
Can there really be any serious justification for excluding, for example, the victims of contaminated blood transfusions and the postmasters whose lives were wrecked and continue to be wrecked by the Horizon scandal—people still struggling with the consequences of those failures by the state and by public authorities, even though the failures occurred before now?
I would be grateful if, in his response, the Minister would address this question directly: what justification is there to restrict the role of the advocate to exclude those such as the victims of contaminated blood transfusions? These amendments would rectify this specific problem in the current draft of the Bill.
In asking the Minister to respond to that question, I should perhaps have preceded my remarks by thanking him for the great generosity of time that he has given me, with his officials—to whom I am also extremely grateful—in discussing all the elements of this part of the Bill. He has gone over and above the call of duty. That I am one of many speakers thanking him for that shows the extent of this House’s debt to him and his officials in the progress of the Bill.
Amendment 106 is a relatively minor amendment but, after two Private Member’s Bills, it occurred to me that we perhaps should be more careful about how we define those who might benefit from the services of the of an independent public advocate. What constitutes a “close family member” in the modern world? Fifty or 100 years ago, the answer would have been common sense, but it is not any more. Living arrangements and relationships are much more various than they ever used to be. “Close” and “family” are, in effects, often disputable terms, and the current draft of the Bill is perhaps purposefully vague. For example, who will decide whether a parent estranged from their partner and who is no longer responsible for the upbringing of a child victim counts as a close family member? What happens if the person in question disputes any exclusion from the services of the advocate? If we at all can, we should try to head off such arguments beforehand, because they would only compound the grief and trauma suffered by many in the aftermath of a major incident.
This amendment seeks to avoid that, although it is, in essence, probing. If the Government have a better formulation, I would be happy to consider it, but it seeks to do so by introducing the specific definitions that have been derived from the intestacy provisions.
Amendment 106A tries to ensure that the post is implemented with proper timeliness. In Committee, I pointed out that it has been nearly seven years since the creation of an independent public advocate featured in the 2017 Queen’s Speech. The amendment seeks to remove any further possibility that the Government will unnecessarily delay the implementation of this post. In his response in Committee, the Minister, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, rightly pointed out the need to observe due process in public appointments, so the amendment has been tweaked to take better account of that than my previous one.
In doing so, I had regard to the Governance Code on Public Appointments. Among other things, the code says that appointments should be completed
“within three months of a competition closing”.
In 2019, the Commissioner for Public Appointments found that the Ministry of Justice, where ministerial responsibility for the independent public advocate will reside, completed only 18% of appointments within that three-month target. Only the Home Office and BEIS had worse figures. To show that these figures are achievable, that compares to 100% of appointments by His Majesty’s Treasury and 76.7% by NHSI. Of course, the Ministry of Justice’s performance might have been transformed in the last five years but, in any event, the six-month period stipulated in this amendment should be ample time for the department to appoint the first independent public advocate, if it fulfils its duties in the way that the Commissioner for Public Appointments expects. If the Minister disagrees, I would be grateful if he could explain in detail why. This amendment is simply a lever to ensure compliance with the code of governance.
I now turn briefly to Amendment 110ZA. I spoke to this in Committee; I have tabled it again because, as it stands, the Bill still appears to permit the Secretary of State to appoint the independent public advocate but deprive them of the means to exercise their functions. I cannot believe that that is what the Government intend, but in any event this amendment will prevent any such travestying of the position.
Finally in this group, I come to Amendment 119AA; this amendment is intended to replace Amendment 108 in the Marshalled List. I spoke at some length in Committee, again, about the need to provide for some version of the Hillsborough Independent Panel to be accommodated in this Bill. This amendment attempts to do just that. I do not intend to rehearse again all of the arguments I made in Committee, but I remind the Minister of the advantages of such a provision, in terms of saving the taxpayer potentially hundreds of millions of pounds over the lifetime of a Parliament, and helping victims and the bereaved towards a more timely closure of their grief and trauma. The prolonged processes embedded, for example, in public inquiries only increase their suffering. I should be grateful if the Minister could indicate in his response whether the Government truly understand the crucial imperative of timeliness in fact-finding after a major incident, and how important that is for victims and the bereaved. How can it be acceptable to make them wait year after year, sometimes decade after decade, to find out what happened to their loved ones, and to understand why they have suffered such loss? Such delays only compound grief and trauma. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I return to speak very briefly to Amendment 109B, to deal with the position of Wales. In Committee, I introduced an amendment to require the Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor, when appointing an independent advocate, to secure the consent of the Welsh Ministers. This is an area where it is common ground that there is devolution. I am grateful to say that the Government have agreed that there should be consultation, but they refuse to agree consent.
I put this down initially because one of the ways to make a union strong is to have a proper dialogue. Now, there are some areas where consultation has to be required by statute. Normally, one would expect that in areas where there is an overlap in competence, there would be consultation, but it is right we put a statutory duty in to that effect. However, it seems to me wholly extraordinary—and I am pretty certain it has nothing to do with the Ministry of Justice— that they refuse to agree to the consent of the Welsh Ministers.
Now, noble Lords will all know that, when looking for a lawyer, there is normally quite a good choice. In my experience, having been involved on a number of occasions, you can normally have a discussion about A or B, and you agree on C. It seems to me totally extraordinary, if we are to live in a union that works, that the Government in Westminster have to say, “No, those people in Cardiff just have to be consulted; we don’t have to get their consent”. Is this any way to run a union? The answer is obviously not, and I am sure that this does not come from the Ministry of Justice—in this Bill, the Lord Chancellor and the Minister have been most sensible in what they have put forward. But I deplore that bit of the Government that simply cannot understand that going through the courtesy of discussing things and obtaining consent is the better way to run a union.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as someone who lives in Wales. I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd for the way he introduced this amendment, which, as I understand it, actually reflects the proper constitutional provision. This is, by common ground, a devolved area. The Senedd has competence to legislate for the creation and appointment of an independent advocate for victims of major incidents in Wales. The UK and Welsh Governments agree that is the case, so the Senedd could make provision for Wales. I note the Welsh Government also believe that their Ministers would be able to appoint a non-statutory advocate following an incident in Wales under general executive powers.
As it stands, therefore, we are legislating for a situation in which rival advocates could possibly be appointed at the same time. This may not seem a likely eventuality, but it would be easily prevented by this amendment. The only element of this part of the Bill in which the Senedd could not make provision with regard to Wales is that an advocate for victims appointed under the Bill would automatically secure interested person status in a relevant inquest under Clause 34, but an advocate for victims appointed by Welsh Ministers could still be given interested person status by a senior coroner if they consider them to have sufficient interest.
Clearly, it seems sensible for this legislation to cover both England and Wales, and so for the Welsh Government to be part of the scheme, but it is similarly sensible that the legislation reflects devolution, and enables Welsh Ministers to ensure that the advocate has knowledge in Wales and the necessary ability to do everything in Welsh. I remind the House that there is equal status between the two languages—in Wales, both English and Welsh are spoken—and the systems in Wales sometimes operate quite differently from systems in England.
The Secretary of State acting unilaterally in an area of devolved competence would not seem appropriate, and we need to avoid friction to strengthen the union. This is an opinion only and I am not speaking on behalf of Welsh Government at all, but the Counsel General expressed in the Senedd on 13 December that
“there needs to be specific account in terms of the role of Welsh Government and what would happen within Welsh situations were there to be a tragic event”.
I therefore hope that the amendment will be accepted and will require the consent of Welsh Ministers to be agreed, not simply a consultation. The problem with the consultation is that there is a real risk it could be tokenistic.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, Clause 28 does not apply to Scotland, which can have its own legislation to deal with this matter, but I am very much in favour of the amendment. I have gone over the ground of seeking consent many times in different situations, but in this one, where we are dealing with the choice of advocates, the choice matters very much indeed. I would have thought that there is great sense in the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, that this is an area where the consent of Welsh Ministers is not only appropriate but required.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I have not taken part in earlier discussions on this Bill for reasons outside my control, but it would be strange for me not to get on my feet to reinforce the points that have been so well made by noble Lords. This is an important matter as far as Wales is concerned. There needs to be clarity and co-operation, and that has to be on a proper basis. I suggest that these amendments would help facilitate that.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, while we support the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Wills, in view of the explanations he gave for them in Committee and today I shall not add to what he said on them, except for Amendment 119AA, to which I will turn. I should also add that we thoroughly support the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. We should all be mindful of his question, “Is this any way to run a union?” No, it is not, because there is a certain tactlessness, which is offensive and should be reversed, about the way the London Government sometimes regard devolution.
I will say a word or two about Amendment 104, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, although he has not yet spoken to it. I intervened on the principle of that amendment in Committee because it seemed to me then, as it does now, that the number of people killed or seriously injured in an incident is not and should not be the determining factor in whether it is a major incident. In Committee there was discussion about whether the Horizon scandal could be classified as a major incident because of the number of deaths and the serious harm that was caused, even though that harm may be psychological or emotional, and we questioned that. We also considered the Fishmongers’ Hall attack in which the significant number threshold was plainly not met, but the effect on the wider public of that event was traumatic, deep and widespread, I suggest, certainly enough to enable it to be properly classified as a major incident.
Since Committee, the noble Lord has narrowed his amendment significantly. It now seeks to permit the Secretary of State to classify as a major incident any incident where the circumstances indicate systemic failings of a public body and that such circumstances might recur, even where the significant number threshold is not met. I should have thought that the Government could have accepted and should accept that amendment. I will be very interested to hear whether the Minister considers that it is acceptable or whether he has some alternative; and, if not, why he considers that the number of dead and injured is a necessary condition for the appointment of public advocates.
Amendments 109 and 110 from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, concern considering the views of the victims before appointing an additional advocate and before terminating the appointment of advocates. Those amendments go some way, although a limited way, to ensuring the independence of advocates. That independence is an essential cornerstone of the scheme: independent advocates having the ability, the willingness and, indeed, the obligation to tell the truth as they see it, to argue for the truth as they see it and to criticise where they see the need. Otherwise, there is a danger that this scheme could prove a route to whitewashing the blunders of public bodies, which is something we all wish to avoid.
As to Amendment 119AA, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wills, on which we expect he may wish to divide the House, the decision on whether to hold an inquiry into a major incident lies at the heart of the scheme. I suggest that he has made a powerful case that the power to establish an alternative fact-finding inquiry is important, for all the reasons he has given. It is also self-evident that any fact-finding inquiry can be effective only with access to all the relevant evidence, which is set out in his amendment. The very fact that the Government are resisting this amendment suggests a lack of self-confidence to ensure a thorough and independent scrutiny of major incidents, and that is why we shall support the noble Lord, Lord Wills, if he divides the House.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, this group of amendments is concerned with the scope and role of the independent advocate. I open by paying tribute to the work that my noble friend Lord Wills has done on this role for many years now through a number of Private Members’ Bills. If he chooses to test the opinion of the House on his Amendment 119AA, we will support it.
I shall speak briefly to the amendments in my name in this group. Amendment 104 would enable the Secretary of State to designate incidents causing serious harm or death to a small number of individuals as major incidents where there was a significant public interest in doing so. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, gave the example of Fishmongers’ Hall, where there were few fatalities but nevertheless it was a serious incident that had a national impact. The noble Lord and I will listen with interest to the Government’s response to Amendment 104.
Amendment 107 would require the standing advocate to communicate the views of the victims of a major incident to the Secretary of State. Amendment 109 would require the Secretary of State to consider the views of victims of a major incident on whether to appoint an additional advocate and who to appoint. Amendment 110 would place a requirement on the Secretary of State to consider the views of the victims of a major incident before terminating the appointment of an advocate appointed in relation to that major incident.
Amendment 111 would require the Secretary of State to make guidance under Clause 38 publicly available. Amendment 112 would require the Secretary of State to consult the standing advocate before issuing, revising or withdrawing guidance in relation to matters to which advocates appointed in respect of major incidents must have regard. I look forward to the Minister’s response to all those amendments, none of which I intend to press—they are essentially probing amendments.
I shall comment briefly on the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, about the situation in Wales. I listened with interest to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said on the matter. I am not a lawyer, as I have said many times in this House, but the word used in the amendment is “concurrence”, not “consent”. I do not know whether that is a substantial difference but the whole of that mini-debate referred to the word “consent”, not the word used in the amendment. Nevertheless, the noble and learned Lord made an interesting and substantial point, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
In conclusion, if my noble friend chooses to press Amendment 119AA, we will support him.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, first I shall speak to the amendments tabled in my name, on behalf of the Government, which address the last point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, about the relationship between the Secretary of State and the Welsh Government. Government Amendments 103A and 109A will require the Secretary of State to consult Welsh Ministers before declaring a major incident that occurs in Wales and before appointing an advocate in respect of that incident. I am aware that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, has tabled Amendment 109B, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and other noble Lords have supported it.
The scheme here is being administered and funded by the UK Government. The Government’s position is therefore that the right level of involvement for Welsh Ministers is to be consulted by the Secretary of State before decisions are made, rather than requiring consent or concurrence, as Amendment 109B suggests. The Government believe it would not be proportionate for the UK Government to require the consent of Welsh Ministers, thereby in effect giving them a veto over those decisions. The Government must be able to act quickly following a disaster. I believe these amendments prioritise both speed and operability while respecting aspects of this policy that cover devolved areas.
For the avoidance of doubt, I add that, as far as the Ministry of Justice is concerned, we have perfectly good relations with the Counsel General for Wales, and we are in regular touch with Welsh Ministers on matters of mutual interest. For myself, I do not anticipate any difficulties arising from the sensible amendments proposed by the Government. Given that the Government have tabled these amendments, and having regard to the points I have just outlined, I hope the noble Baroness will not press her amendment. I shall be moving the amendments in my name in this regard.
Government Amendment 110A is a technical amendment, clarifying the grounds on which the Secretary of State may omit from reports material that, in the Secretary of State’s view, would prejudice an investigation, inquest or inquiry. This is an important amendment to ensure that materials relating to national security or those that might prejudice a subsequent investigation or criminal trial, for example, are protected. In the Government’s view, the amendments preserve the necessary balance between protecting that integrity and giving reassurance that the independent public advocate’s reports will not be unduly affected. It is a sensible precaution to take.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Government for the review. My own view is that while I would also like there to be some of the powers mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Wills, it is a position that will evolve over time. It is really important to have that review and right to recognise where the Government have moved, and I thank them for it.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for that intervention. That is the Government’s position on Amendments 102 and 105.
Amendment 103, which is in the same group, would impose a duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the emotional and financial interests of victims when deciding whether to declare a major incident. The Government’s view is that the definition of harm in the Bill already includes emotional harm, as in Clause 28(3). It is unlikely that financial harm would occur in isolation, without the other kinds of harms mentioned in the Bill. Certainly, harm is a major factor when the Secretary of State considers whether to declare a major incident, so the Government’s position is that Amendment 103 is not necessary.
Amendment 106 touches on the close family member point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wills. The question is how these days you define a close family member. The Government do not believe that the face of the Bill is the appropriate place to address that concern. In modern society, there is effectively no set structure for a family and the Government need flexibility to capture those who need support. In the Government’s view, the approach is best left to guidance and the discretion of the IPA concerned to provide that flexibility. Of course, the input of the noble Lord and others when we draft the guidance on what kind of indications should be given in it will be very valuable, rather than having it set out in advance in the technical structure of the Bill.
We then come to Amendments 107, 109 and 110, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and Amendments 106A and 110ZA, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wills. These require the appointment of a standing advocate within six months of Royal Assent, the Secretary of State to consider the views of victims and the provision of support so that the independent advocate will have all the support necessary.
As far as the period of six months to appoint is concerned, of course the Government share the noble Lord’s desire for the standing advocate to be in place as soon as possible once the Bill becomes law. But there has to be a fair and open competition for the office. As I hope the noble Lord will appreciate, the Government will want to carry out all relevant due diligence prior to the appointment. That process will take some time. In addition, I can confirm that the standing advocate will be subject to pre-appointment scrutiny by the Justice Select Committee to ensure that the most appropriate candidate is appointed to the post. For those reasons, the Government do not feel that any change to the process is required at this time. In particular, the six-month period would be unduly restricting considering the importance of the decision and the processes that have to be gone through, including parliamentary scrutiny. It would be far too tight.
As far as taking into account the views of victims as part of the appointment-making process is concerned, the Government certainly share this goal. When the functions of the standing advocate come to be undertaken, as outlined in Clause 29, the advocate will advise the Secretary of State on the interests of victims, whether additional advocates are needed and whether to terminate et cetera. The Government are quite satisfied that the views of victims will, in the normal course, be gathered and fully considered on this topic.
It does not seem right to the Government that a formal consultation with the victims would be correct before these steps are taken, because that would have the potential to unduly delay matters. The general scheme of this part of the Bill is that the ground is already covered. There is no reason to suppose that victims will not be fully included in the various decisions that come to be made. The Secretary of State has committed to publishing a policy statement and I will ensure that this covers the factors the Secretary of State will consider when making these decisions. This includes the participation of victims.
As far as secretarial and other support is concerned, the advocates will be supported by a permanent secretariat. The Ministry of Justice has already allocated funding for this. Clause 31 provides an effective system of support for the IPA by making provision for a secretariat and remuneration. Work is already under way to provide for this secretariat and provide for the appropriate separation between the day-to-day functions of the ministry and this independent operation.
That essentially leaves Amendment 119AA, on which it has been indicated that the House’s opinion may be tested. It requires that, “within six months” of a major incident, the Secretary of State must announce whether he intends to establish an inquiry or similar fact-finding review and provide the reasons for his decision to Parliament. If he decides to establish a non-statutory inquiry, the person appointed must be given data-compelling powers.
Lord Wills (Lab)
I am extremely grateful, as always, to the Minister for that thorough response to all my points. We made a little progress in Committee, for which I am grateful, as I am for the little progress we have made today. I am grateful to the Minister for the open way he has engaged with all these serious points. He will not be surprised that I am disappointed that we have not made further progress on some of the key points.
On the question of what the Minister regards as retrospectivity and the linked incidents, I had hoped I had made it clear that this is not a retrospective look at incidents that have finished—historic incidents that have no relevance to the present. The amendment refers specifically to continuing harm, which is what matters. It is not the incident itself that is significant but the consequences of the incident and the examination of the failures of the state and public authorities, which should have protected the victims but, for whatever reason, did not and let down the bereaved, who suffered grievous losses—that is the point. It is not retrospective. I of course understand the points about the sensitivity of retrospective legislation and all the rest of it—but this is not that.
It is really important—and I hope the Government will reflect on this—that we bear in mind that what this whole part addresses is an attempt to redress the deep imbalance of power between victims and the bereaved, on the one hand, and on the other the state and public authorities that failed them so grievously. That is the whole point of this, and we have seen it over and over again.
On the question of timeliness—and that is the point of the fact-finding inquiry—this is absolutely crucial, for so many different reasons. I remind your Lordships’ House of the points made in the very potent report from Bishop James on the lessons from Hillsborough. He made the point that, unless you get to the truth quickly, it creates a period of time in which the authorities that are in the frame can establish a false narrative, which is precisely what the police did at Hillsborough—and that is precisely what the Hillsborough Independent Panel was designed to try to get to the bottom of, as it did. It started the process by which those Hillsborough families finally got some form of justice for their decades- long struggle.
I am really baffled as to why the Government, when they have such a good example of a new process that actually worked for the bereaved, and worked in a way that one public inquiry, a de facto public inquiry, with all the scrutiny and the coroners’ inquests, did not. They all failed, for different reasons, and it was only the fact-finding inquiry that got somewhere towards the truth and got something like justice for those families.
I do not know why the Government want to put to one side a successful example, which was actually delivered under a Conservative Government. This is not a party issue: this was set up by a Labour Government and delivered under a Conservative Government. I am baffled—but I take comfort from the fact that the Minister has accepted the need for a review and left the door open, I hope intentionally, to addressing some of these points in future. I am still worried about the problem of the fact-finding inquiry, and for that reason I am minded to test the opinion of the House, when we reach that amendment. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 102.
Lord Bellamy
“(2A) Before declaring an incident that occurs in Wales to be a major incident, the Secretary of State must consult the Welsh Ministers.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult the Welsh Ministers before declaring an incident that occurs in Wales to be a major incident.
Lord Bellamy
“(1A) Before appointing an advocate in respect of a major incident that occurs in Wales, the Secretary of State must consult the Welsh Ministers.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult the Welsh Ministers before appointing an advocate in respect of a major incident that occurs in Wales.
Lord Bellamy
(g) prejudice—(i) the investigation or prosecution of an offence,(ii) an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005,(iii) an inquest under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, or (iv) any other investigation or inquiry by a person exercising functions of a public nature.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would allow the Secretary of State to omit material from a report to be published under Clause 36 where the Secretary of State considers that publication of that material would prejudice certain investigations, inquiries or inquests.
Baroness Thornton
“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.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I am speaking to Amendment 113 on the duty of candour in place of my noble friend Lord Ponsonby and with the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester.
I took the time to read the reasons why the Minister did not want us to proceed with this in Committee. I remind the noble Earl that we agreed about the duty of candour in 2014 when we put it on the statute book, in, I suspect, the very large Bill of the now noble Lord, Lord Lansley, on the reorganisation of the NHS, or one that followed shortly after. The whole House agreed that the duty of candour was an important matter within the NHS, and it has become part of the culture of our NHS. I should perhaps declare an interest as a non-executive director of the Whittington Hospital and part of its governance structure.
This amendment seeks to extend that duty to all public organisations—I thank Inquest and others for their briefings—to cover those operating across all public services. This has been Labour policy for some considerable time. Inquest believes, as we do, that there is an urgent need to introduce a duty of candour for those operating across all public services. 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. We are talking about major incidents here, so this is very important. This duty would enable public servants and others delivering state services to carry out their role diligently, while empowering them to flag dangerous practices that risk lives.
In Committee, the Minister said that he thought this could
“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”.—[Official Report, 26/2/24; col. 819.]
It seems to me that a duty of candour does exactly the opposite: it actually allows for a transparent discussion about what might have gone wrong.
I am not going to go into any more detail, because we had a very good discussion about this in Committee. However, Justice’s report When Things Go Wrong found that
“In both inquests and inquiries, lack of candour and institutional defensiveness on the part of State and corporate interested persons and core participants are invariably cited as a cause of further suffering and a barrier to accountability”.
If noble Lords think back to Hillsborough and other inquiries, how true that statement is. That is why this is important.
Bishpop James Jones concluded that South Yorkshire Police’s
“repeated failure to fully and unequivocally accept the findings of independent inquiries and reviews has undoubtedly caused pain to the bereaved families”.
That is the point of this amendment. Failure to make full disclosure and to act with transparency can lead to lengthy delays in investigations and inquiries, and actually make things so much worse for the victims involved. 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, we hope, the possibility of evasiveness. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Lincoln
My Lords, I support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. My right reverend friend the Bishop of Manchester is also a strong supporter of this amendment, which he has signed, and he regrets that he cannot be in his place today to speak to it himself.
As we have heard, six years ago, the former Bishop of Liverpool published his report on the Hillsborough disaster, The Patronising Disposition of Unaccountable Power. This report recommended the introduction of a duty of candour for the police, which was adopted in the College of Policing’s Code of Practice for Ethical Policing only earlier this year. I am glad that issuing a code of practice for ethical policing will become a statutory duty under the Criminal Justice Bill, but this is just one body. A duty of candour needs to apply to all public authorities. More often than not, crises, scandals and disasters which require an inquiry involve multiple, overlapping public agencies, all of which need to be under the same compulsory responsibility to act with transparency for that inquiry to be fully effective.
A duty of candour would challenge the instinct of institutions to focus primarily on reputation management in the wake of crises. This instinct leads only to more suffering and delay for affected persons. There is also a more pervasive effect whereby institutions are unwilling to be candid about their failures, so it is extremely difficult to learn from past mistakes. I do not believe that a duty would solve every problem, but it would certainly be a step in the right direction.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, it is an honour to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. I have also signed Amendment 113. I will not repeat everything that I said in Committee, but the experience of the duty of candour in the NHS has been a very useful example. As we have heard, it is a professional responsibility to be open and honest with patients and families when something has gone wrong. It also allows people to say sorry. Even in the NHS, the lawyers still do not want people to say sorry, but it is really important. Above all, where the duty of candour works well, it has changed the culture and values of the organisation.
I make that point because this is not just about after the event. Having a duty of candour can completely change the delivery of the service. It makes everybody who works in it—and, in the NHS, those who are regulated—behave and think differently. In exceptional examples, it will avoid disasters, which is important. That is why I support Amendment 113. It clearly does not work perfectly, because we are hearing stories of things that have gone badly wrong in hospitals, but I suspect that some of those would not have come out if the duty of candour were not in place. That is what I mean about a change of culture.
I will not say much more. Now is absolutely the time to expand the duty of candour beyond the NHS. I agree with everything that the right reverend Prelate said about making sure that it applies to all public bodies and to public servants, because this is also about the behaviour of senior individuals. If the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, wishes to test the opinion of the House, these Benches will support him.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for Amendment 113. As she explained, it seeks to place a statutory duty of candour on all public authorities, public servants and officials after a major incident has been declared in writing by the Secretary of State.
The Government wholeheartedly agree that it is of the highest importance that we combat unforgivable forms of institutional obstruction and obfuscation. It is exactly for that reason that the Deputy Prime Minister signed the Hillsborough charter on behalf of the Government, which specifically addresses placing the public interest above one’s own reputation and approaching all forms of public scrutiny, including public inquiries and inquests, with candour and in an open, honest and transparent way. We want the charter to become part of the culture of what it means to be a public servant in Britain. The Deputy Prime Minister wrote to all departments to ensure that everyone who works in government is aware of the Hillsborough charter and what it means for the way that they work. Information on the charter has already been added to the Government’s propriety and ethics training and will shortly form part of the induction that all new civil servants are expected to take.
We are determined that the charter and its principles should be embedded into public life, and we are encouraging other public bodies and local authorities to follow our example by doing the same—a number of them have done so.
When it comes to statutory duties of candour, which have been mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and others, the Government have taken strong and decisive actions in policing and in health and social care. However, different parts of the public sector have different roles and circumstances. This amendment seeks to capture everyone under one umbrella. While I recognise the good intention behind it, I do not believe—and nor do the Government—that in practice, it would be as effective or as proportionate a measure.
That is not to say that there is nothing in place already to bind other public servants. On the contrary, a very clear framework of legal and ethical duties most certainly exists, and the Government believe that this framework—which includes the Nolan principles on public life and the Civil Service Code—is fit for purpose and appropriate to reflect the myriad professional functions performed by the public sector.
The noble Baroness may argue that given the complexity of the existing framework, this amendment serves to bring it all together in one place, making it all more accessible and easier to understand. If she argues that, I am afraid I cannot agree. The amendment just cannot sit neatly on top of the existing frameworks. We should not just assume that it can work with the existing framework of duties, which are carefully calibrated for the specific circumstance that they bite on.
Given that no one wants to abandon the Nolan principles or the Civil Service Code, that poses a real problem. The Government firmly believe in the benefits of having a bespoke approach to different parts of the public sector, because each part is different. We are not convinced that a single overarching duty would work well in practice.
It is clear from our debates on the subject that a particular concern is the conduct of public officials at inquests and statutory inquiries. It is very important to understand something about those particular contexts. I can confirm that, regardless of one’s status or profession, powers already exist—backed by criminal penalties—to obtain documents and testimony in an inquest or statutory inquiry. As noble Lords will know, the same is true of court proceedings, where relevant disclosure is required by all litigants. If the concern here is primarily inquests, inquiries, and the like, it is unclear what this amendment would add.
As Bishop James himself acknowledged, this is an extremely complex area, and I do not think that anyone would disagree with that. He also said that the most important thing is for all bodies who sign up to the charter to
“make the behaviours described in the charter a reality in practice”.
In my view, it would be unwise to rush forward with an amendment like this one. I believe that it would be disruptive; it would not work well in practice; and it could also have consequences which have not yet been realised. If we are going to put further statutory duties in place, the subject needs a lot more thought by a lot more people. I emphasise that the Government share the desire to see an end to unacceptable institutional defensiveness, but the key to doing that is to focus on changing culture across the public sector.
Let us make progress on our commitments in the Hillsborough charter, and indeed elsewhere; let us monitor how they are embedding. If we believe that there are further issues to address, we will not hesitate to take the appropriate action. In the light of what I have said, I hope the noble Baroness will reflect and perhaps feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I thank the noble Earl for his usual comprehensive and very straightforward summing up, but we do not agree with him.
Part of the problem is that, although the Hillsborough charter may be comprehensive, a large part of it is voluntary. What we are discussing is something that covers everybody. Frankly, if a duty of candour can be applied equally in a hospital to the most senior consultant and a porter, I cannot see why it cannot be applied in this case to everybody. I am a non-executive director, and my chair and I both have the same duty of candour within the NHS, wherever we work and whatever we do. A duty of candour is not a silver bullet—I absolutely accept that it is often very tough to implement, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, knows—but it can change an organisation over a period of time.
The noble Earl himself has found many ways to achieve many things in his public duty, including the duty of candour in the NHS. It must be possible to say that all public servants should be bound by a duty of candour and to ensure that it is possible to do that regardless of whatever codes they are following and whatever they are doing.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness. Apart from inquests and statutory inquiries, what are the circumstances in which she expects this to be necessary?
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
Earlier in the debate, it was quite clear from our discussions about the report on Hillsborough that it should cover everybody who gives evidence and is involved in an inquiry or whatever arises out of a serious incident. That is what we are seeking to do. On that basis, I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
“Code for victims of major incidents(1) The Secretary of State must issue a code of practice as to the services to be provided to victims of major incidents by persons having functions relating to— (a) victims of major incidents, or(b) any aspect of official inquiries and investigations following a major incident.(2) In this Part, the “code for victims of major incidents” means the code of practice issued under this section.(3) The code for victims of major incidents must make provisions for services which reflect the principles that victims of major incidents—(a) must be provided with information to help them understand the investigatory processes following the major incident of which they are a victim;(b) must be able to access services which support them (including, where appropriate, specialist services);(c) must have the opportunity to make their views heard in the investigatory processes following the major incident of which they are a victim;(d) must be able to challenge decisions which have a direct impact on them, other than through judicial review.(4) The Secretary of State may by way of regulations make further provision about the code for victims of major incidents of which a draft must be laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.(5) The Secretary of State may make regulations under subsection (4) only if satisfied that provisions made in the code for victims of major incidents in compliance with the regulations would not result in—(a) a significant reduction in the quality or extent of the services provided in accordance with the code for victims of major incidents,(b) a significant restriction in the description of persons to whom services are provided in accordance with the code for victims of major incidents,(c) a significant restriction in the description of persons having functions in relation to victims of major incidents or any aspect of official inquiries and investigations following a major incident, or(d) a reduction of the involvement of victims of major incidents in the investigatory processes following the major incident of which they are a victim.(6) The code for victims of major incidents may make different provision for different purposes, including different provision for—(a) victims of different descriptions;(b) persons who have different functions of a kind mentioned in subsection (1).(7) The code for victims of major incidents may not require anything to be done by a person acting in a judicial capacity, or on the instructions of or on behalf of such a person.”
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, this group concerns the victims’ code for major incidents. In speaking to Amendment 114, I am speaking to all the other amendments in this group as well.
We believe that this Bill represents a missed opportunity to extend entitlements of the victims’ code to victims of major incidents. Victims of major incidents will have suffered serious harm, often at the hands of state or corporate bodies. However, they do not receive the same recognition from government as victims of crime and so are not entitled to the same minimum level of support and services. Instead, they are often expected to navigate complex legal processes with little recognition of the harm they have suffered or the trauma they have faced. While the position of victims in the criminal justice system is far from perfect, as I have mentioned, organisations working with bereaved families have flagged a distinct lack of support for victims in the contexts of inquests and inquiries.
There is no principled reason to focus on improving the experience of victims in one context over another, while failing properly to recognise the needs and experiences of victims in a non-criminal context. It is also worth recalling that inquests and inquiries, particularly those relating to major incidents as defined by the Bill, often run concurrently with or prior to criminal investigations, allowing certain minimum entitlements in one process and not the other. This risks undermining the confidence of victims in both systems. There is little use in trying to ensure that individuals are supported through and engaged with the criminal process when they are at risk of being—or have already been—let down by a separate legal process addressing the same events. This provides an additional justification for affording victims in the inquests and inquiries contexts similar minimum entitlements to those in a criminal justice setting. Failing to do so is not only unfair but runs counter to the Government’s stated aim of ensuring that victims have confidence that they will be treated in a way they should rightly expect. I beg to move Amendment 114.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I was pleased to add my name to Amendments 114 to 117, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, which I supported in Committee and support again.
To those of us on these Benches, there seems to be no justification for limiting the protection and support for the victims granted in this Bill by the requirements for a victims’ code to victims of crime. It is not a massively radical step to produce an additional victims’ code for victims of major incidents which would give similar protections to those provided by the victims’ code for victims of crime—but tailored to victims of major incidents.
Part 2 of the Bill establishes the important scheme that we have been discussing for advocates of victims of major incidents. What it does not do is provide the necessary signposting for victims of major incidents to the assistance that they need—assistance of all types wherever available. There are particular issues for victims of major incidents and their families that do not necessarily arise for victims of crime, to do with accessing medical, psychological, financial and social help, among other things, in the wake of such incidents. The issues may be similar, but they are not completely overlapping.
Dealing with issues of bereavement and support for families following injury, dealing with issues connected with investigating and establishing responsibility for major incidents—these issues are very different in some cases from those facing victims of crime. However, there is no material difference in the need or justification for a separate code for victims of major incidents. If this Bill is a victims Bill, it should cover victims of major incidents as well.
On these Benches, we cannot see why we do not take the opportunity with this Bill of laying the ground for a similar code for victims of major incidents. I look forward to hearing how the Minister justifies passing up that opportunity.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, for these amendments. While the Government understand the intention behind these amendments, we have not been convinced that they are necessary. Existing codes and the establishment of the independent public advocate deliver on many of these amendments’ aims. It may be helpful if I outline the Government’s rationale.
First, we have concerns over the application of this new code. As proposed, the code would apply only to those individuals who are considered victims of major incidents under the definition in this Bill. However, as this Bill is not retrospective, there are currently no victims under this definition. It would be premature to create such a code under the circumstances and we may lack the evidential basis for it at this time.
Secondly, the key aims of the proposed code directly align with the purpose of the independent public advocate, and it is therefore unnecessary. The IPA will help to ensure that victims understand the subsequent investigatory processes. They will help to signpost victims to appropriate support services and play a pivotal role in ensuring that the victims are able to challenge decisions and raise concerns, as part of their role will be to act as a conduit to government, to ensure that the victims are heard in order to effect change in real time.
Thirdly, as we noted in Committee, it is very likely that in many circumstances where a major incident is declared and an advocate is appointed, the victims will be victims of crime or criminal conduct. In these instances, they are already covered under the victims’ code, which sets out the services and support that victims of crime can expect to receive from criminal justice agencies. An additional code for victims of a major incident may therefore be duplicative and as such counterproductive.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, these were probing amendments. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for his support and for the arguments which he advanced. It seemed to me that the gist of the Minister’s response was that there was a lack of evidential basis for the requirements, which I outlined in my amendments. That may well be the case, but I did not hear from the Minister any desire to get that evidential basis, to keep the matter open. Nevertheless, I will withdraw this amendment. It may be a recurring theme in future Bills. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 114.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
“Publicly funded legal representation for bereaved people at inquests following a major incident(1) Section 10 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1), after “(4)” insert “or (7).”(3) After subsection (6), insert—“(7) This subsection is satisfied where—(a) the services consist of advocacy at an inquest where the individual is an interested person pursuant to section 47(2)(a), (b) or (m) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 because of their relationship to the deceased, and(b) one or more public authorities are interested persons in relation to the inquest pursuant to section 47(2) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 or are likely to be designated as such.(8) For the purposes of this section “public authority” has the meaning given by section 6(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998.””
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 118 opens this seventh group. It concerns publicly funded legal representation for bereaved people at inquests following a major incident. We would have preferred to table an amendment extending publicly funded legal representation to all bereaved people at inquests, but I understand that was not in scope. It has been a long-standing Labour commitment to extend publicly funded legal representation for bereaved people.
The current funding scheme allows state bodies unlimited access to public funds for the best legal teams and experts, while families often face a complex and demanding funding application process. Many are forced to pay large sums of money towards legal costs or represent themselves during this process. Others use crowdfunding. The Bill would represent a tiny opportunity to raise the need to positively shape the inquest system for bereaved people by establishing in law the principle of the equality of arms between families and public authority interested persons.
It is no longer conscionable to continue to deny bereaved families publicly funded legal representation while public bodies are legally represented. Without automatic access to non-means-tested legal aid, bereaved families are denied their voice and any meaningful role. The absence of representation weakens investigations into state action; funded representation of the bereaved can safeguard lives and ensure that mistakes or harmful practices are brought to light. I beg to move.
Lord Wills (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 119 seeks to establish a code of practice for post-mortem processes. It arises out of a traumatic event suffered by Jenni Hicks, who lost her daughters Vicki and Sarah in the Hillsborough tragedy.
Perhaps the best way for your Lordships to understand the need for this amendment is to hear in Jenni Hicks’s own words what happened. This is how she described it in an email sent on 5 November 2022:
“I was asked if I would like to see 7 post, post mortem photographs of Vicki and 5 post, post mortem photographs of Sarah. I was warned they were both graphic and not pleasant. However, because of the 33yrs of lies, corruption, deception and lack of trust surrounding my daughters’ deaths, I chose to view them. I was shocked these photographs were in the hands of operation resolve. I’m aware the pathologists would have taken photographs to assist with causation of death and also to assist in writing the pathology reports. But, and it’s a huge but, I had assumed such graphic and sensitive photographs of naked bodies, including genitalia, would have been kept in a secure and safe environment. Not on a police computer”.
Moreover, as I understand it, the relevant injuries were to the head, and the genitalia were not pixelated, which they could easily have been. How could this have happened? These images existed for decades and, of all the many people who would have viewed them, not one of them thought, “This is not right”. It shows no respect for the dignity of the victims, who were young teenage girls. Why did not one person think that this was unacceptable? Not one did. If these had been the daughters of the people who had seen these images, year after year, one assumes that they would have been as profoundly upset and outraged as Jenni Hicks was. But they were not their daughters, so apparently no one cared. This unacceptable situation continued for decades.
For the most part, for whatever reason—and there may be many—a process of desensitisation often takes place in public authorities in the wake of major incidents such as this and on other occasions, apparently. This amendment seeks to put this right.
This amendment tries to address what is clearly an urgent need for a statutory code of conduct to preserve the dignity of the deceased and respect for the feelings of the bereaved. This is a probing amendment, as the Minister is aware. I understand that the Home Office is conducting a review to that end, so I assume that the Minister will want to await its outcome before deciding how to proceed. However, I would be grateful if he could confirm that the Government understand that this was unacceptable, that it must never recur and that they will give any new code of conduct the force of statute.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I support both amendments in this group. On Amendment 118 from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, it is accepted that the whole question of publicly funded representation at inquests has been a grave injustice for many years. Amendment 118 seeks to correct that injustice, which involves a huge imbalance between the families of victims, public bodies and companies that are liable to be blamed for deaths. All those have representation that they can afford, whereas the families and bereaved do not. That injustice should be put right and this amendment seeks to achieve that.
For all the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Wills, I support his amendment on the post-mortem process and the code of practice designed to preserve the dignity of the deceased. But I would go a little further: the code of practice needs to look at the whole process that precedes the public part of the inquest.
In recent months, in two separate cases, I have helped the parents and the widow of victims of medical accidents. They have had real difficulties in getting at the truth and securing pathologists’ reports and post-mortem reports from the coroner’s office. Swift availability of such reports and swift disclosure to bereaved parents and families are of great importance. If this amendment were to see the light of day—I understand that it is only probing—I would suggest that the code of practice should go wider than simply preserving the dignity of the bodies to ensuring that bereaved families are not further hurt by avoidable delay, making that history.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, the amendment on the way that bodies are dealt with following a disaster is incredibly important. I remind the House of the “Marchioness” disaster back in 1989; there was an absolute outcry from the relatives about the way that some of those bodies were dealt with. The problem is that their grief is complicated when they hit different barriers and when they feel that the investigation and the post-mortem have been conducted inappropriately, particularly if they feel that things are being withheld from them.
To ensure that we provide support for these relatives, we need to make sure that there is a proper code of conduct and to improve the way that things are dealt with. I therefore think that this is an important probing amendment. I am glad that it is probing, because there are lots of things that could be altered and improved, but this work needs to be done and I hope the Minister will provide us with that assurance.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for Amendment 118, which extends legal aid to inquests. I completely understand the point that is being made, but the Government’s position is that the effect of the amendment is extremely broad and would give all interested persons the entitlement to free legal support and representation in any inquest, regardless of whether or not it follows a major incident, provided that at least one public authority was also an interested person. So, because of its width, the Government are unable to support the amendment.
In addition, the Government are already considering access to legal aid at inquests following major incidents. That is notably in response to Bishop James’s 2017 Hillsborough report. The MoJ is consulting on expanding free legal aid that is available for bereaved families at inquests following a major incident under this legislation and following terrorist attacks. In the Government’s view, the amendment goes beyond its stated purpose and the Government are already acting to deal with the issue of legal aid at inquests, so I respectfully urge the noble Lord not to press his amendment.
I turn to Amendment 119, a probing amendment. I am sure that everyone was moved by the description of the experience of Jenni Hicks, which was recounted by the noble Lord, Lord Wills. I was very sorry to hear about that experience. We very much appreciate the effect this must have had on Mrs Hicks and other families affected. In the Government’s view, Jenni Hicks and others are entirely right to have raised the issue in this Chamber. It is an issue that requires proper consideration. I know that Operation Resolve itself very much regrets the anguish and distress caused by the incident, and has offered its apologies. The officer in overall command has written to them setting out the actions taken to address their concerns, and last year I think the Policing Minister met with the families affected. The Home Office has been assured that appropriate procedures are now in place.
Lord Wills (Lab)
Can I just clarify this? I think the Minister accepts how serious an incident this was; I think it is accepted that this sort of contempt for the victims and the bereaved is probably pretty widespread, and that something has to be done to make sure it never happens again. Will he confirm that whatever code of conduct emerges from the processes he describes will be given the force of statute?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I am not at this moment in a position to give that confirmation at the Dispatch Box. I will give further thought to it, and write to the noble Lord in due course as to whether the Government are in a position to give that assurance. I see the force of the point.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a short but interesting debate. I acknowledge the points that the Minister made on my Amendment 118, about the existing consultation that the Government are doing and the broadness of the amendment. What was contained in the amendment was an aspiration, I suppose.
My noble friend spoke to Amendment 119 and gave the very moving example of Jenni Hicks. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, also reminded us of the “Marchioness” disaster in 1989. Here again, the Minister said that the independent pathology review will look at processes. We look forward to what may come out of that, and to the Minister’s answer to my noble friend’s question about whether it will have the force of statute. For now, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 118.
Lord Bellamy
“Review of Part 2(1) The Secretary of State must, as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of the review period—(a) prepare and publish a report about the operation in the review period of this Part, and(b) lay the report before Parliament.(2) The “review period” is the period of 18 months beginning with the day on which the power in section 30(1) (appointment of advocate in respect of major incident) is first exercised.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would require the Secretary of State to review the operation of Part 2 in the period of 18 months following the first time an advocate is appointed under Clause 30.
Lord Wills
“Power of Secretary of State to establish an inquiry on major incidents(1) Within six months of the declaration of a major incident under section 28(2), the Secretary of State must make a statement to the House of Commons on whether they intend to establish—(a) an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005,(b) an alternative fact-finding inquiry, or(c) no inquiry at that time.(2) A person or persons appointed to hold an inquiry established under subsection (1)(b) must be granted the powers to see and report on all relevant documentation.(3) A statement under subsection (1) must set out why the Secretary of State believes the decision is in the public interest. (4) In consideration of the public interest, the Secretary of State must demonstrate that they have had regard to timeliness, cost, transparency and the emotional and financial interests of the parties.”
Lord Wills (Lab)
My Lords, I heard what the Minister had to say about this amendment, but in view of the seriousness of what is involved here, the timeliness of a resolution for victims and the bereaved, and the cost to the taxpayer, I would like to test the opinion of the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, there being an equality of votes, in accordance with Standing Order 55, which provides that no proposal to amend a Bill in the form in which it is before the House shall be agreed to unless there is a majority in favour of such amendment, I declare the amendment disagreed to.
Earl Howe
“Infected Blood Compensation Authority(1) A body corporate called the Infected Blood Compensation Authority is established.(2) In this Part that body is referred to as “the IBCA”.(3) Schedule (Infected Blood Compensation Authority) contains further provision about the IBCA.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause establishes the Infected Blood Compensation Authority.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I will speak also to the other government amendments in this group. I am grateful to have the opportunity to do so. These amendments collectively provide the necessary legal framework to establish an arm’s-length body and pay compensation without undue delay. Let me assure the House and those listening that the case for compensation is clear and the Government will pay compensation to those infected and affected by the infected blood scandal. The government amendments demonstrate our absolute commitment to deliver long-overdue justice to victims of infected blood.
On 20 May, the infected blood inquiry will publish its final report. This will be a historic day for those who have sought answers for decades, and I hope and trust that the inquiry will give those impacted the recognition that they deserve. I take this opportunity to thank the chair of the inquiry, Sir Brian Langstaff, for the thorough work that he has undertaken to produce his final report and to recognise the bravery of those who have provided evidence and testimony to the inquiry. I recognise the resilience of each person who continues to campaign on this issue, and I hope my words today will provide reassurance that we are moving in the right direction. I also thank noble Lords on all sides of the House for working with the Government to ensure that the amendments provide the legal framework to get this right. My firm intention today is to provide some meaningful reassurance that we have heard the concerns and are committed to establishing a scheme that works and delivers for victims.
Let me turn to the government amendments. These amendments impose a duty on the Government to establish an infected blood compensation scheme. They also establish a new arm’s-length body named the infected blood compensation authority to deliver the compensation scheme. The authority will operate on a UK-wide basis to ensure parity and consistency. Perhaps I can make it clear in passing that the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, should not have appeared with that of my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy at the top of Amendment 119C. I understand this was a clerical slip of the pen.
Victims of this scandal have waited far too long to see justice, and the Government share the determination of your Lordships to ensure that compensation reaches victims quickly. The government amendments pave the way for this, with early commencement provisions establishing the arm’s-length body on Royal Assent. The Government will give a substantive update to Parliament responding to the infected blood inquiry’s recommendations on compensation as soon as possible following 20 May. Subsequently, the details of the scheme will be set out in secondary legislation. The regulations to establish the scheme are subject to the “made affirmative” procedure the first time that they are made, which means they will have legal force immediately, and to the draft affirmative procedure thereafter, which applies to any changes to that first set of regulations that may be made in the future. This will provide parliamentarians with the opportunity to scrutinise the Government’s intentions without any unnecessary delay to implementation. Operational matters around the setting up of the arm’s-length body are subject to the negative procedure, again to prioritise the speed of implementation.
We recognise that Parliament and the infected blood community need clarity on when these measures will be in place. I can say now that the Government support the Opposition’s amendment to deliver the regulations establishing an infected blood compensation scheme within three months of Royal Assent, and we are committed to doing so. However, in committing to that, it is right that I should signal a caveat on a purely practical issue. We must acknowledge that the three-month period could unavoidably include periods or circumstances in which the Dissolution, Prorogation or adjournment of Parliament affects the Government’s ability to make the regulations. There is a practical reality here. These “made affirmative” regulations will need to be agreed within government before they can be made, and there are operational processes that simply will not be running as normal when Parliament is not sitting.
There is also the challenge, that I am sure many noble Lords will speak to, that we need to build trust with the infected blood community on the scheme’s provisions. This would require sufficient time where both Ministers and Parliament were available ahead of regulations being laid. We had hoped by tabling Amendment 157CA that we could find a constructive compromise on those issues. However, with a view to consensus and having accepted the Opposition’s Amendment 119CA, we will not now put that amendment to the House.
I must be clear that we are seized of the need to move as quickly as possible to provide compensation for victims regardless of any external pressures that may arise. Noble Lords will understand that it will take some time for the new infected blood compensation authority to become operational in its fullest sense, such that—
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
Before the Minister moves on from addressing my Amendment 119CA, I want just to be crystal clear that the Government are accepting the amendment without their own amendment. I understand what the noble Earl has just said from the Dispatch Box, but as far as my amendment is concerned, are the Government accepting it as it is?
Earl Howe (Con)
Yes, my Lords, that is right. In the spirit of consensus, albeit in the light of that practical caveat that I voiced, which represents a risk and no more.
It will take some time for the new infected blood compensation authority to become operational in its fullest sense, such that it is in a position to accept applications and deliver payments. There are formal processes around setting up an arm’s-length body of this kind which we cannot—indeed, must not—try to get around. However, the Government recognise the need to compensate victims of infected blood, and we are absolutely committed to doing this as quickly as we are able. For this reason, a shadow body will be established by 20 May, led by an interim chief executive. This will be critical to getting the practical work in place to ensure that the infected blood compensation authority can be fully operational as soon as possible. The shadow body will be able to begin work, such as implementing IT systems and appointing staff who are needed for assessing and delivering compensation payments, as quickly as possible.
We also understand the importance of ensuring that processes are in place for the compensation scheme to run smoothly. The Government are therefore clear that the infected blood compensation authority will have all the funding needed to deliver compensation once it has identified the victims and assessed claims. Once established, we intend that the scheme will make payments quickly and effectively.
I now turn to the membership of the infected blood compensation authority board and, in doing so, perhaps I may address Amendments 121B to 121H tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton, Lady Featherstone and Lady Meacher. I would like to be clear with the House today that it is the Government’s intention that the process of recruiting a chair of the infected blood compensation authority will begin immediately. In the coming weeks, we will begin to identify potential candidates for the role. The successful candidate will be appointed through the usual public appointment process. The government amendment provides flexibility for the composition of the other members of the board, both executive and non-executive, albeit that minimum and maximum numbers are specified to align with the expected requirements of an ALB of this nature. As many noble Lords have made clear, building trust with those infected and affected by the scandal is critical. It is therefore the Government’s intention to involve the infected blood community in the appointment process for the chair.
Tomorrow the Minister for the Cabinet Office begins his engagement programme with those infected and affected by the infected blood scandal. That will be a useful opportunity to discuss how those impacted can be involved in the process of appointing the chair, while ensuring that that does not inadvertently delay the end goal of getting compensation into the hands of victims as soon as possible. I think we can achieve both objectives.
Baroness Meacher
“(2A) In exercising its functions the IBCA must have regard to the following matters—(a) the need for swift and fair redress to victims;(b) the ease of accessibility to the relevant compensation scheme;(c) the efficient and effective operation of the relevant compensation scheme.”
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I rise to respond to the Minister’s remarks and thank him for his commitment to make conversation available to the victims of the contaminated blood scandal. However, I also express concern that we do not have any clear dates even for the appointment of the chair of the body that is yet to be established in order to begin to provide these compensation payments. These people have been waiting and waiting for decades. They need urgency and speed and I argue that the Minister, in order to win their trust, needs to set out early dates by which they can expect to receive compensation.
I am concerned that victims who have already had access to the derisory compensation programmes that have been made available might not be entitled to the Government’s new compensation programme. I hope I am wrong about that, but I do have some concern. There has been the most appalling neglect of these victims and really quite derisory payments—in so far as anything has been paid to them at all. With those concerns, I thank the Minister for his comments.
One of my concerns is that the regulations must not put a time limit on people making an application for compensation, so I propose that amendment to the House. It is vital that these victims are not penalised if they do not meet some arbitrary deadline. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
I call the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, who is taking part remotely.
Baroness Campbell of Surbiton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest as my first husband, Graham Ingleson, died from infected factor 8 in the early 1980s, aged 32. I welcome the Government’s amendments and am really grateful for the significant time the Minister has given me since Committee to understand the concerns of the infected blood community and to look at ways to address them in the Bill. The Government have shown signs that they are listening as we know from the proposals before us, including provision for interim payments. As we heard in the debate on the Government’s Statement last week, they acknowledge that the community must have a role in the infected blood compensation authority itself, including now, we hear, on the interview panel for the chair.
The Government’s amendments are a good start, but the infected blood community still has significant concerns. For example, the last-minute Amendment 157CA does not go far enough. Other concerns are reflected in the suite of amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher, Lady Brinton and Lady Featherstone. I have added my name to Amendments 119BA, 119CA, 119MA, 119T, 119PA, 119Y, 121B, 121G—now replaced by 121GA— and 121H, and support the intent of the others they have tabled. These amendments would ensure that time limits are introduced to speed up the process, that the chair of the IBCA is a High Court judge or equivalent and that support and assistance for applicants is mandatory.
Time limits are critical to ensure there are no further delays in compensation. There is nothing like a deadline to focus minds. Amendment 119CA requires the scheme to be set up within three months of the Bill becoming law and it is vital that interim payments are made well before that. With reportedly two deaths a week of those infected, they cannot come soon enough. I hear why the Minister wishes to widen the pool of applicants to chair the IBCA and am pleased to hear that some of the infected blood community will be on the interview panel. However, in my view and that of the community, the Government should accept Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendation for a judge-led IBCA. With horror stories emerging of experiments on innocent schoolboys, rebuilding trust with the community is imperative and only a High Court judge would signal that commitment. Their impartiality and objectivity are unquestioned, with no risk of conflict of interest. It would powerfully reflect the status and credibility of the IBCA, underlining its independence. Amendments 121B and 121G provide for such an appointment.
The infected blood community must be assured they will have the support and assistance they need under the scheme. Amendment 119T amends the Government’s power to secure such support to a duty to do so.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for meeting many of us in many different meetings between Committee and Report; I suspect there may be some more meetings to come. I have a number of amendments. For the record, my amendments to the government amendments are Amendments 119D, 119HA, 119K, 119M, 119P, 119T, 119U, 119V, 119X, 119Y, 121B, 121C and 121D. I also have Amendments 119YB, 119YC, 163 and 166.
Following discussions with various members of the infected blood community, I want to make a brief point about the approach in amendments laid by the Government. In Committee, the Minister said:
“The Government’s intention, therefore, is to bring forward an amendment on Report which will correct these two deficiencies”—
that he had outlined—
“and add further standard provisions to ensure a more complete legal framework when setting up an ALB”.
He went to explain that he was going to engage with us, and we are very grateful for that. He went on:
“That drafting is not yet complete. One of the main reasons for this—which I personally felt strongly about—was that we should use this Committee stage as an opportunity for a general debate on the infected blood scandal and, in advance of Report, for the Government to be made aware of the views expressed … around the Chamber”.—[Official Report, 26/2/24; col. 833.]
I thank the noble Earl for that comment, and I think he has certainly got our views.
However, instead of one amendment covering two deficiencies and a more complete legal framework, the Government laid nearly 40 amendments within the last 10 days without any equivalent to an Explanatory Memorandum or a long letter to explain their thinking. I accept that there was an explanatory statement under most of the amendments, but I have been operating two sets of the amendment booklet just to try to work out what on earth has been happening here.
The real problem is that, while we express general views in Committee, we are now being asked to vote—or not—on really fine detail, which I think many Members have been struggling with, just to get amendments laid. That is why there are 67 amendments in this one group this afternoon.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Campbell and Lady Meacher, set out why the infected blood community is concerned that there is not enough detail to give them confidence, despite the Government moving forward a bit. I just wonder if the Minister is open to a meeting, because I think we may be able to move further forward, particularly on the issue of interim payments that would satisfy both noble Lords and the wider community.
The noble Earl explained why the Government do not support Sir Brian’s approach to interim payments. He went into a lot more detail in a private meeting, for which I am grateful, but this week—or was it last week?—the Paymaster-General told the Commons that interim payments would be made through the existing schemes to the estates of those eligible for interim payment, where the deceased was registered with a current support scheme or one of its predecessors. While those in the infected blood community are content with this, they are still very concerned about the lack of timescale on interim payments where the deceased meets the criteria and the need for an assurance of one month, as we originally proposed. If it cannot be one month, we should have some idea of the timing.
I am very grateful to the noble Earl for explaining the two-tier system, where those who have not yet had interim payments but are known in the system are different from those who are not yet known. I think the community understands that as well. The victims also need reassurance where the government amendments refer to “may” rather than “must”. I know that there are some reasons for that, but, in the meetings with the community, the Paymaster-General may have to explain some of those reasons. Again, this is about rebuilding the confidence that he spoke so movingly about at the start.
The detail of the government amendments has been met with bemusement and anger by many of the community. It is partly about the timescales. I think the House is grateful that the Government are accepting Amendment 119CA from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, but there is still no framework and no idea about tariffs. Worse, the threats to the victims and their families of this scheme remain. One widow told me that she was concerned that widows and children will end up worse off under the scheme than currently. So where is an impact assessment, as current payments may be stopped and there is no outline about what the tariff is? Somebody could end up with a proposal that is considerably less but has many years still to live, so how will they be protected from this happening?
Will recipients be asked to pay back support—“benefits” to you and me—that families relied on after their loved ones became infected and needed to be nursed and cared for by family members? Jobs and houses were lost and, frankly, we know that benefits have not been generous either. That is in the nature of benefits, but many people have been living this way for 30 or 40 years—now approaching 50 years for some. It would be egregious if those families were to receive compensation that immediately went to pay back decades of benefits. Can the Minister confirm that this will not happen? This is part of my Amendment 119HA, as an outline for framework tariffs and a clear statement that families will not have to pay back benefits. By the way, my amendments follow recommendations 6 and 8 in the interim report from Sir Brian, which was published nearly a year ago now.
I also have other amendments trying to give clarity for the position of the IB victims and their families. For example, there has been a lot of discussion with the Horizon postmaster victims about legal support. Will there be legal support for these families? My Amendment 119V says that they should have the option of that legal support, including people who have been supporting them at the inquiry and other places. That is not retrospective payment. It would be continuing support in the future, so that they can negotiate with the scheme.
My Amendment 121B refers to the appointment of a High Court judge as chair. I am grateful for the points that the noble Earl has made, but there is still no timescale and that remains a key issue. Could he explain to the House exactly why, and perhaps unpack a little more about whether the chair should be a judge or even a High Court judge, which is very much what the infected blood community wants?
Finally, I have laid Amendment 119YC, which uses the principle helpfully offered by the Government for their own amendment for the infected blood compensation body, to probe whether now is the time for a truly independent compensation authority overall. This body would act as the manager of all compensation schemes for victims of failures of public bodies. We do not have time this evening to discuss this in any detail, but it is appalling that we have the infected blood scandal scheme —still not sorted after over 40 years—the postmaster Horizon scheme, the Windrush scheme, the Grenfell disaster, the sodium valproate scandal, the vaginal mesh scandal and many others. The one thing common to all of these is that no Government, of any colour, have acted fairly or with reasonable speed to resolve the remedies for all these victims. Perhaps now is the time to begin that debate—not tonight, but at this time.
Lord Waldegrave of North Hill (Con)
I join other noble Lords and Baronesses in paying tribute to my noble friend, who has been extremely generous with his time in meetings. I am quite certain that he personally has been pushing in the direction that has led to really major progress. I declare an interest as a former Secretary of State and therefore a witness to the Langstaff inquiry.
The three months is excellent; the shadow organisation set up before the final report is good; the shadow CEO is excellent. I am interested in Amendment 119HA, from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. Like her, I would like the reassurance sought in her proposed new subsection (2):
“In assessing compensation under the scheme, no account should be taken of any past support payments”.
The structures of the tariff-based compensation and so forth seem right and sensible. If we can have reassurance on that also, it would be very helpful.
The major item in the noble Baroness’s amendment is one that sets off tremendous alarm bells in the former Chief Secretary lobe—or half—of my brain. The idea of letting the chair set the tariffs, even with these structures around them, would have been very alarming to me, as a former Chief Secretary, and would be alarming to any future person who has to be accountable for public expenditure.
None the less, I still hesitate on it, because every noble Lord has spoken about the requirement to rebuild trust, and my noble friend himself began his speech with that. If it were possible to provide criteria for the payments such that the chair was enabled to be independent within those criteria, that would rebuild trust in a formidable way. I would be very interested to hear what my noble friend has to say on that.
Rebuilding trust is the primary task, as it has been among the terrible casualties of this disaster—trust in the state, trust in the NHS and doctors, trust in everybody. Trust in Ministers, of course, has been severely damaged and we may have to take exceptional steps in this really unparalleled scale of disaster to rebuild that trust. Precedent is always a terrible weapon to deploy against anything, but one hopes that there would be a few precedents for disasters on this scale in the future. I would like to probe my noble friend a little further on that, but I end by thanking him again. I was privileged to work with him as a colleague in the past, and it is no surprise to those of us who have worked with him that he has been not only efficient but empathetic and careful, in the best sense of the word, in his dealings certainly with me and, I suspect, with other Members of this House as well.
Baroness Featherstone (LD)
My Lords, as some of your Lordships will know, I declare an interest as my nephew died aged 35. He was a haemophiliac, a twin and my sister’s son. He left a 10 month-old baby daughter. I too thank the noble Earl for being so sincere about this. He is one of the first people I have heard on the government side who actually gets it and understands the agony that the community has been through over the last 40 years—so I thank him for that.
I will speak briefly to a couple of amendments. With Amendment 119PA, we are concerned that infected and affected people who may want to appeal against a decision on compensation will not be able to go to a separate body to appeal, as Sir Brian Langstaff recommended in his report. If Sir Brian’s recommendations are ignored, people will have to seek to reverse a decision through the First-tier Tribunal, as is the case at the moment. They are concerned about that because the First-tier Tribunal is not specialised in infected blood and has a whole host of other things to deal with, such as PIP and housing appeals. The process will be very difficult.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
I thank the noble Earl for the way in which he introduced this debate. I will speak briefly to the government amendments. Like others, I was disappointed to see the three-month time limit removed, but I appreciate the practical caveats that my noble friend the Minister has raised. I genuinely do not think this is a delaying tactic. He clearly appreciates why some reassurance on timelines is necessary.
In that same spirit, I would like to raise one further matter on the expert group. It will provide advice to the compensation authority and will help develop the framework for compensation. In his letter before Report, my noble friend the Minister acknowledged the need for greater transparency in relation to this group, and that the Government would therefore publish the terms of reference. They have now done this, and we are very grateful. However, the membership has been redacted, which has quite reasonably upset many of the infected and affected. I am sure my noble friend can see why people are dismayed that the names of the legal and clinical experts have been kept secret. I know that people will be very keen to understand why this has happened.
I can conclude only that this is an incredibly sensitive area; we know that. I appreciate that the group has attracted some controversy, not least because of the chair’s connections with Bayer, although no one doubts his personal integrity. As the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, has just said very powerfully, the infected and affected have been deceived and misled for more than a quarter of a century. As with other national scandals, the cover-up is at least as bad as than the original offence, if not worse, so transparency is obviously key.
To reiterate, it is understandable that people will view this body with distrust if they do not know who is sitting on it. These are people who will be making decisions on their futures and the futures of their families. Given everything that they have been through, I do not think it is fair or acceptable. We all hope that we are reaching the end of a very long road, and it would not be right for all those infected and affected to face another hurdle or to have to fight another fight.
That is the moral point; I have one practical point. My noble friend the Minister has made it very clear that he would like the infected and affected to have a role in the compensation authority and that this will be critical. I completely agree with him, but anyone taking part from that community would expect, and no doubt want, to be accountable to their peers, even if they knew that meant there could be some difficult moments in the future. It would certainly be very hard for them to take on that role in secret. That would mean that we would end up in a position with one rule for the experts and one rule for those affected. That would be a very difficult position to be in. I would be grateful if my noble friend the Minister could tell us why this anonymity has been allowed and whether the Government will consider lifting it, given the circumstances.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for the extremely sensitive way in which he has been open to discussions at all times. I know that he has met with many of us individually.
As noble Lords have heard, there was an error with the clerical system, so my name was added to a government amendment; I think the Public Bill Office was overloaded. There is much to commend in the government amendment, but I am not supporting it because I have put my name to amendments to it. I put my name to a lot of the amendments. Others have spoken very clearly to all those amendments.
There seems to be a problem with the government amendments, which is the word “may”. Reading through, one sometime feels that word should become “must”. It would be helpful to have clarification from the Minister on why some of the “mays” are not becoming “musts”. The “must” really makes things happen.
Compensation is long overdue. I remind the House that it was in May 1975, nearly 50 years ago, that the WHO expressed serious concern at the international plasma trade. There has been an enormous erosion of trust, grief and anguish. I even worry when people talk about rebuilding trust, because I think we have to stop it being eroded. From the explanations that I have heard outside this Chamber from the noble Earl, I can see how the Government are really hoping to stop the ongoing erosion of trust. That has to happen before you can start to rebuild it.
The inquiry led by Sir Brian Langstaff made clear recommendations about interim payments and the way a compensation scheme should be managed in the future. I am glad the Government accept the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, which requires a stated time of implementation within three months of the Bill passing. It is essential that the details of all these processes are looked at very carefully so that they do not leave anyone feeling that anything has been kicked into the long grass yet again. Support and assistance will be essential. That seems like a time when “may” should be changed into “must”, as in Amendment 119T. The interim payments must be made within one month of the Bill passing.
On a High Court judge being the appointed chair, I know the Government have said that they want to keep the options open and somebody excellent may come forward. Somebody may, and they could certainly serve on the board, but, of all the skills that a High Court judge has, they need to be seen to be there to oversee the infected blood compensation authority.
On that authority having among its executive members those infected—involving the infected blood community —I simply reiterate the point that those people will need great support, because it will be extremely difficult for them on that board with some of the decisions that they will have to take and some of the difficulties lying ahead. On the selection process, I hope that the support is adequately available and that not too much falls on the shoulders of any one person.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
Perhaps I may add something about High Court judges, having been one myself. It may not be necessary to have a sitting High Court judge, because there are a number of recently retired High Court judges who would be entirely suitable. However, it needs to be a High Court judge who has tried medical cases. I add the fact that many family judges try medical cases quite as much as civil judges. Let us not necessarily be tied to an existing High Court judge.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, this is my amendment, so I think my job is to bring this—
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness has already spoken, so it is not appropriate for her to continue.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, the infected blood scandal is an appalling injustice. We in the Labour Party want to ensure that justice and compensation for victims and their families are delivered urgently, with guarantees of no further delays. Campaigning and advocacy organisations, alongside the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Haemophilia and Contaminated Blood, have worked tirelessly to help secure justice.
At Third Reading of this Bill in the House of Commons, the Government lost a vote on an amendment in the name of the right honourable Dame Diana Johnson MP. The vote was a remarkable victory for victims of the infected blood scandal, and it was a victory for Diana Johnson. The Government are now obliged to do the right thing and take the steps necessary to bring forward a final compensation scheme urgently—the noble Earl has spoken to this. The Government have already confirmed that they fully accept that there is a moral case for compensation, while the Chancellor has said:
“This has been going on for far too long and … justice delayed is justice denied”.
We welcome that the Government have finally accepted the need to bring forward a compensation body promptly, as evidenced to some extent by the new Report stage amendments we are debating in this group.
However, adding a fixed timeline to the Bill is essential to help finally to give those who have suffered for so long the reassurance that they should soon get the compensation they deserve. My Amendment 119CA will amend the Government’s Amendment 119C, reinstating the three-month time period that was in the original new clause, currently Clause 40, added in the Commons.
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe. We have had very many meetings about this issue. I think he said he would not move government Amendment 157CA, which was a possible compromise that he put forward at one point. I absolutely agree with the noble Earl’s point about the need to work collaboratively with the victims community to re-establish trust as far as possible. Trust has been a theme running through this debate.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who contributed, both today and during our previous discussions on this important topic. The moving statements we have heard throughout the passage of the Bill have been a true measure of the gravity of the infected blood scandal and its far-reaching impacts.
I will address the amendments spoken to in this debate, starting with Amendment 119HA in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I can today give her an assurance that the Government’s intention, via regulations, is to establish a tariff-based compensation scheme, and that people who are infected and affected will be eligible for compensation under the scheme. The regulations will provide clarity on what the scheme comprises.
We recognise that it is also important that an arm’s-length body is functionally independent. In common with Sir Brian Langstaff, we view this as critical for building trust with the infected blood community. However, there is an important principle here around maintaining government accountability. My noble friend Lord Waldegrave, whose comments I appreciated, referred to this. The Government simply must hold responsibility for overseeing the expenditure of taxpayers’ money, and it would not be appropriate for the rates of compensation to be set by the chair of the IBCA. Instead, the chair will hold an important role in the delivery of the scheme, making sure that the right people receive the right compensation and ensuring support for those who access it, against the parameters set out in legislation.
To address a further point in the noble Baroness’s amendment, those details are being informed by the expert group of clinical, legal and social care experts appointed in January to assist the Government in responding to the inquiry recommendations—and I shall refer to that group again in a moment.
In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, on the selection of a chair for the IBCA, I gave reasons earlier why, although we are entirely open to the suggestion that the chair of the IBCA should be a High Court judge or, indeed, a retired judge, we may need to allow for the possibility that no judge will be available or willing to occupy that post. We want the right person in place as expeditiously as is proper. What is most important in that connection is that the IBCA is operationally and functionally independent and seen to be so, and the way in which we are framing the legislation provides for exactly that.
The government amendments are clear that a final UK-wide compensation scheme is being established, distinct from previous support schemes. The details of how payments are to be made will necessarily be set out in regulations. In any event, I can now confirm to the House that it is not the Government’s intention to deduct any past support or ex gratia payments, excluding any interim compensation payments, from the final compensation payments made by the infected blood compensation scheme. I hope that that provides the noble Baroness with some welcome reassurance on the points that she raised.
As I said earlier, I am not in the business of prolonging people’s uncertainty unnecessarily. I understand that the infected blood community and Parliament are keen for transparency on the Government’s intentions in regard to the compensation scheme. As my noble friend Lady Sanderson has rightly raised, there have been concerns about the anonymity of the expert group —and I have listened to those concerns. The Government took the decision not to publish the names of the expert group members alongside the terms of reference to safeguard the privacy and the ability of the experts to continue their front-line clinical roles while advising on government policy. However, once their initial work has concluded, the Government will ensure that the identities of the experts are disclosed.
Additionally, in the spirit of transparency, the Government will commit to publish the compensation tariffs when they are available, ahead of secondary legislation. I hope that my commitment to these actions today will provide the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, with confidence not after all to press her amendment when it is reached. The Government amendments as drafted provide workable and appropriate legal powers to establish a compensation scheme in a way that is deliverable by government—and I fear that, should the noble Baroness’s well-intentioned amendments be moved and carried, this will simply not be deliverable for the Government and could ultimately delay the payment of compensation.
I turn to Amendment 119BA in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. We absolutely respect the principles that the noble Baroness has raised, and the need for the infected blood compensation scheme to be efficient, fair and accessible to deliver justice effectively. It is our sincere intention to deliver this and put the needs of victims at the forefront of the operation. In saying that, I should add, as she will understand, that there are clearly many different needs and perspectives to take into account. The imperative for the new infected blood compensation authority to act effectively and efficiently towards that aim is already provided for in paragraph 11 of the new schedule to Part 3, as set out in government Amendment 121A. Creating more statutory provision around the exercise of functions is, I can assure the noble Baroness, not required.
I move to amendments that deal with adhering to the recommendations of the infected blood inquiry’s second interim report on compensation. These are Amendment 119EA, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, and Amendments 119D, 119E, 119K, 119M and 119U, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. Ministers are clear that recommendations of the infected blood inquiry should form the basis of the government response. In January this year, an expert group was appointed to provide technical assistance in understanding how the inquiry’s recommendations could work in practice. I assure the House that the expert group is intended to build on and not replace in any way the recommendations made by Sir Brian Langstaff. This will help to ensure that the Government are able to respond to recommendations in a manner that reflects the impact that the scandal has had on the lives of individuals, while also considering what implications that has for delivery.
There are some specific instances where we must divert from recommendations in order to make the compensation scheme deliverable for the Government and to ensure that payments reach those eligible as swiftly as possible. I emphasise again that we are committed to working with the infected blood community to ensure that the compensation scheme meets its members’ individual needs. However, on reflection, I hope that the noble Baroness will understand that a formal consultation with legal representatives across the UK would lead to one sure outcome, which would be to delay the process of establishing the scheme. We do not consider that it is required.
The Government are acutely aware of the importance of establishing an accessible and sensitive compensation scheme for victims of inflected blood. I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher and Lady Brinton, for their Amendments 119MA, 119V and 119VA, which speak to the support for claimants who would be accessing the scheme. First, I want to be clear that the infected blood compensation authority will provide support to applicants and, within this support, will consider the provision of legal support services. The government amendment allows for that support to be provided for victims, and the House can expect the Government to work with the infected blood compensation authority on the support that is required.
The government amendments set the legal framework required to enable the Government to move quickly to establish a compensation scheme; they do not limit in any way the procedure for applications. However, the operation of a scheme must be efficient and user-friendly. In-person hearings, as proposed in one of the amendments, could extend the timeline for payments for individuals. We will need to consider that idea carefully, alongside the delivery of the scheme as a whole.
The Government also recognise the benefits of providing legal assistance to individuals accessing the compensation scheme. I shall take that point away with me, in the way that I have just indicated—and I refer noble Lords to government Amendment 119S in this connection.
Leaving aside the fact that it would be undesirable to commit in this legislation to a panel of specific law firms to undertake government-funded work, it is important that any support provided is well considered against two principal benchmarks: first, that it provides the most benefit for claimants and, secondly, that it is consistent with the appropriate management of public funds.
I turn to Amendments 119CB, 119DA and 119DB, which introduce the word “harmed” into the government amendments that identify who may be eligible for compensation within regulations. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, that the existing wording is sufficiently wide to capture all those infected and affected by the treatment of infected blood, and the additional drafting that she has suggested is not required.
Amendments 119J, 119P and 119T would change “may” to “must”. These amendments could inadvertently limit the breadth of what could be done under a general power and are therefore not considered appropriate at this stage. This is about having a process that is efficient for victims and that also allows for oversight of public money. I am very happy to meet noble Lords to discuss this issue further. Amendment 119P is a good example. If we were to change “may” to “must”, as that amendment proposes, it would be, as it were, dictating to the IBCA what it has to do. We are keen not to do that where we do not have to, because of the need to give the IBCA autonomy. I give that as an example.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, the lead amendment in this group is Amendment 119BA, which I happened to table. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken on these amendments at great length, in particular the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Featherstone, who made very powerful speeches. I also thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for the very considerable number of assurances he has given this House. They will, I know, provide tremendous reassurance to the victims of the contaminated blood scandal, who have been waiting, as I said before, for a very long time for some action; I think they can now expect compensation quickly after 20 May. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“Infected blood compensation scheme(1) The Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office must by regulations establish a scheme (“the infected blood compensation scheme”) for making payments to eligible persons.(2) “Eligible persons” means such persons within subsection (3) as the regulations provide are to be eligible persons.(3) The persons within this subsection are persons who—(a) have been infected as a result of being treated with blood, blood products or tissue,(b) have been infected as a result of another person being treated with blood, blood products or tissue, or(c) have been affected by another person being infected as described in paragraph (a) or (b).(4) The regulations may define an eligible person by reference to matters including (but not limited to)—(a) the kind of infection;(b) the duration or effect of an infection;(c) when the treatment occurred;(d) where the treatment was given;(e) who gave the treatment;(f) whether a person was treated with blood, blood products or tissue;(g) in the case of a person within subsection (3)(b), how the person was infected and their connection with the person who was treated;(h) in a case of a person within subsection (3)(c), how the person has been affected and their connection with the person who has been infected.(5) The regulations must provide for payments under the scheme to be made by, and the scheme to be otherwise administered by, the IBCA.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause provides for the Secretary of State or Minister for the Cabinet Office to establish an infected blood compensation scheme by regulations.
“Payments(1) The amount of a payment under the infected blood compensation scheme is to be determined in accordance with regulations under section (Infected blood compensation scheme).(2) The regulations may make provision for the amount payable to eligible persons—(a) to be a specified amount;(b) to be an amount within a specified range;(c) not to exceed a specified amount.(3) The regulations may make provision—(a) for payments to be made as a lump sum or periodically;(b) for payments to be held on trust;(c) for interest to be payable on payments;(d) for the amount of any periodic payment to be increased to take account of changes in the value of money.(4) The regulations may make provision for payments to be made subject to conditions.(5) The regulations may make provision for payments under the scheme to be repaid to the IBCA (in whole or in part) in specified circumstances.(6) In this section “specified” means specified in the regulations.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause makes provision about the kinds of payments that may be provided for by the infected blood compensation scheme.
Baroness Brinton
“(1) The amount of a payment under the infected blood compensation scheme is to be determined in accordance with a framework of tariff-based compensation for eligible infected and affected persons, at rates which broadly take account of but are not limited by current practice in courts and tribunals across the UK and sums payable in other UK compensation schemes, and allowing an assessed basis for defined financial losses.(1A) The rates of compensation in the framework under subsection (1) must be based on the advice of the independent clinical and legal panels and set by the Chair, adopting the measures set out in Recommendation 5 of the Infected Blood Inquiry’s Second Interim Report.(1B) The awards which may be claimed under the tariff- based compensation under subsection (1) framework must be as defined at Recommendation 6 of the Infected Blood Inquiry Second Interim Report. (2) In assessing compensation under the scheme, no account should be taken of any past support payments made under other support schemes or their predecessors.”
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful for everything the Minister has said to the House, including going through all the amendments in detail, and in particular for his offer to meet. I thank all the infected blood community organisations and people who have been working with many Peers around the House for their contributions. Six petitions on infected blood compensation were presented in the House of Commons today. That is how important this is. They are very keen that my Amendment 119HA, which summarises the key issues in Sir Brian Langstaff’s interim report, is voted on and those issues heard. On that basis, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
“Applications and procedureRegulations under section (Infected blood compensation scheme) may deal with the procedure for the making and deciding of applications for payments under the infected blood compensation scheme and, in particular, may—(a) impose time limits for making an application or taking other steps;(b) make provision about evidence.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause provides that regulations may make provision about applications under the infected blood compensation scheme and other procedural matters.
“Reviews and appeals(1) Regulations under section (Infected blood compensation scheme)—(a) may make provision for the IBCA to review decisions taken under the infected blood compensation scheme;(b) must confer a right of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal against a decision taken under the scheme.(2) If the regulations make provision under subsection (1)(a), they may provide for the right of appeal to be exercisable only if the IBCA has reviewed the decision.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause provides that regulations may make provision for reviews of, and appeals against, decisions made under the infected blood compensation scheme.
“Information: infected blood compensation scheme(1) The IBCA may provide information to another person, and a person may provide information to the IBCA, for the purposes of any matter connected with the administration of the infected blood compensation scheme. (2) The IBCA may by notice in writing require a person to provide information to the IBCA for the purposes of any matter connected with the administration of the infected blood compensation scheme.(3) If a person fails to comply with a notice under subsection (2), the IBCA may apply to the appropriate court for an order requiring the person to comply with the notice.(4) The information referred to in this section may comprise or include personal data.(5) This section does not limit the circumstances in which information may be disclosed apart from this section.(6) Except as provided by subsection (7), a disclosure of information authorised by or required under this section does not breach—(a) any obligation of confidence owed by the person making the disclosure, or(b) any other restriction on the disclosure of information (however imposed).(7) This section does not authorise or require the processing of information if the processing would contravene the data protection legislation (but in determining whether it would do so, take into account the powers conferred and duties imposed by this section).(8) In this section—“the appropriate court” means—(a) in England and Wales and Northern Ireland, the High Court;(b) in Scotland, the Court of Session;“personal data”, “processing” and“the data protection legislation” have the meanings given by section 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause enables the IBCA and other persons to provide information to each other for the purposes of any matter connected with the administration of the infected blood compensation scheme and also enables the IBCA to require other persons to provide information for those purposes.
“Duty to co-operate with the IBCA(1) Each relevant person must co-operate with the IBCA on any matter connected with the making of payments to persons in connection with those persons, or other persons, being treated with infected blood, infected blood products or infected tissue.(2) The relevant persons are—(a) the Secretary of State;(b) the Minister for the Cabinet Office;(c) a Special Health Authority established under section 28 of the National Health Service Act 2006;(d) the Welsh Ministers;(e) a National Health Service trust established under section 18 of the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006;(f) a Special Health Authority established under section 22 of the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006;(g) the Scottish Ministers;(h) a person who has at any time been appointed by the Scottish Ministers under section 28(4)(d) of the Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Act 2005 (asp 13) to manage a scheme made under that section;(i) the Department of Health in Northern Ireland;(j) the Regional Business Services Organisation established by section 14 of the Health and Social Care (Reform) Act (Northern Ireland) 2009 (c.1 (N.I.)); (k) any other persons specified as relevant persons in regulations made by the Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office for the purposes of this section.(3) Regulations under subsection (2)(k)—(a) may not specify a Welsh body as a relevant person unless the Welsh Ministers consent;(b) may not specify a Scottish body as a relevant person unless the Scottish Ministers consent;(c) may not specify a Northern Ireland body as a relevant person unless the Department of Health in Northern Ireland consents.(4) In subsection (3)—“Welsh body” means—(a) a devolved Welsh authority as defined in section 157A of the Government of Wales Act 2006;(b) a person providing services to a person within paragraph (a);“Scottish body” means—(a) a person who is a part of the Scottish Administration;(b) a Scottish public authority with mixed functions or no reserved functions (within the meaning of the Scotland Act 1998);(c) a person providing services to a person within paragraph (a) or (b);“Northern Ireland body” means—(a) a Northern Ireland department;(b) a public authority whose functions are exercisable only or mainly in or as regards Northern Ireland and relate only or mainly to transferred matters (within the meaning of the Northern Ireland Act 1998);(c) a person providing services to a person within paragraph (a) or (b).”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause requires the persons listed in subsection (2) to co-operate with the IBCA on any matter connected with the making of payments to persons in connection with those persons, or other persons, being treated with infected blood, infected blood products or infected tissue.
“Provision of support and assistance(1) The Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office may make such arrangements as they consider appropriate for the provision of support and assistance to applicants (or potential applicants) for compensation under the infected blood compensation scheme.(2) The arrangements may be for the provision of support and assistance by the IBCA or any other person.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause provides a power for the Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office to make arrangements for the provision of advice and assistance to applicants and potential applicants under the infected blood compensation scheme.
Baroness Brinton
“(3) Applicants must have the option of access to independent legal help for the purposes of making their claim and any appeal.(4) The firms of solicitors who have represented core participants in the Infected Blood Inquiry must be the solicitors from which applicants may choose representation, with fees payable capped at public service rates.(5) Such legal fees must be paid by the IBCA and not the applicant and cannot be deducted from any award.”
“Payments to personal representatives of qualifying infected persons(1) The Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office must make arrangements for the personal representatives of a qualifying infected person (in their capacity as such) to receive a payment of £100,000.(2) A “qualifying infected person” is a deceased person—(a) who was registered as an infected person under an infected blood support scheme, or with a relevant organisation, before 17 April 2024, or(b) whose death was registered as the death of an infected person under an infected blood support scheme, or with a relevant organisation, before 17 April 2024,and to or in respect of whom no payment has been made under the Infected Blood Interim Compensation Payment Scheme.(3) An “infected blood support scheme” means—(a) the England Infected Blood Support Scheme established under section 2 of, and paragraph 7C of Schedule 1 to, the National Health Service Act 2006,(b) the Wales Infected Blood Support Scheme established under sections 1 to 3 of the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006,(c) the Scottish Infected Blood Support Scheme established partly under section 28 of the Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Act 2005 (asp 13), and(d) the Infected Blood Payment Scheme for Northern Ireland established under section 3 of the Health and Social Care (Reform) Act (Northern Ireland) 2009.(4) A “relevant organisation” means—(a) the Caxton Foundation (charity number 1142529),(b) the Eileen Trust (charity number 1028027),(c) the Macfarlane Trust (charity number 298863),(d) the Macfarlane (Special Payments) Trust established on 29 January 1990,(e) the Macfarlane (Special Payments) (No. 2) Trust established on 3 May 1991,(f) MFET Limited (company number 07121661), and(g) the Skipton Fund Limited (company number 5084964). (5) A payment is made in respect of a deceased person under the Infected Blood Interim Compensation Payment Scheme if a payment under that scheme is made to the person’s personal representatives (in their capacity as such) or the person’s bereaved partner.(6) The Infected Blood Interim Compensation Payment Scheme means the scheme of that name administered by the persons who administer the infected blood support schemes (whether or not in conjunction with other persons).(7) The arrangements under subsection (1)—(a) must include provision about the procedure for making payments to the personal representatives of qualifying infected persons;(b) may include arrangements for one or more other persons (which may in particular include relevant persons) to administer the making of payments, in accordance with that procedure, on behalf of the Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office.(8) The arrangements under subsection (1) may be made, in whole or in part, by exercising powers conferred on the Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office apart from this section.(9) In this section—“personal representatives” , in relation to a deceased person, means the persons responsible for administering the deceased person’s estate;“relevant person” has the same meaning as in section (Duty to co-operate with the IBCA).(10) The Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office may by regulations repeal or amend subsections (1) to (9).”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause requires the Secretary of State or the Minister of the Cabinet Office to make arrangements for the personal representatives of deceased infected persons to receive a payment of £100,000 where no interim compensation payments have been made to or in respect of those deceased persons.
“Information: payments to personal representatives(1) A person may provide information to—(a) the Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office, or(b) a person administering the making of payments under section (Payments to personal representatives of qualifying infected persons) by virtue of section (Payments to personal representatives of qualifying infected persons)(7)(b),for the purposes of any matter connected with the making of payments to personal representatives under that section.(2) The information referred to in subsection (1) may comprise or include personal data.(3) Subsection (1) does not limit the circumstances in which information may be disclosed apart from that subsection. (4) Except as provided by subsection (5), a disclosure of information authorised by this section does not breach—(a) any obligation of confidence owed by the person making the disclosure, or(b) any other restriction on the disclosure of information (however imposed).(5) Subsection (1) does not authorise the processing of information if the processing would contravene the data protection legislation (but in determining whether it would do so, take into account the power conferred by that subsection).(6) In this section “personal data”, “processing” and “the data protection legislation” have the meanings given by section 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018.” Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause provides that a person may provide information to the Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office, or a person administering the making of payments to personal representatives of qualifying infected persons on their behalf, for the purpose of any matter connected with the making of such payments.