House of Lords
Procurement Act 2023
(1 day, 13 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to change procurement guidance and operations under the Procurement Act 2023.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, the Procurement Act 2023 aims to create a simpler and more transparent regime for public sector procurement that will deliver better value for money and reduce costs for businesses and the public sector. I commend the noble Baroness on the Benches opposite for the commitment to small businesses, in particular, in the Act that she personally championed. The new regime will now go live on 24 February next year—a short delay of four months from the previous go-live date—in order to allow time for a new national procurement policy statement to be produced that clearly sets out this Government’s priorities for public procurement and economic growth.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her courtesy. I remind the House that, in June, Prime Minister Starmer said that his number one mission was economic growth, so it is ironic that in addition to the Employment Rights Bill, the Government are planning to damage economic growth by delaying the Procurement Act 2023. Why are they adapting the rules on procurement to help their union paymasters and to encourage costly equality and green add-ons? My concern is the resulting red tape, which is against the direction that the Prime Minister set—yesterday he said that he wants to get rid of red tape —and which I believe will harm efficiency and the path to growth.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I absolutely and wholeheartedly refute the noble Baroness’s suggestion. I would also note that, last week, I was criticised for continuing with measures announced by the previous Government and this week I am being criticised for their delay. I hope that noble Lords from across the House agree that we should look at such matters on a case-by-case basis to ensure that this country gets back on the stable footing it needs and deserves.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, will the Minister give a complete assurance that this Government will not introduce a VIP lane which gives preference to Conservatives and their colleagues? Will she also give an assurance that the Government will appoint a Covid corruption commissioner as soon as possible?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
This Government are absolutely committed to using every means possible to recoup the public money that was lost in pandemic-related fraud and contracts that have not delivered. In July, the Chancellor announced that the Government would appoint a Covid counterfraud commissioner, who will be appointed by open competition for a fixed term. I am pleased to say that applications closed on 30 September and the Chancellor will announce the commissioner in the coming weeks. I hope that noble Lords will welcome this measure to address some of the shocking instances of pandemic-related fraud and awards of contracts that happened in the past.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, it was a pleasure to work cross-party on the Procurement Act, but my party objected to the NHS and the Ministry of Defence being granted an exception from having to follow the Act. Avid readers of the Health Service Journal will see that about once per week the NHS is being taken court to by its suppliers for its new procurement rules. Will the Government now review the recent NHS procurement rules in the Health and Care Act 2022 to see if they are up to the standard that the rest of the public sector is required to follow?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
In passing the Health and Care Act 2022, Parliament recognised that healthcare services delivered to NHS patients and service users, such as 999 emergency ambulance services and cancer-screening services, had particular issues and challenges which necessitated special procurement measures. Consequently, as the noble Baroness made clear, the Procurement Act does not include special provisions for those healthcare services.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, during the proceedings on the Procurement Act, the noble Baroness will recall that the House was united in not wishing to see goods made in Xinjiang by slave labour, particularly Uighur Muslims, being brought by public policy into our own supply chains. Can the Minister tell us what this Government are doing to ensure we maintain a prohibition on goods that have been made by Uighur slave labour?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Abhorrent practices such as these have absolutely no place in public supply chains. The Procurement Act strengthens the rules around excluding suppliers due to serious misconduct anywhere in their operations, including the supply chain.
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
My Lords, what effect will this have on the defence procurement budget, which is already under considerable pressure?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I do not have any detail specifically on the defence procurement budget. This is more about the processes. The Procurement Act includes specific rules for defence and security procurement, including flexibility for contracts to be upgraded.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, it seems to me that it would be good for the Opposition to visit Germany, where there is a great relationship between trade unions and employers and the productivity rate is much higher, and compare it with the failed policy of the last Government.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I can only agree with my noble friend.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister recall that, when the Procurement Act was first presented—it started in the Lords—it was one of the most badly drafted Bills I have ever seen, and that the Government themselves produced 350 amendments between Second Reading and Committee? Do the Government intend to look again at the rules covering outsourcing, particularly to companies which have in the past made excessive profits from government contracts?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I will look into that matter and write to the noble Lord on that point.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, in their manifesto, the Government committed themselves
“through public sector targets to source locally-produced food”
to help farmers. We on this side would applaud that, but how does the Minister square that with the terms of the Procurement Act, which prevents farmers and others from bidding to be sources of food in schools, prisons and hospitals?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I am not aware of any particular measures that would prevent them from doing that, but I will look into that matter and revert to the noble Baroness.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests in the register. Defence procurement has previously had a policy of global competition by default, so what plans do the Government have to look more carefully at what can be sourced from the UK and support our domestic industries in this area?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The Procurement Act has provisions around defence to enable a contracting authority to exclude suppliers from procurement if they present a threat to national security. This can identify suppliers that must be excluded from certain contracts, as well as suppliers that contracting authorities should consider excluding from the procurement. I hope that at least partly addresses the noble Lord’s point.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, can the Minister max out, as it were, on the provisions to help small businesses achieve procurement? As well as doing that, can she look at the Subsidy Control Act and its effect on early-stage procurement and pre-procurement? Can she look at the chilling effect of contracts requiring the sharing and licensing of innovative companies’ development of intellectual property with competitors in order to comply with the Subsidy Control Act?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I am happy to look into the point the noble Baroness raises. A new duty under the Procurement Act will require contracting authorities to have regard to small businesses, including ensuring 30-day payment terms on a broader range of contracts. We are keen to encourage more suppliers, particularly SMEs, to bid, which increases competition and should in turn support growth.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
On my noble friend’s point, I am not sure the Minister quite grasped the key issue, which is that if small businesses are required to make public their intellectual property and innovation—so that it then becomes available for much larger firms to take it over and use it without any payment—they are totally discouraged from putting forward their names for contracts to government.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I understood the point that was raised, but I did not have the answer. I apologise that I did not have the exact answer. I will go back and look into this, and I will make sure that I write to both noble Baronesses.
Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence
(1 day, 13 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chakrabarti
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the value of, and the progress towards achieving the aims of the Council of Europe Framework Convention on artificial intelligence and human rights, democracy, and the rule of law, adopted on 17 May.
The Minister of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Lord Vallance of Balham) (Lab)
Artificial intelligence has the potential to significantly boost economic growth, but to enable this it is essential to build public trust. That is why the UK has, together with international partners, signed the first ever legally binding treaty on AI, which, alongside our existing legal framework, will enhance the protection of human rights, democracy and the rule of law, supporting democratic institutions and ensuring that AI can develop and be used in line with our values.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend, whom I belatedly welcome to the Dispatch Box. It is easily done on all sides of politics, but one minute we berate so-called red tape and the next minute we weep for tragedies like Grenfell. So does my noble friend agree with me that concepts like human rights, democracy and the rule of law are far from red tape? Does he agree that the Council of Europe, which at least one pretender to the Conservative crown wants us to pull out of, will be essential to navigating this very difficult territory in the years to come?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
It is important that the convention does not introduce new human rights. Instead, it is meant to make sure that, during its development, AI takes into account the existing rules and regulations and the appropriate respect of democracy and freedoms that are already enshrined in laws and taken into account in practice. I agree that this can be done in a way that does not mean new red tape.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, it is important to note the remarks of the Prime Minister, and indeed his Ministers, at the investment conference yesterday. When talking about artificial intelligence, they encouraged entrepreneurs in particular to have as little limitation on the development of AI as possible. Bearing in mind the position of the United States, which has a very free approach, and the European Union, which now has strict regulation, is the Minister confident that this Government will be putting in place the right balance in regulating AI?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
The convention has been signed by the US as well as the EU, the UK and various other nations. On the point about red tape, it is very important that, as we think about AI, we do not introduce measures which restrict innovation. At the investment summit yesterday, Eric Schmidt said very clearly that some guidelines are rather important; otherwise, companies do not have certainty and cannot progress. Getting that balance—getting some guidelines without restrictions—will be our clear priority.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, given the Lord Chancellor’s statement that the framework
“convention is a major step to ensuring that these new technologies can be harnessed without eroding our oldest values, like human rights and the rule of law”,
and given that the convention is specifically designed to protect human rights, democracy and the rule of law, is it not crucial that this be reflected and implemented in the AI Bill as promised in the Labour Party’s manifesto, and will the Minister confirm that it will be?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
We have signed the convention and will bring it forward in the usual way—it will not happen overnight—providing a chance for wide consultation and consideration in Committee as it is laid before Parliament. The AI Bill itself is of course a different proposition.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, Article 3 of the framework convention, at the insistence of the United States, is discretionary in nature, offering signatory states a choice as to how to apply the convention’s principles to private actors, including those operating at the state’s behest. Given this and the somewhat vague nature of the enforcement procedures contained in Article 23, how does my noble friend the Minister envisage this convention affecting the operations of private firms contracted to supply, for example, facial recognition software—much flawed—to the Home Office and police forces?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
The convention sets out activities in the life cycle of AI systems, and they should not infringe our values of human rights, democratic processes and the effectiveness of democratic institutions or the rule of law. It applies to the public sector, to the public sector when using the private sector, and there is an obligation to consider how private sector activities can be taken into account when this is implemented in a national framework.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, international bodies currently working on AI safety and regulation include the UN, UNESCO, the ITU, the G7, the G20 and the GPI, among several others. Do the Government agree that although each of these groups is crucial and has a very important role to play in creating safe and well-regulated AI globally, they will be successful only to the extent that they are effectively co-ordinated? If so, what steps are the Government taking to bring that about?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
We are in active discussion with all those partners. As we consider an AI Act, we will work closely with partners in the US and elsewhere and apply it only to the limited number of companies at the very forefront of AI, to those models of tomorrow which carry particular risk and, again, where guard-rails have been asked for.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, a number of countries are using AI and developing weapons systems that have no human being between sensor and shooter. What are we doing to regulate this arena? It is extremely dangerous and is becoming a growing area of endeavour for a number of countries that, I have to say, I do not particularly like.
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that important question. The convention does not apply to military matters, but the responsible AI in the military domain—the REAIM Forum, which the UK co-hosted in September this year—covers exactly those issues, which are incredibly important.
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, I draw attention to my registered interests. The Minister will be aware that the regulatory approaches to approving innovative medicines and to approving novel medical devices are quite different. With the introduction of AI to drive many of those devices, their impact on human health may be just as profound as administering a novel therapeutic. How do His Majesty’s Government propose to go about aligning the regulation of devices in the future when they are AI labelled?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
We are taking a sector-specific approach to AI regulation. On medicines, we announced last week the formation of the regulatory innovation office, which will look specifically at the question of AI in healthcare to try to bring together the different regulators and make sure that we have a clear system.
Tax Reliefs: Theatre, Orchestra and Museums and Galleries Exhibition
(1 day, 13 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to maintain the current rates of Theatre Tax Relief, Orchestra Tax Relief, and Museums and Galleries Exhibition Tax Relief, as announced in the Budget on 6 March, beyond the current Spending Review period.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government are committed to supporting the creative industries, which play a key role in driving economic growth. As part of the Government’s industrial strategy, a creative industries sector plan will be developed, working with business, local leaders and sector experts. I am unable to comment on any specific taxes ahead of the Budget; any tax changes will be confirmed in the Budget on 30 October.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I understand that the Minister is limited in what he can say ahead of the Budget later this month, but the Government were willing last week to provide certainty for one part of our brilliant creative industries by confirming that they would continue the support we announced in March for independent film production. Does he acknowledge that brilliant organisations in theatres, orchestras, museums and galleries are already planning their programmes for 2026 and beyond, and need certainty too? If the Minister cannot give them that today, will he press that point on his colleagues at the Treasury and urge them to confirm the permanent uplift of the tax reliefs we announced in March, particularly in a week when the Government are enlisting the help of cultural icons to promote investment in the UK?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I know that the noble Lord has genuine concern for, and a great deal of expertise and experience in, the arts and culture sector. As I said, the Government are committed to supporting the creative industries, and to creating good jobs and accelerating growth in film, music, gaming and the other creative sectors that the noble Lord mentioned. That is why we have ensured that the creative sector is a key part of our industrial strategy. As the noble Lord said, I cannot comment on any specific taxes, but he will know that the Government face a very challenging fiscal situation. He will know that the previous Government left a £22 billion black hole in the public finances, which they concealed from the public, Parliament and the OBR. Addressing that will involve very difficult decisions on spending, welfare and tax.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, given that there are regional museums that are currently facing insolvency, does the Minister agree with me that, while tax relief is useful—indeed, necessary—the real concern for the arts is the wider one of inadequate funding levels?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
Clearly, the Government recognise the importance of the arts to our public life and support the funding of the arts at the appropriate level. Unfortunately, I will have to say that the Government will set out their plans for supporting the arts in the coming spending review.
Lord Razzall (LD)
My Lords, I am absolutely delighted to join in a Question from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, because it gives me the opportunity to thank him from our Benches for the collegiate way in which he conducted himself as a DCMS Minister.
Bearing in mind the Minister’s commitment earlier, will he give any indication as to whether at yesterday’s investment conference there were any more commitments to put money into the film industry, or indeed the arts, apart from M&G’s investment in a new film project? Does he recognise that there remains an issue around the visual effects tax relief, which was announced in 2023 but for which implementation was stalled by the election? What is the status of this important tax relief? It is obviously vital to ensure that as much post-production work as possible stays in the United Kingdom.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for mentioning the investment summit yesterday, when the Government were able to announce a total of £64 billion of investment into the UK economy. That was a vote of confidence in this Government’s handling of the economy and the fact that our economy is now open for business. On the specific tax relief that the noble Lord mentioned, I am afraid that I cannot comment on speculation about any specific taxes ahead of the Budget.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford
My Lords, the current relief offered to instrumental groups of 12 or more players does not extend to choirs, a situation that is logically indefensible, especially given the growing popularity of choirs across the nation. Can the Minister say whether the Government have formed a view on extending the relief to choirs, as requested by musical organisations all around the country, not least given the recent questions over the future of the BBC Singers?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
Orchestra concerts with a vocal element are not excluded from the orchestra tax relief. Concerts with a vocal element, such as a choir, may be eligible if the instrumentalists are the primary focus of the concert. The current rules ensure that the orchestra tax relief meets its objective of supporting and incentivising orchestra concerts specifically.
Baroness Keeley (Lab)
My Lords, on the benefits of the orchestra tax relief, the permanent 45% rate has been transformative. It enables UK orchestras to build new audiences, support new productions, generate employment and develop future talent. The cost of the orchestra tax relief was only 1.5% of the total creative tax reliefs in 2022-23. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that keeping this tax relief is consistent with the Labour Government’s mission for economic growth?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for her question. The creative industries are absolutely a major driver of economic growth in this country. She will be aware that I am unable to comment on speculation about specific taxes. In the coming Budget, we must rebuild our public finances to ensure economic stability, including by addressing the £22 billion black hole inherited from the previous Government, which will involve difficult decisions on spending, welfare and tax.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
The Minister again raises the alleged £22 billion tax hole. He was asked, this time last week, to explain what was in the £22 billion tax hole. He could identify only two items, which amounted to £9 billion—that is all he could find. It now transpires that HM Treasury’s policy paper of 2 August 2024 reveals that £9.4 billion of the so-called black hole has been created by Labour’s political decision to give public sector workers above-inflation pay grades. Does the Minister not agree with most of the House that this is a fictious black hole, created by Labour?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for giving me an opportunity to talk about the £22 billion black hole in the public finances, which was concealed from this Parliament and the public, and, most importantly, from the Office for Budget Responsibility, which has confirmed that it exists and set up an inquiry to establish how it happened and to ensure that it does not happen again. The noble Lord asked me to list what went into the black hole. He knows, for example, of the £6 billion overspend on the asylum system, including the failed Rwanda scheme; of the £3 billion of uncosted commitments on road and rail projects; that the reserve was overspent, three times over, just three months into the financial year; and that there was a black hole in the spending plans for the public sector pay rises because the previous Government did not hold a spending review and did not give any affordability criteria to the pay review bodies. That is why it has happened and that is what we will ensure does not happen again.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a trustee of the Museum of the Home. A recent survey by civic museums has shown that there is a backlog of hundreds of millions of pounds of urgent maintenance outstanding for our great cultural institutions, including the British Museum. Roofs are leaking, threating the museum building structures and the collections within them. Is the Minister aware of the importance of continuing the museums tax relief to ensure that this backlog is addressed?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Viscount for his question. We of course recognise the important role that the arts play in our lives. The Government will set out their plans to support the arts at the forthcoming spending review.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, I think that everybody has heard loud and clear from my noble friend that he cannot make commitments that are waiting on decisions in the Budget. However, when he is talking to his colleagues at the Treasury, will he please stress the interdependency of all aspects of the cultural industries? Some generate more income than others but none is less important than any of the others, and without a proper sense of how they connect, all aspects of the cultural industries will suffer. Will he take that back to the Treasury and do the best he can to get the point across?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am very grateful to my noble friend. To be honest, I think that the point has already been registered; that is why we have made the creative industries a key part of our industrial strategy. The Government are committed to supporting the creative industries, including all the sectors that have been mentioned today, and that is why they will form a key part of the industrial strategy that was announced yesterday.
Baroness Fleet (Con)
My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether he recognises the vital role that the orchestra tax relief plays in the performing arts sector?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am afraid I cannot comment on any specific tax.
Baroness Quin (Lab)
My Lords, having not had the opportunity before, I warmly welcome my noble friend to his role. I very much endorse the comments that have been made about the importance of tax relief for museums. Will the Government, as I hope they are already committed to do, consult with museums—including in my own region of the north-east, where this has been particularly helpful—before any further measures are considered?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
In drawing up future tax policy the Government will of course consult with all interested stakeholders.
Religious Hate Crime
(1 day, 13 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
To ask His Majesty’s Government, further to reports that religious hate crime has increased, what steps they are taking to tackle religious hate crime and strengthen community cohesion in the UK.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Khan of Burnley) (Lab)
My Lords, religious hatred is a stain on our society. Recent events, such as the domestic impact of tensions in the Middle East and the appalling violence we saw on our streets over the summer, have exposed weaknesses and divisions in our society. This Government are developing an integrated, cohesive approach to tackling these challenges, which will address racial and religious hatred and strengthen cohesion across all communities. We will say more soon.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
I thank the Minister for his reply. Many of us are deeply worried; post the 7 October attacks, the dramatic rise in religious-motivated hate crime and the strain on social cohesion have been deeply worrying. Of course, at the same time they have spurred a whole range of grass-roots initiatives. I am thinking, for example, of the work that our local MP in St Albans has undertaken with local imams and rabbis, who have produced a document—five reasons for dialogue; why Jews and Muslims refuse to hate one another—which they are taking around our schools. It is making quite an impact. I wonder whether the Minister and his officials are aware of this and other initiatives and whether they are being integrated into a national strategy so that we can try to address this at the youngest age possible.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
I pay tribute to the right reverend Prelate and ask him to pass on my appreciation for the work that has gone on in different faiths to bring the community together in St Albans. I made community visits on Thursday, Friday and Saturday to discuss these issues, and tomorrow I will be in Cambridge visiting the Woolf Institute to hear from Jewish, Muslim and Christian community voices. These important initiatives are all part of a package to make sure that our country rejects hate, has unity and works together to deal with these challenges.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, recent reports have shown that anti-Jewish hate crime in London has risen fourfold and that anti-Semitic activity on campus is absolutely shocking. Jewish students go in fear at what is going on. The noble Lord, Lord Mann, has issued two excellent reports on this, and his recommendations, which I call on the Government to implement, are to teach contemporary anti-Semitism. Holocaust education alone is not succeeding, because it places everything in the past. Will the Government keep our students safe? I have written on this to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Malvern, three or four times since August and have not received a reply. I hope that the Minister will encourage her to reply to me and others on the painful situation on our campuses.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I acknowledge the point the noble Baroness makes, in particular on the rise of anti-Semitism in our country. We intend to reverse the decision of the previous Government to downgrade the monitoring and recording of anti-Semitic hate incidents. I will pass the noble Baroness’s views across, but I assure her that I am meeting the noble Lord, Lord Mann, who is our independent adviser on anti-Semitism, and I will continue to work with him closely to tackle all forms of anti-Semitism, wherever they may be.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, I know that as a child, growing up when there is a lot of hatred about really impacts on how you grow up. We are seeing every single day the rise of racial and religious hatred; it has been perpetuated by adults, and it feeds back into children. We need to know how we can work across parties to be able to make sure that, as government and opposition, we are producing an environment in which children can grow up safely, not watching the hate that is constantly on the television, which comes from adults who are magnifying the differences.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness makes an excellent and interesting point. Today is my 45th birthday; I remember that the first time I suffered racism and religious hatred was on my fourth birthday. The noble Baroness is right: these things stay with you for a long while. Wherever we can work in different departments and different institutions, we have to ensure that we have an integrated and cohesive approach that tackles the problems that, unfortunately, too many people face.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right that all racial and religious hatred is a stain on our society, but unfortunately it is on the rise significantly. He will be aware that Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hate crimes have also risen significantly. The violent riots in the summer targeting British Muslims and refugees did not happen in a vacuum. Our families and communities feel worried and targeted, especially with the terrible rhetoric that we hear from some leading politicians that would not be tolerated if it were about other communities. In light of that, what steps are being taken to change the policy of disengagement, particularly with Muslim communities and organisations, and, as the right reverend Prelate said, to enhance and bring back interfaith work, particularly with women, young people and broader communities?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, on the unfortunate stats that the noble Baroness raises, she is quite right. The Question today is about how there is too much religious hatred. Out of all hate crimes, 25% are religious hate crimes. I am working and engaging with all communities, of all faiths, and she can rest assured that that includes the Muslim faith. As I said before, I am visiting the Woolf Institute tomorrow to hear from Jewish, Christian and Muslim leaders in particular and to talk about how interfaith—to go to the very premise of the Question—is playing a part to alleviate hate crime and religious hatred in our country.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister advise us as to what the Department for Education is doing in relation to advice to schools?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
I will just say to the noble and learned Baroness that it is for the Department for Education to better advise her. I am sure that she does not need any advice from me, knowing her experience in this area.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, would the Minister be prepared to meet with Show Racism the Red Card, the country’s largest anti-racist education charity? It has workers in schools every day, making sure that our children are exposed to anti-racist ideas, all the better to be able to confront the racism that we see in much of our press and media and, regrettably, that we have seen on our streets.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My noble friend makes an interesting point, but let me be quite clear that we have a lot of plans moving forward. I hoped to talk about having these plans in place, but we are at the very difficult stage of finalising our plans. Rest assured that I will come back to my noble friend and the House about some of the challenges when we have our finalised integrated approach. The steps we take will be able to alleviate a lot of the issues that my noble friend raised.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, in opposition the Labour Party adopted the APPG’s definition of Islamophobia. Have the Government now adopted that definition and, if not, why not? If they are still considering the matter, what are the specifics of that definition that need clarification in order for the Government to make up their mind?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
A new definition, which the Government will work towards, must be given careful consideration so that it comprehensively reflects multiple perspectives and considers the potential implications for different communities. We understand the strength of feeling on the issue of the APPG’s definition, and we want to make sure that any definition comprehensively reflects multiple perspectives. We are actively considering our approach to Islamophobia, including definitions, and will provide further updates in due course.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, the hate crime that captures the headlines often has a political dimension where religions are involved, such as in the Middle East. Although serious, it is transitory. More serious is the hate crime of religion on religion, with claims of God-given superiority. Does the Minister agree that open dialogue between religions on the actual teachings—I do not mean just having tea and samosas, which is the usual thing—would help identify important commonalities that can strengthen cohesion in society?
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, can the Minister reassure us that concern about religious hate should not lead to backdoor blasphemy laws or assaults on free speech and legitimate criticism, or even ridicule, of religion? Does the Minister agree that, three years to the day after the brutal murder of Sir David Amess by an Islamist fanatic, it is not helpful when some conflate concerns about Islamism with religious hatred of Muslims? That stirs up tensions too.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, as I said before, a new definition must be given careful consideration so that it considers multiple perspectives and the potential implications for different communities. We are actively considering our approach to Islamophobia, and that includes a definition. I pay tribute to the work of Sir David Amess. Religious hatred should not be allowed to cause violence or damage, and the Government will work to eradicate all forms of it. On the point raised by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, I will speak to my colleagues in the Department for Education to get more clarification.
Recent Home Office statistics show that 71% of hate crimes were Islamophobic or anti-Semitic: 38% of them constituted Islamophobia, while 33% were anti-Semitism. We will look at tackling all religious hatred, and we have to make sure we work on our manifesto to improve monitoring and, I hope, help to alleviate this scourge on our society.
Procedure and Privileges Committee
The Senior Deputy Speaker
That the Report from the Select Committee Law Commission bill procedure (1st Report, HL Paper 14) be agreed to.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, the first report of the Procedure and Privileges Committee recommends an adjustment to the procedures for Special Public Bill Committees considering Law Commission Bills. The adjustment would be to increase the maximum time available to such a committee for evidence-taking from a 28-day period to a 40-day period. The committee recommends this change following a request from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, who chaired the two most recent Special Public Bill Committees on Law Commission Bills.
The noble and learned Lord suggested that increasing the maximum time available for evidence-taking to 40 days would allow a committee the flexibility to offer alternative dates to witnesses should the initial invitation prove impractical. This would allow those with an interest in the Bill a better opportunity to submit evidence. The committee would, as now, be able to conclude the evidence-taking process earlier should it wish. The Procedure and Privileges Committee supports the noble and learned Lord’s proposal, which would ensure that the process is as smooth as possible, and that Law Commission Bills continue to receive thorough and effective scrutiny. I beg to move.
Gibraltar-Spain Border Checks
(1 day, 13 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I remind the House that it is 10 minutes of Questions now.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, Gibraltar is our gem in the Mediterranean, our strategic asset and, most importantly, a proud member of the British family of nations. Last Friday’s reports that the Spanish police were insisting on stamping passports and border checks are concerning. Let me be clear: whether this was due to a local Spanish border official and not the central Government, as the Minister for Development said in the other place, there should not be checks at the Gibraltar-Spain border. Can the Minister outline what steps His Majesty’s Government are taking to ensure that this does not happen again? Crucially, what discussions has the Foreign Secretary had with his Spanish counterparts on this matter?
The Gibraltar Broadcasting Corporation has reported a statement from the Spanish Foreign Minister that, for the UK-EU relationship to strengthen, it is important that the British Government say yes to Spain’s proposals on Gibraltar. This is concerning, as it seems to be a thinly veiled threat: “Accept our terms over Gibraltar or lose out”. Can the Minister assure this House that he will not abandon the people of Gibraltar and their desire to remain British? This incident at the Gibraltar-Spain border comes only a week after the decision to hand over our sovereignty of the Chagos Islands. Some might say that this is a coincidence, but it is easy to see the links. I ask the Minister to reassure this House in no uncertain terms that Gibraltar’s sovereignty is for the people of Gibraltar to decide and no one else.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
I have no problem at all in reiterating the double lock that this Government are committed to in relation to Gibraltar. We will never enter into arrangements under which the people of Gibraltar would pass under the sovereignty of another state against their freely and democratically expressed wishes. We will never enter into a process of sovereignty negotiations with which Gibraltar is not content. Absolutely—there are firm commitments there.
I have a long association with Gibraltar. I have represented the workers in Gibraltar for many years, so I know what their wishes are. The current negotiations with the EU are making very good progress. The Foreign Secretary has had regular meetings with the Spanish Foreign Secretary. Those negotiations are at a point where we hope to make rapid progress. The idea that this negotiation has anything to do with BIOT is absolute nonsense, as the noble Lord well knows. It is a completely different arrangement. I will not go into details because other noble Lords might have questions in relation to that, and I will leave it to them.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, these Benches support the right of self-determination of the people of Gibraltar, and nothing should be done to diminish that. The Government of Gibraltar should be congratulated on putting pragmatic proposals forward as part of the negotiations. I have two specific points to ask the Minister. First, have the Government sought assurances from the Government of Spain that they will provide clear instructions for all junior staff on the proper conduct at the border? Secondly, have the Government sought and secured from the Spanish Government a commitment that they will not act precipitously concerning the delays for the EES mechanisms, which are now beyond November? In advance of full treaty agreements, nothing should be put in place that could put at risk the sustainability of the border with Gibraltar.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I completely agree with the Minister—sorry, the noble Lord; I was going back to the coalition days. The simple fact is that these checks have happened in the past—it is not unusual—and are often subject to local initiatives. I give the House a categorical reassurance that Minister Doughty spoke to his counterpart immediately, and the Foreign Secretary has spoken to his counterpart. We are assured that this will not be repeated.
We have encouraged and spoken to the Gibraltar Government. It is important that there is that free movement across this border, not only for the sake of the Gibraltar economy but for the economy of La Línea and Spanish people who work in Gibraltar. Noble Lords can be reassured of that.
We are absolutely committed to these negotiations with the EU and are satisfied that we have made extremely good progress. There are just a few minor points left; I spoke to Gibraltar government officials yesterday at lunchtime, and I am pretty confident we will make progress.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
Can we hear from the noble Lord, Lord Reid, first, please?
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
I thank my noble friend. I am sure the whole House will be reassured by the Statement that the Minister has made, particularly as regards the double lock, which as I understand it means that not only will the status of Gibraltar never be changed without the consent of the people of Gibraltar but the British Government will not enter negotiations where sovereignty is a negotiable product. In view of the willingness to confer and consult with and accept the views of the Government of Gibraltar, can the Minister tell me if his colleague the Foreign Secretary has discussed this issue with the Chief Minister of Gibraltar in recent days?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I assure my noble friend that Minister Doughty has, because I have been with him and the government officials. There was an event last night, and yesterday lunchtime. We are in close contact with the Government of Gibraltar, and I certainly can give my noble friend assurances that we are pushing hard to speed up negotiations because a settlement on this, which is a consequence of Brexit, will be vital, not just for the economy and the people of Gibraltar, but for the locality around it as well.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
Can we hear from the Cross Benches now, please?
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
Will the Minister take the trouble to read the speech made by the Chief Minister of Gibraltar after the problems that arose recently on the border, and will he endorse the firmly calm and determined note that Mr Fabian Picardo took about the continuing possibility of getting an agreement that would benefit both sides? Will he also recognise that every time the false analogy between Chagos and Gibraltar is raised, it plays straight into the hands of the Spanish?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I agree. There is no comparison. This is not an issue where there can be any link. As the Chief Minister of Gibraltar has said, the important thing is that it is in the interests of Gibraltar and the local economy to ensure that we have an agreement with the EU. We are determined to achieve that.
Lord Waldegrave of North Hill (Con)
While I warmly welcome the noble Lord’s reassurances, can I ask him to say whether his ministerial friends have sought assurances from their opposite numbers that this kind of behaviour—allegedly rogue behaviour; it has happened before—has been followed up by disciplinary action; and that if a treaty, which we all hope is achieved, should place such officers in the airport of Gibraltar, there would be no repetition of this behaviour?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I think that is what the Government of Gibraltar desire, and it is certainly what the United Kingdom Government desire. I first visited Gibraltar when the border was closed. I visited on the basis that 6,000 Moroccan workers were being based in Georgian barracks. There was progress: when we entered the European Union and an agreement was made about Spain’s entry, there were absolutely no border issues. That is why we now need that agreement with the EU, so we can return to a sense of normality.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, I too support my noble friend the Minister in seeking an agreement, which seems near. I point out that it does not help to help to have this tub-thumping jingoism from the Conservative Front Bench, when they created this problem. There is an external European frontier between Gibraltar and the Spanish mainland as a result of Brexit, and that has to be resolved by very careful negotiation. I wish my noble friend the best.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
It will be good for the people of Gibraltar to get an agreement with the European Union, and we are determined to do that. We are very close to achieving it. I agree with the sentiments of my noble friend: jingoistic language does not help the process of negotiation. I have realised, as a trade union negotiator, that you should never push people into corners. You allow them to come to an agreement and come together. I am pretty certain that is what we will do with Gibraltar and the EU.
Afghan Special Forces Relocation Review
(1 day, 13 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
My Lords, with the leave of the House I will now repeat a Statement made yesterday in another place by the Minister for the Armed Forces. The Statement is as follows:
“Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to update the House on the ongoing review of Afghan relocations and assistance policy scheme applications from former members of Afghan specialist units, including former members of Commando Force 333 and Afghan Task Force 444, commonly known as the Triples. These Afghans worked alongside UK Armed Forces in Afghanistan, fighting valiantly, with some dying alongside our troops. It is for this reason I know that former Triples have the support of veterans of the conflict and the British public, as well as all Members of the House.
The Defence Secretary and I, along with my honourable friend the Minister for Security, as well as many sitting and former Members of the House, advocated for a review of decisions made on ARAP applications from the Triples. I pay tribute to my honourable friend, the Security Minister, Members of this House and others outside this House for their advocacy on this matter. I am keenly aware that an update on the Triples review is long overdue, so I thank colleagues for their patience. Although the review, which should not have been necessary in the first place, has taken longer than initially intended, I can confirm today that key issues have been identified and resolved, and the Government are now making important progress, with eligible former Triples and their families now being invited to relocate to the UK.
The Triples review was announced by the previous Government on 1 February in response to my Urgent Question, after they accepted that inconsistencies existed in how decisions on ARAP applications from members of the Triples were being made. For clarity, officials are currently reviewing a cohort of ineligible decisions taken on applications that contain credible evidence of links to former Afghan specialist units and where MoD caseworkers previously referred cases to officers in other parts of the MoD, to other departments and to governmental bodies under category 4 of the ARAP scheme, and which may have been affected by that inconsistent approach. The review is being carried out by staff who have not previously worked on those applications, including independent caseworkers. Approximately 2,000 such applications are within scope of the review, and I can report that more than three-quarters have been reassessed.
The previous Government committed to conclude the review within 12 weeks of launch, which was at the end of March 2024. The review should have reported before the general election, but clearly it did not. Given the perilous situation in which many former Triples still find themselves, this is a source of deep regret and concern for me that I know everyone will share. I have investigated the reasons for the delay, which include the emergence of additional information in HMG’s archives that officials undertaking the review discovered and which required careful consideration.
The nature of the relationship between the UK Government and the Triples evolved over the almost 20 years of UK military involvement in Afghanistan. This has led to a complex set of historical records held by different government departments. It has taken time to piece the information together to give a fuller and more accurate picture. I am now able to provide a provisional update on what we have learned from the review. Officials have now confirmed that there is evidence of payments from the UK Government to members of Afghan specialist units, including CF333 and ATF444, and that, for some individuals, this demonstrates a direct employment relationship. The evidence goes beyond previously identified top-up payments and reimbursements for operational expenses, which do not demonstrate such an employment relationship. This, of course, runs contrary to the position reported to Parliament by the previous Government that no such evidence existed.
My officials have advised that some record analysis that is to be carried out should give us a more confident picture of the task at hand. I am satisfied, however, that what has come to light is sufficient to move forward with decision-making without delay under ARAP categories 1 and 2, as well as under category 4 where appropriate. The review is progressing and each application is considered on its own merits. But, on the available information, we are expecting an overturn rate of approximately 25%.
For the benefit of the House, these categories permit ARAP eligibility to persons including those who were directly employed in Afghanistan by a UK government department, or who worked in Afghanistan alongside a UK government department—in partnership with or closely supporting and assisting that department —and who are at risk because of this work. Like me, Members will be understandably anxious about the impact that the delay has had on the pace by which we are getting as many of those eligible for relocation removed to safety.
Many Members will have concerns for the welfare of former Triples who might be ARAP eligible and remain at risk. Despite sharing their deep frustrations, I hope that it is of some comfort to colleagues across this House that, if a decision is overturned as part of the review, applicants are informed immediately and the relocations process can then start. I have already begun signing eligible decisions to relocate former Triples to the UK. Furthermore, once they arrive in Pakistan and are confirmed as ARAP eligible, we can offer them protection from deportation back to Afghanistan thanks to the UK’s ongoing and constructive dialogue with the Government of Pakistan.
Confirming that we have found evidence of direct employment for some of the Triples cohort is the opposite of the last Government’s position that no such direct employment existed. I would like to state that I have seen no evidence suggesting a conscious effort by the previous Administration or Ministers to cause delay or indeed to mislead the House or the public on this matter. When Ministers in the previous Government provided Statements to the House on the Triples, I believe that they did so in good faith, based on the known information under consideration at that time. Record-keeping in the context of a long multinational operation is notoriously challenging, but that is no excuse. It is of course critical that we understand how and why the error occurred.
It is clear to me that a failure to access and share the right digital records and challenges with information flows across departmental lines have all led to this significant body of information being overlooked, with huge real-world implications. Where corporate memory failed, so did processes. As is too often the case, it was those who needed help the most who suffered. I am clear that this sort of systems failure is not good enough. Under my direction, officials will now review and renew efforts to improve information flows and processes to ensure that this never happens again.
While I do not consider there to be malicious intent in this case, this is an example of the problems that dogged Afghan resettlement under the previous Government. The Triples review should not have been needed in the first place. It should not have taken this long, and the system in place at the time that the initial decisions were made should have been led with more competence and grip to ensure that those mistakes were caught and managed more quickly.
Today, it is with some relief that I and this new Government can assure Members that we have unblocked progress and that eligible former Triples and their families will now rightfully receive the sanctuary that their work in support of our troops in Afghanistan deserves. I am confident that we will be able to relocate those eligible to safety and so that they can start a new life here in the UK. I will keep pushing this work forward at pace so that we can close this chapter in our history, knowing that we did right by those who stood shoulder to shoulder with the UK Armed Forces.
I recognise the strong sense of feeling and support across all in this House on this matter and on Afghan resettlement in general. The Defence Secretary and I will keep the House updated on our approach to Afghan resettlement. Given the seriousness with which we take the Triples review in the MoD, I aim to report to the House when the review is complete”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Government’s Statement. I welcome its content and tone, and it is very much appreciated by former Ministers.
We owe all those who served with distinction and valour in Afghanistan a great debt of gratitude. Their efforts to make Afghanistan a better place for all its citizens, and to ensure the safety and security of the United Kingdom and our interests, are immeasurable. It is very concerning that many of them still experience enormous personal risks from the Taliban. It is right that we do all we can to assist them in any way possible.
In light of this, I am proud that, when in government, the Conservatives established the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme and the Afghan relocations and assistance policy. As of 30 June, indefinite leave to remain had been granted to 12,874 individuals across the two schemes, many of whom are former members of specialist units. However, we acknowledge that some former members of the Triples have faced unfair decisions relating to their applications.
I am pleased that the Government have continued the review into applications from past members of the Triples to the ARAP scheme that was initiated by the Conservative Government in February by the then Minister for the Armed Forces, James Heappey. It was the right decision to attempt to remedy inconsistencies with applications to the ARAP scheme, and I am proud that the Conservatives took such action and that the Government have continued this work.
We on the Conservative Benches fully support this review process, and we want the correct decisions to be made on these very important and time-sensitive applications as speedily and fairly as possible. We hope that His Majesty’s Government will keep your Lordships’ House updated on any further progress with this review.
I also welcome the Government’s acceptance and admission that the ineligible decisions were not taken out of bad faith and that any decision made by the previous Government was arrived at only after careful scrutiny of the information available at that time. As the Minister stated, it is a mammoth task to ensure adequate record-keeping in prolonged military operations involving numerous coalition partners, and it is a positive step that new records establishing employment links with some members of the Triples have surfaced.
Of utmost importance is that the process moves forward as smoothly as possible. Can the Minister confirm that the Ministry of Defence is working in lockstep with the Home Office to ensure that decisions on the Triples are communicated effectively and in a timely way to those affected? Has the Home Office made the necessary arrangements to ensure that those who have their original decisions overturned do not face further hurdles in their recognition and relocation to the UK?
This requires action across government, including Border Force and UK Visas and Immigration, but it also relates to housing and community integration. Does the Minister know whether adequate housing stock is available for those whose decisions are overturned by this review? Furthermore, have His Majesty’s Government liaised with local authorities to ensure that those who arrive are properly supported? I thank the Minister in advance for his answers to these important questions.
I end with a call for continued cross-party co-operation and consultation on this issue, which is not only in the national interest but a moral imperative. Too many of those who served alongside our troops in Afghanistan have been persecuted by the Taliban since the withdrawal, and it is our duty now to deliver on our end of the bargain. We hope that the international community continues to monitor the ongoing human rights abuses perpetrated by the Taliban and will push them to reverse course as a matter of urgency, for the sake of all the citizens of Afghanistan.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, and I welcome it in principle. When I was chair of the International Development Committee, I visited Afghanistan on two occasions—not just Kabul but Balkh and the Panjshir Valley. Other members of the committee went to Helmand. We saw for ourselves the engagement between the occupying forces and Afghan organisations and troops of all kinds—very much committed to the future. I also have experience, as I am sure have other Members of the House, of having to take up a case of an Afghan who was trapped because he could not get the necessary papers out. It was eventually resolved, but it was an awfully long and convoluted process, so I think noble Lords can understand how we got to this position.
The reality is that many of these people—Afghans who were working in Afghanistan—were looking for a free, tolerant and inclusive Afghanistan. They did not expect a sudden and chaotic evacuation, which amounted to a betrayal of their bravery and loyalty. They believed they would be protected for their commitment—what we have just heard about the Triples is dramatic proof of this fact. Let us be clear, the UK did not take the decision to evacuate Afghanistan; we had no choice but to follow the lead, but it was a dreadful decision carried out in an appallingly incompetent way which left many Afghans at continuing risk. In that situation, it is absolutely right that we demonstrate now our commitment to help those who have the right to come to this country.
The Minister has already indicated that the applications are being processed, many have been resolved, and papers have been signed. How quickly does he believe the process can be completed?
Many of the people affected are probably in hiding somewhere in Afghanistan. What steps are being taken to help them out safely? The Minister said that when they are in Pakistan they will be supported, but getting to Pakistan might be a high-risk process. What can the British Government do to try to help them get there so that they can be brought to safety?
The Minister mentioned families. It would be good to hear exactly what the status of their families will be, what definition of “family” will apply, and how they too will be given freedom. Although the Statement is specific to the Triples—I accept that, and it is a welcome outcome that a review started by the previous Government, which has probably taken too long, is now coming to fruition—does the Minister nevertheless accept that there are other Afghan nationals who loyally served the UK and may still be at risk and who still have the problem of not being able to entirely prove what their relationship was? I think your Lordships all know that for many of them there was a genuine and deep relationship, and they are entitled to believe that the UK will look after them if it can.
I understand the point that you cannot just have freeloaders—there must be real evidence—but will the Minister acknowledge that the Triples might not be the only people who have fallen foul of this lack of information and data? The case that I was involved in was precisely that—I am sure that other noble Lords had similar cases. He knew for certain and was fortunate enough that there was a British citizen who had worked with him and was ultimately able to provide the evidence that enabled him to leave Afghanistan. Without that evidence, he might still be languishing in hiding with his family—fortunately, that is not the case.
I thank the Minister for the Statement. The Government are doing the right thing; we just ask that they do it as speedily as possible. It would also be good to acknowledge that this might not be entirely the end of the road.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Evans and Lord Bruce, for their contributions. This is a very serious Statement, as we all acknowledge; we can tell that by the tone of the House. I also thank both noble Lords for their acknowledgement of the heroism of those who worked with us and our need to ensure that we do all we can to stand with those who stood with us. For those who read or watch our deliberations, I make the important point that there is no party division on defending our country and standing up for our country. There are questions of any Government that people will sometimes want to ask, and that is quite right, but both noble Lords made the point that this is not a party-political issue. This is about His Majesty’s Government, of whatever party, trying to do the right thing by those who stood with us in conflict. There is no division between us on that, and that is an important starting point for us all.
I reiterate the point that has just been made: there is no suggestion that any Minister in the previous Government did anything other than use the information they had given to them in order to provide information to your Lordships. The noble Lord, Lord Evans, asked me to acknowledge the steps the previous Government took to instigate the review, and I do so. As a consequence of the review, the various things we are discussing today have come to light. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Evans, the MoD is working across government, including, where necessary, with the Home Office. That is how some of these things have come to light, but there will be others.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, asked about adequate housing. We are working with the Home Office and local authorities to ensure that those who are resettled here through the Triples process are adequately housed. As part of that, arrangements are being made for permanent accommodation for them. As mentioned in the Statement made by my colleague Luke Pollard MP yesterday, existing transitional arrangements are having to be used which we had hoped would have ended by now. Indeed, the previous Government’s and this Government’s hope and expectation was that they would have ended, but we hope to see them end as soon as possible. Adequate housing, including some military housing, is being made available for some individuals and their families.
I was asked about the figures. We estimate that 2,000 applicants are eligible under this review. Some three-quarters have already been reviewed, and of those, approximately 25% have been found to be eligible because of the direct employment records we have uncovered. Some of the remaining 500 or so are the more complex or difficult cases, so I cannot say to your Lordships exactly when the review will be finished, but we intend to complete it as soon as we can, and we will keep the House updated.
As soon as a decision is made, applicants are informed immediately. They are not informed that their case is under review, but they are informed immediately that their case has been looked at again and they will be subject to that. I think the noble Lord asked how they are got out of Afghanistan. I think everybody will understand why I cannot explain how, but they are moved as quickly as possible out of Afghanistan and into Pakistan.
We are working really closely with the Pakistan Government, who have been very co-operative in this respect. My understanding is that nobody who is eligible under the ARAP scheme has been deported back to Afghanistan. We also know that, subject to certain checks being made, they are moved from Pakistan to this country as quickly as possible.
The noble Lord asked about family members. There is a difference between immediate family members and eligible family members: the usual terminology applies to “immediate family”—for example, dependent children, spouse—“eligible family” means the wider family. People are obviously free to make applications in respect of eligible family members and others, and they will be adjudicated in the appropriate way.
The noble Lord asked about other asylum routes. Of course, there are other asylum routes that people from Afghanistan can apply for—I see the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, in his place. The noble Lord mentioned the figure; I think it is nearly 13,000 people now. There are those routes, but they are asylum claims; here, we are dealing with the Triples.
In answer the question from the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, other special units may be in scope, but we have not looked at those yet. We will have to do so. As I say, other routes are available, but they concern asylum claims. Other special units, if that is what the noble Lord was referring to, may well be in scope of the review, but we have not looked at them. We will do so in due course.
Before I take questions from Back-Benchers, I reiterate that we will of course keep the House fully updated on progress on all of this. I hope the House appreciates why we thought it important to come forward with this as soon as we were able to. There is new information, which the Government are now working on. Above all, we are now taking decisions, changing some of the decisions that were made based on past available information. I think it highly appropriate in those circumstances that we come to the House to explain that.
The noble Lord mentioned individual cases. If noble Lords let me know of any individual cases, I will take them to Minister Pollard to see whether they are eligible and can be taken forward. Clearly, the case the noble Lord mentioned needed to be looked at.
With that, I welcome the Statement. It is an important step forward and I thank both the Liberal Democrat Front Bench and His Majesty’s Opposition’s Front Bench for their support for the Statement, and for their questions.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, the review of unsuccessful claims under the ARAP scheme was meant to cover all cases, not just the Triples. Can the Minister please tell the House how many interpreters who worked with our Armed Forces and how many British Council staff have also had the decision on their claim for relocation reversed as a result of this review?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
This review dealt with the Triples; interpreters and others were outside its scope. For people who are making or have made asylum claims, there are opportunities for them to claim asylum through those processes, and there are appeals processes within that. The interpreters and others that the noble Baroness mentioned were not within scope of this review.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I welcome this review and pay tribute to my ex-right honourable friend James Heappey for initiating it. The FCDO and the MoD worked very closely together with the Home Office on all resettlement schemes. May I ask the Minister specifically about the role of Pakistan? While I have heard the reassurance and we have a good working relationship on the ground, one of the challenges the previous Government faced on the ACRS, which the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, alluded to for interpreters, was that a visa was issued to those eligible for resettlement by the Pakistan Government, but there is a time limit on it. That was to ensure that we have British officials on the ground in Pakistan to verify the process, so that those getting nearer to the time deadline are not then returned to Afghanistan. I welcome the tone and the substance of this Statement.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, for the work he did on this, and for his general welcome and question. If noble Lords will forgive me, because it is such an important question I am going to read an answer, which is unusual for me. It is important that this is accurate with respect to Pakistan and the question from the noble Baroness. I apologise for this, but it is important that we get this right.
We are in regular contact with the Government of Pakistan and we are very grateful for their continued assurances that ARAP-eligible Afghans who have completed their security checks will not be deported. If an individual in scope of the review has their decision overturned, they should be offered the same level of protection from deportation from Pakistan. We are engaged in ongoing constructive dialogue with the Government of Pakistan over the ARAP scheme.
We have explored every avenue to try to extend protection from deportation enjoyed by Afghans in Pakistan. We have confirmed eligibility and completed security checks for those in scope of the review while it is under way. While we have not been able to find a mechanism for achieving this on the UK side, we are grateful to the Pakistan authorities for their continued assurances that ARAP-eligible Afghans will not be deported. Indeed, to my knowledge, no Afghan with confirmed ARAP eligibility has been deported from Pakistan. We look forward to their ongoing support as we relocate Afghans to begin their new lives in the UK.
I apologise for reading that, but it is important to be completely accurate.
Lord Dannatt (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. If any of the groups or individuals who supported the British forces in Afghanistan deserve proper treatment, it is the Triples, who supported our special forces in difficult and dangerous circumstances. In welcoming the content of the lengthy Statement, I am pleased that there is no party-political issue.
Would the Minister agree with me on two things? First, Mr James Heappey and the former Minister of State for Veterans’ Affairs Mr Johnny Mercer played a significant role in this, at some risk to their personal integrity. Secondly, would he agree that 25% is an interesting figure? Could the Government err on the side of generosity and allow more than 25% and, where the circumstances are that the decision is in the balance, act in favour of the individuals? As I said, they are extraordinarily deserving. We have to be very careful of our national and international reputation when we operate in faraway places.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The noble Lord is completely right that we need to remember our obligations to those who supported and helped us, and our international reputation. He is also right to point out that the review and the Statement have identified the need to do the right thing by the Triples. Many individuals, including the noble Lord, helped with respect to this, and I acknowledge all the contributions that people have made.
I will also say that 25% is a rounded and approximate figure, which came to light with the first 1,500 reviews of the approximately 2,000 people we regard as eligible. I am sure that people will have noted the noble Lord’s comment. I also thank him for everything he did during his time in service.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s repeat of the Statement. It raises issues of which we must not lose sight. Although he has already answered the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, by saying that interpreters are not covered by the Statement, I nevertheless know of a case where interpreters put their lives at risk just as much as anybody else. I have in mind the case of Mr Mirwais Adil, whose family was unable to be rescued at the time of Operation Pitting. I would like the advice of my noble friend as to whom to write to in order to raise an individual case of an interpreter and his family who have not been reunited.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The short answer is that, if I were my noble friend, I would write to me, and I will pass it on to the appropriate Minister and ensure that it is properly looked at. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, if noble Lords write to me on individual cases, I will ensure that, if neither I nor the appropriate Minister in the Ministry of Defence is dealing with it, it goes to the appropriate Minister to ensure that there is a proper response.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I too welcome this Statement and am pleased that the right thing has been done for a significant number of these brave men who supported us in Afghanistan. However, I cannot help but reflect that, had the previous Government had their way, some of them may not have been in a position to take advantage of this because they would have been in Rwanda.
On this specific issue about evidence of employment, on 12 December 2023, in the context of a repeat of a UQ from the other place, I asked the following question, which I will read in short, in the interest of time:
“My Lords, in responding to a question about specific individuals in the other place, the Armed Forces Minister told the House that His Majesty’s Government ‘do not have the employment records of the Afghan special forces’”—
that was a quotation from the Commons Official Report. I went on to say:
“Today, I was informed by a very reliable source that, until at least August 2021, our embassy in Kabul held nominal records for members of CF333 and ATF444, for the purposes of … pay”. —[Official Report, 12/12/23; col. 1817.]
In response, the then Minister undertook to search for these records that he said he had no knowledge existed. When were these records recovered? If these are not the records that have caused this dramatic development in the ability of these reviews to produce the sort of results that we have, where in this Government were the records that justify the refusal of the relocation of these brave men until they were discovered? When were they discovered, and why were they kept back? There could not have been any part of the Government that did not know that they needed to be brought forward to a review that was announced two months later.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his interesting question. On the basis of the information I have and the briefings we have had, I can tell him that the information became available after the start of the review on 1 February 2024. In the context of the weeks and months after that review, that was when the evidence of direct employment records became available. There was a failure of different government systems in different government departments to share information —the digital records were not shared, and different government departments were not talking to each other. I do not have the exact date for when that was discovered, but it was after 1 February. If further information should be made available to my noble friend in consequence of his question, I will write to him and place a copy in the Library.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)
My Lords, I very much welcome the Minister in this House, and the Minister in the other House, encouraging Members to come forward with any information they may have on individual cases. I return to the units where we discovered that there was an employment relationship and the suggestion that there may be other specialist units where such a relationship has existed. The Minister in the other place made reference to that. Can the Minister explain a bit more about what he expects to find?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
There will be other special units, which I do not wish to discuss on the Floor of the House, for reasons that the noble Baroness would understand, but they are within scope of this review and they will be looked at as soon as possible. That is why I want that reassurance. Others have asked about other special units that have direct employment with the UK Government, and we will be looking at that and dealing with it in due course.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, the phrase “debt of honour” has sometimes been used as a cliché, but I cannot think of any other case which more aptly suits that phrase than the support for those who were prepared to support our service men and women, to the risk of their own life. The Minister has been generous with his accolades for everyone, but all of us know that, had it not been for the campaigning that took place across parties, led by people like himself—and in this House, the noble Lord, Lord Browne, behind us—we might not have reached this stage.
I have two brief questions for the Minister. The first is whether there has been an assessment for those specialist troops, particularly the Triples—444 and 333—who are remaining in Afghanistan. Do we have any assessment of their safety? The second is on those from groups who have previously applied and been refused entry under the ARAP scheme. Is there some manner of letting them know that their case is being reviewed, or are they expected just to learn from the generality of publicity around this?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
In answer to the noble Lord’s last question, we have not informed people directly that their case is being reviewed. We think that the best way to support those who may have their claim reassessed and allowed is to follow that course of action. In terms of the assessment of their safety, again we believe in not informing a generality that there is a reassessment going on, although people can of course read the newspapers. Not informing people directly that their case is being reassessed will mean that there is not a whole wave of speculation taking place, which could unsettle individuals and their families.
To reassure the noble Lord, as soon as a change is made, the individual is informed immediately and arrangements are put in place very swiftly for them to be taken out of the country and into Pakistan. The noble Lord, Lord Reid, is right to mention all of those who have made possible the review and the outcomes we have seen. He was also quite right to mention our noble friend Lord Browne for all he has done with respect to this, and it was remiss of me not to do so in the first place.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I appreciate what the Minister has just said, but I fear that the noble Lord, Lord Browne, has unfairly maligned the previous Government. He will know that we did exempt eligible Afghans from the Rwanda policy. That was read into the record twice on the last day of debate. Having said that, I also 100% congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Browne, on making us do it, and I appreciate that.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I have nothing further to add to that but, on a slightly lighter note, I say to noble Lords that my days of talking about Rwanda have hopefully passed.
Infected Blood Inquiry
(1 day, 13 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Baroness Twycross
That this House takes note of the response to the Infected Blood Inquiry.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, almost five months have now passed since Sir Brian Langstaff published the final report of the infected blood inquiry on 20 May. I am grateful for this opportunity to debate the contents of that report, having now had the time to digest the contents of the very comprehensive report in full. I begin by paying tribute to Sir Brian and his team for the dedication and time that went into delivering this crucial report. The inquiry has handled an immensely challenging and sensitive issue with extreme care, and it is as a result of its commitment that the truth has finally been uncovered.
I also offer my gratitude to those in the infected blood community who came forward to participate in the inquiry. Their courage in doing so was immense; the Government and the nation owe them our utmost thanks.
I thank noble Lords who have played a prominent role in bringing the work to this point for the important contributions they have made in this House. In particular, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, who, through the Victims and Prisoners Act, put in place the legislation that provides the necessary legal framework to establish the Infected Blood Compensation Authority and enables the set-up of the infected blood compensation scheme through regulations.
Sir Brian’s report laid bare the unforgivable failures of the state, and the deep-rooted and long-lasting trauma that has been inflicted on the victims of this scandal. I reiterate the unequivocal apology on behalf of this Government and Governments past. The infected blood scandal is a subject of national shame and nothing can ever fully right the wrongs done to those impacted.
Particularly distressing is the treatment of children who were subject to unethical medical research. Parents entrusted their children to these institutions and were assured that they were safe, only to be betrayed in the most shocking way. I cannot imagine the suffering that these families have endured. I found the descriptions in the section on people’s experiences deeply moving.
I recognise that an apology also means very little without action: without tangible plans for improvement. I hope that, over the course of this debate, I will be able to provide some reassurance to the community, and to your Lordships, that the Government have listened: that actions are being taken to ensure that nothing like this will ever happen again.
The inquiry’s findings are incredibly distressing to read and I thank Sir Brian for the unflinching honesty with which he delivers them in his report. The report states that
“what happened would not have happened if safety of the patient had been paramount throughout”.
This is a consistent theme throughout the report and remains apparent as the scandal evolved and different threats emerged. Patient safety consistently took a back seat to a variety of operational and reputational challenges for the Government. Indeed, Sir Brian’s report notes that, during the emergence of AIDS, the safety of the blood supply should have been the central focus. It should disturb all of us in your Lordships’ House that this was not the case.
The conclusions in the report of a cover-up driven by those in positions of power are sobering for us all. Individuals put their own self-interest before the safety of those they were supposed to serve. Sir Brian’s findings on the Government’s actions, and what he described as the “defensive culture” that led to many of the decisions that precipitated this scandal, are important to discuss. Indeed, Sir Brian highlights
“the consequences of civil servants and ministers adopting lines to take without sufficient reflection, when they were inaccurate, partial when they should have been qualified, had no proper evidential foundation … or made unrealistic claims that treatment had been the best it could be”.
A crucial example of this is the use of the phrase “no conclusive proof”. In volume 1 of the inquiry, we read that the first use of “no conclusive proof” appears in a line to take drafted for the then Prime Minister in 1983:
“It is important to put this in perspective: there is as yet no conclusive proof that AIDS has been transmitted from American blood products”.
The accompanying briefing note included the sentence:
“As yet there is no conclusive proof that AIDS is transmitted by blood as well as by homosexual contact but the evidence is suggestive that this is likely to be the case”.
Throughout the period of increased parliamentary and media scrutiny in 1983-84, this caveat was omitted. As Sir Brian states in his report:
“This line to take, whilst technically correct, was indefensible. It did not spell out the real risk. It gave false reassurance. It lacked candour and by not telling the whole truth was misleading … No minister challenged the ‘no conclusive proof’ line”.
His words paint a disturbing picture of a Government and a state more worried about the abundance of the blood supply than about the safety of the blood supply. There is a wealth of evidence uncovered by Sir Brian that points to the same thing: a state more focused on protecting itself than on protecting its people. This is utterly unacceptable.
I will move on to discussing Sir Brian’s recommendations and the progress we have made, but I stress that, in doing so, I do not want to minimise in any way the report’s findings. It is impossible to find the words that capture the severity and gravity of what is described in the report. It is incumbent on all of us to do what we can to provide justice to those impacted and ensure that no such disaster and scandal can ever be allowed to occur again.
I turn now to the 12 recommendations the inquiry makes in its report. The recommendations are wide-ranging and still being given full consideration by the Government. The Minister for the Cabinet Office will update Parliament on the progress made on considering and implementing each of the recommendations by the end of the year. I will briefly touch on some of the recommendations now, but I know that noble Lords will draw out others in the debate.
First, progress is being made on compensation. Over £1 billion has already been paid out in interim compensation, and the Government will pay out interim payments of £100,000 to the estates of the deceased people who were infected with contaminated blood or blood products and have not yet been recognised. This reflects the agreement reached in this House under the Victims and Prisoners Act, and I pay tribute to the many noble Lords who supported this important work and continue to be advocates for the infected blood community.
I am also pleased that, on 23 August, the Government laid the necessary legislation to enable the Infected Blood Compensation Authority to begin making payments to people who are infected, both living and deceased. The Government expect the Infected Blood Compensation Authority to begin payments under these regulations by the end of this year, and the authority is doing everything possible to be fully ready to deliver payments to as many people as possible, as soon as possible. Further regulations will be required for people who are affected. However, this will not impact the Government’s intention for the Infected Blood Compensation Authority to start making payments to people who are affected in 2025.
This progress came following a considerable engagement exercise undertaken by Sir Robert Francis KC —the interim chair of the Infected Blood Compensation Authority—in June this year with members of the infected blood community. In August, Sir Robert’s report was published, alongside a final report from the Infected Blood Inquiry response expert group, and a detailed policy document from the Cabinet Office setting out the design of the scheme, including case studies with examples of how this would work in practice.
Secondly, this Government are prioritising patient safety to ensure that the NHS treats people with the high quality and safe care that they deserve. Repeated inquiries and investigations have highlighted significant issues with patient safety, and this has contributed to a deterioration in public confidence. This is something that we must address. The Secretary of State for Health has already been clear that we will not tolerate NHS whistleblowers being silenced. A culture of openness and honesty is vital for ensuring patient safety. We want and need NHS staff to have the confidence to speak out and come forward if they have concerns.
I am pleased to say that, on recommendation 5—
“Ending the defensive culture in the Civil Service and government”—
work is under way across government to ensure that we reflect fully on Sir Brian’s words. In the King’s Speech opening this Parliament, the Government set out their commitment to bringing forward legislation to introduce a duty of candour for public authorities and public servants. The Prime Minister confirmed at the Labour Party conference that legislation on a duty of candour will be delivered by this Government. He confirmed that the duty will apply to public authorities and public servants and will include criminal sanctions. Work continues on the scope of the Bill. I know that colleagues across the House will have strong views on this, and I welcome the opportunity to come together and debate the Government’s proposals when the Bill is introduced.
The 12th and final of Sir Brian’s recommendations relates to giving effect to the recommendations of his report. I acknowledge the criticism that has been made, both by parliamentarians and others, on the failure of Governments to give proper regard to the recommendations of previous statutory inquiries. The Government are determined to ensure that no such criticism can be levelled against the response to Sir Brian’s report. I am aware that the updates provided on progress in my statement are by no means exhaustive, nor do they cover the full breadth of the recommendations laid out by the inquiry. As I said, my right honourable friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office will set out in more detail the Government’s response to the recommendations in a Statement in the other place by the end of this year.
Finally, I thank noble Lords for their understanding on the need for quick progress on the first set of regulations, made possible via the “made affirmative” procedure. To remain in force, the regulations must be debated and approved by Parliament by 23 October. I look forward to discussing this important matter further. As I am sure all noble Lords can agree, it is critical that the Infected Blood Compensation Authority retains the legal powers needed to begin making payments as soon as possible, enabled by these regulations. I am aware of the interest that this topic holds across the House, and I will hold a drop-in session for all noble Lords who may have specific questions on the Government’s progress.
Let us be in no doubt as to the importance of the report’s findings. I reiterate my thanks once again to Sir Brian and his team and to all those who came forward to share their stories, no matter how painful. The report lays bare the failure of the British state and the institutions in which people place their trust—institutions, indeed, in which we ask people to place their trust. That failure leaves an indelible stain on our nation, a mark of shame upon each and every person who allowed it to be perpetuated. Nothing that I can do or we can say will right the wrongs done to those infected and affected by this scandal. The best that we can do is to read, to reflect and to honour the courage of those impacted by this scandal and take the necessary action to ensure that something of this nature is never allowed to happen again in our country. I beg to move.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, on an earlier occasion I took the opportunity to ask a couple of questions on the Statement. I also took the opportunity, just after the report had been published, to reiterate the apology and the expression of deep regret which I gave in the other place on 10 January 2011. What has been possible in the intervening months is to read much more of the report and to read some of the people’s experiences in volume 2, as the Minister said in her extremely helpful introduction to the debate. It makes one feel very strongly the sense of injustice, trauma and suffering that so many families will have experienced.
I cannot possibly deal with all the issues in the report but want to focus on one or two matters from my personal experience. I was Secretary of State in 2010-11 when we made a further review of the Skipton Fund and made what we regarded as, and understood at the time to be, very significant additions to the hardship payments and support offered to sufferers and their families. Since the report was published, it begs a very serious question about the culture inside government and inside the Civil Service, which the Minister rightly referred to in her comments on recommendation 5, so I should like to talk about those.
By my estimation, there are at least 16 Members of your Lordships’ House who held ministerial office and were responsible, in one form or another, for the decisions that were made on these issues. I have probably forgotten one or two, so there may be more than 16. Back in 2010, many noble Lords will recall that Lord Archer of Sandwell had undertaken his inquiry. We came into office as a coalition with the intention we had expressed in opposition: our view was that the Government should have been more transparent and open with the Archer inquiry. In any case, we had a responsibility then to respond to it. Indeed, because of a successful judicial review of the previous Government’s decision, we had to make a new decision on compensation. The Archer inquiry had recommended that we should issue compensation comparable to that which had been provided in Ireland. We reviewed that decision and decided not to do so.
However, at that time we significantly increased the compensation; my noble friend Lord Howe on the Front Bench will have repeated that Statement in this House and will recall the widespread support that was given for what represented somewhere up to £130 million of additional support during the course of that Parliament. Anne Milton was my Minister in the ministerial team at that time. She undertook that review of the Skipton Fund, and in opposition and in government she had engaged very widely with the community and the beneficiaries of that fund, having spoken to very many of them. Anne Milton is now no longer in the other place and she is not here; she does not have a place where she can speak to these issues.
In volume 6 of the inquiry, which looks at the Government’s response to many of these events, towards the end of the section relating to the decisions we made at that time there is the following sentence expressing the view of the inquiry:
“What is … most disappointing about the response to the Archer Inquiry is the sense it leaves that government was looking to see what was the least that was required of it”.
That was absolutely not my experience, nor that of others in relation to the work that was being done by Ministers at that time. It certainly was not the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Primarolo, in the previous Administration—I know that to be a fact—nor that of Anne Milton. She was looking to do the most that we could do by way of adding to the hardship payments and the support we could provide, in what noble Lords will recall were very difficult financial circumstances, and at the time, in the other place and here, it was widely welcomed that we had done so.
I hope we will not misconstrue people’s intentions. We got things wrong and we did not know some things. Arguably, we were given inaccurate advice, particularly in relation to the question of there having been no finding of fault and what lay behind that. We are open to the accusation that we did not challenge it sufficiently, but I do not think we were ever looking to do the least that we could get away with; we were absolutely trying to achieve the most that we could for the sufferers and their families.
The second thing, in passing, is that all Ministers, pretty much at any moment, seem to have been accused of not having instituted a public inquiry. There may have been other occasions when a public inquiry would have made sense, but trying to do so in 2010, in the immediate wake of the Archer inquiry, probably made no sense. It would be good for inquiries, when they seek to look with the benefit of hindsight, to try to put themselves in the position of those who were making decisions at the time. It would not have made any sense to have instituted a public inquiry in circumstances where nobody was asking for one, we had just had the Archer inquiry and everybody was focused on our response to that. The issue simply did not arise in that sense.
I want to make just one more point, which is in any case the most important one. Reading earlier sections of which I was unaware, noble Lords will be aware of the frequency with which Ministers said that “at every stage” the Government
“has acted as swiftly as possible”,
or repeated the line taken many times over many years that
“the best available treatment … had been provided … in the light of medical knowledge at the time”,
whereas we now discover through the inquiry report that an official inside the Treasury said to the private office of the Chief Secretary at the time:
“I understand from DH that there are more than 500 sufferers”—
that is roughly half the total community at that time—
“who might in principle have contracted the virus after the stage at which hospitals might reasonably have been expected to use different forms of treatment”.
That links to the broader question of the stage at which it would have been possible to have secured greater self-sufficiency in the availability of blood products, to have found alternative forms of treatment and to have understood the nature of the risks and properly informed patients of them—which we now discover was not done. There is no evidence that it was done, even though it was asserted that it was.
We were very often in the position where we tried to make a decision and were in essence given two options: either we acknowledge fault or we say that there was no fault finding and that therefore compensation should not be available. The noble Lord, Lord Reid, is not in his place, but in 2003 he quite rightly—and, with the benefit of hindsight, very courageously—said, “That isn’t what it’s about; it’s about our moral responsibility”. There is an important space between fault on the one hand and no fault on the other, and that is where you have a responsibility for where harm occurs. The Government have a duty of care—I think this arose in the course of the litigation in 1989 and 1990—and will have breached that duty.
In the Government’s response to this inquiry, we need to think about finding a middle way between, on the one hand, no-fault compensation, and, on the other, restricting ourselves to providing support and compensation only in circumstances where fault has been found according to a test that parallels clinical negligence. The Government have responsibilities and a duty of care that is not limited to the best available treatment, according to medical knowledge at that time, in relation to that clinician. They have a wider responsibility; we need to find a more systematic way of understanding it and finding a place between those two extremes. The feeling that Ministers were always advised they had to choose between a test comparable to clinical negligence and purely ex gratia payments does not properly recognise the duty of care that they, and the Government, had to exercise in relation to those who had suffered as a result of the failures in treatment.
Baroness Featherstone (LD)
My Lords, I want to talk about the affected rather than the infected. Listening to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, sparked something in my memory of when, I believe, I came to him to talk about this. I had entirely forgotten about that, but I know I felt very disappointed after I met the noble Lord that day. I cannot remember why exactly, or what he said, so I will go back to my notes to find out.
As I said, I want to talk about the affected. The distinction between those who are infected and those who are affected, such as family members and caregivers, raises important ethical considerations regarding compensation. While pecuniary support addresses financial burdens, it does not really touch the broader impacts on affected individuals, and today I seek assurance on how the compensation for the affected is going to be assessed.
Sadly, as I have done each time I have spoken on the contaminated blood scandal, I have to declare an interest. My nephew, one of my sister’s twin boys, was a haemophiliac, was infected with hepatitis C, was exposed to CJD and died aged 35, leaving his partner and a baby daughter of 10 months.
I want to speak about the affected, the eligible persons, and would like the Minister to clarify and confirm if she can, on the record, that the affected will be compensated in the way Sir Brian Langstaff made clear that they should be in the inquiry’s conclusions. I am indebted to the Hepatitis C Trust. I do not know whether anyone else in this Chamber saw the webinar that it produced on the Government’s work, which is on its website. The trust is to be congratulated on how open and well publicised it is. It is a masterclass in what is quite a complicated compensation scheme to follow.
I am sure that the Minister agrees that it would be unforgivable and unconscionable at this stage, when families and victims have fought for decades to get the inquiry and were so relieved by its findings, if there were to be any retrenchment or effort to reduce the financial obligation by sidelining the affected. Sir Brian seemed concerned that this might be the case when he said of the Government’s offer and direction of travel for the affected:
“A claim as a dependant focuses instead not upon the personal losses of the affected person, nor upon what they may have suffered emotionally, but upon the benefits the deceased would personally have provided in money, or money’s worth to the claimant as part of a family. A dependency claim is a derivative claim, rather than one which recognises the person as an individual”.
Can the Minister clarify whether Sir Brian is right in his concern about a dependence claim as described?
Families of the infected did not necessarily have any financial support from their deceased loved one or living victim, but their lives were fundamentally affected by the support that was needed over many years throughout their lives and prior to death, and the support needed after death by siblings, parents and children. The loss was never just financial. I saw the emotional toll on my sister and her husband, outside the fight that she carried on for decades to get the inquiry, to get justice. We—I speak of the community—all knew that there was a disgraceful cover-up and I fear that some in the Government and the Civil Service did, too.
I cannot begin to describe the burdens, trauma, emotional toll and fear, let alone the accommodations, challenges and costs, of having a child who not only was a spontaneous haemophiliac but was infected with hep C and exposed to CJD. To give an example of how terrible everything was, when he was told that he had been exposed to CJD—he was an older child at that point—there was no warning that he might be told that. His parents were not there. No one was invited to support him. There was no support given for what at that point was a terrifying prospect.
Because of the hep C, he had to go through most dreadful treatments. Now, thank goodness, there is a route for medical treatment of hep C, but the treatments that were in play then made him sick for months on end, totally disabling him from being able to work for long periods while he battled the hep C. The health service kept putting him on new treatments to try to cure the hep C. The last treatment that he tried failed. They all failed. It was the hep C and its treatment that killed him, not being a haemophiliac.
My sister and her husband, Nick’s parents, spent his life supporting him, getting him to and from hospital all the time, looking after him when necessary, soothing him in his distress, pain and fear. He was a musician, a guitarist, a brilliant songwriter and a singer in several bands. As I said, he left a partner and a 10 month-old baby girl. My sister and brother-in-law had to support her and the baby for many years, and not just financially. Thankfully, the Government seem to recognise the loss of a partner and she has now received the interim payment, but of course nothing can replace a partner and the loss of her daughter’s father.
Nick’s twin’s life and my sister and brother in law’s lives have—as with so many families in this community—been woven around supporting Nick when alive. Neve, who was a 10 month-old baby, is now a lovely young girl of 12, and she will never know her father. These are the affected: affected materially, emotionally, in terms of time and the loss of their right to a family life—everything.
I hope I am wrong and the Government are heeding all Sir Brian’s recommendations, because the Government forced families to provide care—in time, finance and emotional hell—by failing over decades to take responsibility for their malpractice, lies, deceit and cover-up. Over decades, there were hundreds of absolutely useless meetings where the infected and the affected were made to feel like supplicants, treated rudely and carelessly and fobbed off over and over again as if the Government could not wait to get rid of them. It would simply be another blow and another pushing away of responsibility if the Government proceeded to ignore Sir Brian on setting levels of compensation solely on dependence and derivatively.
So, yes, there was no pecuniary loss because Nick had supported his parents. It was nothing to do with that; he never supported his parents as he could barely work. That is not the point Sir Brian was making. This is about the costs in time and money and tears and loss and, post his death, the costs of the support that had to be given to his partner and baby daughter. It was nothing to do with any money that he might have been able to give them. So can the Minister put on the record that compensation will include consideration of all losses, emotional damage and the loss of the right to a family life by those who cared for their infected loved ones? Given the hours of care, the support given, the fight to try to get Nick cured of hep C, the terrible experimental treatments that tortured his body and his psyche, the worry, the heartbreak and the time, it is the least they can do. Pronouncing a duty of candour going forward is great, but it will not help the loved ones of those who care for or have cared for those infected.
I wonder whether the Government have any idea what an amazing day it was when Theresa May, now the noble Baroness, Lady May, announced that she had commissioned an inquiry after the decades of lies and obfuscation; it was an amazing change after decades of begging. How miraculous it was to have such a chair of the inquiry: the extraordinary, the just and the brilliant Sir Brian Langstaff. The findings of the inquiry gave the community, at last, a sense of justice in the uncovering of the truth and compensation for the pain and the fights and the consequences of the hideous scandal of giving haemophiliacs and others contaminated blood, knowing about it and covering it up. In France, Ministers went to prison. Are the Government looking at whether any criminal charges may be brought?
There is much good work and planning going on, and I congratulate the Government on what they are doing so far to deliver the compensation schemes —particularly for the infected, and their estates if they have passed on, and for their partners. However, thus far it has developed less clearly, as the Minister said, in terms of the affected. Their compensation must—as Sir Brian indicated—encompass the emotional and psychological impact; the time in care giving; the loss of quality of life; the anxiety; the hell of watching the torment and the pain; the need to recognise the suffering of those who love the infected; the loss of the right to a family life; and the years of worry and grief. I beg the Government: do not fall at that last hurdle; do not penny-pinch; do not obfuscate or wriggle out of true obligation. This really is the moment of reckoning.
Lord Bichard (CB)
My Lords, it is difficult to follow those personal recollections, but they bring home to us the suffering that so many people have experienced. I should, in the spirit of openness, say that I chaired the inquiry’s expert advisory group on public health and public administration and, in that capacity, I gave evidence to the inquiry. And with that experience, although it has been said already, I want to add my tribute to the way in which Sir Brian Langstaff chaired this inquiry. I have chaired a much smaller public inquiry and I know how difficult that was. I think he has achieved almost the impossible: a report that is forthright, clear, succinct and, as the Minister said, unflinchingly honest. But the thing that impressed me most of all was the relationship that he managed to build with the victims, their families and supporters, which was really quite remarkable.
Sadly, the performance of the inquiry contrasts sharply with the failings that it has exposed. While I am desperate to see the victims finally receive justice and compensation, today I want to focus on the need for us to follow up the inquiry by responding to the failings themselves. These represent, for me, a breakdown in public service standards which has been evident in too many cases in the recent past: in those regarding the Post Office, Grenfell, Windrush and Hillsborough. I do not think that these can any longer be dismissed as isolated incidents. There is a pattern, and the pattern besmirches the public service that we have known and that many of us have worked in for the whole of our lives.
The tragedy of infected blood claimed 3,000 lives. I sometimes feel that the world finds that horror so difficult to comprehend that we are not giving enough attention to how it happened. As Sir Brian makes clear, this could have been avoided, and that is the greatest tragedy of all. It could have been avoided if the state had behaved in the way in which the various codes of behaviour suggested that it should. Instead, it falsely reassured the public and patients—painful though that is to relate, it is important to. It failed to tell people of the risk of treatment. It deliberately destroyed documents. It failed to tell people that they were infected. It offered no meaningful apology or redress. It repeatedly used inaccurate, misleading and defensive lines to take. Finally, it responded to calls for a public inquiry by producing flawed, incomplete and unfair internal reports.
The point is that these were not unfortunate mistakes. In too many cases they were deliberate attempts to mislead and obfuscate, and to protect the institutions of the state to the detriment of individual citizens. As Sir Brian says:
“It will be astonishing to anyone who reads this Report that these events could have happened in the UK”.
I add that it is particularly astonishing because we have long proclaimed, so proudly in the Nolan principles, the Civil Service Code and the Ministerial Code, our commitment to openness and integrity, and to honesty and fairness—all of which was so obviously absent in the many years during which the infected blood tragedy unfolded. The only conclusion I can draw is that the arrangements that we have in place to set and enforce the standards that we expect from public officials are inadequate. They are insufficient and need to be revisited. The only question for me is: what exactly are we going to do about it?
The inquiry report itself raises the possibility of a new duty of candour, which I have long supported. Rather more importantly, the Prime Minister, it seems, supports that. He recently announced, as the Minister said, that a Bill will be introduced in April next year to place that duty on the statute book. That Bill has become known as the Hillsborough law, but I see it being just as important as part of the response to the Infected Blood Inquiry. It is a mistake to link it to just one of the many recent tragedies.
The promised Bill will represent a step forward, but there are many questions that we need to ask, and I would like to pose some of them today. I know the Minister may not be able to answer them, so I hope she will pass them on to her Cabinet Office colleagues. The first question is: why is it taking so long to publish the draft of a Bill that is central to the way in which the state relates to its citizens and, therefore, central to the way in which this new Administration intend to govern? I know how difficult it is to produce and draft a Bill and White Papers, and I am surprised that it will have taken a year, since the publication of the inquiry report, to reach publication of a Bill.
Secondly, will the Bill be broad enough in scope to give statutory force to the behaviours currently set out in the Nolan principles and the various codes, or will the new duty apply only to occasions when officials give evidence to inquiries, in court cases or at judicial review requests? If that is what it is about, it will fail to introduce accountability for the failings that do not become the subject of such formal scrutiny but can still bring untold suffering to ordinary citizens.
Will the Bill be the subject of extensive pre-legislative scrutiny involving relevant campaign groups and ordinary members of the public? As I have said, this is about redefining the relationship between the state and individual citizens. We need to find a way to ensure that individual citizens have a chance to be involved.
Will the new Bill make it clear that the ultimate responsibility of any public official is not to the institution for which they work or even to Ministers? It is to members of the public. Until these and other questions are answered, we cannot be sure that the failings that Sir Brian identified will be effectively addressed. I am afraid that people are quite sceptical, given the experience of which we have heard that many have suffered down the years.
What we know today, as the inquiry report tells us, is that all is not well with the way in which the state and our public officials behave. It tells us that we have sometimes been too complacent about our standards in government in the UK. It reminds us that decent, ordinary, but ultimately powerless people can have their lives and the lives of their loved ones devastated by government and its agencies. If anything positive is to come out of this disaster, it should be this redefinition of the relationship between the state and individual citizens. The quicker we get to the crux of that, the better.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for scheduling this vital debate and for this opportunity to contribute to it. I follow other noble Lords in expressing my gratitude to Sir Brian for his comprehensive report and my deep sorrow at the distress suffered by the infected and affected alike, with many cases ongoing.
I will touch briefly on three matters: candour, culture and compensation. The first is the duty of candour. As the noble Lord just said, it is sadly true that this scandal is part of a regrettable pattern, and I do not believe that we can yet be confident that the pattern is historic. I welcome the prospect of a law placing a duty of candour on public servants and authorities, but I hope that this law when introduced will be as ambitious as possible and place as much responsibility as possible on every citizen—not only those in the public sector—to be candid about failure, especially over a duty of care. Have the Government considered the widest possible application of a duty of candour?
The second is the issue of culture. The inquiry report identifies the need to address
“the unacceptable defensive culture prevalent across too much of the public sector”.
It recommends that the Government must be proactive in calling inquiries, saying that never again must campaigners have to wait for decades for an official, independent investigation to take place. But, as the Bishop of Sheffield, I am bound to note that an overly defensive culture has thus far inhibited a comprehensive inquiry into events at Orgreave in 1984. If the Government aspire to be proactive in calling for inquiries, there is an opportunity right there. Would the Minister be prepared to comment?
The third matter is compensation. After having waited decades for justice, the infected and the affected are, in many cases, still being made to wait for the full implementation of the compensation scheme. This is just wrong. When an inquiry is published as damning as this one, it is surely an overriding priority for compensation to be generous and prompt, and we are failing in that regard right now. It is a legal maxim that justice delayed is justice denied; it presumably follows that compensation delayed is compensation denied. Will the Minister please assure the House that due compensation will be paid without significant further delay?
Baroness Keeley (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to contribute to this debate because while I was the MP for Worsley and Eccles South I spoke a number of times on the NHS contaminated blood scandal, and was a member of the all-party group on contaminated blood, ably chaired by my right honourable friend Dame Diana Johnson MP. I acknowledge the work done by the all-party group and by noble Lords in keeping the issues and concerns of those infected or affected by this scandal so high on the political agenda. As an MP, I represented five families or individuals who were infected or affected by the NHS infected blood scandal. I know that they were helped by knowing that Members of Parliament and noble Lords were supporting their cause. I pay tribute to the powerful speech that we heard today from the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone.
As my right honourable friend Nick Thomas-Symonds said in the Commons on 2 September:
“The infected blood scandal is a shameful mark on the British state, and those who have been impacted have waited far too long to receive financial redress and true recognition of their suffering. The inquiry’s report shed light on the trauma inflicted on thousands of people across the country. The voices of people who are infected and have been affected have gone unheard for far too long, which has compounded the trauma”.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/9/24; col. 74.]
I welcome the opening comments by my noble friend the Minister and the Labour Government’s confirmation that it is the intention to deliver a comprehensive compensation scheme at the earliest possible opportunity. I understand that the Government will bring forward another set of regulations to enable compensation for affected people and to provide supplementary awards, but there is no certainty around the dates for that, and I will raise a concern about this later.
I want to reflect on the cases of my former constituents and the issues they raised with me. One former constituent was a child when they were infected with hepatitis C through contaminated blood products used at the Royal Manchester Children’s Hospital. The hepatitis C caused cirrhosis of the liver, and as an adult they were forced to use all their stage 2 compensation payment of £50,000 to pay for the treatment Harvoni. This was used to treat the virus load of hepatitis C but was not available for NHS patients, and there was uncertainty about whether it ever would become available to them. They should not have had to use their compensation to fund medical treatment for a virus they contracted while receiving NHS treatment as a child. I hope that there will be very specific redress for that.
The details of the cases I have had raised with me are heartbreaking. While no amount of money can compensate for the lives lost and the shattered futures, the compensation proposed now starts to represent a recognition of the scale of suffering that this scandal has caused, both to the infected and the affected.
I turn to the damage caused by the stigma surrounding the illnesses caused by contaminated blood. In his latest report, Sir Robert Francis confirms that psychosocial experts have reported that many of the impacts of this scandal have been suffered by both infected and affected people, including the distress caused to individuals and families by stigma. This is an important point, and it is the case that the gravity of the stigma experienced led to social isolation for many individuals and their families.
The father of a former constituent died in 1995 following treatment with infected factor 8. The constituent told me that she and her mother could never grieve properly for him because of the stigma surrounding HIV and AIDS at the time. In another case, Nora Worthington, mother of my former constituent Claire Dixon, was infected with HIV through a routine blood transfusion in 1982. She died of an AIDS-related illness in 1993. Claire Dixon told me that during this time her mother endured
“a catalogue of soul destroying, humiliating neglect and ultimately alienating experiences”.
The stigma and ignorance associated with HIV compelled Nora Worthington to protect those she loved and keep her diagnosis secret. It is distressing to note that, as Nora Worthington was a single parent, there has, up to now, been no payment of compensation to her daughter Claire and her brother Stephen. They have had a 31-year battle for justice for their mother.
It is positive that Sir Robert Francis’s report recommends that the social impact award for affected persons be reconsidered with an increased figure. However, there is concern among the affected community—we heard about this earlier in the report—that the regulations laid by the Government in August did not provide legislation for those affected, such as bereaved family members, to receive compensation, or in fact supplementary awards for those infected. I understand that a further SI is needed and that that will be laid in 2025 when parliamentary time allows, but this has caused uncertainty and worry. Can my noble friend the Minister tell us what progress has been made on this second set of regulations?
From this month, families will start to make applications through separate support schemes for interim payments of £100,000 to the eligible estates of those infected people who have died. Many of the eligible estates are those of people who died many years ago—often several decades ago. Applicants will require legal help in obtaining probate or letters of administration, and in dealing with deceased executors and other legal matters. Can my noble friend the Minister tell us whether funding for legal help will be available so that applicants are not expected to take on debt to fund their applications?
As campaigners, the Dixon family wanted to raise some extra concerns in the following points. First, they point out that some living infected individuals have been excluded from existing financial support schemes. The chronic hepatitis B infected and those infected with contaminated blood stocks after the September 1991 cut-off date have never received any financial support at all. They point out that despite this being a relatively small number of people, many of them are very ill as a direct result of contaminated blood, with conditions such as cirrhosis and cancer. Despite Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendation in April 2023, a typical HBV-infected individual has lost around £100,000 in financial payments from support schemes, ahead of any compensation they may receive in future.
Secondly, the Dixons believe that carers are given insufficient financial recognition. They point out too that individuals with missing medical records are seriously at risk of not receiving justice from the Infected Blood Compensation Authority and having their compensation applications dismissed due to not having appropriate paperwork to prove that transfusions were given. I should say to my noble friend the Minister that it has seemed to me in dealing with some cases that quite a number of people are affected by missing medical records.
Lastly, the Dixons point out that the Infected Blood Compensation Authority is not currently seen by campaigners and those infected and affected as a true arm’s-length body, because it is staffed by officials seconded from the Cabinet Office. It is important we understand that, after so many years of being denied justice, there remains a lack of trust in government. The perception that it is now civil servants being tasked with designing the regulations and administering, assisting, operating and supervising the compensation schemes does not help with that. There should be the fullest consultation with those infected and affected to overcome such perceptions.
People infected and affected by contaminated blood have been through enough. It is imperative that the route to receiving compensation is as simple and sympathetic as possible. The payment of compensation to victims must be a recognition of the suffering of those people infected and affected by contaminated blood, which has been a shameful chapter for our NHS.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, this is a matter almost too awful to contemplate, but I most heartily welcome the remarks of the Minister as she started the debate. I pay tribute to the exceptional work of Sir Brian Langstaff and his staff—I think we all share that sentiment. This is not a party-political matter; we all of us share responsibility.
“The NHS is the envy of the world.” That has been said so often you can hear those words still ringing around this old Chamber, but it has not been true for a very long time. The system of care and compassion that we created with such hope has gone horribly wrong. It has gone more than wrong; it is much worse than that. There have been
“systemic, collective and individual failures to deal ethically, appropriately and quickly”
with the infected blood scandal. Those terrible words are taken directly from Sir Brian’s report. Yet the main point I want to make follows the remarks in the pointed speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Bichard. It is that although this particular scandal is a national humiliation, it is far from unique. It is not just infected blood; it is the Post Office Horizon scandal—25 years and still going strong. It is the Hillsborough Stadium disaster, the Rotherham grooming scandal—that was more than three decades ago and is still not finished —and the Mull of Kintyre aviation disaster, which took nearly 20 years for the truth to be revealed. It is the Grenfell Tower calamity and, as we heard before this debate, the Afghan resettlement problem. There have been so many occasions where the public have been betrayed by their public servants.
Why does this happen? Sometimes it is through direct dishonesty, but more often perhaps because what we are dealing with is all a little uncomfortable—because it would rock the boat, because it is easier to leave the squidgy bits locked in the bottom drawer, because “We are the envy of the world and we know best”. It is the arrogance of the untouchables. The system operates on a self-serving motto: “Hold your nose, tick a box— job done, move on quickly and leave it all to someone else to clear up”. These disasters—infected blood, Horizon, Hillsborough and all the rest —were not accidents. Sir Brian makes that abundantly clear, and his conclusions are chilling. To paraphrase him, ordinary people—families, children—put their faith in the Government and in the system that was supposed to keep them safe, and we failed them.
The priority of our public service system is no longer to serve the public; its priority has become to serve the system itself. This is an awful conclusion to reach but, on the basis of the evidence, it is an unavoidable conclusion. The Minister said that it is a mark of shame on everyone concerned. I would like to expand on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, in her extremely powerful speech and ask the Minister: after all this time and all this suffering, how many public servants have been disciplined, demoted or dismissed for their part in this tragedy of infected blood? If the answer is none or that even after 50 years the system is somehow unable to come forward with any figures, that seems just another example of the system winning again.
I have no doubt that the Government’s fulsome apology is genuine, as was the fulsome apology given by the previous Government, and there is compensation. Justice requires compensation, but compensation will not be enough if we do not learn from this tragedy and prevent these scandals happening again. How do we make public servants properly responsible not just for the sins of commission but for the sins of omission—the grotesque lack of candour and honesty that Sir Brian highlighted? He suggests we should pass into law a duty of accountability and candour, and I am delighted that the Prime Minister has said that the Government intend to pick up this challenge. That was repeated by the Minister today. When will this proposal see the light of day—when will we go to the Bill? I notice that the noble Lord, Lord, Lord Bichard, suggested that it would be in April. I hope that it will be brought forward as a matter of urgency. Why do we need to wait until April for something which has been with us for so long? I understand that it is complicated but it is enormously important, otherwise all our hand-wringing will have gone to waste and all the wrongs will be repeated and the suffering of the little children will go on.
This new Government have an opportunity not just to put this terrible experience behind us—that really is not the point—but to put it to use to repair and rebuild what was once our great British establishment and the relationship between the state and the individual.
The headlines will be all about compensation—rightly so—but if we leave it just at that we will be in danger of simply ticking a box and moving on. The real change we need will require not just compensation but the courage to take on all the many vested interests that any legislation will encounter, and to see the job through.
The Government say that they will act to ensure that this kind of behaviour will never happen again and, in that objective at least, I wish them well.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I think every speaker in this debate has paid enormous credit to the comprehensive and important report from Sir Brian Langstaff. There is so much weight in there in both the literal and the metaphorical sense. I particularly focus on paying extreme credit and respect to the individuals—the infected and the affected—who provided the heart of the testimony to Sir Brian’s report. They were talking about the most awful personal experiences. They were crucial to Sir Brian’s work and it is important that we focus on their contribution.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, for securing this debate, for her very clear introduction and for the tone which the Government have adopted on this, as indeed the previous Government did. This has been a very powerful debate but I want to pick up on a word used by the noble Lord, Lord Bichard: complacency. Following on from the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, I have to ask about where the complacency has lain, and where the responsibility for the complacency has lain.
The noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, said to make public servants and officials responsible. He talked about the Civil Service. However, I think we have to ask where the leadership comes from. Ultimately, there is political responsibility. That is where responsibility is supposed to lie in our system. I am afraid I am going to say something that may feel uncomfortable to many sides of your Lordships’ House: the next time noble Lords feel tempted to use the phrase “world-leading” in a self-congratulatory tone, please ask, “Is this justified and are we using this as an excuse not to be better?” That is very often how it comes across. If that is the message delivered from the political leadership down to the people who are, after all, in your hands as a political leader when you are the Minister, what is it going to direct them to do? Please ask these questions. When people come to you and say that everything is fine but at the same time there are campaigners saying, “We have been mistreated; the state is not working here—it has not delivered for us”, please do not just take reassurance from the Civil Service, a quango, or whoever to say, “No, it is fine”. Please keep asking questions.
Your Lordships’ House is very aware of this, so I am not going to go through it all, but Sir Brian Langstaff highlighted some absolutely wrong things that happened, such as the intentional destruction of documents, and the decision by the Government to use phrases such as “no conclusive proof” of a link between blood products and HIV to give false comfort and misrepresent risks. If there is one sentence from Sir Brian’s report that needs to be highlighted, it is this:
“This disaster was not an accident”.
Let us look at the facts. World Health Organization advice from the 1950s warned of the risks, as well as ways to minimise them, such as treating blood and restricting those who could donate.
A great deal has already been said, so I will not go over the same ground about the duty of candour and the so-called Hillsborough law report. But I will stress that I am confident your Lordships’ House will be focusing on the detail of that Bill and what we might be able to do to make it stronger. I look forward to doing that. I pick up again the words of the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, about the need for civic and public involvement, and true democracy in terms of making sure that Hillsborough law is as strong as it can possibly be.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Featherstone and Lady Keeley, both spoke about the delays to compensation for the affected, as opposed to the infected. I will make a couple of additional points. I am particularly drawing on the briefing from the campaign group Factor 8. Looking at the applications for interim payments of £100,000 to the eligible estates of those who died, I have a specific question for the Minister. Will the funding for legal help be available in advance to families who may be applying for it? Having to self-fund and claim the money later is obviously going to be utterly impossible for many.
We have covered a huge amount of ground in what has been a harrowing debate, so I will make two final points. First, many references have been made—I particularly pick up the point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield—to the Orgreave inquiry. Where is it? I repeat that question to the Minister. Secondly, when we think about the compensation, we have to think, in this context, about the Windrush scandal and the second scandal of how Windrush compensation has simply not worked out.
I do not think anyone has yet mentioned this, but the parallel has to be drawn with the issues raised in the so-called Cumberlege report, First Do No Harm—vaginal mesh, sodium valproate and Primodos. These were significantly after the events of the infected blood scandal; however, the same things kept happening again and again, and we have to highlight that.
I also want to highlight something not in the medical field. On 21 October I will be joining the Truth About Zane campaign, concerning the terrible death of seven year-old Zane Gbangbola. He was killed when flooding released toxic chemicals from a historic landfill site. There were total failures of government action after that. I hope we will hear positive news from the Government, in keeping with Sir Keir Starmer’s previous promise to hold an independent inquiry into Zane’s death. There are so many issues here.
I circle back to where I started. We have individual failures and structural failures, but let us not just blame the way things are structured. We also have to ask: why do we not have a state that functions for its people? We should be asking some very deep questions about the way this place, the other place and the whole British Government are structured.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I too wish to recognise the tenacity and bravery of the many victims and their families who have suffered grievously due to receiving medical care that did them harm, contrary to the very first principles of medical ethics. This was compounded by the failure of many parts of the state to respond to their concerns, and the concealment of what happened to them. I was incredibly moved by the bravery of the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, in speaking about her family’s circumstances.
I recently served on the Select Committee of your Lordships’ House on the Inquiries Act, which called its recent report Public Inquiries: Enhancing Public Trust. This public inquiry, chaired by Sir Brian Langstaff, lasting six years and involving two interim reports—as well as the separate work on the compensation scheme by Sir Robert Francis, KC—cannot be subject to the criticism “too long” or “too costly”. It has enhanced public trust in this system that somewhere between the political and the justice systems lies public inquiries. When all else fails, it is a public inquiry that we need, but it took too long to get there, a point to which I will return. Although noble Lords will have the opportunity to debate fully the Select Committee’s report, some of our conclusions are relevant to, or overlap with, the inquiry’s work.
Keeping first things first, I turn to ensuring swift compensation for those infected and affected by infected blood and blood products, as well as the families of the deceased. I hope the Minister can confirm that the application system for interim payments of £100,000 for families of the deceased has actually opened this month, as the Paymaster-General said was the intention in the other place in July and September this year. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, I ask when the second set of statutory instruments will be laid, dealing with fuller compensation for those affected. It is important that Parliament considers that. I repeat that the main focus at this stage should be compensation, but I hope the Minister is able to provide details of progress on the many other recommendations Sir Brian made. As she noted, they are receiving careful consideration.
As the Select Committee on public inquiries heard so many times, even if His Majesty’s Government accept a public inquiry’s recommendations, whether they are then acted on is another matter. It can be remarkably hard to find out what progress is being made on each recommendation. As this inquiry recommended that the evidence and the report should remain accessible to the public, will this be where the public can access a simple timetable on the progress made? The public inquiry has admirably built confidence with victims and their families; enacting accepted recommendations is vital to retaining that trust.
Both the public inquiry and the Select Committee’s report recommend some kind of role for Parliament in holding the Government to account on progress in implementing the recommendations they have accepted. Sir Brian envisages this role to be that of the Commons’ Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee and the Select Committee of your Lordships’ House—a new Joint Select Committee.
In the other place, the Paymaster-General did not seem entirely clear about accepting that there would be some role for Parliament to play in future, so can the Minister please confirm that, in principle, Parliament will have a role? Time, human energy and money have been well spent here, but how His Majesty’s Government will be held to account on the recommendations is not clear. Please let us not ask more of the victims and their families in that regard.
If a good public inquiry like this is the answer when all else is failing, how do we get there quicker? As the right reverend Prelate said, justice delayed is justice denied—but it also enormously compounds the personal trauma. Noble Lords who served with me on the Select Committee will not be surprised to hear me mention how affected I was by the evidence of Bill Wright, the co-chair of Haemophilia Scotland. The Scottish Parliament was first asked for a public inquiry in 1999, and it took a quarter of a century until the infected blood inquiry reported. Mr Wright also said:
“Some of the people coming into inquiries will be completely broken; some will be highly resilient”.
It is obvious that victims having to go through lengthy campaigns such as those the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, outlined in order to get an inquiry compounds the damage and breaks some of them—if the original harm has not already done so.
Again, Sir Brian and the Select Committee see a role here for Parliament, and I would be grateful if the noble Baroness could outline His Majesty’s Government’s view of this. I am aware that the noble Baroness may have to write to me, but when there are so many public inquiries now happening, it seems highly unusual that Parliament does not yet have a more formal role.
Although it is another matter that might need a letter, there are a number of recommendations that are more constitutional in nature—another specialism of your Lordships’ House. These include recommendations such as:
“Ending the defensive culture in the Civil Service and government … a statutory duty of accountability on senior civil servants for the candour and completeness of advice given to Permanent Secretaries and Ministers”,
and that:
“The Government should consider the extent to which Ministers should be subject to a duty beyond their current duty to Parliament under the Ministerial Code”.
I note that the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, commented on this.
While the recommendations might ordinarily be a matter just for the Cabinet Secretary, and maybe the Minister for the Cabinet Office, such conclusions by Sir Brian in such a landmark report on such wide-scale failure of the state call for more in-depth consideration. The Select Committee was often told of the culture of candour in the aviation industry, where apparently mistakes are reported and people are not cowed by fear of the consequences for their own employment. How has it achieved that culture? I hope to see a humble attitude from His Majesty’s Government in seeking advice from other industries, perhaps from the Institute for Government—one of the few bodies that can talk to Ministers while in office—and maybe from the Committee on Standards in Public Life.
Does everyone, from junior officials to even Secretaries of State, know where they can discreetly obtain confidential ethics advice when something just does not feel right but everyone seems to think it is okay? I recall my time as a barrister. From very early on, the induction is that you have a phone number to get hold of a King’s Counsel confidentially, at short notice, if in the heat of a trial you have an ethics concern on which you need advice. Why are Ministers not also so equipped? This is particularly important for Ministers and special advisers who, due to the nature of their appointment and of how they can be dismissed, seem to be outside any of the protections of the whistleblowers legislation. Can the Minister confirm for the record that “public servants” for the duty of candour legislation will include Ministers of the Crown?
Finally, I return to the first priority: compensation. We heard in the Select Committee that when a public inquiry has been held, those lessons are not passed on to the next public inquiry. I hope that all the expertise of Sir Robert Francis is not lost, but along with all noble Lords I also hope that we will never have to use his expertise again.
Lord Jones (Lab)
My Lords, it is good to hear the compassionate remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge. I thank the Minister for her committed and comprehensive speech and wish her well in her ministerial life ahead. I declare that I have answered a questionnaire concerning the inquiry.
I recollect a mother. She was dignified, and clearly worried. It was a weekly constituency surgery, just one of 50 a year for those 31 Commons years. We were in the working men’s club in a tired, long-gone Great Western Railway community. It was a great barn of a place. Warm sunlight was lighting up the dancing dust particles above the wooden floor that creaked as my constituent advanced towards my table. “My sons—it’s my sons. Both of them. It’s horrible. My sons need help”. Those were her first, urgent, whispered words. “My boys are in danger. It is a tragedy. It’s both of them; it’s so unfair. They are haemophiliacs—both of them are”.
This woman was bespectacled and had gone to the trouble of wearing her costume best. She was twisting her handkerchief, which was brightly embroidered. I detected a slight waft of her fragrance. Her breathing had become tight and her blue eyes behind the glass were heavily moistened. This was an ordeal for her, and I had to be more than sympathetic. “They need blood. They need good blood. Now they’ve been given poisoned blood. No—it’s contaminated blood”. These dreadful words were jerked out in between troubled breaths. Her interview was an ordeal, a torment. I felt greatly disadvantaged by her whispered passion. One’s duty was to be receptive always, but this was so personal. When the interviewer is engulfed by a fellow citizen’s deep feeling, one wants to give more than polite attention. Was I capable of reassuring this emblematic, supercharged motherhood?
This stressed woman of quality was twisting her handkerchief this way and that as she poured out her worries and her scorn for the failed blood intruded into her sons’ veins. They were not young. They were at risk. They had always had it rough, and now this. It was more than she could bear.
It is axiomatic that the constituent wants, above all, to tell of her feelings. It is not a rendered, rational statement to the Member of Parliament—it is an expression of feeling, the consequences of pent-up frustration. It calls for priestly empathy, listening skills and sincerity. It was called for from a person so often recently travelled from the snake-pit of Westminster, nerves jangling and frequently sleepless.
This mother’s monumental concern deserved better from me, an inadequate practitioner. I did my level best. I surely radiated courtesy, respect, support and understanding, but could it ever be enough? What could I do in the positive sense? Did my constituent leave as a satisfied visitor? Could anyone, anything, avenge her anger, despair and frustration? I doubt it, but I had the grace to escort her to the door, to shake her hand and to promise my efforts.
Some 40 years later there would be an inquiry of the utmost integrity, openly and caringly chaired by Sir Brian Langstaff, and compensation. But how do you compensate for her grief, her anger and her sons’ distress? Sir Robert Francis KC shows skills that Newton and Hooke might have admired, and I hope things go well in terms of compensation.
My constituent’s sons were the victims of a disgraceful dereliction of duty. Highly placed, extravagantly paid elite bureaucrats had failed to remain vigilant and exacting. Risks were taken, corners were cut and fellow human beings—innocents—suffered dreadful damage.
It was instructive for me to hear the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bichard. Surely we will not advance to abolishing your Lordships’ noble House. There are always contributions to be made. No amount of Westminster do-gooders could make the ideal reversal of a fateful decision. No Commons Questions, no parliamentary debate, no petitions and no remonstrations to those committed Ministers could right this dreadful wrong. The misery continues in those wrecked lives. The guilty were hiding, and why was it so long before this inquiry took place?
This was a salutary interview for a do-gooding Member, and I never saw that marvellous mother again.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, for introducing this debate today and colleagues from across the House for their contributions. I particularly want to thank my noble friend Lady Featherstone for talking about her family’s experience and the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, and the noble Lord, Lord Jones, for telling us about their constituents’ experience, which was profound.
My own experience was that, almost 50 years ago this year, I took a drama group to Lord Mayor Treloar school and met a number of the boys with haemophilia, as well as the other students at the school. It somewhat terrified me when they helped us to cook our meal and were parading very large knives when we were cutting things up, knowing that they were haemophiliacs, and we joked about it; but they lived their lives normally because that was how Treloar’s worked. What none of us knew at the time was that these were the same boys who were—invisibly and unknown to their families—being used for research purposes. That is an absolute disgrace.
I want to thank the victims, whether infected or affected, and the victims’ groups, including some which have been mentioned already today—Factor 8, haemophilia societies from across the United Kingdom, Tainted Blood and many others—which have been let down time and time again. From our experience over the last few years, we know that they really hoped that, with the publication of the final report, Governments past and current would do the right thing. On 20 May, Sir Brian Langstaff published his final report—there had been two interim reports in previous years and seven volumes. Those of us who have read it over them summer may have incurred the wrath of families for the box of books going away with us, but we needed to read all of it because it must never be repeated.
Sir Brian—almost alone among the other people with whom the victims came into contact over half a century—gained the confidence of the victims, not least because he promised that he would produce a report that understood and respected their position. This report is exceptional: it joins up failures by past Governments of all colours in other scandals and tragedies; it understands how the NHS failed vulnerable patients time and again, and it lays a clear route map for Ministers, Whitehall, Parliament and those in the health sector to begin to remedy this.
Monday 20 May was a very moving day. All of us at the launch of the report thought there was a new beginning. As we have heard this afternoon, however, there are already concerns and problems. Frankly, even scheduling the debate that was promised in July has been difficult; it was planned for September and changed to today. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said that we should think carefully about using the phrase “world-leading” and she is right, because the lessons to be learned, as the report points out, are
“starkly obvious to anyone who has read the rest of the Report, but few people in training for a career in medicine may take that opportunity. A very real danger is that the lessons of the past are forgotten when a fresh history is being made in the years to come, and only then, after another disaster, are remembered.”
I too thought of the excellent report by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, First Do No Harm, which repeated many of the same points about lessons still not learned.
The aviation example given by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, is really important, because we do not have the culture of “no fault”. It is always about how to protect those who may have made mistakes. It is interesting that the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, talked about this being an NHS problem. It was not just an NHS problem. Compensation has been paid in Australia, Canada, China, France, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Portugal and the USA, but not always from a Government. In the USA, it was the pharma companies that had to pay. What is wrong about the UK is that we are almost the last. It took us years to get to that point.
The duty of candour and leadership in the NHS have been discussed much so far this afternoon. The duty of candour was introduced in the NHS in 2014, and to the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, I say: it is very broad and about everyday practice, both professional and statutory. It defines what a notifiable safety incident is. However, do we yet have a duty of candour working in the NHS? My answer is no: we have had the Mid Staffs hospital scandal, the growing maternity scandals across the country and the vaginal mesh—in that one, the whistleblower was treated very badly and was shunned by her profession until the details came out. This is still a live problem.
The report talks about the defensive culture of the Civil Service and how that must be changed too. That is the problem that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and other Ministers faced. It is therefore good that the Government are going to tackle this, but what will success look like? Will it be curiosity of Ministers, or Civil Servants being able to start with, “You may not like to hear this, Minister but—”? I think there is an even more daring thing we should expect. It could and should be the uncovering of other scandals.
Patient safety is vital, monitoring liver damage in those with hepatitis C as well as those suffering from transfusions, so it is good to hear the Government’s prioritisation of the Patient Safety Commissioner. I say to the Minister something that I have said to Health Ministers in recent months: are there enough resources for the Patient Safety Commissioner to be able to do their job properly? They need it; it must be funded properly.
On transfusions, you would think that we would have learned lessons as more and more have been revealed over the years with this inquiry and other serious cases, but the majority—that is, over 80% of reports to the Serious Hazards of Transfusion scheme, known as SHOT—are now due to errors or mistakes in the clinical transfusion process. Professor Toh, the chair of National Blood Transfusion Committee, writing in the BMJ said:
“The number of deaths related to blood transfusions has more than doubled since the covid-19 pandemic and the Serious Hazards of Transfusion group reports that these numbers have not returned to pre-pandemic levels, remaining at or above 35 deaths per annum since 2020. This is deeply concerning but not entirely surprising in an overstretched NHS, yet immediate and sustainable improvements are achievable”.
Sir Brian says that there must also be funding to find the undiagnosed: anyone who had a blood transfusion before 1996 but has not yet been investigated. I realised with some horror today that I am one of those. I had a blood transfusion when I was having my second child. How will the Government communicate to the public that they need to get that blood test done?
Sir Robert Francis’s proposals for compensation were published only on 26 July this year. The scheme is open to new applicants until 1 April next year, yet, as the Government now say, further regulations covering the affected and the supplementary routes will be published only when parliamentary time allows.
In May, I raised the problems of an individual whose claim was made more than five years ago, but because the NHS has lost part of their medical records, they are stuck. They said at the time, “How can we fight a machine that is protecting itself?” Therefore, what will the Government do not just for those as yet undiagnosed but for those stuck in the system because their medical records are not complete?
The inquiry talks about protecting haemophilia care. It is good that there are peer reviews, but an important recommendation is that they should happen not less than once every five years and that NHS trusts and boards should be required to deliberate on those findings on peer reviews. That is key to changing the culture, because having a duty of candour will not work until we have that change in culture.
Sir Brian points out that patients must be given a voice. He says that they need to be “enabled and empowered”. As others have said—and I agree—talking to victims, whether infected or affected by this scandal, the lack of a voice, even today, is shocking. His five recommendations in this area are all sensible. Can the Minister say whether they are all accepted and, if they are, when they will be implemented? This includes support and funding for patient advocacy from the UK Haemophilia Society, the Hepatitis C Trust, Haemophilia Scotland, Haemophilia NI, the UK Thalassaemia Society and the Sickle Cell Society.
Many noble Lords have raised the issue of why and when a public inquiry was so late. Sir Brian said:
“By 1986 the Government can have been under no illusion about the scale of what had happened to people with haemophilia—many had been infected with HIV … Sufferers of HIV experienced public hostility and stigma. In addition, over the five years which followed it became apparent beyond question that the non-A non-B Hepatitis with which most had also been infected was far more serious than some clinicians would have wished to believe in the early 1980s”.
That was 38 years ago. Many other calls for public inquiries have also taken a long time to gather pace before Ministers and the Whitehall machine had to give in. The noble Lord, Lord Bichard, spoke of deliberate blocking and how the Nolan principles were substantially absent. That is Sir Brian’s key point: this is not just about infected blood; it is about the Post Office Horizon scandal, the Grenfell Tower fire, the Hillsborough tragedy, the thalidomide scandal, Windrush, vaginal meshes and sodium valproate. Did we not learn from thalidomide? No—and there are many more. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, called out what went wrong.
The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, mentioned the noble Lord, Lord Reid, who said in 2008 that this was a moral issue, not one where fault should be apportioned. Sir Brian notes that the noble Lord, Lord Fowler,
“who was … Secretary of State for Health and Social Services prior to … 1987, has urged that it took far too long for this Inquiry to be held, and has”
not been afraid to criticise its prevarication. Lord Owen, who retired from your Lordships’ House in August this year, declared very early on as a Minister that the UK must become independent in supplying blood for transfusion. It is a shame that that was not heeded and was dropped when he ceased to be a Minister. As many other Members of your Lordships’ House, of all political colours, have noted, there has been too much slowness and prevarication.
On the issue of public inquiries, I look forward to the debate your Lordships’ House will have on the report of the Select Committee, Public Inquiries: Enhancing Public Trust, because it is right to note that this is all about public trust.
It is important to note the issues relating to the redress scheme arising out of these inquiries. Sir Robert Francis and his team were working alongside Sir Brian’s. Sir Robert’s report was published in March 2022, and Sir Brian’s second interim report in April 2023. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, and I have had many debates about this interim report over the last year. With one or two minor technical exceptions, they agreed with each other. Sir Brian said that interim payments, for both the infected and affected, should have been made by December last year, not least because the complexity of awards would inevitably mean some delays. However, no one was paid by Sir Brian’s deadline.
In fact, the legislation making it possible was concluded only on the same day the general election was called—and that was in a great rush, but we did do it. The regulations were published in the depths of August this year. While I am grateful to the Paymaster-General for calling me to let me know that was happening, two months later this is the first opportunity we have had to discuss them. Next week, we are scheduled to have a regret Motion, which I laid, on those regulations. I am glad I did so, because so many noble Lords today have raised concerns about the redress scheme, so I look forward to hearing their contributions on Monday if they are around.
I am really concerned about the affected and the supplementary route. This is the first bit of official bad faith since the announcement on 20 May, from both the tail end of the previous Government and the new Government. All parties before the general election, including then Ministers and new Ministers, agreed it was urgent and supported Sir Brian’s urge that the infected and affected be treated equally. Unfortunately, this is not the case, and the regulations we will debate on Monday cover only the infected victims, leaving out other key areas, with further questions on even some of the infected ones.
Some of the widows and other victims are being told that the next regs will be published only when parliamentary time allows discussion. Unlike the regulations we will discuss next week, this Government have now created a two-tier system, they say—and that is causing real distress. They have destroyed much of the trust that was built up until 20 May. I press the Minister to say when we will see the second regulations, which Sir Brian reminded us are as urgent as the first, which we will debate next week.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, before this debate began, I reflected that we were about to experience one of those rare occasions in this House in which neither party politics nor personal disagreements would rear their heads even for an instant—and so indeed it has proved. I follow the lead of every speaker this afternoon in saying that we cannot approach this most grave of topics, other than with a sense of deep shame and humility, alongside a willingness to open our minds, to listen and to learn. That is surely the only attitude possible for parliamentarians as we digest the findings of this magisterial report by Sir Brian Langstaff. In his report, the full agony of this seemingly never-ending story of failure and deceit is rolled out before us like a blood-stained carpet. Painful as his message is to us all—government, clinicians, regulators, civil servants and the NHS hierarchy—Sir Brian has done the nation a signal service. It behoves us to thank him now for the qualities he brought to his task—his thoroughness, clarity of thought and transparent humanity—all of which have given encouragement and hope, where for years none seemed possible, to the infected blood community.
The overriding purpose of Sir Brian’s report, as he makes clear, was threefold: to expose what happened and why; to describe how authorities reacted to what had happened and why they did so; and, importantly, to articulate the lessons to be learned from those findings and the recommendations that should follow from them. I am sure we all believe that Sir Brian has amply fulfilled his mission. However, for that very reason, we cannot hope to do justice today to the wide range of his findings, still less to the vast quantity of evidence given by the many individuals who came forward to tell their stories, often with enormous courage —although the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, gave us a vivid flavour of it.
The first and perhaps most important thing I will say is that we should regard today not as the culmination of a process but rather as the start of one. There are imperatives arising from Sir Brian’s recommendations that require swift action, as noble Lords have said—the most obvious being the need to deliver compensation expeditiously to the people infected and affected by this disaster, on a scale that properly reflects the degree of harm and suffering inflicted on them. Sir Brian, with good reason, criticises the pace at which appropriate arrangements have been put in place. Now that they have been, it is up to us to exercise oversight to make sure that the process of delivery is effective, efficient and, perhaps above all, sensitively handled.
That objective, important as it is, is one for the relatively short term. If one looks at the rest of Sir Brian’s recommendations, there is one feature that stands out a mile: to achieve what must be the ultimate aim of this inquiry—namely, to create a better future—there is an enormous amount of work to be done by a large number of people, in the NHS, the Civil Service, by Ministers across government and by Parliament. The reason for that, of course, is the need to change a culture —or, I should say, cultures; we all know that any serious endeavour in that vein, if it is to be truly successful, is bound not only to take time but to require constant renewal and reinvigoration over the years.
Although, as we know, Sir Brian lays much of the responsibility for the infected blood disaster at the door of successive Governments, in his summing up he addresses a number of audiences. The first of these is the medical profession and those responsible for codifying and imparting good clinical practice. I am quite sure that the royal colleges, the GMC and NHS England in their respective roles will have already picked up the clear messages in the report that are aimed at them. However, I hope the Minister will agree that this is one set of circumstances where the Government cannot be totally hands off when it comes to clinical practice and standards.
The noble Lord, Lord Darzi, in his recent, very valuable report on the state of the NHS, closely echoes Sir Brian Langstaff in stressing the need for a health service that is both safe and patient-centred. That is an aim that requires a certain mindset on the part of clinical staff, one in which safety and listening to patients are paramount considerations. Unfortunately, in some care settings, that mindset is in somewhat short supply. One of the noble Lord’s more depressing findings was that amid the many pockets of good and outstanding practice to be found in the NHS, there is also widespread evidence of disengagement, low morale and what he calls a “reduction in discretionary effort” among clinical staff—things that together can serve only to frustrate the good objectives that he espouses. The noble Lord, Lord Darzi, plainly sees them as objectives which are unlikely to be attainable without a very clear plan for climbing the hill in front of us, not just on the part of the NHS and the professions but on the part of government as to what regulatory structures and statutory measures are needed to support and underpin those efforts. In other words, this has to be a concerted endeavour that involves collective, open-minded thinking by all relevant bodies.
I want to pick up the issue of regulation briefly. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman is quoted as saying that there are now too many regulators in the health service. In fact, a lot of people are now saying that. Professor Charles Vincent and others, in an article published in the BMJ five years ago, made trenchant comments to that effect. Sir Brian’s view—surely right—is that the regulatory system needs to be easy for ordinary people to navigate, which it is not. Nor is it at all joined up. Sometimes, effort is poorly directed. I must confess to a personal view that too much of the CQC’s focus nowadays is on inputs and not enough on outcomes, both good and bad.
In matters of clinical safety, structures and culture are linked. Simplifying structures and redefining accountabilities are ideas crying out to be looked at. The Patient Safety Commissioner, whose appointment we owe to my noble friend Lady Cumberlege, has spoken alarmingly of a culture that is “getting worse”. She added that
“unless leaders set a strategic intention to listen and act, we are heading straight back to the days of Mid Staffs and other health scandals”.
Let those words serve as a warning.
It is not just the health service that needs to look carefully at its culture. Sir Brian’s frank exposure of the failings, defensiveness and downright deceit that have characterised the behaviour of parts of the Civil Service is chilling. At various stages of the Victims and Prisoners Bill earlier this year, we debated the merits of applying a legal duty of candour to those working in all branches of the public service. My view on that has not changed—I am not in principle against the duty of candour; I simply think that on its own it will be ineffective. It was the coalition Government who brought in a duty of candour for health service bodies in the wake of the Mid Staffs scandal. I was a member of that Government, and I wish I could say that the duty had had a measurable effect. Without somehow banishing the knee-jerk defensiveness that persists within some healthcare providers and without providers being genuinely willing to listen to the concerns of patients, a stand-alone duty of candour is simply not going to cut the mustard, either in the NHS or, mutatis mutandis, elsewhere.
How, then, to make it effective? Sir Brian believes that the missing link revolves around leadership, such that health service leaders are made directly accountable in law for the culture that they oversee. At first blush, that seems to me a pretty stiff duty to put into anyone’s job contract, but coming from Sir Brian, the idea must be one that we treat with due seriousness.
When it comes to the Civil Service, it is noteworthy that Sir Brian does not go so far as to insist that the Civil Service Code should be pensioned off. However, he does say that the duty of candour implicit in the Civil Service Code needs to have teeth if civil servants are not tempted to revert to what one witness, Dame Una O’Brien, described as a culture of hierarchy and dismissiveness. Again, her belief is that it is leadership within a government department that is the key to bringing about the desired opposite, which is a culture of trust and respect.
As with the health service, Sir Brian’s recommendation is for there to be a legal duty of accountability on senior civil servants for the candour and completeness of advice given to Ministers. Again, I cannot help thinking that so long as hierarchies exist, and for as long as civil servants are afraid of speaking out, let us say about a senior colleague, Dame Una’s aspiration may remain just that. But we must be open-minded to ideas of this kind—the gravity of the events that have unfolded over the past half a century is reason enough for us to do so.
The Minister has indicated that the recommendations contained in the Infected Blood Inquiry report will receive the closest attention from the Government over the weeks and months ahead. That is good but I should like her, if she can, to go a bit further. Many of us have observed that reports from statutory public inquiries have a tendency to disappear behind a Civil Service veil after a certain lapse of time unless there is a parliamentary mechanism to keep them squarely in the public view. In this particular instance, the sheer multitude of recommendations—I have not counted them but the number is enormous—bearing in great detail upon so many bodies, organisations and individuals surely requires a mechanism to be put in place whereby Parliament can be reassured of the progress being made in taking the recommendations forward across the piece.
In the first instance, it was helpful to hear the Minister commit to reporting back to Parliament, as Sir Brian suggested, before the end of this year on how the Government intend to proceed in this regard. However, without imposing a duty of candour on the Government—I would not be so impertinent as to do that—I would like to think that we can expect from Ministers a willingness to use this House and the other place, including a suitable Commons Select Committee or perhaps a Joint Committee, as a means of sharing and debating actions and ideas in a spirit of openness. Surely this kind of non-partisan honesty and openness is the least that we owe to those thousands of people whom our country has so cruelly betrayed.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for the hugely important points raised in this debate. If I do not cover questions that they raised, I will endeavour to write with further details and put the letter in the Library.
Hearing your Lordships’ contributions today is a stark reminder of the enormity of this scandal and the utterly shocking truths that the inquiry brought to light. I am clear, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, alluded to, that there is consensus across your Lordships’ House on the extent of the failure, the need to ensure redress as far as it is ever possible and to make that through the compensation scheme as quickly as possible, and that apologies are worth absolutely nothing without action to ensure that nothing like this can happen again. That is easily said but over many years it has proved almost impossible to deliver. We must do this with humility, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said.
A number of noble Lords mentioned the delay to the inquiry taking place, and it clearly took too long. I note the role of the noble Baroness, Lady May, in calling the inquiry, without which we would not have the report we are debating today.
The personal testimony of many of your Lordships, including the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, reflects the many tragic stories told in the inquiry’s report, as did the description by my noble friend Lord Jones of his discussions and contact with his constituent’s sons, which I found quite distressing, and the description from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, of her own engagement with the children at Treloar School. I am clear that no amount of money could possibly compensate both those infected or affected.
I will not repeat the points that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, made on the review of the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, apart from to thank him for seeing the relevance of the review to what the report outlines, not least in how we need to remedy the faults in the health system. It is clear that the government response to so many of the failures described in the report, including the emerging threat of AIDS in blood and blood products, should have been faster and better. Today, although no medical treatment can be completely risk free, current safety standards for blood donation and transfusion are rigorous, and England’s blood supply is one of the safest in the world. Throughout the blood donation journey, there are now processes in place to ensure the safety of blood and blood products. These include the donation safety check form, testing for specific infections, donor deferrals, regulations and informed consent. I noted with concern the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, made on blood transfusions, and will write to her on the points she raised and place a copy in the Library.
In response to the noble Baroness’s points on finding the undiagnosed, I can say that GP services have introduced a new case-finding question for patients registering with a new practice to locate people who received a blood transfusion prior to 1996.
In response to the noble Baroness’s point on the resources available for the Patient Safety Commissioner to do their job properly, I point out that we have today published the terms of reference for a review by Dr Penny Dash that will look at the patient safety landscape. This review will cover the office of the Patient Safety Commissioner, along with other organisations, and will help us to understand what is required to have effective national leadership on patient safety.
In response to the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, on the moral obligation to compensate victims, I agree that a failure to deliver compensation for those infected and affected by the infected blood scandal would be a moral failure, and it is not one that this Government intend to commit.
On the level of funding made available to the infected blood support schemes, the Government are committed to ensuring that compensation is paid swiftly, not least because the victims of the scandal have already suffered unspeakably and for far too long. Noble Lords are right to raise the fact that, prior to the setting up of the support schemes in 2017, the previous approach of providing assistance was not effective. We can be in no doubt that everyone should have paid more regard to the victims of this scandal and sought to establish the truth for them much earlier. The time it took for the truth to come to light is unacceptable.
The right reverend Prelate and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, raised the Orgreave inquiry. Although that is not the main topic of this debate, I confirm to noble Lords that this was a manifesto commitment of the Labour Party during the election campaign, so it will happen.
The noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, referred to the countless examples of other occasions where the system becomes self-serving. However, I am not sure that I agree that a return to a past establishment that served the public better would serve the public best, because I am not sure that that is ever what an establishment does unless it receives the appropriate challenge required.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, highlighted the risk of complacency. We cannot afford to be complacent, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Brinton, rightly highlighted the importance of asking questions. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, I say that I have no doubt of the good intention of Ministers, but the lesson I take as a new Minister is the need to ask questions, and the right questions at the right time.
One of the most shocking elements of the whole scandal—one of many—was the destruction of key documents, including ministerial advice and medical records. Records of any sort should not have been destroyed. Today, the Department of Health and Social Care employs robust document management procedures, with all its registered files under the direct control of its departmental records office.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, focused on process and what needs to change as a result of the findings. He noted the honesty and transparency already required. We rightly say that nothing like this should ever happen again, but these words are meaningless without a clear way forward. The Prime Minister’s announcement that legislation on a duty of candour will be introduced by the Government is one step towards ensuring that change will happen. The duty will apply to public authorities and public servants and will include criminal sanctions. Culture and behaviours also need to change, alongside thought being given to the way in which inquiries function and how the findings of inquiries are addressed.
I note the reservations of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, on the duty of candour, and look forward to future discussion on how we can make sure that this might be effective, not just for the current period but in future as well.
The noble Lord, Lord Bichard, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield asked what will be the scope of the Bill on the duty of candour—as noted, it is otherwise known as the Hillsborough Bill—and what the Government consider a wide application for how it would be introduced. It will be introduced to Parliament before the next anniversary of the Hillsborough disaster. Following the Prime Minister’s announcement, its scope and policy detail continue to be worked through, and the Government will provide more detail at the end of the year. The Bill will set out the duties on public authorities and public servants, including any consequences for breaches, and that will include criminal offences.
The noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, asked how many civil servants had been disciplined and whether charges had been brought. That is for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, who will look at these matters very carefully. However, should they take any such matters further, the Government will co-operate fully. I will ask a question on discipline issues, which is a separate matter, and will write to the noble Lord.
I found the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, very interesting. I welcomed her focus on the important role of public inquiries as a measure that is required and used when things go wrong; as a sign that the system is working when things fail, rather than a sign of failure itself. I do not have answers to all the noble Baroness’s questions, but I will endeavour to write on those I cannot answer today. Noble Lords will have already noted the report that the noble Baroness mentioned, published by the Statutory Inquiries Committee on 16 September, which made recommendations on the efficacy and practice of public inquiries. The Government are carefully considering these recommendations, as well as those of other public inquiries, and will respond in detail as soon as possible.
On the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, and a number of other noble Lords—I apologise for not mentioning them by name—concerning the role of Parliament in monitoring what happens after a public inquiry, the Government are looking closely at the recommendations made by the House of Lords inquiry and will respond by 16 November. As someone who has paid close attention to a number of public inquiries relating to some of my previous roles, for me, if we do not find a way of monitoring things carefully, we cannot give an assurance that we will prevent future harm or some of the issues we have seen in the past.
The noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, asked about the autonomy and social impact awards we have made available for the affected. A social impact award for past and future consequences of the infection, including stigma and social isolation, will be awarded to people who were infected or their estate, and to affected persons. An autonomy award addressing the distress and suffering caused by the impact of the disease, including interference with family and private lives, will be awarded to people who were infected or their estate, and to affected partners, parents and children.
On which affected persons will be eligible for compensation, affected persons will be eligible where their case is linked to that of a person with an eligible infection under the compensation scheme, and is not dependent on whether the affected person had a financial dependency on the person with an infection. This includes affected partners, children, parents, siblings and other friends and family who cared for loved ones with an infection without reward or remuneration. So far, over £1 billion has been paid out in interim compensation payments to victims of the infected blood scandal. This month, applications will open for interim payments of £100,000 to the estates of deceased people who were registered with an infected blood support scheme or predecessor Alliance House organisation, and who were infected with contaminated blood or blood products and whose deaths have not yet been recognised.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield and a number of other noble Lords, including my noble friend Lady Keeley, raised concerns about the timescale for compensation. I am conscious that the community wants further assurance on this. The Government expect the Infected Blood Compensation Authority to begin making payments under the infected blood compensation scheme to people who were infected by the end of this year. Payments to the affected are expected to begin in 2025 following a second set of regulations.
I understand the disappointment about the regulations being split out. There are important details—especially in consideration of Sir Robert Francis’s recommendations, the majority of which the Government have accepted—that must be worked through ahead of the second set of regulations. This includes details such as eligibility criteria for people who were affected, and an additional autonomy award for those who were the subjects of unethical testing.
In answer to the noble Baronesses, Lady Berridge and Lady Featherstone, and my noble friend Lady Keeley, who asked about the timing of payments to those affected, subject to parliamentary approval the Government are aiming for the second set of regulations to be in place by 31 March next year. This will support our intention that payments to affected people begin in 2025.
My noble friend Lady Keeley asked about interim payments to estates and whether there will be funding for legal help in obtaining probate. The Government will provide more information on the process of applying for interim payments to estates by the end of this month. We recognise the importance of legal support for applicants who need to obtain probate and will ensure that information is provided when applications open.
I hope that what I have said in summing up the debate has offered some reassurances to noble Lords, even if I have not managed to answer all the questions. As I said, a further update will be provided at the end of the year, but I am very happy to meet noble Lords to discuss details in the meantime. If I have not addressed certain specific points, I will ensure that I go back over them when I read through Hansard. As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said, in some sense this is the start of a process, not the end. It is an incredibly important topic and I thank noble Lords for the time and scrutiny they have given it today. All noble Lords must be acutely aware of the responsibility we all have to ensure that we learn from the truly shocking events described in Sir Brian’s report. I assure your Lordships that the Government take the report extremely seriously and will continue to respond to these vital recommendations.
Rural Communities
(1 day, 13 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
To ask His Majesty’s Government what are their priorities for rural communities over the next two years.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to have this opportunity to debate such an important subject and am deeply grateful to have secured this Question for Short Debate. I declare my interests as honorary president of National Energy Action, honorary associate of the British Veterinary Association, and honorary vice-president of the Association of Drainage Authorities; I also work with the Dispensing Doctors’ Association. I look forward to all contributions this evening, but especially the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Elliott.
Rural communities face many challenges and are of a different nature from urban communities, yet in policy terms they are frequently overlooked. While the 2024 Labour manifesto did not specifically mention rural communities, many of the commitments it did include may damage them. There is a desperate need to support farming and other businesses in rural areas with better broadband and mobile connectivity. A lack of public transport in rural areas means that young people are unable to access jobs, while older people find access to hospitals and healthcare challenging for the same reason. The £2 bus fare has helped, but will the Government keep this? There is inadequate public transport in rural areas, but I see no point in devolving more powers to local communities and leadership for bus and other local transport provision if there are no additional resources to meet the new responsibilities.
Planning rules and guidance go some way to protecting rural communities—for example, the ban on building on flood plains and areas prone to flooding. However, rural communities are often used for the convenience of urban communities, with energy being a good example. Too often, energy is generated at sea or on land far away from where it is to be consumed. That energy then traverses rural communities, which are blighted by pylons, without gaining any of the benefits such far-flung, sparsely populated communities long for in often cooler climes with poorly insulated houses and residents on low incomes. It transpires from a Government-sponsored study that it can be cheaper to transfer electricity underground rather than through unsightly, environmentally unfriendly overhead-line transmission. Power lines should be placed underground, or alternatively, electricity generated from renewables should serve those closest to the source of the power generated.
Turning to public services, these are often more costly to deliver in rural than urban areas. Hospitals and GP surgeries can be difficult to access. Every increase in fuel duty affects the ambulance service. There is poor broadband mobile connectivity, meaning that dispensing doctors and rural GPs are unable to issue electronic prescriptions. There are inequalities of healthcare between urban and rural areas which need to be addressed. One hopes that the follow-up to the Darzi review will tackle these.
Rural communities have a desperate need for a smaller, affordable one-bedroom or two-bedroom homes, yet the Government are planning to build 300,000 houses a year, many in areas of water stress and on flood plains and mostly with four or five bedrooms. This will not address the shortage of affordable homes in rural areas but will create problems of increased sewage and houses with five or five times the amount of sewage coming out into inadequate water pipes which, when mixing with floodwater in combined sewers, will enter the sea and rivers.
Farming lies at the heart of the rural economy, yet farmers face great uncertainty. Farmers have a role to play in creating better self-sufficiency, energy and food security, generating power through renewables on their land, and they would like to sell into the national grid. In terms of storing floodwater on farmland, as we heard last week, farmers perform a public good, which should be recognised—along with other public goods that they perform—through the environmental land management schemes. Yet there is an underspend in Defra. I have seen one figure of £138 million and one of £350 million. There is also mounting concern over the forthcoming Budget, not least on the implications of inheritance tax for farms. The Government must give certainty and clarity to farmers by spending the moneys committed to farming in full and setting an increased multiannual agriculture budget for the duration of this Parliament.
To boost food security and self-sufficiency, we must consume more home-produced food and fewer substandard food imports from third countries. It would be very helpful to have an update on the land-use framework, the National Planning Policy Framework and planning policy guidance, to reflect farming being the primary role of the countryside. While environmental benefits sit comfortably with best farm practice, the mass development of solar panels, tree planting, carbon offsetting and housebuilding on Britain’s most productive and fertile land does not make good sense. In the Budget on 30 October, will the Government commit to reviewing the agricultural property relief in a compassionate way, to ensure that it remains available to those landlords prepared to let for the longest terms—10 years or more—to give tenant farmers greater security? When farmers do well, rural communities and market towns flourish.
Racing also plays a major role in rural communities. North Yorkshire plays host to racecourses at Ripon, my former constituency Thirsk, York, Wetherby and Doncaster, jewels in the crown of 54 courses dotted around the UK. Overall, racing is the second-largest spectator sport in Britain, yet it has experienced significant economic challenges recently, from the pandemic to inflationary pressures of the cost of living crisis. I urge the Government to consider ways to encourage racing, which supports 85,000 jobs across mostly small and medium-sized businesses and is a major employer in many areas, including my own former constituencies, the Vale of York, then Thirsk and Malton, providing career opportunities for young people as well as an outlet for leisure, hospitality and tourism.
The role of vets in rural communities is crucial. The veterinary profession is an integral part of the agricultural and food sector, working collaboratively with others to protect animals, people and the environment they share. Vets working across the meat sector underpin the economy, providing value to the £9.1 billion domestic meat industry and the £2.1 billion meat export trade. The vet/farmer relationship is an integral part of any farming team at every stage, from farm to fork, and facilitating trade too. Vets have a health and welfare role to play, not least at auction marts such as that at Thirsk, as well as on the farm.
A strong working relationship across the whole farming team is vital, yet an ongoing issue facing the veterinary sector in rural areas is the veterinary workforce shortage, which I hope that the Minister and the Government will address. The number of qualified vets joining the profession decreased when we left the European Union and it is felt that the new salary threshold will exacerbate the UK veterinary workforce shortage.
I welcome the Minister to her place as the rural communities Minister and ask her to value rural communities, to use the forthcoming spending review to restore the balance in spending in rural areas and to ensure a fairer spend on public services such as health, transport, housing and energy. That will give farmers—the largest sector in the rural economy—certainty and clarity of policy going forward, and ensure that all farmers can prosper and survive, whether they are arable farmers, livestock farmers, tenant farmers, owner-occupier farmers, family farms or larger farms.
Will the Government take the opportunity to create an energy policy that works for everyone, whether living north or south, in an urban or a rural community? I know that, in replying, the Minister will say that her hands are tied by both the forthcoming Budget and the spending review. However, the opportunity must not be lost to ensure a vibrant future for farming, for racing, for market towns and for auction marts, where everybody in rural as well as urban communities can prosper throughout the length and breadth of the land.
Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is an honour and privilege to speak in your Lordships’ House for the first time. Before making this contribution, I spent some time listening to and reflecting on the debates and the work of this House. Like all debating and law-making Chambers, it has its own unique style, which is very different from those which I have been used to in the past. Some of those differences I would recognise as positive. Some others will take slightly longer to get used to. I was speaking to a Peer just yesterday who said that, after 25 years in the place, he still cannot get used to some of the practices and processes.
I offer my sincere thanks to Black Rod, her staff, the clerks, the doorkeepers, the security services, the police, the many members of staff, the Peers who have assisted me and all those who have provided a warm welcome to me since I came to this place last month. I also thank my two supporters, my noble friends Lord Rogan of Lower Iveagh and Lord Empey of Shandon, both of whom I have known for over 25 years. I also thank my wife and family for their continued support and help in this role.
As a humble rural farmer from the most westerly county of the United Kingdom, being a Member of this House is not something that I ever contemplated. Even during my political career, as a Fermanagh district councillor and a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly, and in my short time in the other place down the Corridor, being a Peer was not on my radar. Although I have had a long political career, I think of myself not as a professional politician but as someone who came into politics by accident, and I continue to see myself as a community activist rather than a professional politician.
That community activity includes my chairmanship of Ballinamallard United Football Club, a small village club that has played in the top level of the Irish Premiership and punches well above its weight. I was a member of the Northern Ireland security services, of the Ulster Defence Regiment and of Royal Irish Regiment, through some of the darkest days of the Northern Ireland Troubles—it was a difficult time for everyone. I trust that my title of “Ballinamallard”, if noble Lords can pronounce it, will be a recognition of the small rural village and its hinterland where I, my siblings and my parents grew up and are very much part of that community.
I do hope that noble Lords understand my accent. My local rector was concerned at the weekend concerned that they would not. This reminds me of a story of a preacher who was new to the area. He heard a man at the back of the church regularly shouting out “Hallelujah”, so he went on for much longer than expected—only to be informed after church that the man was indeed shouting, “That’ll do ya”.
Moving swiftly to the Question, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for asking it. I declare an interest as I own an operational farm. I want to highlight some issues that are similar throughout rural areas in the UK, using my experience of my immediate past chairmanship of the Northern Ireland Assembly Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs.
We all suffer from poor transport services, poor broadband and connectivity, rural isolation, poor health and well-being and the lack of youth services, but there are other aspects to rural communities that are deficient. For example, the widespread withdrawal of banking services has resulted in many rural dwellers and businesses not having a regular opportunity of face-to-face banking and financial advice. Development planning in many areas is not conducive to the indigenous rural population. It restricts opportunities for young rural dwellers and businesses to remain in that area and instead pushes them into urban areas, removing them from their natural area. In England approximately 19% of the population live in rural areas. However, in Northern Ireland that figure is approximately 37%, so there is a significantly larger proportion of rural residents in Northern Ireland who, obviously, have significantly more rural-based issues.
Then we have the largest rural economy: the farming and agricultural sector, which is finding it more and more difficult to operate and positively contribute to its community. It is a world leader in quality food production but continues to be pressurised. Pressurised is a modest term for me, as I was told not to be controversial in my maiden speech; I hope to be more forthright in future contributions. The farming sector continues to be held to ransom by many rules and regulations that are not adopted by other countries from which we import food. Thank you for now.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I first thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for securing this important debate on rural priorities. I also acknowledge and congratulate my colleague from Northern Ireland, the noble Lord, Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard. He has served as a district councillor in Fermanagh District Council and as a Member in the Northern Ireland Assembly, to which we were elected at the same time in November 2003 and then re-elected on several occasions. We were leaders of our political parties at the same time, and we met regularly on a range of issues. We also served in the other place and now we serve in your Lordships’ House. The noble Lord, Lord Elliott, and I are also similar in age, although I edge upwards by being a few years older than he is. On a very personal level, I give him my best wishes and my congratulations on making his maiden speech.
The noble Lord, Lord Elliott, and I served and represented rural communities in fairly different parts of Northern Ireland, and we also have different perspectives on the constitutional position of Northern Ireland; he is an Ulster Unionist and I am a democratic Irish nationalist. But that does not prevent us working together on the issues that matter to the people; that has always been the case and will continue to be the case, and I am in no doubt about that.
Moving swiftly on to the Motion, I, like the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, want to give a perspective from Northern Ireland, where the local department is implementing the rural policy framework, the objective of which is to ensure that rural dwellers enjoy the same quality of life and opportunities as those in urban areas. Various rural priorities need to be addressed, undoubtedly. I am very pleased that my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock is on the Front Bench and has already met the Northern Ireland Minister for Agriculture, Rural Development and Environment on numerous occasions. She can report that in her response. No doubt she will have heard the various issues that confront rural communities, thereby necessitating a higher level of budget for farming and rural communities throughout the UK, but I would also say particularly in Northern Ireland.
The priorities for rural communities that need to be addressed, along with farming, are food production and food security, as well as better access and provision of sustainable services such as schools, broadband internet, mobile phone accessibility, the provision of banking hubs—we are all challenged in rural communities by the decrease and reduction in the number of bank branches—the provision and sustainability of shops and business development enterprises allied to the needs of those farming families, the restrictions on rural planning policy, and the provision of new housebuilding. None of us can gainsay that the issues in rural communities are different. There are many similarities and those need to be addressed.
Another factor is the potential for youth migration to urban areas. An important factor in knitting together rural communities is the continuing need for accessibility to good quality healthcare and allied services of acute hospitals. This also involves looking at the post-Covid-19 future and embracing the opportunities that green growth, climate change impacts, globalisation and technological innovation present. Therefore, a holistic approach to rural development is required to secure and underpin such communities and encompass many of the priorities that have already been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, in her introduction.
In Northern Ireland, our agriculture sector faces immense pressures due to rising production costs, the uncertainties of post-Brexit trade and the increasing impact of climate change. The 670,000 people living in rural communities in Northern Ireland and the 113,000 jobs in the food supply chain rely heavily on farming. There are also jobs linked indirectly to farms that rely on them for business. Northern Ireland’s farmers need increased financial support from the Treasury; and I know that, quite recently, the Ulster Farmers Union has written to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves, regarding these matters, because its members wish to remain competitive, sustainable and resilient, as they have lost the EU Pillar 2 funding. I wonder if my noble friend could say something about the replacement for Pillar 2 funding and how the funding that could be provided could underpin and sustain rural communities.
In the post-Brexit world, it is important that, as part of the reset with the EU, the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Defra Secretary of State develop clear policies to facilitate smooth trade between Northern Ireland and the EU, and between GB and Northern Ireland, through the provision of funding for mitigating market disruptions caused by Brexit. It is important to increase investment in local food production and sustainable farming, and to promote renewable energy sources and energy efficiency within the agriculture sector. Undoubtedly agriculture is a holistic industry, along with rural development and rural services.
Therefore, in advance of the forthcoming Budget, it is important to recognise the economic pressures which the Government have told us about, but modest increases in agricultural funding will deliver substantial returns in food security and for the development of rural communities. I hope that my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock could detail some of those in turn, notwithstanding the budget pressures and the comprehensive spending review, because, at the end of the day, I want to see what joint working there is with the community, the voluntary sector and other government departments in the UK and the devolved nations and regions.
Baroness Humphreys (LD)
My Lords, I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for securing this debate. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard, on an excellent maiden speech and welcome him to his place in this House.
I will deal with two issues—rural transport and farming—in brief. Like many who will speak in this debate, I live in a rural area. My hometown is a small market town in the Conwy Valley in north Wales. It is four miles north of the tourist honeypot village of Betws-y-Coed. Llanrwst is sometimes referred to as the capital of the valley and is an ancient market town that grew up alongside the wool trade. It has a proud history of independence, clockmakers, harp makers and Welsh poets. Today it is still the focal point for residents of villages and farms for a wide area, with people travelling in for work and shopping needs and the farmers’ livestock market but, as with many rural areas, the Conwy Valley has experienced a decline in bus services in our remote area. This has led to those without their own transport having difficulty accessing the services they need, and to feelings of isolation, especially among the elderly.
Transport for Wales, working in conjunction with Conwy County Borough Council, ensured that elderly residents of Conwy County were able to use their concessionary bus pass for journeys on the Conwy Valley rail line, which was really welcomed. In addition, in 2020, Transport for Wales and Conwy County Borough Council launched a fflecsi service: a demand-responsive service connecting Llanrwst and Betws-y-Coed with surrounding villages. Instead of picking up and dropping off passengers at a bus stop, fflecsi buses pick up and drop off within a service area. There is often no fixed timetable, pick-ups are at passenger request, and routes can be changed so that everyone can get where they want to go. Bookings can be made by phone or on a smartphone app. Over a 12-month period, 15,000 passengers used the service, with 95% giving it a five-star rating. The demand-responsive service was also extended to 11 different areas across Wales and has proved an excellent solution for those who live in remote and even isolated areas.
I am sure that similar systems exist in other parts of the UK, but what plans do the Government have to ensure that all areas of the UK are able to benefit from such schemes, to make sure that the elderly are not isolated in their homes?
Central to rural life are, of course, our farmers and our farming communities. For the Liberal Democrats, there are three main priorities which we want tackled in the next two years, in the form of a rescue plan for farmers—extra funding for the agricultural budget, the renegotiation of botched overseas trade deals, and addressing the worker shortages blighting the sector.
There should be an immediate injection of £l billion into agricultural and horticultural budgets to further support sustainable domestic food production. Our farmers already produce exceptional food, but funds are needed towards productivity improvements, training and technology to bring down prices for the long-term.
A priority should be the renegotiation of the Australian trade deal to ensure that British standards are not undercut. In just the first year of the implementation of this deal, Australian sheepmeat exports to the UK surged by 85%, reaching over 16,000 tonnes, with the potential, after 10 years, that the tariff-free quota will be eliminated completely. This could lead to our market being flooded with unrestricted Australian imports.
The Government should also introduce legislation to guarantee British standards on animal welfare. The current trade deal allows for imports from systems using practices banned in the UK. The practice, for example, of live lamb cutting remains widespread in Australia but was banned here in 2010. Those British standards should include environmental protection and the requirement to meet climate change conditions.
The new Government, if they want to make Brexit work, should consider letting farmers, fishers and the food-processing sector recruit the workers they need to boost our food supply by scrapping arbitrary visa salary thresholds. According to the NFU, a shortage of workers caused £60 million-worth of fruit and vegetables to go to waste in the first half of 2022. Farmers are the mainstay of our rural communities and particularly so in Wales. They are the guardians of our language and culture, but some are struggling and wondering how long their farms will survive. How does the Minister see the future of farming in the UK?
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, on introducing this debate, and the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, on his maiden speech.
There is a perception, in our towns and cities at any rate, that people in rural England lead a picture-postcard existence, but for the majority this is certainly not the case, and many struggle to live decent lives. In 2017, the Social Mobility Commission reported that social mobility and inter-generational poverty was as bad, if not worse, in rural England than in some of our most deprived urban slums. One of the reasons for this sad reality is the gross imbalance in the funding provided by government for nearly all our rural services. For example, in central government support for local government, urban areas get some 45% more per head than rural. This means that rural council tax payers pay an average of 17% more than their urban cousins —nearly £100 per head more. It also means that the services now provided in our rural shires are the bare minimum.
In education, our average rural LEAs get fewer grants per pupil than the urban LEAs. This is not fair on our rural young. Turning to health, I say that the most expensive time for anyone medically is from 65 to death. While the over-65s represent 16% of our urban population, in the countryside that figure is 24%—a big difference. In Devon, an attractive county to retire to, some 26% of the population are over 65. Why is funding for public health services in Devon some 40% lower per head than the national average? A similar nationwide discrepancy means that there are fewer than half the medical professionals per 1,000 people in rural England than urban England: 50 versus 109. That is quite a difference.
There are almost no magistrates’ courts left in rural England. To get justice in our countryside costs the individual a lot of time and money. Also, as has already been mentioned, reliable buses are pretty hard to find. Thus ordinary life in rural England— shopping, doctor’s visits or even sports for the kids—is immensely hard when your only, but vital, family car has to go to work with the breadwinner.
For me, the worst aspect of rural deprivation is that there are almost no affordable homes to be found in rural communities, either to let or certainly to buy. Rural houses sell at a huge premium. In rural Cornwall, where I live, the average house price is some 12 times the average wage. The young just have to leave. This Labour Government were right, in their election campaign, to major on this shortage of housing. I was as pleased as punch, but I hope that they actually deliver—not only in towns but, vitally, in rural communities—and maybe even create completely new rural communities.
I realise that Defra will not be able to solve any of the problems I have mentioned so far, but I sincerely hope that it is seriously engaged in rural-proofing and in driving an understanding of the difficulties of rural living in all other departments. That is the key to the future of our rural communities.
I move from the problems to my dreams. In the words of the old Mars advert, I believe that all rural communities should be places where you can work, rest and play, so we need workspace, first, to create local jobs within the community. It used to be the butcher, the baker and the candlestick-maker—and still could be—but now you can add to that the possibility of online services in almost every field known to man, including to man on the other side of the world. For that, we need fast broadband in every community and possibly a change of planning rules.
Above all, for our work, rest and play we need housing, especially affordable housing. As I have said before in this House, we need to restore council houses. After all, local authorities have lots of land available, but we have to abolish or at least amend the right to buy. My favoured amendment would mean that occupants have to live in a council house for at least 10 years, or even 12, before they can exercise their right. Above all, the money then raised has to go back to the local council to build more houses and not to the Treasury.
Given more time, I would have spoken on the huge potential for economic growth in our countryside, which we know is a priority for this Government. I just say this: a recent report said that, if our rural economy could rival the rural economies of Scandinavian countries in GVA per head, the Treasury could expect to see £9 billion to £19 billion extra revenue per annum. That is quite a lot.
If the Government want growth in our countryside, they have to provide workspace for new innovative businesses, good broadband, housing for employees, good roads and infrastructure, as well as a medical service that can cope and local authorities that are not on the point of going bankrupt.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for getting this debate and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, on his excellent speech. I declare my interest as president of the Rural Coalition.
Rural communities make up nearly 20% of the population. That is similar to the number of people living in London, yet our biggest metropolis, among others, often feels far more integral to our policy and governance than our rural communities do. Rural communities are not just the responsibility of Defra; they are a significant proportion of our population, businesses, services and economy, and they cut across every government department. The specific impacts and challenges of policy rollout in rural areas need to be baked into the decision-making process of every single government department—not an afterthought but integral to the development of policy from the very beginning. Rural concerns are so often given to Defra which, while it has the lead on rural affairs, has very few of the levers necessary to bring about change. The sustainability of our rural communities should be of critical concern to us all, regardless of where we live.
The Rural Coalition of which I am president—a coalition of 12 national rural organisations—has commissioned and recently published a report, Reigniting Rural Futures. It highlights the impact that years of underinvestment have had on the rural economy and the massive potential there is if we simply have the will and imagination to grasp it. I am not sure whether the Minister has read this report, but I would be very happy to leave her a copy at the end of this debate. It shows that, in the rural economy, productivity stands at just 82% of its non-rural counterpart and will decrease to 79% by 2040 if this trend continues. Those of us who champion rural communities have long been calling for fairer funding for rural, but I want to make the case as to why this is not just yet one more demand on already-tight government purse strings but an opportunity for growth.
The noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, helpfully referred to research that shows that, with the right policy framework, the rural economy could increase productivity significantly, leading to an additional income of something like £9 billion to £19 billion annually in tax revenues. The Treasury stands to gain from an invigorated rural economy; it is an opportunity that should not be ignored.
Historical underfunding in rural areas has resulted in fewer and poorer services, along with underinvestment in essential infrastructure and connectivity. There is a lack of access to suitable educational and job opportunities, along with a desperate lack of affordable housing, which often drives the part of the population that is economically active out of rural areas, making the problem ever worse.
I will make a few short points about rural affordable housing, as I know that His Majesty’s Government have made affordable housing for all a priority, on which I congratulate them. It is part of the plan to boost economic prosperity, but I hope that this mission will take account of the particular pressures around rural affordable housing. How will the Government ensure that the benefits of these policies reach rural areas?
In 2022 the most affordable homes were 8.8 times more expensive than average lower-quartile earnings in rural areas, compared with 7.7 times more expensive in urban areas excluding London. Housing waiting lists in rural areas grew by 20% between 2020 and 2023, compared with a growth of just 14% in urban areas. Rural homelessness has increased by 25% since 2021-22. It is clear that the lack of affordable housing in rural communities is a significant barrier to rural prosperity.
There is much more we could discuss around the premiums of rural service delivery caused by challenges, including sparsity, facing rural business. Remember that 23% of our businesses in this country are in rural areas. There is the problem of digital connectivity, and there are mental health and well-being challenges, with a higher suicide rate in rural areas. I hope that other noble colleagues will pick up these issues.
Finally, I emphasise once more the desperate need for a cross-governmental strategic approach to rural affairs. The consideration of rural communities must be addressed at the very beginning of the development of policies and right through the delivery process. With the proper investment, our rural communities can not only continue to be a vital economic asset to this nation but contribute significantly to its growth.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering on securing this debate on the important subject of rural communities.
I was privileged to sit on the Rural Economy Committee of this House in 2019. Our report, Time for a Strategy for the Rural Economy, is only five years old and, having reread it, I find it still very relevant today. We identified several problems that rural areas face in comparison with urban areas, many of which have got worse. It is not surprising that the evidence in the Regional Moorland Groups report, published a month ago and entitled The People’s Plan for the Uplands, shows that 97% of the people who live in these areas feel “abandoned by politicians”.
However, we also evidenced the opportunities that these areas could offer. I follow the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, in highlighting the £9 billion to £19 billion in extra revenue that is available. If I were a Treasury Minister again, I would be very keen to exploit that potential.
I will identify some other key facts. In 2021, rural workers’ productivity was 82% of that of non-rural workers, which is a significant productivity gap. If trends continue, rural productivity is expected to decrease to 79% of non-rural by 2040. In 2021, the non-rural economy was six times larger than the rural economy and is projected to grow to 6.5 times larger by 2040. A 2022 report for the Rural Services Network, when reviewing the then levelling-up White Paper, showed that, if rural communities were a distinct region, their need for levelling up would be greater than any other part of the country. The cost of living is higher in rural areas. The rural fuel poverty gap is nearly double the national average.
As other noble Lords have said, there is a shortage of housing of the right type and tenure. The National Planning Policy Framework should include measures suggested by the Rural Services Network in England, which would help increase the delivery of affordable homes that meet local needs in small rural communities. Without an adequate supply of affordable housing and workspaces, it is difficult for rural businesses to flourish.
Since our report in 2019, digital infrastructure has improved, although it is still far from adequate. Can the Minister confirm that the remainder of the Project Gigabit programme will be delivered? Will she place the focus on rural areas, which are still losing out, and redouble efforts to ensure the rollout of networks that will give the full fibre or gigabit capability of broadband connectivity? Without good connectivity, rural communities are being discriminated against and businesses are being made unprofitable.
Many reports have highlighted the unique challenges faced by rural communities and businesses. There is no lack of evidence. What is important for the Government to understand is that businesses, people and communities in rural areas are faced with the aggregate multiple impacts of all these issues. It is this that makes me stress the importance of our report’s first recommendation and title: the need to have a comprehensive rural strategy.
Will the Government commit to developing a specific, tailored rural strand within the Government’s economic growth strategy, with buy-in across Whitehall departments, including the Treasury? Such a strategy should include measures that will help diversify rural economies, raise productivity and attract quality job opportunities. Such a strategy will be more effective if all government legislation is thoroughly rural-proofed and has a place-based approach to reflect the diversity of the countryside and the capabilities and knowledge of those who live and work there.
I end with three further questions for the Minister. Given that farming is still an important component of our diversified rural areas, when do the Government intend to publish their land use strategy? In 2019, Defra’s in-house rural policy team comprised about 60 staff. What is the number today? Finally, can the Minister tell us what rural areas, if any, will benefit from yesterday’s inward investment summit?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I declare my position as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for securing this important debate and for highlighting in her introduction the environmental, social and community destruction threatened by electricity pylon transmission ploughing through the countryside—something my honourable friend Adrian Ramsay, the MP for Waveney Valley, has very much focused on.
That is an illustration of a much broader issue: that the relationship between the countryside and urban areas is very often an extractive one. Public goods, whether electricity or food, are produced in rural areas, and then the benefits are carried by urban areas and the costs continue to be borne by the rural areas.
We have this idea of rural areas as a green paradise: idyllic ancient oaks, babbling brooks, green meadows, chocolate-box villages—the picture-postcard countryside described by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. I will focus on the ways in which it can continue to look like that, yet sometimes the reality is deeply unhealthy in terms of public health and environmental damage. I will focus on three issues: ammonia and phosphate pollution, pesticide use, and manufacturing and chemical contamination. These tend to be thought of as urban issues, but they are increasingly affecting rural areas.
I start with nitrogen and phosphate pollution. The number of intensive poultry units in England and Wales needs to halve in the next 25 years to save our rivers, says the Soil Association. Here are some figures that might shock your Lordships’ House: 1 billion chickens pass through intensive poultry units each year in England and Wales. You might say that this is traditional industry but, year on year for the past decade, the number of chickens has increased by 1 million birds every month. Associated with that is real environmental damage in rural areas, particularly in Lincolnshire, Norfolk and the counties around the River Wye. Norfolk has some of the most polluting poultry facilities in the country. The River Wye region is now a huge matter of public concern due to the amount of pollution caused by that.
Turning to pesticides, again, we do not really think very much about the public health aspects of these for rural areas. However, Defra figures from 2022 show that pesticide usage was similar to 2010 levels by volume or by weight, but that the pesticides we are using are becoming more toxic all the time. I credit a campaigner, Georgina Downs, who has been working on this issue for many years, with showing me videos of pesticide use in rural areas. We think of this as being out in the fields, but we see sprayers within literally a couple of feet of people’s front or bedroom windows. Pesticides are being sprayed up and down fields every few days, and rural dwellers face seeing that all the time.
Turning to manufacturing, just today, the Environment Agency said that it lacks the budget to address growing understanding of so-called “forever” chemicals—per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, known as PFAS. Areas where the problems are concentrated include the former RAF base at Moreton-in-Marsh in Gloucestershire, Bentham in North Yorkshire, and Duxford in South Cambridgeshire. These issues are not confined to urban areas.
So, there are many public health issues, and then there is the issue of health services. Far too often, the health services that people in rural areas so urgently need are simply not available to them; and of course, there is often no public transport to get to health services in more urban areas. These are issues that other noble Lords have raised, and that the Government need to address.
Lord de Clifford (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, on securing a debate in the Chamber on this important subject. I remind your Lordships of my interests as listed in the register: I live in a rural area and run an SME, a veterinary practice, in a rural town in Wiltshire. I express my belated congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, on her ministerial appointment and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, on his maiden speech—I will not attempt to pronounce the name of his home village.
In the veterinary business I run, a challenge has arisen in the past six months. For our ambulatory vets, there has been a deterioration in mobile coverage for voice calls, text messages and data services. This is hampering the ability to communicate, to increase business efficiency and to receive emergency messages. It also raises safety issues, as many of my vets are lone workers who work throughout the day and night.
The probable cause of this decline has been the switch-off by the mobile network providers of the 3G network. The 3G network had significantly more range from telecom masts of up to six miles, whereas the higher-speed 4G and 5G spectrums have ranges of three to four miles, and as little as two miles for 5G. Can the Minister say whether Ofcom could review mobile phone coverage, especially in rural areas, and what impact this is having on rural communities?
Internet connection is, as mentioned by many of your Lordships, a vital part for businesses and homes, especially with the recent trend in encouraging us all to use more data services. This is reflected today in the closure of bank services and all of us being forced to use online services for our daily banking. The continued need for good broadband connectivity is essential for rural communities to continue to prosper, as with similar services in urban areas. We welcome the Government’s manifesto promise to
“make a renewed push to fulfil the ambition of full gigabit and national 5G coverage”.
Rural areas need more government support to ensure that most rural towns and villages get gigabit services at an affordable cost as the number of providers is limited due to high installation costs, thereby reducing competition and opportunity for price competition.
Farming businesses are at the heart of the rural business community and support many secondary businesses such as the veterinary business I work in. Over the past year, dairy farmers in particular have found it hard to invest and make profits due to the low milk price. This has been reflected in our business in that some farmers are using only veterinary services that maintain herd health and other essential veterinary services.
The full range of skills and value that veterinary surgeons can bring to a farming business for the long term cannot be implemented as margins are so tight for farmers. They do not have the confidence to invest in such things as herd health planning for long-term productivity gains, and in the time and infrastructure projects needed to make farms more profitable and to adapt to the current and new challenges from the environment and changing weather patterns.
I am sure that the Minister is well informed on the NFU’s manifesto for certainty regarding agriculture support. It is not just about financial support but about safeguarding our food security and our farming environment. The protection of biosecurity of our national plants, herds and flocks is also particularly important, as we debated earlier this year. To continue to improve biosecurity in the UK, I ask the Minister what additional plans there are to further improve border surveillance and checks to protect the country from illegal imports of disease-infected meat products and plants.
I am sure this Government will support ensuring we have a level playing field with regard to animal health standards and will look to take on the challenge to ensure that all imported animals related to food are reared to the same animal health standards as farmers in the UK must adhere to. This is not only to create a level playing field for our farmers to trade in but, more importantly, to protect animals throughout the world so that they can have the same living conditions as those farmed in the UK.
Affordable housing is essential in rural villages. This is reflected across the employees that I work with in our business. Very few of our low-paid employees live in the market town of Malmesbury in Wiltshire. The majority commute using their cars, as public transport does not fit their working patterns, or is extremely slow. Can the Minister say what the Government have planned with regard to trying to address, again, the challenging issue of affordable housing in rural areas? Could the Minister also pass a message to the Treasury that increasing fuel duty has a disproportionate effect on rural communities and the low paid, as they need their cars to commute to work.
As a result of the high cost of living, there is a lack of childcare places for young parents to enable them to return to work to further their own prospects, and to further enhance rural communities. I have recently heard of a new parent having to put their child’s name down for a place at a nursery before their child is even born to ensure that they have a place when they return to work at the end of maternity leave. So any additional support from the Government for the childcare sector in the rural community across the nation would be welcome.
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, I declare my farming and land management interests in Wales and congratulate my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering on securing this important and timely debate. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard, on an outstanding maiden speech.
The primary barrier to rural economic development is the planning system. Currently, it does not appreciate the improvements that small-scale development can make to rural villages’ viability. In the planning and decision-making process, weight must be given to development that will improve a settlement’s sustainability, whether through the provision of new homes, services or facilities.
Our best and most fertile agricultural land must be saved for food production, and lower-quality agricultural land or brownfield sites must be prioritised for new housing and infrastructure projects. This would allow us to safeguard food security while investing in communities and infrastructure.
To reform rural planning and develop the rural economy, the Government should introduce permission in principle for rural economic development. This would encourage planning applications by reducing the risk of high financial input without guaranteeing consent. It should enable the repurposing of redundant agricultural buildings and sites. Planning applications to repurpose these sites are often rejected as they are not deemed sustainable development, whereas, in many cases, developing these sites would lead to economic growth.
As my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering said, the agricultural budget has remained static since 2014, despite significant shifts in the importance of domestic food security and recognition of the scale of environmental challenges. Modelling by the independent Andersons Centre showed that an annual agricultural budget of around £4 billion will be required to meet these aims and challenges. Respecting the nature of devolved governance, this would translate to a UK-wide budget of around £5.6 billion. In opposition, the Secretary of State for Defra and the Minister of State for Food Security and Rural Affairs understood this and consistently argued that any underspend in the agriculture budget should be rolled forward to future years.
Farmers also face increasing financial damage from flooding. According to the Environment Agency, approximately 12% of agricultural land in England is at flood risk from rivers, the sea or both. Defra-commissioned research finds that winter floods cost farmers an average of £480 per hectare. Following recent reports that the Government are reviewing the farming recovery fund, it is worrying that many of those announced as eligible for the fund on 24 May 2024 have not yet received payment. Could the Minister clarify the position for land users entitled to compensation but who have not yet received it?
Crime is another issue for rural communities and the Government must recognise that tackling crime and increasing police visibility are priorities. While there is increasing awareness of the growing problem, this is not felt by the communities that live and work in the countryside, nor is it reflected in current government policy.
Research from the House of Commons Library shows that rural crime has increased by 32% since 2011, compared with 24% in urban areas. This includes nearly 130,000 more reported offences and an additional 30,000 cases of criminal damage and arson. These figures highlight a significant disconnect between rural issues and government policing policies.
We have a rural population simply putting up with the crime they experience and making do as best they can. There is often no escape from the effects of rural crime, with the fear of crime doing just as much damage as the crimes that are committed.
Good rural policing concerns more than the number of police officers on the ground. If we genuinely want to tackle rural crime, we must form effective partnerships between the police, communities and other authorities to ensure that the needs of our communities are genuinely understood and that the availability of services matches those needs.
British farmers face an array of challenges, from uncertain economic conditions to misinformation spread by activists about meat and dairy. Meat production faces criticism, leading to mandates for plant-based catering at councils and universities and proposals for a meat tax, yet studies confirm that UK livestock farming operates among the world’s highest sustainability and animal welfare standards. Research from the Committee on Climate Change found that British beef production is about half as carbon intensive as the global average. Additionally, game meat, such as venison, is a non-farmed alternative that is nutrient-dense and sustainably harvested, and its consumption supports conservation efforts.
Ultimately, the simplest way to shop sustainably is to purchase food locally, reducing food miles between farm and fork. This, in turn, helps the British farming sector thrive and prevents reliance on lower quality imports produced to lower welfare and sustainability standards. The Government must do everything they can to protect and champion British farmers and must listen to, understand and respond to rural communities’ needs and challenges. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to be permitted one minute in reply. I note my interests in rural Devon. I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard, another west county farmer, to our Benches.
The reason I did not put my name down to speak today is that I was at Ditchley Park, in Oxfordshire, taking part in a task force on rural retail. I will use the minute I have to emphasise the importance of community shops in rural areas and the huge stress that they are currently under. The supply of food and basic services into rural communities is really stressed. A number of the big wholesalers are no longer supplying these communities, so people who are unable to get outside the community—they may be challenged by mobility or by the cost of transport to bigger areas—are simply unable to get the basic provisions they need, and the larger supermarkets will not deliver into these rural communities. That is all I want to emphasise in my minute, and I hope the Minister can comment on it.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, this has been a wide-ranging debate as a consequence of the initiative taken by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. When we think about rural communities, those of us in England usually have in mind the Yorkshire Dales, the Cotswolds or the West Country. In our minds, settlements in these areas comprise small towns and villages, and small, often isolated, hamlets and farmhouses. However, rural communities also exist on the fringes of large urban areas. For example, in West Yorkshire, where I live, the five councils together serve 2.5 million people who predominantly live in cities and towns, but there is a significant rural hinterland. In my council, small villages and isolated farmhouses high up in the Pennines share the challenges of rural communities everywhere. I beg that, when we think about rural communities, we include those rural communities as well—they too need to be in our thinking.
A huge number of issues have been raised in the debate but I want to focus on just two: the first is housing and the second is local government funding for councils that serve rural communities. The lack of appropriate housing exists in all our communities. However, rural communities have, in addition, their own particular challenges. A recent report by the CPRE highlighted a problem that has resulted in a 40% increase in homelessness over a five-year period and literally a lifetime’s wait for a home with a social rent. This report concurs with the policy solutions proposed by my party, the Liberal Democrats, and the urgent need to set an ambitious target for building housing with a social rent within a council’s local plan. To be effective, this will need to be supported as a policy by the Government and the independent Planning Inspectorate. To have a long-term benefit, new social housing has to be removed from right-to-buy legislation, otherwise the financial model is simply not viable. At this point, I shall make my usual comment that, in many cases, affordable housing is simply not affordable and so we need to think about housing for social rent.
As noble Lords have said, house prices in the countryside have increased at almost twice the rate of those in urban areas for the past five years, while rural wages have largely stagnated. The consequence is that young people are being forced to leave rural communities as a result of the housing crisis. This has a knock-on effect through the skills lost, a reduction in economic activity and vital public services being deprived of talent. An additional issue is the increasing number of second homes and short-term lets, which drive up rental prices and restrict supply. Control of the proportion of second homes and short-term lets in an area is essential to enable stable communities to survive.
That leads me neatly to consideration of the funding that the Government supply in support of rural communities. The Rural Services Network has long campaigned for a fairer allocation of funding to rural local authorities. In 2024-25, urban councils received 36% more in government funding spending power per head compared to rural councils. As a result of years of underfunding, rural councils have had to increase council tax, leading to a situation where rural residents pay, on average, 20% more per head than their urban counterparts. Rural residents receive less government funding, pay more in council tax and receive fewer services than those in urban areas. One of the ways that councils are partially bridging the funding gap is by making service provision contracts with parish councils that are able to raise income to fund basic services—for example, parks and play areas.
The question was what priorities we want to see for the next two years. For me, we must use the planning process to allocate more land for social housing, and see improved and fair funding for councils serving rural communities. I make a plea that we do not divide our communities by defining rural and urban as if they are totally separate.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I declare my farming and land interests in Devon and Scotland as set out in the register. I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard, on his maiden contribution, in an area where he clearly has significant expertise. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for securing this debate and to all noble Lords who have made contributions.
It is clear today that those living in rural communities have little idea what His Majesty’s Government regard as priorities for their benefit and desperately need reassurance. As my noble friend Lady McIntosh mentioned, the Government have made several significant commitments to developing renewable energy and energy transmission, as well as new housing. How can this be achieved while ensuring that local voices and rural areas are still heard in those decisions? I add my request to the Minister for an update on the land use framework and the NPPF.
The rural economy needs greater investment by the Government, rather than the rumoured cuts, in the short term to address food security and water quality, adapt to climate change and deliver our nature recovery obligations. I join other noble Lords in asking the Minister to fight to protect and increase the Defra budget and to commit to the continued rollout of ELMS, including the advanced SFI options that appear to be making limited progress. This is a critical segue into introducing private capital into creating these public goods. The Government can act as a catalyst for private sector investment, reducing that call on the Government in the medium to longer term and creating greater rural and societal prosperity providing they invest now as we work through our green finance strategy, ELMS and other measures.
The rural land-based economy has a tremendous opportunity from the introduction of private finance into natural capital. To allow this, Governments have to step in and create these markets to help to turn public goods into something the private sector will pay for. The fundamental requirement to develop these markets is that standards have integrity and can adapt to improving technology that allows better targeting and monitoring over time.
Our Government were working with the British Standards Institution on developing these standards. We had already created the woodland carbon code and peatland carbon code, which stand level with best standards globally. It is critical that the Government commit to similar standards for other aspects of natural capital that underpin market confidence. In a Written Answer, the Minister stated that this is:
“Subject to the outcome of the Spending Review”.
That is somewhat disappointing, and words we may hear repeated later today.
Confidence in payment for developing key aspects of natural capital follows from the integrity of the standards. If the WCC and PCC enter into the UK Emissions Trading Scheme, land managers can have confidence that there will be a liquid market for the carbon management we are undertaking. We were told in a Written Answer from the Minister that we must wait until 2025 before we receive the government response to consultation on this. Please can we move faster?
We need similar financial incentives for other goods such as flood prevention and water quality. Can we provide incentives for the water companies to buy these goods and services from land managers? Can we require corporates, under the recommendations of the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures, to invest in nature recovery?
Land managers are businessmen, and if we enable the right incentives they will act accordingly. In the words of my noble friend Lord Benyon, Defra must
“weaponise farmers and land managers”,
as they are the ones who will deliver sequestered carbon and biodiversity, and aid better water management. The most efficient and effective way of doing that is to enable trustworthy and liquid markets for those goods. A thriving natural capital market will bring a new advisory and financial services industry that we can lead the world in, and export high-value, rural, private sector jobs and tax revenue. I urge the Government to move at pace to continue investing and developing these markets.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, I start by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, on securing this debate. It has been an important discussion and I welcome the opportunity to respond. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, on his maiden speech and give him a warm welcome to this House. I very much look forward to working with him as we go forward on these issues.
I just want to look at the actual Question, which was:
“To ask His Majesty’s Government what are their priorities for rural communities over the next two years”.
I think this debate has gone much more broadly than that. Many of the issues that we have discussed are going to take more than two years to resolve, so I think much of what I am going to be talking about is also going to be long term as well as short term.
The Government are committed to improving the quality of life for people living and working in rural areas, so that the full potential of rural businesses and communities can be realised. To do this, we need to ensure that the needs of people in rural areas are right at the heart of policy-making and I think that has come across very strongly during this debate. I also reiterate that I genuinely value rural communities. They are my communities. I have always lived in a rural community and I will continue to be a strong voice for rural communities in the department.
Farming, forestry and other traditional land sectors are essential for delivering so much of what we value in our countryside. However, businesses found in rural areas are just as diverse as those in urban areas. We know that around 80% operate outside agriculture and related sectors. In addition, more people in rural areas are employed in microbusinesses than in urban areas and yet, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans so clearly explained, there is significant potential for economic growth, with average productivity in rural areas being 86% of the England average. This was mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness.
Our manifesto was clear: sustained economic growth is the only route to improving the prosperity of our country and the living standards of working people. Our approach to delivering this growth right across the country will focus on three pillars: stability, investment and reform. We have already started to deliver on our commitment to restore stability for farmers by continuing the rollout of the sustainable farming incentive. We will go further by optimising our schemes and grants, ensuring that they produce the right outcomes for farmers, and that includes small, grassland, upland and tenanted farms, while delivering food security and nature recovery in a just and equitable way.
We have recognised the specific challenges and opportunities that make rural economies distinctive, acknowledging the importance of funds such as the £110 million rural England prosperity fund, which provides targeted support to rural businesses and communities. We also know that a prosperous rural economy will need to be underpinned by improvements in rural connectivity—both transport and digital—the availability of affordable housing and energy, and access to a diverse range of community services.
The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, was particularly concerned about housing and I thank him for his support of our ambitions in this area. Home ownership is out of reach for too many—too few homes have been built and very few are genuinely affordable, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said. Our housing shortage drives high rents and high prices. We are committed to improving the quality of life for people living and working in rural areas and part of addressing this is going to be through the biggest increase in social and affordable housebuilding in a generation. We want to work with councils and housing associations to build the capacity to ensure we deliver the homes that people need.
We will reform planning laws so we can build the homes our rural communities desperately need, while protecting our green spaces and the natural environment. Noble Lords mentioned the National Planning Policy Framework. We have launched a consultation to reform this and as part of that we will consider how to build more homes in the best way and introduce a wider set of growth-focused interventions that will build them in the places that people want to live in, supported by the correct infrastructure. A number of noble Lords asked about the land use framework. We intend to publish this later this year as a Green Paper.
The Government are also committed to tackling fuel poverty. It is our ambition that the warm homes plan will transform homes across the country by making them cheaper and cleaner to run, including the many households in rural areas that are not connected to the gas grid. That includes me. Decarbonising off-grid properties will reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and build our energy independence. It will protect customers from high and volatile energy prices, keep us on track for net zero and, at the same time, improve air quality.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, talked about the fact that a lot of the energy projects will have little value for local communities. I make the point that nationally significant infrastructure projects, NSIPs— that includes large grid connections—have community benefit programmes as part of the process that they have to go through, and work very closely with local communities. We will also be setting up Great British Energy. It will support local and combined authorities and community energy groups to roll out small and medium-scale renewable energy projects in their areas.
The Government recognise that people living in rural areas often have greater distances to travel to access essential services, such as employment, education and training, and other social and recreational activities. That has come across clearly in this debate. We understand that it is much more costly and time-consuming when you have to travel great distances and the travel connectivity is not good. The noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, talked about some of the transport challenges and gave examples in her area. One thing we are determined to do is to deliver better bus services, and we have set out a plan of how we can achieve this. It is based on giving local leaders the tools they need to ensure that bus services reflect their needs. I am sure we would all agree that one size does not fit all when it comes to transport services.
Digitisation is at the heart of the Government’s agenda. We are committed to ensuring that rural communities, many of which are still reliant, as we have heard, on 3G, are not left behind as part of the switch off. In rural areas, 4G coverage is increasing thanks to the shared rural network, which the Government will continue to invest in to ensure coverage where currently no major mobile network operators provide 4G coverage.
While I am on the topic of digital, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, asked about Project Gigabit. I think it covers 85% of UK premises at present; the idea is to have nation-wide coverage by 2030. I am very sorry, but I cannot confirm—I am going to keep saying this—the continuation of things and funding until we have gone through the spending review; unfortunately, I just cannot do that. It does not mean that it is not happening, but I cannot confirm anything.
The noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, asked about mobile coverage. He will be interested to know that the Minister of State for Data Protection and Telecoms recently wrote to Ofcom, on 28 August, asking it to update him on the steps it will be taking to improve its reporting of mobile coverage, including timescales for this work, by the end of October.
Opportunity can also be a challenge. Too many young people and children are defined by their background. It should not matter who you are or where you come from. The Government are committed to supporting rural schools in order to break the link between young people’s backgrounds and their success. As part of this, we will be recruiting 6,500 new teachers in key subjects.
We intend to boost rural and agricultural skills by reforming the apprenticeships levy into a growth and skills levy, to give businesses the freedom and flexibility to upskill their workforce, and by opening new specialist technical excellence colleges, to give rural communities the chance to fit skills to the needs of their local economies and empower rural business to play a bigger role in the skills revolution.
The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, talked about health, as did others. As we have heard, the delivery of and access to health services such as GPs, dentistry—which we have not heard about today but which is critical—and women’s health services is a particular challenge in rural areas, especially as it takes longer to access services due to longer travel times. At the time people are most likely to need care—namely, when they are getting older—they increasingly live in areas where it is most difficult to provide that care. In England, integrated care systems will have a key role to play in designing services that meet the needs of local people. To do this, they will need to work with clinicians and local communities right down at neighbourhood level.
We are doing more to use the transformative power of technology, such as virtual wards. I have seen virtual meetings with GPs and patients where I am in Cumbria. This allows care to be delivered into people’s own homes and in areas with a shortage of GPs or healthcare staff. Because of that, areas where rurality can be a barrier can benefit disproportionately.
Mental health is also a big issue. We want to make sure that mental health care is delivered in the community, close to people’s homes, through new models of care and support, so that fewer people need to go into hospital. We are setting up a young futures mental health hub for under-25s in every rural community. In addition, we are supporting charities that focus on farmers’ mental health and well-being through grant funding. This is helping them to offer support to farmers and their families, as well as helping to build resilience in farming communities.
The noble Lord, Lord Harlech, asked about crime. We will tackle rural crime through a cross-government approach—for example, by increasing police patrols in rural towns and lanes, and by punishing anti-social behaviour, agricultural crime and county lines, with stronger laws to crack down on farm equipment theft and fly-tipping. We are also actively looking at ways to better tackle livestock worrying.
A couple of noble Lords asked about vets. We are very aware of the challenges around veterinary services but, on a positive note, we have been doing farm visits with vets and have had a really positive response.
My noble friend Lady Ritchie asked about collaborative working—in fact, I met Mr Muir this morning. Collaborative working across the devolved Governments, through cross-departmental work and into communities is critical to the work we are carrying out.
I would be happy to have the right reverend Prelate the Bishops of St Albans’s recently published report, which we will take back to the department. He might be interested to know that on Thursday, Daniel Zeichner, the Rural Minister, will host a rural round table that will include the Rural Coalition.
I have run out of time, so I shall say that we recognise the importance of rural communities and businesses and continue to do everything in our power to ensure a prosperous future.