Access to NHS Dentistry

James Wild Excerpts

Thursday 10th February 2022 Westminster Hall

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) and my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) on securing this important debate. Our constituents in Norfolk and Waveney face similar challenges in getting access to NHS dentists.

This is a long-running problem, which my predecessor also pursued following the closure of a dentist in Snettisham. I raised this issue in my maiden speech and I have focused on it ever since due to the inadequate provision in west Norfolk. Of course, the restrictions put in place during covid have further reduced access, as others have said. The British Dental Association estimates that 40 million appointments were lost overall, but the situation before covid was poor.

The National Audit Office found that my constituency had the lowest number of dentists per head in the country. Moreover, Norfolk had the lowest level of dental activity delivered in the country, with only 65% of contracted NHS activity delivered compared with the national median figure of 96%. My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) also made that point. And, at 17.5%, Norfolk had the highest percentage of people who were unsuccessful in trying to get an NHS dental appointment.

Since being elected I have met the NHS East of England team regularly to press for better access to dentists, particularly following the closure of the mydentist practice in King’s Lynn. I am pleased that those discussions led to a procurement process, which, although delayed by covid, took place from summer last year, and that that procurement has been successful, with the NHS having just announced two new contracts for Smile Care Norfolk to increase access to dentists in King’s Lynn. I want to put on the record my thanks to the NHS East of England team for its efforts in successfully completing the procurement, which will mean that from 1 July my constituents will have better access.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney said, it is disappointing that Fakenham and Thetford have not been successful in the procurement process. If my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) catches your eye, Mr Efford, I am sure that he will speak about that.

Members have also touched on the supply of dentists. Office for Students figures show that there were 895 dental students in 2020, rising to 983 in 2020, compared with 810 in 2019. The 2022 intake, however, is just 809. Given the challenges in dentistry provision, we should be increasing that number, not reducing it. We should consider measures that enable those who are undertaking training to spend time in those areas where coverage is weakest. We should also be more direct and require those who have qualified to spend time in those areas as well.

I note that none of the 11 dental schools in England is in East Anglia. Given the low levels of dental coverage, I join the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) in putting in a bid for one in East Anglia, Norfolk, King’s Lynn, to help address that gap.

Another issue that has been raised is that the contract dates from 2006. My hon Friend the Minister candidly referred to it last month as a “disastrous contract” with perverse incentives—or disincentives—for NHS dentists to take on NHS work. I am sure she will be able to update us on when new measures will be introduced to provide a greater focus on prevention and care for individual patients.

In conclusion, the new services coming to King’s Lynn are warmly welcome and will improve access. However, further reforms are needed, including to training and the contract, to ensure that people have the access to dentistry that they need and deserve.

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

You have all been very disciplined in keeping speeches brief, so I am grateful for that. We are well on time. I call Wera Hobhouse.

Hospital Building Programme

James Wild Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd November 2021 Westminster Hall

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) on securing this important debate on the new hospitals building programme. I warmly welcome the Government’s commitment to 48 new hospitals and the funding that was included in the spending review.

My local hospital, the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in King’s Lynn, serves 300,000 people across Norfolk, Cambridgeshire and Lincolnshire, and is in dire need of modernisation. QEH is one of the best-buy hospitals that have proved to be anything but. It is more than a decade beyond its planned life span and has real issues with planks of reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete—RAAC—that are structurally deficient.

The Standing Committee on Structural Safety issued an alert regarding RAAC planks two years ago, having first warned in 1999 of problems with them. That warning came after the collapse of a school roof. As much as 80% of QEH’s decaying and ageing estate is RAAC-planked; it is the most propped hospital in the country, which is nothing to boast about, with more than 200 props supporting the cracking roof in more than 50 areas across the hospital. The trust’s risk register has a red rating, with a direct risk to life and safety of patients, visitors and staff, due to the potential catastrophic failure of the roof structure. The critical care unit had to close for two weeks earlier this year as a result, while mitigation measures were put in place.

Although the trust is managing that risk, and the £20 million provided by the Department of Health and Social Care and the Minister for some of the most immediate issues is very welcome, the funding is but a sticking-plaster for the problem. The Minister knows he has an invitation to come and look at the modular endoscopy unit that is being constructed to allow the decant and fixing of fail-safes. As well as the very real structural issues, the layout of the hospital does not meet modern care pathways. There are too few consulting rooms, there is poor co-location of services and there are wards less than half the size of national guidance. That impacts on both patient experience and infection control.

In short, the hospital needs to be replaced. There is a once in a generation opportunity to fix this and a compelling case for QEH to be one of the new eight schemes for which the Government are currently holding a competition. The Queen Elizabeth Trust has submitted an expression of interest for a single-phase new build that will meet current and future demand, with many thousands of homes planned in the area. The need is strong; QEH covers areas of deprivation, with poor health outcomes, and is in the Government’s priority areas for levelling up.

The plans put forward by the trust will eliminate RAAC from the hospital, but it is not just about replacing defective buildings. It is also an opportunity to transform and modernise local health care, integrating primary, community, mental health, acute, social care and third sectors in a health and wellbeing village. It will also promote sustainability, using modern methods of construction and net-zero principles, incorporating the digital-first approach.

The project is well advanced and highly deliverable, with a strategic outline case well developed. It is backed by 4,000 staff at the hospital, and more than 15,000 people have signed a petition in support. The borough and county councils are on board, the regional NHS and at least seven right hon. and hon. Members whose constituents are served by the Queen Elizabeth. An acute hospital is essential in the area and the plans would deliver major improvements in care, patient outcomes and staff experience. An alternative multi-phased plan has also been submitted, although that would not deliver the same benefits or value for money.

Now is the opportunity to deliver a new hospital and support the trust’s strategy to be rated “good”, then “outstanding”, and to be the best rural district general hospital in the country. The Department of Health and Social Care has already committed to the removal of RAAC from the estate, and its risk will only continue to worsen. By including QEH in the new hospital programme, the inevitable need for replacement will become a funded programme, rather than an unplanned demand repeatedly requiring emergency capital funding. The people of North West Norfolk and beyond deserve nothing less.

Health Incentives Scheme

James Wild Excerpts

Friday 22nd October 2021 Commons Chamber

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

Three weeks ago, I joined my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) and other hon. Members in running the London marathon. Modesty precludes me from saying which of us finished fastest. Does my hon. Friend agree that running, particularly the daily mile, is great exercise? Will she join me in congratulating everyone involved in King’s Lynn park run, which has just celebrated its 100,000th finisher?

[Maggie Throup]

I am delighted to congratulate King’s Lynn park run on its achievements, as well as park runs across the whole country. I am not a great runner—I am more of a sprinter—so I tend to avoid them, but I know the enjoyment that can be achieved by going along and improving one’s fitness, as well as the sense of community they bring with them.

Cawston Park Hospital: Norfolk Safeguarding Adults Board Review

James Wild Excerpts

Tuesday 21st September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

We are here this evening because of Joanna, Jon and Ben. Joanna had autism and was epileptic, Jon was autistic too, and Ben had Down’s syndrome. Their learning disabilities led to mental health difficulties, and they were consequently sectioned under the Mental Health Act 1983 and sent to the private Jeesal Cawston Park Hospital in my constituency. It is an assessment and treatment unit, and assessment and treatment is exactly what was meant to happen to these people: they were meant to be assessed and then treated, the objective being their discharge back into community care. But that did not happen.

Joanna was kept in the hospital for 11 months before she died in April 2018. Jon was kept in the hospital for 24 months before he died in October 2019. Ben was kept in the hospital for 17 months before he, too, died, in July 2020. All of them were in their early 30s, and all of them suffered from neglect. They were neglected through uncontrolled weight gain, through a lack of meaningful physical or mental activities, and through a lack of effective treatment through continuous positive airway pressure—CPAP—machines, which help people to sleep at night. The staff neglected the raising of concerns by members of their families; and, worst of all, they neglected even to attempt to resuscitate them when resuscitation was desperately needed.

Joanna was found unresponsive in her bed. A nurse and five carers—all of them trained—attended, but not a single one attempted resuscitation. Joanna died. Jon had swallowed a piece of a plastic cup. He told staff:

“I cannot breathe. I am dying.”

The CCTV footage proves that the staff just stood there for several minutes without attempting resuscitation. He died.

The day before Ben died, it was obvious that he was extremely unwell. He had blue lips and blue nails because of a lack of saturated oxygen in his blood. His mother was there on a visit and she raised the alarm. She demanded that an ambulance be called, but the hospital refused. Even later that day when Ben’s oxygen saturation levels were measured and found to be 35%, no ambulance was called. He died. The hospital neglected the families, and neglected to use their expertise and experience.

The families describe indifferent, harmful hospital practices, excessive use of restraint and seclusion by unqualified staff, and overmedication. A mother has contacted me in the past week to describe her child’s matted hair, her uncut fingernails and toenails, and the soiled clothing piled in a corner of the room. By chance, CCTV footage reviewed after Ben’s death uncovered a casual physical assault on him by a carer on the day he died. He was pulled down by his arms and then slapped around the head. What have we not seen?

This was supposed to be a specialist assessment and treatment unit, yet records were not even kept by the hospital for prolonged periods. Joanna was at the hospital for 11 months, but there are no records for 179 days of those 11 months. Ben was there for 17 months, but for an amazing 450 days during that 17-month period, no records were kept. So what assessment was undertaken? What treatment was given? My first request of the Minister is this: we need to acknowledge the scale of this scandal and its impact on real people, the most vulnerable in our society. We also need to acknowledge that we should all be ashamed.

This is not unique. We have heard this before. It sounds familiar, and that is because exactly the same thing happened at Winterbourne View Hospital back in 2012. We have had the report. This was another assessment and treatment unit where people with learning disabilities or autism were abused. The 2012 report criticised the development of assessment and treatment units, saying that they were

“not part of current policy, and certainly not recommended practice…Containment rather than personalised care and support has too easily become the pattern in these institutions.”

Of course lessons were learned. Department of Health reports described the abuse of people at Winterbourne View Hospital as “horrifying”. A Department of Health programme of action was agreed, and I have it with me today. Following the statement:

“We the undersigned commit to a programme for change”,

the very first undertaking is that

“Health and Care Commissioners will review all current hospital placements and support everyone inappropriately placed in hospital to move to community-based support as quickly as possible and no later than 1 June 2014.”

That did not happen. Today, in 2021, more than 2,000 patients are still contained in assessment and treatment units. I use the word advisedly: they are “contained”.

This is my second request to the Minister. Will she, on behalf of the Government, recommit this evening to the needed closure of all assessment and treatment units? That is what the coalition Government committed to doing in 2012, but by 2014 it had still not been done. We need to do it now. Why do we need to do it? There is a monumental conflict of interest for these private hospitals. Beyond being merely inhumane, there is a huge commercial incentive to maintain residency, because each of these patients comes with a fat cheque of £26,000 per month.

We can see where the conflict lies and why one family member, when they went to Cawston Park Hospital, was handed a piece of paper on which was written the address of a firm of solicitors. Her statement said:

“Once people are in Cawston Park Hospital you can’t get them out.”

Patients did not leave Cawston Park Hospital, and the problem is structural. If a hospital is paid £26,000 a month to assess and treat a patient, is it surprising that the hospital does not release them?

We have had another review of this latest scandal, and the Norfolk Safeguarding Adults Board’s review of Cawston Park Hospital is excellent. I have read it. It is 105 pages long and there are 13 recommendations. I recommend it wholeheartedly to the Minister, and the Government should apply all the recommendations.

The report has been followed by the usual handwringing responses from the agencies. Action plans have been created and there have been multidisciplinary stakeholder reviews. Profound apologies have been given, and I believe they are profound apologies. Lessons have been learned, but in my submission they have not really been learned, because without a profound culture change in residential care, we will be back here again. We all know it and the public know it.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this debate on the tragic events in Norfolk and for the powerful case he is making.

One of the most alarming elements of this very shocking report is the final hours of Ben, which my hon. Friend mentioned. Ben’s mum, Gina, said:

“If you ill-treat an animal, you get put in prison. But people ill-treated my son and they’re still free.”

That is completely unacceptable, and the police and the authorities should look again at all the leads and all the evidence to hold those people to account.

[Jerome Mayhew]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that management teams and owners should personally fear prison as a response to a culture failure. If a culture of neglect is tolerated by their acts or, more likely, by their omissions, there needs to be personal liability. People need to fear prison, because there will be no change without individuals being held personally to account for allowing this culture of indifference. I profoundly hope that the most rigorous investigations are undertaken by the police and the Care Quality Commission, with a focus on individual prosecutions if justified by the evidence. There have been no prosecutions to date.

More generally, and widening the conversation away from the individual, directors need to be held to account if we are to restore public trust in the system. The Law Commission is aware of this, and it is undertaking a consultation on the issue of corporate criminal liability. It is consulting on how we can make improvements primarily, in the first instance, in economic crime, but how much more important is it to get equity where the victims are the most vulnerable in society, people in care, people who cannot argue their own case because of their age, because of illness or because of their condition?

The current rules on the definition of a controlling mind are often too narrow for individual prosecutions to succeed. The legislation has been on the statute book since about 2007, and there have been hardly any successful prosecutions because of that narrow definition. This needs to be changed.

I am meeting the Law Commission in October, along with the authors of the Safeguarding Adults Board review, to press the case for a widening of the definition to make the people who run such hospitals fear personal prosecution, because that is how we will change the culture.

That leads me to my third request of the Minister. If she really wants to prevent a repeat, will her Department commit to making a submission to the Law Commission consultation on criminal corporate liability so that we strengthen the personal responsibility for providers of residential care? The Chinese general Sun Tzu, who is very famous now, said “Kill one, terrify 1,000”, and he was right. The problem is that families of patients are concerned; they are the ones who are fearful and have no confidence in the current system. They fear the consequences and we need to change that; it should be the directors of care businesses. If they allow abuse and neglect, they should be fearful—they should pay with the fear of a prison sentence. Only then will we get change.

Covid-19 Update

James Wild Excerpts

Tuesday 14th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

I can tell my hon. Friend that we keep that under review. At the moment, we have found that the quickest way to encourage 16 and 17-year-olds to take up the offer is through the schools and colleges network, and through GPs in particular. We keep that under review, but he might be interested to know the latest numbers are that over 54% of 16 and 17-year-olds are vaccinated. There is progress to be made, but that is good progress so far.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

My local hospital, the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, which as my right hon. Friend knows needs to be rebuilt, currently has 46 covid patients. Is not the best way to ensure that the QEH and the NHS have the capacity to cope with winter pressures to increase the level of vaccine take-up? Will he ensure that evidence of what works in doing that is shared across the country?

[Sajid Javid]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. That is one reason why we are constantly publishing more and more information on the impact and effectiveness of vaccines, including the data from the ONS today, which I referred to earlier.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Wild Excerpts

Tuesday 13th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Nadhim Zahawi]

The European Medicines Agency and our regulator, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, work incredibly closely together, and the EMA has authorised the vaccines that are approved by the MHRA. All vaccines that are authorised and deployed in the UK have been subjected to rigorous checks, including individual batch testing and site inspection. Our two regulators work incredibly closely together and I am confident that we will continue to do so and ensure that any issues are resolved as quickly as possible, working with the manufacturers as well.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

What progress his Department has made on selecting the eight new hospital programme schemes invited to bid for funding announced in the spending review 2020.

[The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)]

On 2 October last year, we announced 40 new hospitals to be built by 2030 and committed to an open process to confirm a further eight new schemes. Taken together, those 48 schemes should represent the biggest hospital building programme in a generation. As my hon. Friend would expect, my right hon. Friend the new Secretary of State is taking a close interest in the detail of this process, and I hope to be able to offer a further update on the selection process for the next eight hospitals very soon.

[James Wild]

Spending hundreds of millions of pounds patching up buildings long past their planned lifespan—such as the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in King’s Lynn, which currently has 200 safety props holding up the concrete roof—does not represent value for money. What reassurance can my hon. Friend give to the thousands of my constituents who in recent days have signed a petition for a new hospital to replace the QEH that the Government are looking seriously at the urgent and compelling case for a new fit-for-purpose hospital for staff, patients and visitors?

[Edward Argar]

My hon. Friend’s constituents will know that, in him, they have a doughty champion of their cause and a strong advocate for his hospital. He and I have spoken on many occasions, and I recognise the challenges facing the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, which he has been very clear about. The spending review 2020 included £4.2 billion this financial year for NHS operational capital investment to allow hospitals to maintain and refurbish their infrastructure, including a ring-fenced £110 million allocation for the most serious and immediate risk posed by reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete. My hon. Friend’s hospital has received just over £20 million of that funding to help to mitigate the most urgent RAAC risk, but he will also have heard me say, without prejudging any announcement my right hon. Friend will make about the criteria for the future eight, that safety will be one of the considerations.

A Plan for the NHS and Social Care

James Wild Excerpts

Wednesday 19th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

Thank you for calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker. I made my maiden speech in the previous Queen’s Speech debate on health, when you were also in the Chair, so it is a pleasure to speak in this one.

I welcome the commitment to bring forward proposals on social care reform. Covid has emphasised the long-standing issues facing the sector, and in our recent report, the Public Accounts Committee highlighted that among the challenges to be addressed are funding, workforce and the future accommodation model. Importantly, the plan needs to focus on younger adults with learning and physical disabilities and mental health issues, as well, of course, as elderly people. It should also support the essential role that unpaid carers, such as those I have met in North West Norfolk, play in looking after their family and friends.

As well as tackling social care, the Queen’s Speech pledges to increase investment in the NHS, and my constituents are particularly focused on the new hospital building programme. As one of the best buy hospitals, Queen Elizabeth Hospital in King’s Lynn was built with a life expectancy of 30 years. Now in its 41st year, QEH is in need of urgent modernisation due to major structural issues with concrete planks in the roof. The Standing Committee on Structural Safety first issued an alert regarding these rack planks two years ago. Currently there are 194 props across 43 areas of the hospital supporting the roof. The trust’s risk register has a red rating for

“a direct risk to life and safety of patients, visitors and staff due to the potential of catastrophic failure of the roof structure due to structural deficiencies.”

Aside from the safety concerns that the trust is managing, the props create a poor experience for the patients and hard-working staff in the hospital.

I welcome the recognition of the seriousness of the situation by the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister, and the £20 million of new funding that QEH has received this year will help to deal with the most immediate issues. However, the need is greater, and this is literally money to prop up the roof. As the Secretary of State said last week,

“you get to a point with a piece of infrastructure where continuing to just keep propping it up gets to the end of its usefulness and you need something completely new.”

I agree, and we have reached that point with QEH. The trust estimates that it will cost £550 million over the next decade just to manage the risks, not to improve the situation. In contrast, it has developed a strong case for investment to transform the hospital to meet modern healthcare requirements, deliver healthier lives, and harness innovation and technology, and all at far better value for money.

Other best buy hospitals are on the list of new hospitals, and QEH has a compelling case to be one of the eight additional schemes that the Prime Minister has committed to. I will be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister can update the House on when the selection criteria for those schemes will be issued. I reiterate the invitation to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to come to QEH to see the situation for himself. The need is obvious. Patients and 4,000 members of staff need a hospital that is fit for purpose. Thousands of people locally have signed a petition in support, local council leaders are supportive, and with significant housing growth planned in the area, demand for healthcare is only going to increase. I therefore urge the Government to back our bid to deliver the hospital that patients and staff deserve.

Covid-19: Dental Services

James Wild Excerpts

Thursday 14th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

Access to dentists in North West Norfolk, particularly for children, was one of the issues that I raised in my maiden speech, when I reported that constituents were being advised to register in Skegness. As I said at the time, that remains good advice for pink-footed geese, but it is not very practical. Prior to covid, my constituency had the highest population per dentist across Norfolk and Waveney. West Norfolk was the second lowest area for dental activity actually delivered in the country, with only 65% of contracted activity carried out, and it had the highest percentage of patients who were unsuccessful when trying to get an NHS dental appointment. That was before covid.

During the pandemic, access to services has become even more severely limited, as the early results of a survey that I am carrying out in my constituency show. Many patients are unable to get treatment. The British Dental Association has said that 20 million appointments have been lost nationally, and access to emergency dental care has also been very challenging. I have helped constituents to access the urgent dental care that was there, but the General Dental Council reported that 50% of people did not know that it existed, which may explain why a fifth of people experienced pain or even took action into their own hands.

It is crystal clear that the level of provision in North West Norfolk is simply not good enough. This is a long-running issue. I have spoken on numerous occasions to the NHS east of England direct commissioning group, whose responsibility it is to commission those services, to underline the need for improved local access. I certainly acknowledge that there are challenges in attracting and recruiting dentists in North West Norfolk, and there have been positive developments, such as the opening of the surgery at Marham, which my constituents have been using successfully. I know that the commissioning group is actively exploring the increased use of training places to play a part in the sustainable approach to this issue, but it is of course important that the significant backlog due to covid is addressed and done so safely. Like other hon. Members, I have been contacted by dentists in my constituency, who are concerned about the activity levels that they are being asked to deliver and question whether they will be achievable. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will address those concerns in her remarks.

What my constituents really want is a commitment to short, medium and long-term improvements, so they can actually see a dentist. My dentist in King’s Lynn high street closed in November, and the money for that should be used to recommission services locally. Prior to covid, the NHS planned to open another practice by the summer and to issue a procurement exercise offering in-perpetuity contracts, which should be more attractive to providers in the long term. Understandably, those plans are now on hold, which is disappointing for my constituents. They want a public commitment to address these issues, so that they know improved provision will be coming. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to meet me to discuss these issues so that we can urgently address the provision, which is certainly inadequate for my constituents.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Let us see whether Scott Mann’s audio is less scary.

National Security and Investment Bill (Twelfth sitting)

James Wild Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 10th December 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

I beg to move, that the clause be read a Second time.

It is a pleasure to see you back in the Chair, Sir Graham. I am also pleased that the Committee is now moving to the new expanses of new clauses. I see that Committee members have come fully prepared to deal with the environment in which we find ourselves. I should say, Sir Graham, that the previous Chair said that we should be able to put on as many coats as we liked. I think that that is much to be desired. Unfortunately, I left my office in a rush and forgot to bring my coat, as well as the Houses of Parliament Christmas jumper in which I invested only yesterday, in anticipation that it might be needed today. We shall have to take the temperature as an encouragement to press on.

Had we known that, regardless of the title of the Bill, it was actually the National and Security and Investment, and any improvements to the Enterprise Act 2002 we feel it is necessary to make, Bill, we might have ranged somewhat broader in our new clauses. We chose instead to focus on what we felt was absolutely critical to the good functioning of our national security framework. New clause 1 seeks to set out some of the factors that the Secretary of State may have regard to when making assessments under the provisions of the Bill. We recognise some of the implications of including a definition of national security. The Bill is called the National Security and Investment Bill, even if it does go somewhat beyond that title.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

I note that the hon. Lady uses the word “may” not “shall” in the new clause. Can she explain why she opted for “may” in this instance?

[Chi Onwurah]

I am grateful for that intervention. First, it shows that the hon. Gentleman is paying attention, which in itself is something to be welcomed. If I may say so, it also shows that he is taking lessons from my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test. We have considered the matter and this is the correct use of the term “may”. I shall go into more detail later, but this is not about prescribing what the Secretary of State must look at; it is about giving greater clarity, particularly to those who will come under the Bill’s remit. One of the expert witnesses put it very well. Those who will come under the Bill’s remit need to get a sense of what the Government mean by national security, not in a specific and detailed definition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have been a supporter of small businesses significantly longer than he has perhaps. I did make it clear that this is a way that we can protect small businesses without in any way compromising the integrity of the Bill. There is nothing in the new clause that will in any way weaken the effectiveness of the Bill and protecting our national security. I would be happy at another time to debate the reasons why, for example, employment measures in Scotland should be taken by the Parliament and Government elected by the people of Scotland rather than somewhere down here, but that is not a debate for today. I expect, Sir Graham, that neither you nor anybody else would be too pleased if we started to take up time this afternoon on that subject.

[James Wild]

In clause 32, there is provision to look at whether a reasonable excuse exists in an individual case. The hon. Member’s amendment would give a blanket exemption to any small business by dint of being a small business. Is the case-by-case basis not a better way to approach the issue?

[Peter Grant]

That is a valid point, but I do not think it is. The difficulty with the case-by-case basis is that it creates uncertainty and worry for the small business concerned. We are talking about a period of only six months. I do not really think that hostile overseas investors are waiting to pounce during those six months to gobble up small businesses in a way that will damage our national security. Let us face it: if they were going to do that in the first six months, they would be doing it now or they would have done it in the last six months.

I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but the new clause is deliberately worded to explicitly recognise the importance of small businesses, particularly during this period. The Bill is likely to come into force at the exact time that small businesses will be trying to get back on their feet. They need all the help they can get. There is a danger that the way that the Bill could be implemented and enforced will be an unintentional barrier to their growth.

All that we are asking is that, for a short period, until smaller businesses get used to the new legislation, it does not allow them to go ahead with transactions that are otherwise prohibited and would otherwise be blocked by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State will still have the full power to block those transactions or to impose conditions on them. It does not mean that an acquisition is legally valid if it would otherwise be void under the terms of the legislation. The only difference it makes is that it removes the danger of small businesses or their directors spending time defending themselves in court when they should be developing their business and helping to get the economy back on its feet. On that basis, I commend both new clauses to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chi Onwurah]

I will not take up the opportunity of a test. We have all learned a lot about air flows—in this room, at any rate—as we seek to maintain some heat. What we have not learned, though, is how the Minister believes the Bill can be improved. All our line-by-line scrutiny has yielded many assurances, compliments on our intention and, indeed, some letters, for which I am grateful, but no acceptance and not even the commitment to go and think about some of our constructive proposals, amendments and new clauses. I urge him to consider this new clause as an opportunity to show that he truly believes, as he said earlier, in the skills, experience and expertise of the Committee by reflecting on the potential for improvement.

The new clause returns to an earlier theme and would require—the Minister will be pleased to note that that is a “must”, not a “may”—an annual report to be prepared by the Secretary of State

“in accordance with this section”

and a copy of it to be provided

“to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament as soon as is practicable after the end of that period.”

It sets out what should be in that report, such as the events, the number of entities, the nature of the risks and

“details of particular technological or sectoral expertise”

and so on. It would provide the Intelligence and Security Committee with information about the powers exercised under the Bill and allow closer scrutiny and monitoring.

The new clause reflects how we have consistently supported the need for the Bill. Our approach to the security threats we face is to push for change specifically to allow broad powers of intervention, but for those using those broad powers to be held to account by Parliament and through transparency. Our international allies do exactly that. The US requires CFIUS to produce a non-classified annual report for the public, alongside a classified report for certain members of Congress, to provide security detail to them, allowing congressional scrutiny while retaining sensitivity of information.

As I think the Minister acknowledges, the Government have been late in following where international allies and the Opposition have led with calls to better protect our national security, so he must not fall behind in following our calls for accountability and transparency. That is critical not just to ensure our security and wider parliamentary understanding of the nature of the threats we face but for accountability.

The Secretary of State is to be given sweeping powers. For the last time, I should say that we will go from 12 reviews in 18 years—less than one a year—to 1,830 notifications a year, which is more than five every single day. The Secretary of State will be able to intervene in every single such private transaction. It will be hard to bring claims against national security concerns in court, where the judiciary will understandably find it difficult to define national security against the Government’s definition. In that context, it is important to bring expert parliamentary scrutiny to the Government’s decisions. I do hope the Minister will reflect on that. Alongside a public report, the new clause would require the Government to publish an annual security report to the Intelligence and Security Committee so that we have greater accountability without compromising security.

I will say a few words about the evidence base and the reason for tabling the amendment. Professor Ciaran Martin said:

“I think that the powers should be fairly broad. I think there should be accountability and transparency mechanisms, so that there is assurance that they are being fairly and sparingly applied.”––[Official Report, National Security and Investment Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2020; c. 81, Q96.]

My understanding is that the only accountability and transparency mechanism is the public report, which may be published, and the prospect of judicial review, neither of which provide for expert scrutiny on the security issues.

I also ask the Minister to reflect on Second Reading, where member after member of the Intelligence and Security Committee stood up to say that they felt that their expertise would be useful and helpful in the working of the Bill.

[James Wild]

The hon. Lady said that the annual report “may” be published, but in clause 61 it “must” be laid before the House, so there is no question that the annual report will be published.

[Chi Onwurah]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. It must be published, but the details that it sets out are limited. The reporting on other information, as I think the Minister has said, is something that is intended but is not required. We have requested that several other pieces of information be published, but the Minister has said that they may be.

The hon. Member for North West Norfolk is absolutely right that there will be an annual report, but that is a public report that will provide only the limited information set out in clause 61(2). Obviously, it will not provide anything that might have an impact on national security. With regard to what is published in the final notifications, for example, that can be redacted to take out anything of commercial interest as well as of national security interest. There is no requirement to report on any aspect to do with national security. Given that the only report is a public report, that is understandable. That is why we are proposing that a secure sensitive report should also be published and shared with the Intelligence and Security Committee.

The hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee said that

“there is a real role for Committees of this House in such processes and…the ability to subpoena both witnesses and papers would add not only depth to the Government’s investigation but protection to the Business Secretary who was forced to take the decision”.—[Official Report, 17 November 2020; Vol. 684, c. 238.]

A member of the Intelligence and Security Committee also said that

“we need mechanisms in place to ensure that that flexibility does not allow the Government too much scope.”—[Official Report, 17 November 2020; Vol. 684, c. 244.]

As I have already noted, CFIUS has an annual reporting requirement.

National Security and Investment Bill (Fifth sitting)

James Wild Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 5th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 1st December 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Chi Onwurah]

May I begin by saying what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg, and what a pleasure and, indeed, honour it is to discuss this important Bill with the rest of the Committee?

This issue is important to Members on both sides of the Committee, and as we scrutinise the Bill line by line over the next two weeks I am sure we will get closer—or as close as social distancing allows. Labour Members look forward to a constructive and collegiate debate and recognise that Members on both sides of the Committee share the objective of making well-informed contributions. It was clear from speeches made last night on the Telecommunications (Security) Bill, the interests and ambitions of which overlap those of this Bill, that all Members share a belief in the critical importance of national security, and I am sure that will be reflected in our deliberations.

We agree on the importance of securing our national security, for which line-by-line scrutiny is vital. The Government’s impact assessment notes the need for change and says that national security is an area of “market failure” requiring some Government action. I found that statement somewhat shocking, and a marked difference between the views of Labour and Conservative Members. It is an astonishing claim, because national security is not a private concern first, and a Government after-thought second. There is no market in national security, which is the first duty of a Government and not a failed responsibility of the private sector. It ought to be the first priority of any Government to address it. It is not under-supplied by the market; it is outside the market altogether.

Although that claim is astonishing, it is unsurprising from this Government and the party that leads them. The impact assessment is a marker of a Government who have outsourced significant responsibility for national security; a Government who let Kraft take over Cadbury in 2012 because the market promised good behaviour by the acquirer, only for them to be embarrassed when the acquirer broke all its promises—national responsibility outsourced and British jobs and national interests handed over to the market.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

Could the shadow Minister explain the national security issues with the Kraft takeover?

[Chi Onwurah]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I meant to say that national responsibility was outsourced—and British jobs—and the national interest handed over to the market. That was the concern with the Kraft takeover. If he wishes, I shall follow up with further examples, but the national interest and the responsibility of this Conservative Government for economic security have clearly been lacking. This is the Government who let the Centre for Integrated Photonics, a prized research and development centre, be taken over by Huawei in 2012—an event that our head of the National Cyber Security Centre said that in hindsight we would not wish to happen. National security was outsourced and the British interest again relinquished to the market.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

Rather late in the day, I will say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I am sure you are aware that we share an anniversary: we are among the few surviving Members of the 1997 intake—those happy days when Labour used to win elections. We came to this House in 1997 and have been here ever since.

The reason I emphasise that fact, Mr Twigg, is to underline just how many Bills you and I have sat on, led for the Labour party or been involved in over the years. I am unable to tot up the exact number but it is a considerable, and it is a great pleasure to be sitting on this Bill Committee. I have served on a large number of Bill Committees of late, the most recent being the Environment Bill Committee, which has just finished its deliberations. I was unable to be present for this Bill Committee’s witness sessions because I was finishing off the Environment Bill—well, trying to strengthen it rather than finish it off. I am grateful to my colleagues for asking a series of pertinent questions in the evidence sessions. We are all grateful for that and, indeed, to the expert witnesses.

I want to cite the amendment in the context both of the various Bills that have come through the House and of the witness sessions, which I have assiduously read, even though I was not present for them. I hope the Minister will accept that the amendment is entirely in line with the constructive way in which I hope we have gone about our business in this Committee. The amendment, which I shall unpack in a moment, strengthens not only the Bill but the ability of Ministers to do their job properly as far as its provisions are concerned. That is its intention.

The amendment seeks to replace subsection (1), which is a bald sentence:

“No more than one call-in notice may be given in relation to each trigger event.”

My time with Bills has taught me to look carefully through all of the different clauses to find the qualification. In my experience, tucked away somewhere in most Bills is a qualification. Sometimes it is about when a clause is to be implemented, sometimes it is a definition of the wording, and sometimes it is an additional provision that mediates the clause to which our attention was first drawn.

This clause has no such qualification. It is an absolutely straightforward statement. We have discussed trigger events to some extent in our evidence sessions, and they are elucidated and qualified in further clauses, as are call-in notices, but the fact that we get only one call-in notice per trigger event seems to be the central essence of this subsection. Our amendment seeks to put a question mark against whether that bald statement about the fact that we get one go per trigger event is the wisest formulation to have in the Bill.

The amendment makes a modest change to the clause, stating:

“No more than one call-in notice may be given in relation to each trigger event,”

and adding,

“unless material new information becomes available within five years of the initial trigger event.”

[James Wild]

From his experience of many Bills, I wonder what the hon. Gentleman made of the provisions in clause 22 on false or misleading information that has been given to the Secretary of State, whereby if he has been given that information he can change a decision he has previously given and can therefore issue another call-in notice.

[Dr Whitehead]

Yes, indeed. The hon. Member is quite correct to draw attention to clause 22, which concerns false or misleading information. It relates to where someone has, at the time of the trigger event, concealed or misled or sought to deceive those concerned with the trigger event about the nature of the event. I would suggest that that is a different case from what we are trying to establish today. It is not that anyone has tried to deceive anybody or maliciously mislead anybody at the time of the trigger event, but new material may come to light or become available within five years of the initial trigger event that might cause a further call-in notice to be introduced. According to the definition set out in the Bill, that looks like it might not be possible.