Whistleblowing

Norman Lamb Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House calls for a fundamental review of whistleblowing regulation to provide proper protection for a broader range of people.

I thank the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) for his support in making the application to the Backbench Business Committee and all the other MPs who supported the application. I also thank the Backbench Business Committee, the Chair of which is sitting in front of me, for enabling this incredibly important debate to take place. I want to start by telling four brief stories to illustrate why facilitating whistleblowing is so important.

I was the Minister in the then Department of Health who initiated the review led by James Jones, the former Bishop of Liverpool, of the horror of what happened at Gosport War Memorial Hospital. In his report from June last year, the very first chapter deals with the nurses who tried to speak up in 1991 about what was happening in that hospital. However, the report refers to the silencing of those nurses’ concerns and to a patronising attitude towards them, although they were trying to do the right thing. The consequence of not listening to those nurses is the extraordinary and horrifying conclusion of the report, which is that over 450 older people died following the inappropriate prescribing of opioids. These old people had gone in for rehabilitation but came out dead.

In this context, we can often be talking about life and death situations, so enabling and empowering people to speak up can literally save lives. That, at its most clear and stark, is why this matter is so important. The horrific scandal at Gosport hospital could have been stopped if those nurses have been listened to, but they were not, and that is an outrage in itself.

Scrolling forward to 2013, Dr Chris Day, a brave junior doctor working in a south London hospital, raised safety concerns about night staffing levels in an intensive care unit. It is in all our interests that brave people should speak out about safety concerns in any part of our health service, but perhaps particularly in intensive care units.

What happened to Dr Day, because he spoke out, is wholly unacceptable. He suffered a significant detriment. His whole career has been pushed off track, and his young family have been massively affected. Junior doctors in that unit were put in the invidious position of being responsible for far too many people compared with national standards, so he pursued a claim against both the trust and Health Education England. The NHS spent £700,000 of public money on defending the claim and, in large part, on attempting to deny protection to junior doctors who blow the whistle against Health Education England. Lawyers, disgustingly, were enriched.

Late last year, the tribunal that eventually heard Dr Day’s case ended early after he was threatened with a claim for substantial costs. He and his wife could not face the prospect of losing their young family’s home, so he caved in. That is surely scandalous treatment of a junior doctor. He was defeated by superior firepower. We have the grotesque spectacle of the NHS, of all organisations, deploying expensive QCs to defeat a junior doctor who raised serious and legitimate patient safety issues.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman’s work on Dr Chris Day’s case to get the answers we deserve on how he has been treated. Many whistleblowers face an inequality of arms at tribunals. They have often lost their job by that point, and they face a very difficult situation, with highly paid QCs running rings around them, which is often the result of employers trying to find loopholes in the law to avoid liability.

[Norman Lamb]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support in pursuing the Dr Day case, and I completely agree with the points he makes.

Sir Robert Francis, in his 2015 “Freedom to Speak Up” report, spoke about how NHS whistleblowers who had given evidence to him overwhelmingly experienced negative outcomes, and he talked of a hostile culture of fear, blame, isolation, reprisals and victimisation—in our NHS, for goodness’ sake.

Those stories continue. The impact on individuals can be devastating and profound. They can be ostracised, abused and disadvantaged in their career, with dire consequences for their mental health. One nurse who tried to expose wrongdoing said, “I would never put myself in that position again. I would rather leave.” What a damning indictment of how we treat people in our treasured and cherished public service.

[Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman and I have both worked on the general issue of whistleblowing. I pay tribute to his leadership on the matter, along with that of my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr), who I hope will catch your eye later, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The right hon. Gentleman is making some very good points, and we know two things. First, we know there is strong concern across the country about how whistleblowers are being treated. We see it in the west midlands, and he is articulating the point. Secondly, we know whistleblowers help to ensure proper accountability and transparency. In my view, the work that he and others are doing on whistleblowing has not received anything like the amplification it requires.

[Norman Lamb]

I totally agree with the points the right hon. Gentleman makes, and he makes them well. I will come on to discuss them in a moment.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

rose—

[Norman Lamb]

I will give way briefly, but I am nervous about the Deputy Speaker and overstaying my welcome.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Let me just reassure you on that. I hope I do not make anybody nervous.

[Dr Johnson]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, as he is being most generous with his time. He said that the doctor was feeling under pressure from the overwhelming firepower and the potential to incur the NHS’s substantial costs. What support did his union, perhaps the British Medical Association or defence unions such as the Medical Defence Union or Medical Protection Society, offer him on legal costs?

[Norman Lamb]

Shockingly, the BMA abandoned him, and that is a story in itself, which needs exploring further. Not just in the NHS but across the economy, people are often literally on their own, faced by expensive lawyers. I speak as a former employment lawyer and I know what happens in employment tribunals. They were intended as a layman’s court, but they are anything but that these days.

The third story I want to mention is that of my constituent Mark Wright, a successful financial planner at RBS. Things started to go wrong after he raised concerns about unacceptable practices in the bank—this was before the crash. On 17 September 2008, immediately after the collapse of Lehman Brothers, an intranet statement was put up in RBS saying that the group was “well capitalised”. That was clearly an attempt to reassure staff, including staff shareholders, customers and investors that the bank was secure. Of course when the bank crashed, those staff shareholders lost a fortune, and many, including my constituent, believe that they were badly misled by that intranet statement.

Mr Wright’s mental health was destroyed as a result of trying to challenge the bank, as was his career. He made a complaint to the Financial Conduct Authority, which reported his name back to the bank, for goodness’ sake. The FCA was later criticised by the Complaints Commissioner. I pursued his complaint with the FCA and it denied knowledge of the intranet statement repeatedly to me, yet an internal FCA email has emerged, after a subject access request to the Complaints Commissioner. It was dated 14 March 2014 and it said

“the intranet notice that Mr Wright refers to was online between 17 September 2008 and January 2009… as staff used it to take reassurance that all was well which would tend to support Mr Wright’s allegations”.

That was an email within the FCA, yet we were never informed of that email or of that finding in that explosive document.

Clearly, the FCA has a copy of that intranet statement, yet it will not or cannot disclose it to us. The FCA says that the law does not allow it to do so. RBS, which is part state-owned, will not disclose it, yet clearly it is in the public interest that it should be disclosed. I believe I was misled by Andrew Bailey, the chief executive of the FCA, who told me, in effect, that Mark Wright’s allegations offered nothing that was not already in the public domain and he referred to an intranet statement by Fred Goodwin, which he said had been

“in the public domain for nearly 10 years”.

Yet the intranet statement has not ever been in the public domain. The Treasury Committee, which had looked into this, had never received a copy of it. So I was misled, and we have a regulator that is too close to the banks; that failed to protect Mr Wright’s disclosure or his identity; that, crucially appeared to fail to take the allegations about the misconduct of that bank seriously; and that cannot or will not put a crucial statement into the public domain. Let us just think about the damage caused by bankers in the run-up to the crash. Had we empowered people like Mark Wright to do the right thing, rather than destroyed them and ignored them, we might just have prevented the disgusting behaviour and greed of bankers, and we might now have seen some of those responsible for destroying our economy behind bars. As it happens, they have got away with it.

The fourth and final story is of foster carers throughout the country who are frightened to raise concerns about any behaviour from the council that they deal with. Of course, the council refers children into their care, so if a foster carer is concerned about the behaviour of a social worker and expresses concerns, that council can just stop the flow of children to them, and so their income stream—their ability to earn a living—disappears. This has a chilling effect on the willingness of any foster carer to speak out about child protection concerns, because they fear losing their livelihood.

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

Does that not highlight how, whether in finance, the NHS or anywhere else, this happens in situations with a power differential and a hierarchy? Someone has power over someone else and can make them lose their job or lose what they love doing, so there is a constant threat.

[Norman Lamb]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. We need effective legislation to redress that imbalance of power.

All the cases I have outlined highlight the value and importance of enabling people to expose wrongdoing. Effective protection for brave people who decide to speak out is first of all vital for that individual—they should be celebrated, not denigrated—but it also benefits us all if we give them protection. As the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) said earlier, this is actually an issue of good governance. It is about keeping organisations honest; protecting businesses from fraud, crime and other wrongdoing; and maintaining the highest possible standards. Good protection for those who speak out acts as a deterrent against bad behaviour; closed, secret cultures, which cover up wrongdoing and destroy those who try to speak up, deliver poor public services or cheat customers in the private sector, particularly in financial services, or lead to the toleration of bullying, sexual harassment and so on. So often, non-disclosure agreements are the final step that keeps the wrongdoing secret, slamming shut the door on proper scrutiny. Things need to change.

The question is: does the current law work? Palpably, from the examples I have given, it is clear that it does not. First, it leaves out key groups—not only foster carers—that simply are not covered by the legislation. It leaves out job applicants, volunteers and priests. Just think about the abuse of children by so many priests over the past few decades. Had priests been given the protection to speak out, perhaps we would have prevented some of that dreadful abuse. The legislation leaves out non-executive directors and trustees. It leaves out relatives and friends of the whistleblower when they are victimised because of what the whistleblower has done. It leaves out someone who is victimised by being presumed to be a whistleblower—if a company thinks that someone has spoken out, even if they have not, and does something like dismissing them, that person has no rights under the legislation because they are not actually the whistleblower. That is a ludicrous situation.

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way and am sorry that I was not here at the start of the debate. Some time ago—I think when the right hon. Gentleman was at the Department of Health—I was the co-author of a review of the NHS hospitals complaints system. One reason why we were not more forceful on the point he is making was that we thought legislation was in the pipeline, or that there was an attempt to put things right for potential whistleblowers.

I am still concerned. In my own local authority area, Rhondda Cynon Taf, the Cwm Taf health authority has just been heavily criticised for maternity deaths. One of the people involved got in touch with me anonymously. I did not know what to do with the letter—I did not want to pass it to the authorities—so I passed it to the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, which was at that time completing a report on the Cwm Taf health authority. It is still a major problem and people are afraid. Even when they think there is greater understanding and leeway, people are afraid. We have to put that right.

[Norman Lamb]

I totally agree with the right hon. Lady. Sir Robert Francis, who did the report in 2015, recommended the introduction of “freedom to speak up champions” in the NHS, and that has happened. However, this is an administrative process within trusts that, I am afraid, simply has not worked—that is the brutal lesson that we have to learn.

For those who are covered by the legislation, the law does nothing to enable a concerned person to speak up in the first place. For example, the law is silent on standards expected from employers, and it offers only inadequate protection after the event—after the person has been destroyed by a cruel organisation. The individual who then tries to pursue their rights under the legislation is too often faced by highly paid lawyers and is pressured into non-disclosure agreements, which, as I indicated, can result in wrongdoing never being exposed. Indeed, we know that the terms of some non-disclosure agreements are unlawful because they seek to shut up the individual and to stop them speaking out, even when a crime is involved.

Only a tiny percentage of cases that are pursued to the tribunal actually end up with a decision of the tribunal. To succeed, someone must show that the reason—or, if there is more than one reason, that the principal reason—for a dismissal is that the employee made a protected disclosure. They therefore open themselves up to false claims that other reasons existed. If the tribunal decides that there were other reasons, either the person’s claim is dismissed or their compensation is reduced.

There is no full definition of the range of disclosures that are covered by the legislation, so the protection is completely uncertain. Disclosure has to be to a prescribed person, but what happens if someone does not know who to report their concerns to? They could easily find themselves entirely unprotected—for trying to do the right thing.

[Mr Mitchell]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Norman Lamb]

I am conscious that I am trying the patience of the Deputy Speaker, and I need to get to the conclusion of my remarks.

The brilliant organisation Protect highlights the fact that a number of laws, such as in the utility sector, make it an offence to disclose certain information and include no public interest defence exceptions for whistleblowing. Even if there is awful wrongdoing, the person is prevented from speaking out, because they would commit a criminal offence. That surely has to change.

The brutal truth is that brave people who do society a service by exposing wrongdoing are not adequately protected, and many have no protection at all. After Gosport, I met the Prime Minister and made the case for reform. I explained to her that these are life or death situations in many cases. I have heard nothing from the Prime Minister at all since then, and that was last summer. It is time for a fundamental review by the Government and for new legislation. Such a review needs to listen to all the interested parties—to the all-party group on whistleblowing, to Protect and to Compassion in Care, which has set out proposals as part of what it calls Edna’s law. All must be involved, and we must look at international best practice.

The all-party group has a report due out soon. It follows a comprehensive survey, which included getting the views of very many people who have tried to whistleblow, and it will offer vital evidence to the Government. It will propose an office for the whistleblower, which could be of extremely powerful value in supporting people and would be a centre of excellence, providing guidelines to employers, monitoring activities and providing support, advice and training to members of the public, public institutions, private sector bodies and so on. It is a very important proposal.

I want a commitment from the Minister to undertake a thorough review, because it is long overdue. I also want a commitment to ensure that if the UK leaves the EU, it will at least meet the standards of the proposed new EU directive and preferably go much further. The UK was a pioneer, but the legislation is flawed and inadequate. New legislation to deliver high standards of governance in the public and private sectors is long overdue. We need safe space for brave people to do the right thing; effective mechanisms to hold people to account for wrongdoing that is uncovered, including potential criminal sanctions; and effective compensation and support for those who suffer as a result of speaking out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I could not agree more. My right hon. Friend highlights the importance of some of these cases. We have to ask why an organisation would not want to know about this. My role before coming to this place four years ago was as managing director of my own business. We were quite a large business at that point. I dealt with all the complaints in the organisation because I wanted to know what was going on there, and that is the best way to find out. These people are our eyes and ears. We were an ethical business and we ran it well, but if anything was going off track, we would want to know about it. However, it seems that when these people step forward, the people around them—their superiors, I guess—too often feel that the situation is too risky and look to close down the complaints.

From the fair business banking perspective, we know that one third of all serious economic crimes are brought to light because of the actions of whistleblowers. It is very rarely the regulator that is going in there and identifying the problem and then dealing with it—in fact, quite the opposite. It is therefore absolutely fundamental that these people will step forward. All the whistleblowers we deal with say, “I would never do that again.” Other people in the sector hear about that and are then deterred from stepping forward. That is an absolutely intolerable situation. What these people do should be welcomed.

The right hon. Member for North Norfolk talked about the case of Mark Wright. In my experience, this not just about the organisations themselves but also about the regulator. The regulator could take a much firmer stance. Whistleblowing is part of its processes. It has responsibilities under protected disclosure to deal with whistleblowers, but that is not what happens. It pays lip service to the issue of whistleblowing. It says, “Yes, okay, we’re dealing with that,” but the cases that I will highlight illustrate that that is not what has happened. The FCA has got a terrible reputation in this area.

[Norman Lamb]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the sense one gets from the FCA is that it regards these people as irritants—troublemakers? The people who investigate the allegations of whistleblowers are often people who have been through the revolving door, in and out of banks and the regulator, and so are too close to the people they are supposed to be regulating.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Yes. I ask myself all the time, “Why is it like this?” and that is one of the reasons—the revolving door. Those people are part of a wider group or club—the old boys’ tie kind of stuff. This cannot be allowed to be the case.

As I said, the right hon. Gentleman highlighted a case that was heavily reported where the FCA told RBS who the whistleblower was. That seems absolutely unthinkable, and it was criticised by the Complaints Commissioner. When the FCA dealt with the case of the chief exec of Barclays, Jes Staley, who had tried to find out the identity of a whistleblower, which is totally against protocol, he was fined a modest sum that was probably a few weeks’ wages for him. Where is the deterrent there for not treating whistleblowers in the wrong way?

In my own experience, Joanne Rossouw contacted me about fraud at Barclays relating to payment protection insurance claims under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. She felt that there was a total lack of protection and support from the FCA and that its communications were simply unacceptable. The case of Paul Carlier was heavily reported. He whistleblew on foreign exchange dealers at Lloyds and was then unfairly dismissed. The FCA had promised to support his case and to provide an opinion to the tribunal he went to when he was unfairly dismissed, but did not do so, despite Andrew Brodie at the FCA calling the Lloyds process for the treatment of whistleblowers a whitewash and a joke. That was not the only case—there were others that he dealt with. Yet these people are not sanctioned. Why is that?

Paul Moore, my constituent, was the first person to raise the issues at HBOS. In 2004, he described a toxic culture at HBOS, with pressured sales targets and people taking unacceptable risks in lending money. Of course, HBOS collapsed in 2008. He was unfairly dismissed. He was treated disgracefully by the Financial Services Authority, as it was then. As the right hon. Member for North Norfolk said, if we had taken a robust approach when whistleblowers came forward, it may have stopped the financial crash happening in the first place, which cost our taxpayers £1.8 trillion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Norman Lamb]

The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech. It was good to work with him in applying for this debate. We have heard about cases in the public sector, such as the one the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Drew) mentioned, and about others in financial services, such as those the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) mentioned. It is worth comparing the outcome for those brave people, whose lives, as he says, are destroyed, with the outcome for those guilty of wrongdoing in the banks, for example, who continue to earn a fortune and who no one has touched for their wrongdoing, despite the devastating impact they had on our economy.

[Stephen Kerr]

Whistleblowers are heroes, not villains—although sometimes there are villains in their stories—and they should be treated with respect and listened to. Sometimes they are looking for no more than validation of what they have brought to the attention of the authorities. Whether they should have a financial award, or whatever, is a side issue; the real issue is how they are perceived and responded to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

My hon. Friend raises an important point, and that is something I will come on to later. The current legislation is retrospective. It is righting wrongs after they have occurred but, as we have heard, it is too late to put a career back in place after the event.

In the NHS, it is particularly important that people feel able to blow the whistle safely, not only because they have general obligations as an employee, but because many staff have a professional duty to raise concerns where they see them and could actually be in trouble with their own regulators if they do not do so. NHS England and NHS Improvement policies are very clear on this. They say:

“If in doubt, please raise it. Don’t wait for proof. It doesn’t matter if you turn out to be mistaken as long as you are genuinely troubled.”

The NHS constitution pledges that NHS employers will support all staff in raising their concerns. As we have heard on a number of occasions, however, that clearly has not happened. Fine words are not enough. Sadly, staff do not have the confidence to raise concerns without fear of repercussions.

The most recent NHS staff survey, in which staff were asked whether they would feel safe raising concerns about unsafe clinical practices, found that only a fifth said that they strongly agreed that that was the case, and three in 10 said that they did not feel safe raising such concerns. When asked whether they were confident that their organisation would address their concerns, just 14.8% of staff strongly agreed with that statement. Given that 17.8% of staff said that they had seen errors, near misses or incidents that could have hurt patients in the last 12 months, it should be deeply concerning to all of us that staff in the NHS do not feel that their concerns are being acted on.

As the right hon. Member for North Norfolk mentioned, junior doctor Chris Day was a prominent example of someone who blew the whistle and was treated appallingly. He raised legitimate concerns about staff ratios, then lost his job. The tribunal action that followed resulted in a lengthy and, in my view, wholly unnecessary legal battle in which Health Education England effectively sought to remove around 54,000 doctors from whistleblowing protection by claiming that it was not their employer. Four years and hundreds of thousands of pounds later, it eventually backed down and accepted that it should be considered an employer after all.

[Norman Lamb]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the contract between Health Education England and the trusts, which demonstrates the degree of control that Health Education England has over the employment of junior doctors, was not disclosed for some three years in that litigation? It was drafted by the very law firm that was making loads of money out of defending the case against Chris Day. I have raised this with Health Education England, but it will not give me a proper response because it says that the case is at an end. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this is totally unacceptable and that it smacks of unethical behaviour for that law firm to make money out of not disclosing a contract that it itself drafted?

[Justin Madders]

The right hon. Gentleman highlights an important point, and in response I will quote something that Sir Robert Francis said:

“When asked for advice by NHS organisations about issues around public interest disclosure, legal advisors have tended to be influenced by an adversarial litigation—and therefore defensive—culture.”

That notion is clearly present in this particular case. At the end of the litigation, Health Education England said:

“Having never wished to do anything other than facilitate whistleblowing for doctors in training, HEE is happy to be considered as a second employer for these purposes if it removes a potential barrier for junior doctors raising concerns.”

However, as we have heard, that did not manifest itself during the four years of the litigation. Why did it take so long for HEE to accept that it should be considered an employer? What message does that send to NHS staff about the corporate attitude to whistleblowers? It is hardly encouraging.

Whistleblowers are a vital safeguard when all other systems have failed. As the right hon. Gentleman said earlier, there is a whole list of cases in which if the whistleblowers had been listened to earlier, lives could have been saved—Gosport, Morecambe Bay, Mid Staffordshire and Bristol Royal Infirmary. The Francis report shone a light on some of the completely unacceptable treatment that NHS staff have experienced. One individual told the inquiry that

“finding employment is proving very difficult and I question whether any of it was worth it”.

Another said:

“I have often been so depressed by this experience that I have often considered suicide.”

Damning words. It shames us all that some people feel that way for having done what we all think is right.

I acknowledge that some progress has been made on the protections afforded to NHS employees in recent years, particularly as a result of the “Freedom to Speak Up” report and the regulations brought forward by the Government to protect whistleblowers’ future employment prospects. I remain worried about other issues, however, such as protections for other workers who support whistleblowers. Where a team of medical professionals are working on the same thing, it is easy to envisage circumstances in which two or more employees notice an issue of concern together, but only one of them actually makes the disclosure. I raised that matter with the Minister, and it was made clear at the time that the only remedy available to the second person or other associated parties would be to register a grievance under their employer’s grievance policy. That protection is not strong enough, so we need to recognise that people work in teams. Unity is strength, and collective arguments are always better, so we need to strengthen the protections in such situations.

Another issue is that it is only once someone has lost their job that they can take their previous employer to an employment tribunal and seek redress, but the onus is on the whistleblower to prove that it was their disclosure that led to them losing their job. The Hospital Consultants and Specialists Association has come across many cases of employees facing action after speaking out based upon circumstances different from their whistleblowing case, but which appear to be clearly linked. Such action can be subtle, such as bullying, harassment, undermining, being overlooked for opportunities for promotion, or a general feeling that the employer may be looking for a reason to act against them. Of course, such instances are virtually impossible to prove, but they contribute to the climate of fear for whistleblowers, who may worry that they are only ever as good as their next mistake. We cannot continue to allow promising careers to be left in tatters as a result of ineffective whistleblowing protections. We must send a strong message to employers that, as the legislation intended, those making disclosures should be protected, not attacked.

By its very nature, the legislation only gives a person protection after a detriment has been suffered, when it is often too late. No tribunal can fully mend a destroyed career after a dismissal. It is disturbing that the success rate of whistleblowing claims that reach tribunal is only 3%, which shows how easy it is for employers to use parts of the legislation to avoid their responsibilities. I do not know of any other tribunal jurisdiction that has such a low success rate. If I was still practising and my success rate was 3%, I would not be in a job for long, but that percentage shows why we need to understand how the legislation is not working as well as it could be.

Of course, as we have already discussed, most employers are in a much better position. They are able to rely on expert legal advice, they can put forward alternative allegations and reasons for treatment, and they can allege misconduct or redundancy. There are too many hoops to jump through and too many opportunities for employers to argue that disclosure does not count under the legislation, which of course removes the employee’s protection altogether. That is wrong.

It is not enough for an employee to rely on their own assertion of subjective belief that the information tends to show a breach of regulations. That leaves them at the mercy of the roulette wheel of justice, and potentially having to wait many months before they can know for sure whether their disclosure will have full protection under the law.

In considering how the law operates, we need to examine whether protected conversations, which were introduced under the coalition Government, are working as intended. Of course, a person can have a protected conversation with someone without mentioning whistle- blowing at all, but a potential disclosure might have been raised earlier. Employees in that situation who have been told that there is a payment for leaving their employment are in a vulnerable situation, and they will not know for sure whether their disclosure would count. We need to see whether there is any correlation between protected conversations and disclosures made under the whistleblowing Act.

Whistleblowers should not only be protected but venerated for their role in defending the safety of others. Nobody who makes a disclosure, wherever they work, should do so in fear or at the risk of having their livelihood taken away. The whole culture of workplace protection in this country is one of extreme disposability, be it temporary and agency work, zero-hours contracts or just the ease with which people can be dismissed. This does not lend itself to a healthy environment in which people feel confident and secure in speaking out without fear of reprisal.

The truth is that we have allowed a situation to develop in this country where job insecurity is considered to be just part of the landscape. That has to change. We owe it to people to ensure that protections are as effective as possible, which is one of my tests for a decent and civilised society. At the moment, it is a test we are comprehensively failing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I thank my hon. Friend. I was preparing to come on to that, but he is absolutely right—the FCA falls under the control of Her Majesty’s Treasury. I shall go into greater detail later, but I want to meet HMT to raise with it some of the concerns that have been voiced today in the House about the FCA and whistleblowing policy.

[Norman Lamb]

I thank the Minister for her very kind comments. I am sure she will come to this, but would she agree to meet us to discuss the case for a review, because I think a review of the legislation—not just guidance—is absolutely necessary? It was a Conservative who introduced the private Member’s Bill, and it could be a Conservative Government who modernise it and ensure full protection for all whistleblowers.

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I am happy to meet colleagues to talk about things they would like done in this area, and I note that the right hon. Gentleman distinguished between guidance and a review, which I will come to.

I want to outline what the Government have done and what steps are being taken, though I understand that for some colleagues these have not gone far enough. We have increased the scope of the protections in whistleblowing legislation by extending them to NHS students, nurses, midwives and job applicants in the health sector. We have also fulfilled the commitment to keep the prescribed persons list up to date. In response to the recommendations from the Women and Equalities Committee, we have committed to adding the Equality and Human Rights Commission to the list of prescribed persons at our next annual update. It will be subject to parliamentary time, but we aim to present that to the House before the end of the year. As I outlined earlier, I will consider whether there are things we can do within that to make it clearer.

We have also introduced guidance for prescribed persons and employers to help them to support whistleblowers. The most recent reform was a new legislative requirement for most prescribed persons to produce an annual report on whistleblowing disclosures made to them by workers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Norman Lamb]

This has been a remarkably well informed debate, and it is striking that a complete unanimity of view has been presented to the Minister that the law at the moment is not adequate; it is not, in her words, “proportionate”, I am afraid. We hope very much that we will convince her; I am pleased that she has agreed to meet us, but we need modern legislation that adequately protects people who do the right thing, because we all rely on them to ensure that we have the best business practices in this country and the best and safest public services. We only get those standards if people speak out, and at the moment we do not give those who do the necessary protection in order to do so.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House calls for a fundamental review of whistleblowing regulation to provide proper protection for a broader range of people.

Net Zero Emissions Target

Norman Lamb Excerpts

Wednesday 12th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Well! There is an embarrassment of riches. The right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey) is of course a former Secretary of State, and he is a Kingston knight, but just today, I am going to call before him a Norfolk knight, Sir Norman Lamb.

[Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)]

Thank you very much indeed, Mr Speaker. I warmly welcome this statement. It is a significant milestone, but does the Secretary of State agree that we now need to significantly increase the sense of urgency, particularly in decarbonising the heating of buildings and transport? We have no incentive at all to increase energy efficiency in the heating of homes other than for the most vulnerable households; we are still waiting for the consultation on building regulations to deliver zero carbon; and the plug-in grant for vehicles has been cut. This surely is not good enough, and we need to increase that sense of urgency.

[Greg Clark]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and I congratulate him on his well-deserved knighthood. I think everyone will recognise the reasons for it—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) will have to wait in line, I fear. The right hon. Gentleman is correct to say that we need to decarbonise all parts of the economy. That means reviewing our policies in every area, and it is important that we should do that. He mentioned the plug-in grant for electric vehicles, and one of the desirable features of policies is that a commitment can be made to kick-start the development of an industry to bring costs down, with the intention of withdrawing that commitment when the market has taken flight. We must not get into a position where we can never propose something without it needing to be there in perpetuity, because that would reduce our overall potential for innovation, which, as he knows from his work as Chair of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, would not be good for the UK or for science and innovation.

Evidence-based Early Years Intervention

Norman Lamb Excerpts

Thursday 21st March 2019 Westminster Hall

[Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Eleventh Report of the Science and Technology Committee, Evidence-based early years intervention, HC 506, and the Government response, HC 1898.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies—for the first time, I think. We are spending this afternoon talking about a subject that has absolutely nothing to do with Brexit, and which I hope might unite us.

Last year, the Science and Technology Committee held an inquiry into childhood adversity and trauma and the early-intervention approaches that can be used to address those problems. As I said in a statement in November in Westminster Hall, following the publication of our report, this issue is of significant national importance. Around one in two adults in the UK has suffered at least one adverse childhood experience. That may include abuse, neglect or growing up in some other difficult situation, such as a household where someone suffers substance abuse or domestic violence.

Interestingly, the website of NHS Health Scotland includes a list of typical adverse childhood experiences:

“domestic violence, parental abandonment through separation or divorce, a parent with a mental health condition”—

often that can have a significant impact on the child in the household. It continues:

“being the victim of abuse (physical, sexual and/or emotional), being the victim of neglect (physical and emotional), a member of the household being in prison”—

again, that has a significant potential impact.

[Dr Paul Williams (Stockton South) (Lab)]

I apologise for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman’s list. He mentioned that being a child of someone in prison is considered an adverse childhood experience. Has he seen the excellent report published this week by Crest Advisory, which identifies that there are many more children of prisoners than previously expected? It recommends that as part of the criminal justice process, those children should be identified and local authorities should be notified to provide them with enhanced support, because they may be at risk.

[Norman Lamb]

I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman could refer me to that report; it sounds very interesting, but I have not seen it. That prompts the interesting point that many people in prison experienced bad things in their childhood that led to exclusion from school, involvement in the criminal justice system at an early age, low educational attainment and worklessness. There is an awful risk that the cycle will repeat itself. That sounds like a wise set of recommendations, and I would be interested to explore them further.

The final item in the list from NHS Health Scotland is

“growing up in a household in which there are adults experiencing alcohol and drug use problems.”

One in 10 adults has suffered four or more adverse childhood experiences—a disturbingly high statistic that often goes completely unnoticed. I remember visiting Philadelphia and hearing about the impressive work that was being done to confront the problems of trauma that children experience, often as a result of gun crime, in that quite troubled city. Mapping that city shows up areas of concentration where a substantial proportion of children have experienced repeated traumas, which have a clear effect on them.

The trauma that those experiences cause a child is tragedy enough, but we now know that they are also associated with long-term problems such as mental or physical ill health, worklessness and involvement in the criminal justice system. The prevalence of those problems increases with the number of adverse experiences that a person suffers in childhood. Those associated serious problems make the case for tackling childhood adversity as effectively as possible all the stronger.

In last week’s spring statement, the Chancellor said that he was

“in favour of early-intervention approaches where they can be shown to be effective.”—[Official Report, 13 March 2019; Vol. 656, c. 370.]

I welcome the evidence-based approach. From the inquiry undertaken by the Science and Technology Committee, which I chair, I know that the evidence for the effectiveness of early intervention to address adversity is strong. I encourage the Minister to make the case for such intervention to the Chancellor, along with other ministerial colleagues. The hon. Member for Stockton South (Dr Williams) has written—together with me and the Chair of the Education Committee, the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon)—to the Chancellor to ask for a meeting to discuss the clear evidence to support the case for investing in early intervention.

The Early Intervention Foundation—the What Works centre for early intervention that the Government established to promote evidence-based policy in this field—reviewed the evidence for more than 100 early intervention programmes and found that 51 had robust evidence of a positive impact. Several of those have received the Early Intervention Foundation’s highest rating for proven effectiveness, having demonstrated

“a long-term positive impact through multiple rigorous evaluations.”

We have heard from organisations that champion the success of the early intervention programmes that they have delivered locally. One example is the Children and Parents Service in Manchester, led by the immensely impressive Dr Caroline White, who gave evidence to our Committee. Because we were so impressed by the evidence she gave, she ended up acting as an expert adviser to the Committee in the shaping of our report. The service accepts parents and pre-school children with early social and emotional problems. Those parents and children are referred to the service by multi-agency staff from across the early years workforce—for example, by health visitors. The service provides thorough psychological assessment and offers intervention as appropriate.

The service can demonstrate evidence of its positive impact since it started almost 20 years ago, including improvements in child behaviour, parental stress and depression and, critically, the risk that a child will face ongoing abuse or neglect. That is a prize worth grasping. The interesting thing about Manchester is that, despite very strained local government financial resources, it has chosen to prioritise the service. Of course there is an argument about the need to invest more in early intervention, because that is where we can be really effective, but lack of money is no excuse not to target resources in effective interventions. Manchester has shown that it is possible to do that in the most impressive way.

It is of relevance to the spending review that effective early intervention offers the opportunity to save precious public resources and help those who have suffered adversity. Tackling the problems associated with adversity as a child—ill health, domestic or substance abuse, low educational attainment and so forth—costs public bodies enormous sums of money over the course of a person’s life. Imagine someone who has low educational attainment, perhaps after being excluded from school, and ends up as an adult without work and potentially in the criminal justice system. Just imagine the total cost to the public purse of maintaining and supporting that person through their life. Just imagine what they could contribute to society if those problems were addressed at source, stopping the trauma becoming entrenched and giving them the chance of a good, productive life that contributes to the common good.

It is estimated that the annual cost of late intervention is at least £16.6 billion, but that does not capture the economic benefit of people living more fulfilled and successful lives. This is a clear case of investing to save over the long term, but between 2010-11 and 2017-18, local authority spending on early intervention fell from £3.7 billion to £1.9 billion. That coincided with an increase in spending on late intervention, which rose from £5.9 billion to £6.7 billion. It seems daft to me that we spend more on coping with the fallout from children being excluded from school, which of course is associated with the horrific violence we are seeing on our streets. Surely it would be so much better to invest early to prevent those problems from happening in the first place.

Regrettably, we have heard that the provision of effective, evidence-based early intervention is not uniform across the country. Pockets of good practice exist—I mentioned Greater Manchester—but the Early Intervention Foundation told us that there are

“lots of examples where we see a gap between what we know from robust, peer-reviewed literature and what happens in local services and systems.”

Given that early intervention is left to local authorities to deliver, without any clear national support or scrutiny or even data collection, that is perhaps unsurprising.

Bluntly, we have no idea as a nation how substantial sums of public money are spent and whether that has any impact at the most critical stage of a child’s life. We are in an extraordinary position, as a country. We collect lots of data from the point at which a child goes to school, but for their most critical, formative years, we have no national data of any substance that we can scrutinise to understand how money is spent nationally and whether it is having any impact.

That fragmented and unco-ordinated approach to early intervention is why we called on the Government to develop a national strategy—incidentally, the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government have already taken that approach—to empower and encourage local authorities to deliver effective, sustainable and evidence-based early intervention. Unfortunately, in their response to our report, the Government largely dismissed our recommendations. I must say to the Minister that we are deeply disappointed by the response from the Department of Health and Social Care. We really hope that a more considered view will be taken, and that the Government will review what we are actually saying and the case we are making. I hope the Minister—as the Science Minister, he is acutely interested in the application of evidence—will champion this issue in Government.

In its response, the Department of Health and Social Care argued that

“local areas are best placed to understand the needs of their local communities”

and

“to commission early intervention services to meet those needs”.

The national strategy we call for would not run contrary to that locally led approach. Instead, a new strategy could raise awareness and ambition among local authorities, provide guidance to them, and describe best practice and establish metrics against which local authorities could be held to account for the early intervention they deliver—without dictating from the centre exactly what each local authority does, because that is not the approach we argue for. Dr Jeanelle de Gruchy, who represents local directors of public health nationally, told us during our inquiry that an overarching national strategy would benefit those working to provide early intervention locally. That is exactly the opposite of what the Government said in their response.

More positively, however, the Government have established an inter-ministerial group to look at how families with children from conception through to age two can best be supported. I really welcome that. Although early intervention can support children of all ages, we know that that early period is critical to brain development. I urge that group to seize the opportunity presented by early intervention. Having highlighted my Committee’s recommendations to all the members of that group individually, I am disappointed that they are not here to respond to the debate. None the less, I welcome the Science Minister and hope very much that he responds positively to what we are saying.

I should also say that I have been encouraged by the reactions of many of the Ministers on that inter-ministerial group. I know that the hon. Member for Stockton South, who led an inquiry of the Select Committee on Health and Social Care into early years, is happy to work with my Committee to find a way of holding an evidence session with members of that inter-ministerial working group about the work they are doing. When does the Minister expect that group to report its findings? How will the Government move forward with its recommendations? Does the group intend to act on my Committee’s recommendations?

Let me briefly set out what my Committee believes a national strategy should contain. First, awareness of the impact of childhood adversity and how it can be addressed could be greater among those who work with children. The early years workforce needs to be defined, and its training reviewed, to ensure it has the knowledge it needs. We spend a lot of time talking about the prevalence of mental ill health among children and young people these days, but we do not spend nearly enough time talking about its causes. If we focused more on the causes, we might be more effective at reducing the prevalence of the problem, which is very disturbing.

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am struck by the fact that each of the various counselling organisations in my constituency has stressed to me how much worse children’s mental health has become since we lost the children’s network, particularly in rural areas. Those organisations are picking up a deluge of children who previously would have received at least some early support. That is not there anymore. It is a great tragedy that what we put in place—one of the things I think the last Labour Government did very well—has been lost. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we are seeing the consequences of that?

[Norman Lamb]

I guess the hon. Gentleman is talking about Sure Start centres.

[Dr Drew]

Children’s centres in general.

[Norman Lamb]

I will come on to that, but the hon. Gentleman makes an extremely important point. I mentioned earlier that investment in early years preventive services has fallen. That does not seem very wise in the long run.

[Dr Williams]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way again. Will he comment on the Government’s prevention strategy? Last November, the Government launched a consultation document on that strategy, saying that prevention was better than cure. Will he reflect on the adequacy or otherwise of the Government’s proposed approach to the kind of primary prevention in the early years that he talks about?

[Norman Lamb]

I welcomed the fact that the Secretary of State had identified the importance of prevention, although I noted that there was not much reference to mental health in the prevention strategy, and I have raised that with him. As I understand it, he plans to publish a Green Paper on prevention sometime in the spring, although the concept of seasons is elastic in Whitehall. I welcome that, but of course it has to have substance to it. We have to think about the social determinants of ill health, on which there generally is not sufficient focus. Poverty, poor housing and so forth are also critical factors, not only in our physical health but in our mental health.

I was going to mention that the Secretary of State has identified prevention as something that he wants to prioritise. It is up to us to guide and encourage him along a route that could reap real rewards, not only for individuals but for Government, in the longer term.

The next part of the proposed national strategy would be the collection and analysis of appropriate data. We believe that can help to identify families who would benefit from early intervention, to provide insight into how well different early intervention approaches are working, to drive continual improvement and to allow local authorities to be held to account. The national strategy should identify what data should be collected and support local authorities in delivering data-driven services. If a service is based on data and its analysis, it is more likely that evidence will be applied effectively and that we will make better use of public money. If we use public money in a way that is not based on evidence, we waste it; we cannot justify that to taxpayers, for whom the amount that they are expected to pay is often a strain. They demand that money be spent effectively in government.

The strategy should make use of the growing field of implementation science—a point that we were struck by in Dr Caroline White’s evidence. She focused on not taking an off-the-peg evidence-based programme and assuming that it will work effectively, and made the point that any programme should be properly implemented by trained staff who are supervised effectively, and that data should be used to monitor performance. Those factors are critical in ensuring that a programme can be effective in its application.

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Chair of the Science and Technology Committee for giving way. He is right to make that point. In the report, we have provided vast amounts of evidence that the collection of data is important, but not the end. The final stage is taking the data and feeding the information it provides back to the individuals affected, so the systems that can and have been identified can be rolled out and attuned to the needs of the young people and families who will use them.

[Norman Lamb]

I thank the hon. Gentleman; it is an enormous pleasure to have him as a member of the Select Committee, when he is not tied up with High Speed 2. He is absolutely right. The point was made that when we train social workers, an understanding and an analysis of data is a terribly important part of the effectiveness of their work. We want to see a central, specialist team set up in the early intervention centre, not to impose anything, but to help local authorities to deliver the national strategy.

The strategy should shift the balance of funding from late intervention, which we know is less effective, to early intervention, which we know can be more effective. The spending review should establish how best this can be achieved. If the inter-ministerial group and the Government more generally reviewed the evidence base for early intervention and took up our call for a national strategy on these lines, it would make a massive difference to children across our country, now and in the future.

[Dr Drew]

One of the groups that I feel most sorry for now is health visitors. To be fair to Prime Minister Cameron, he identified health visitors as one of the key elements in early years intervention, yet all the health visitors who I talk to say that they are very much under pressure. They are struggling to do their statutory work, let alone some of the other things they do. Would the right hon. Gentleman agree, and did he discover something about that?

[Norman Lamb]

The hon. Gentleman must be psychic; I was just about to talk about the programmes that health visitors implement. He is right that the number of health visitors is falling after a significant rise during the coalition years. There was a target set for extra numbers, and they were recruited, but those numbers are now falling back.

The Government must also review some of the programmes that support the provision of early intervention. Foremost among these is the healthy child programme, which is delivered by health visitors and under which every child should receive five mandatory health visits before the age of three. However, Public Health England statistics show that only around 80% of children receive these visits, aside from the newborn visit, which means that 20% do not. That is despite the fact that Public Health England itself acknowledges that without health visits,

“it is possible for children not to be seen by any professional until they start school or not at all if they are home educated.”

I understand the importance of the role of the parent, but if a parent is neglecting a child’s needs and no professional is able to identify and pick that up during those critical early years, that is storing up huge problems for the future and massively letting down that child.

The Government’s response to our recommendation to increase coverage was silent on how that might be done; in fact, it was even silent about whether the Government aspired to achieve that at all. The Minister implied that so long as coverage was better in more deprived areas, it was not an issue to worry about too much, but we know that adversity can happen in any family, regardless of affluence. The Government must now set out a clear strategy for how they intend to increase coverage of the five mandated health visits to 100%, and must also make sure that that strategy does not simply increase the strain on the health visitor workforce, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Drew), diluting health visitors’ impact on each family. I ask the Minister, are the Government really content with the patchy coverage of the five mandated health visits being achieved, and if not, what concrete steps are they taking to improve the situation?

We also call on the Government to address the issue of Sure Start children’s centres—the first point that the hon. Member for Stroud raised. Back in 2015, it was announced that there would be a consultation on the future of Sure Start centres. Four years on, we are still waiting for that consultation to take place, let alone any decision. In the aftermath of the announcement of the consultation, Ofsted announced that it would suspend inspections of children’s centres, so for four years we have had no inspections, either. That is surely a dreadful neglect of responsibility. Local authorities have no idea what the Government’s view is about children centres. Do they support them? Do they believe that they are valuable? Are they choosing to abandon them? Surely it is not unreasonable to expect a decision four years after the consultation was announced.

By now, the Department for Education should have developed an improved framework; it should not have left local authorities to tackle the situation when they do not have any clarity about the Government’s plans for these centres. Delegating quality assessment to local authorities, in the absence of central support or guidance, risks leading to the same fragmentation we see across all other aspects of early intervention. Local authorities are crying out for clarity on the future role of Sure Start centres. Will the Government hold a consultation on children’s centres inspections, or will they not? Sadly, we are seeing a gradual drift of closures around the country. In my county of Norfolk, a 50% cut in funding for children’s centres has been announced, so many of them will close down, without any clear plan of what the alternative should be. Surely that is unacceptable. Is it now established Government policy that the quality assurance of children’s centres has been devolved from Ofsted to individual local authorities, or is that still a stop-gap measure? Are we still waiting for a final permanent conclusion to this?

Returning to the wider scope of my Committee’s inquiry, early intervention used to tackle and ideally prevent childhood adversity can transform lives and reduce costs to Government. That is the great double prize to be won. There continues to be a pressing need for a fundamental shift in the Government’s approach to early intervention, targeting childhood adversity and trauma. The Government should match the ambition of the Scottish and Welsh Governments, and build on the example set by certain English councils, to make early intervention and childhood adversity a priority, and set out a clear, new national strategy to empower and encourage local authorities to deliver effective, sustainable, evidence-based early intervention. The new inter-ministerial group spans multiple Government Departments and has obvious authority. I call on that group to review our report, and to seize the opportunity offered by effective, evidence-based early intervention by making it a focus of its recommendations later this year.

[Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, and to speak as a member of the Science and Technology Committee. I pay tribute to our Chairman, the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), for providing the leadership and allowing us to undertake this work on the Select Committee, and to draw conclusions from a wide-ranging gathering of evidence.

I am sure this is not a party political issue. Everyone will agree that it is right to intervene when there are adverse childhood experiences. The evidence, as we have heard today and as we stated in our Select Committee report, is very strong on that point. We know that many of the problems that lead to adverse childhood experiences, whether increasing domestic violence, drug or alcohol misuse, mental health problems or financial stress and money worries, are part of the cycle of harm that can lead to a multi-generational impact of these heartbreaking situations.

In my view—as a member of the Labour party, this is inherent to my political decisions—that is linked to poverty and inequality. That is why, whether on adverse childhood experiences, Sure Start and children’s centres, or any form of investment in the early years, I keep finding myself back in this place talking about those issues, because they are the nub of the cause for many young people, who, through no fault of their own, suffer in their life as a consequence of the poverty in our country.

I congratulate the Chair of the Select Committee on making it clear that evidence, the use of data and investment in prevention are the way to go. I am sure the Science Minister will agree with that, given that he is the Science Minister, but I rather hope that he might share that conclusion with colleagues in his new cross-departmental group.

This is not only an issue of concern to me at a national level; I have a strong constituency interest in the matter, too. Bristol City Council, for example, is leading in innovation in this area of work. On 17 January 2019, my colleagues in City Hall held a conference on adverse childhood experiences in Bristol and how the council’s new vision statement could bring partners together to help tackle the causes. The event was held by the council in partnership with Avon and Somerset police and our clinical commissioning group.

[Norman Lamb]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his work on this subject on the Committee. He mentioned the police; I do not know whether he is aware of it, but there is some really good, innovative work going on, linking police to schools. When the police identify a situation of domestic violence overnight, they will alert the school first thing, so that a child arriving at school who has perhaps experienced the most horrific trauma overnight is given proper support and protection the following day, rather than perhaps being told off for being a naughty child, which can easily happen in ignorance of what has happened to them.

[Darren Jones]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Partnership working is a phrase that we often hear in local government, and sometimes it is a bit amorphous, but that is a classic example of why it is so important. I have had cases where constituents have told me stories of when they would go to school, albeit a long time ago now, and end up being treated as if they were ill and having to sleep in the nurse’s room at the school as opposed to taking part in classes, because of the experiences they were dealing with at home. As a consequence they missed out on their education, when instead the support should have been put in place at that time to help them in the best possible way.

The involvement of Avon and Somerset police is important because we know, and the evidence shows, that for children who suffer adverse childhood experiences, especially those who suffer multiple ACEs, the outcomes associated with that cycle of harm include mental health problems and drug or alcohol misuse—criminal activity is therefore connected with that. The police have a role not only in tackling criminal activity but, as I said at the outset of my speech, in helping to deal with the causes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Jones]

All I know in my part of the world is that the health service and our schools are having to pick up more and more of the work that others used to do in the past. Certainly, if I talk to headteachers in some of the more challenging parts of my constituency, they tell me that they are having to invest more and more in family support staff, who work with families and young pupils in a way that schools were never placed to do in the past. We all know that school budgets are extremely tight, so that particular school is using some of its pupil premium funding to help children in those scenarios. I am pretty sure that the original intention of pupil premium funding was not to offset cuts to children’s centres or local councils; it was to give an extra hand to pupils from poorer backgrounds to get on and do well in life. In fact, it is just covering cuts made from the centre, and is therefore ultimately not having a positive impact on the bottom line, either for individuals or for the country.

However, this is not only about council leadership, because we also often rely on the charitable sector for the delivery of services. In my constituency is the Southmead Project, led by a chap called Dr Mike Pierce, who received an MBE for his work in this space. Mike was born and bred in Southmead and was himself the victim of adverse childhood experiences, and he speaks powerfully on the issue. I have done so before, but I again pay tribute to him. His leadership over the 24 years that the project has supported young people in that area has been quite remarkable.

However, Mike is not optimistic about the future. He relies on generous charitable fundraising, philanthropic donations and sponsorship from local businesses in order to keep his project afloat, in the face of cuts not only to the council but to organisations such as clinical commissioning groups and the police, which previously supported his charitable organisation. At the same time, demand is increasing. The project has a waiting list of young people in households where domestic violence or drug or alcohol misuse—or worse—are present, and it cannot get around to giving those young people the support that they need because it does not have the capacity to do so.

As a consequence—this is often the case when there are cuts to public services—residents end up coming to see their MP because there is nowhere else to go. It really is heartbreaking when constituents are in front of me in tears, with no access to support. Quite frankly, there is very little I can do, as the Member of Parliament, other than raising issues such as this in the House. We must understand that the decisions we make on public policy, funding and national strategies flow through directly to the lives of these young people, whose potential is being lost.

[Norman Lamb]

We should add child sexual abuse to the hon. Gentleman’s examples of adversity. The Government commissioned an inquiry into child sexual abuse, which is under way. Its prevalence across the country is deeply disturbing, yet we do not really have any confidence that children who suffer from it get the support that they need in order to live a good life. In adulthood, they are often diagnosed with personality disorders or psychosis—horrors that completely change their lives. Supporting them at an early stage might make all the difference.

[Darren Jones]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention, which is timely because the founding purpose of the Southmead Project was to support victims of child sexual exploitation. Its “Wall of Silence” exhibition portrays the impact that ACEs had on many people when they were young, and now. That impact lasts for the whole lifetime, but evidence shows that effective, immediate intervention at the right time—when victims are suffering from sexual exploitation or are in other distressing environments—has an enormous positive impact on life chances. The research is very clear on that.

Whether it is on the basis of stories that we have heard in our constituency surgeries, evidence received by our Select Committee or the statistics that we are offered at local authority level, we all agree that neither young people nor their families should be victims of these distressing and heartbreaking environments. Families who end up in these situations often do so not through their own fault, but as a result of living in poverty. We ought to do much more, not only by providing support to people who need it, but by investing—using evidence and data—in prevention. That is not only the right thing to do; it is right for those individuals and for our country.

I share the right hon. Gentleman’s concerns about the response that our Select Committee received from the Government. I look forward to the Minister’s confirming that we will be able to work with this new cross-departmental group, hopefully to elicit a more positive response.

[Dr Paul Williams (Stockton South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I wholeheartedly welcome the excellent report by the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) and his colleagues. I thank them for their attention to detail and their superb recommendations. I recently chaired a Health and Social Care Committee inquiry into “First 1000 days of life”—it is listed on the Order Paper as a connected report—and I will talk about some of our findings. I also chair the all-party parliamentary group for the prevention of adverse childhood experiences. The debate has real relevance to both.

In my 27 years’ experience of studying and then working in health services, as I still do, I have realised that if our society wants the most effective interventions that improve health and reduce inequalities, we have to act in the early years—particularly in the period from conception to the age of two, but generally the earlier, the better—because the real seeds of health inequalities are sown during that time. Good physical, emotional, social and language development during that time is crucial to building healthy brains and healthy children, which leads to our having a healthier and better society.

The Health and Social Care Committee’s “First 1000 days of life” report, which I recommend to colleagues—they may not get the chance to read it, so I will highlight a few recommendations later—sets the Government the ambitious challenge of kick-starting the second revolution in early years services, as recommended in the 2010 Marmot report, so that our country can become the best place in the world for a child to be born into. Almost all the research into this subject demonstrates that our path in life is set during the crucial early years. Healthy social and emotional development during that time lays the foundations for good physical and mental health.

However, our current political system invests a fortune in reacting to problems later on in life but is currently disinvesting in early years, leaving a gaping void where we should be warriors and champions for a healthier society. During the first 1,000 days of life, from when a baby is conceived until the age of two, more than 1 million new brain connections are made every single second. Imagine that: a million new brain connections made every single second.

Brains are shaped by their interactions with society, but tragically, more than 8,000 babies under the age of one in this country live in households where the trilogy of domestic violence, alcohol or drug dependency and severe mental illness are all present. More than 8,000 developing brains under the age of one—a crucial age—are exposed to that environment. More than 200,000 children under the age of one live with an adult who has experienced domestic violence or abuse. We have already heard powerful arguments for intervening to reduce that cycle of abuse. Two million children under the age of five live with an adult with a mental health problem.

We know that many children who experience such adversity become happy and healthy adults, but adversity in childhood is strongly linked to almost all health problems and many social problems. Children exposed to adverse childhood experiences such as those that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) talked about are much more likely to get physical health problems, such as heart disease. Exposure to ACEs as a child increases the chances of getting heart disease, cancer and mental health problems in adulthood.

[Norman Lamb]

And obesity.

[Dr Williams]

And obesity.

Children exposed to four or more ACEs are 30 times more likely to attempt suicide at some point in their life. They are 11 times more likely to end up in prison. They are even three times more likely to smoke in adulthood than people who did not experience any ACEs. Our politics is currently failing many of these children, and it is failing other families in which children and young people are still living in poverty.

My belief is that we need to devote more attention to and provide more protection during the early years. As we have seen today, many people from across the political divide share that belief, even though we do not seem to have a politics that ends up delivering more resources in this area. It is an area in which politicians should be working together. It was really encouraging to see the announcement last year of the early years family support ministerial group, led by the Leader of the House. That has the potential to take forward some of the Science and Technology Committee’s recommendations.

To conclude, I would like to reflect on some of the parallel and supporting recommendations made by the Health and Social Care Committee following our inquiry. We also, and independently, identified the lack of a long-term cross-departmental strategy for the early years. The lack of strategy means that it is extremely difficult for local authorities to know what they should be doing. That results in some local authorities excelling, and it may well be that they are the ones that most come to the attention of Government, but many local authorities really would appreciate more central direction on this and would welcome it if the Government set some demanding goals to reduce ACEs, improve school-readiness and reduce infant mortality and child poverty. We have to consider all this in the context of increasing levels of child poverty, too.

Our report recommended that a Cabinet-level Minister, possibly the Minister for the Cabinet Office, should have specific Cabinet-level responsibility for the oversight of a national early years strategy. However, it is not enough just to have strong central leadership, although that is necessary; the Government are right to say that all the delivery must be local. The Committee that I chaired heard evidence of fantastic local community collaboration—the NHS, local authorities, the voluntary and community sector, and normal members of local communities working together. They should be the people bringing the Government’s national strategy to life at local level, inspiring improved support for children, parents and families in their areas.

However, that requires money and it requires organisations to pool budgets. We have seen health services and local authorities pool budgets into the better care fund in order to deliver on shared objectives for older adults. I think that we should have a better start fund, whereby local authorities, health services and the voluntary and community sector are pooling all their financial but also human resources around a set of shared objectives for the start of life.

There should also be a named, nominated individual in every local authority who is accountable to Government for that, because without accountability there is a real difficulty in ensuring that every local authority is meeting the required standards. There needs to be accountability and ring-fencing of money. There will always be urgent problems that demand attention and resources. We need to be able to secure this strategic shift from reaction to prevention, from constantly dealing with the urgent problems that are in front of us to investment in tackling the important problems that will reduce the urgent problems in subsequent years.

The Health and Social Care Committee’s report also calls for the existing and very good healthy child programme to be improved and given greater impetus. We think that it should be expanded to focus on the whole family, including fathers, rather than just the child, and that it should begin before conception. At the moment it does not begin until there is a child developing in a mother’s womb, but more work could be done before conception. The science of epigenetics is teaching us that what happens before conception can have a lifelong impact. The healthy child programme also needs to deliver more continuity of care for families. Having a different point of contact every time often leaves vulnerable families feeling isolated and confused. Health visitor engagement should be extended beyond the age of two and a half to ensure that all children are school-ready.

Our Committee heard from Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and other parts of the United Kingdom that had enhanced the healthy child programme. However, as the right hon. Member for North Norfolk has identified, there are many parts of the country where the healthy child programme is inadequate. At the moment there are five mandated contacts, and we heard that for some families that contact involves just sending a letter. How can a mum who is experiencing mental health problems, with all the associated stigma and the difficulty of disclosing that, possibly disclose it in the context of filling in a form rather than of having a supportive and engaged individual who is building a relationship with her? We were also told that 65% of families do not see a health visitor after the six to eight-week check. That clearly is not good enough.

Like the Science and Technology Committee, the Health and Social Care Committee identified the need for much better information sharing. Information needs to be shared among the different organisations. One problem is that there are often many different organisations helping to support a family and they are not talking to one another and do not use the same computer systems. Information governance rules can be an issue. Even though we know that the seventh Caldicott principle—sharing information when that is in someone’s best interests—is often the most important one, individuals working in those organisations often think that they are doing the right thing by not sharing information.

We also need to share information to make it possible for the long-term impact of interventions, perhaps in pregnancy or in early childhood, to be tracked to measure their effectiveness. At the moment, because we do not use a single identifier such as the NHS number, we cannot see whether a pregnancy intervention is having a desired outcome.

[Norman Lamb]

On the point about information sharing, it always strikes me that the tragedies that happen, such as that of Baby P, often happen because of a failure to share information and never because too much information has been shared. It is vital to change the culture, so that people understand the principle of the Caldicott rules about the importance of sharing information.

[Dr Williams]

I agree wholeheartedly. The right hon. Gentleman is right to use the word “culture”, because even though the guidance and rules are clear, and there are many circumstances in which it is in a person’s best interests for information to be shared, and actually the public expect us to be sharing information, the culture in health and care services is often one in which very well-intentioned and well-meaning professionals feel that they are acting in a patient’s interests by not sharing information. Perhaps the leaders of organisations are not permissive enough and encouraging enough about such sharing.

Last but certainly not least, the workforce are crucial to this. There must be a workforce strategy to tackle the reduction in the number of health visitors. I do not think that was a deliberate strategy, with the Government saying, “Let’s cut the number of health visitors by 2,000.” I think it has happened by accident. I think it has happened because the commissioning of the healthy child programme for the 0-to-19 age group was taken away from the NHS and given to local authorities, and that happened to coincide with a time when we had a Government who perhaps had less central control of that, and austerity. Of course, austerity was deliberate, but I do not think that anyone ever sat down and said, “It would be better for our country to have fewer health visitors.” Nevertheless, the consequence has been that there are fewer health visitors, and we need to make sure that those massive gaps are plugged.

We also need to make sure that the skills and knowledge of existing health visitors are improved. That is not to say that they do not have high levels of knowledge, but I have met many health visitors in the past year who had only recently become aware of the concept of ACEs, and who perhaps still lacked some skills around motivational interviewing and the ability to put themselves in another person’s shoes—to move towards where people are, rather than following the traditional, slightly more paternalistic approach of health services, which has been to try to persuade people to move to where we are.

If we get early years right, there will be huge benefits for everyone in our society. As politicians we should try to get them right, not just because it makes financial sense, but because every one of us knows that the evidence shows that doing so will create a better society. We should do it because we have a moral responsibility to our country’s children. Every child deserves the best start in life.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Chris Skidmore)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I congratulate the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) on securing this important debate on behalf of the Science and Technology Committee. I know this is an area that he cares passionately about, and I pay personal tribute to the work he did in a previous Parliament as Minister of State for Community and Social Care between 2012 and 2015.

I also thank other hon. Members who have participated in today’s debate. Their contributions have shown not only clarity of thought about these issues, but real passion about what is taking place in their local areas. It is a tribute to those Members’ local commitment that they have worked with their communities to address these issues. We have heard from the hon. Members for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), for Stockton South (Dr Williams), for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) and for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin), and there have also been important interventions from the hon. Members for Stroud (Dr Drew) and for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield). I am grateful for the opportunity to set out the Government’s approach to addressing early childhood adversity and trauma, and the actions we are taking to improve children’s life chances through early intervention.

The Government are strongly committed to effective early intervention in childhood. That means not only effective prevention, identification and support for children and families in need, but building a strong evidence base to underpin those things. The hon. Member for Bristol North West asked whether I, as Science Minister, would commit to ensuring that we take forward an evidence-led approach. I passionately believe that the investment we make in research must not only go into healthcare research, but into the social sciences.

[Norman Lamb]

I appreciate the point that the Minister is making, but does he recognise that without collection and national analysis of data, we have no idea how public money is being spent across the country and whether it is being spent effectively?

[Chris Skidmore]

I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s point, and I agree with what he has said about data collection; I will return to that topic later on. I am also a new Minister in the Department for Education, covering the universities sector. I recently set up a higher education data advisory committee, because I value the importance of such evaluation at both local and national level— for example, when we look at university access and participation. We have also set up the Evidence and Impact Exchange in partnership with King’s College London and Nottingham Trent University, to examine the methodology behind encouraging more disadvantaged pupils to have access to, and opportunities at, university. That is at one end of the scale, but today we are talking about what we need to do at a far earlier stage of a child’s education.

When it comes to scientific research, and early years research in particular, we must ensure that we listen to the scientific community when it comes to neuroscience and cognitive behaviour; that we are careful about how we use that scientific research to make public arguments and develop public policy; and that we work with those scientists. I am sure that they will develop new innovations and scientific research, which may even challenge our understanding of these policies. It is important that we work together as a community, understanding that evidence base and drawing on the good work already conducted at national and local level.

I welcome the recent establishment of the early years ministerial group on family support, which is reviewing how to improve the support available to families in the first two years of a child’s life, identifying opportunities for co-ordination and improving cost-effectiveness. I look forward to the valuable contribution of that group, which will provide specific recommendations to the Secretary of State. I am unable to provide a timetable for that, as the hon. Member for Batley and Spen asked me to, but I will ensure that the group is aware of today’s debate. I am sure that its members will all wish to engage with the Science and Technology Committee regarding specific issues raised in its report, and on any future work that the Committee does. The Government value the work of that Committee and recognise its place in public discourse. As we proceed, we will make sure that we engage with some of the recommendations that the Committee has made.

[Mike Gapes in the Chair]

Turning to the role of Government in early intervention, the model for adverse childhood experiences gives us a helpful focus for action on early intervention. We must also ensure that there is an overarching model for care and support. Fundamental to that is the belief that local areas are best placed to understand the needs of their local communities, and to commission early intervention services that best meet those local needs as part of a whole systems model. We have heard about some excellent examples of local innovation, such as the one given by the hon. Member for Bristol North West, who talked about the work of Bristol City Council. The fact that the council had to hold its conferences twice clearly demonstrates the demand for those services. We also heard about the work in Greater Manchester. It is important that we allow that innovation and creativity to flourish as part of future work, but, importantly, we should not expect local areas to do that work alone. The matter is a serious and complex one, and our approach, which reaches across all Departments and Governments, reflects that.

Our approach is based on a number of principles, which are as follows. First, early rather than late intervention is key; secondly, the role of central Government is to support, facilitate and work with local government and other partners to tackle these issues together; thirdly, our solutions should be focused on outcomes and underpinned by evidence; and fourthly, successful strategies should be identified and shared widely within the sector. With that in mind, we have prioritised three key areas for central Government focus to build resilience to adversity and trauma. Those are: physical and mental health in pregnancy and childhood; protecting vulnerable children through effective children’s social care; and improving social mobility, supported in the early years by high-quality early education settings and learning in the home. That is underpinned at all levels by our work to improve services and partnerships locally, and to build the evidence base for what works.

I will address each of those areas in turn. First, when it comes to supporting physical and mental health in pregnancy and childhood, the Government recognise the serious impact that adversity in early childhood can have on children as they grow up; the hon. Member for Stockton South set out some striking examples. Support must begin as early as possible, and maternity services have a central role to play. The NHS long-term plan will make the NHS one of the best places in the world to give birth by offering mothers and babies better support. It will also expand the provision of quality mental health support for new and expectant mothers and their families. The evidence shows that this is a key opportunity to improve outcomes for mothers and children.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Skidmore]

I will come to the question of health visitors later in my speech, but I will be more than happy to pass on the hon. Lady’s point about the collection of data and look at what evaluations might be possible. I will certainly make sure that hon. Members’ contributions are reflected in my discussions with the Department.

Local authorities are receiving £16 billion between 2015 and 2021 to spend on public health functions, which includes funding to support the healthy child programme and the mandated five health visits, which the hon. Lady mentioned, for children between the ages of nought and five. We are seizing the opportunities presented by such moments with families. A key piece of partnership working between the Department and Public Health England will see the Institute of Health Visiting train up to 1,000 health visitors in 2019 to identify and support children with speech, language and community needs early. The health visitors will then cascade the training to provide even greater reach. It is important to make sure that an evaluation takes place to make sure it is as effective as possible.

On the recruitment of additional health visitors and the quantity of visits, health visiting services are commissioned by local health authorities, and health visitors are employed by the local health service providers. However, the Government will continue to work with partners, child development experts and professional organisations representing health visitors to ensure that the healthy child programme remains an effective and evidence-based framework providing good health, wellbeing and resilience for every child.

On the wider issues around early intervention and making sure it is adversity-targeted among the early years workforce more broadly, it is crucial that early years practitioners are well trained to protect young children from the impacts of adversity and trauma. As part of the early years foundation stage statutory framework, service providers are obliged to ensure that all staff have up-to-date knowledge of safeguarding issues and are equipped to identify and address signs of abuse and trauma. We want to equip the early years workforce to deliver outstanding services, to adopt evidence-based approaches, to learn from best practice and to deliver quality outcomes. The Government are supporting that with a professional development fund and similar programmes, such as the newly established Social Work England, which will ensure that social workers receive the highest quality initial education access and continuing professional development.

[Norman Lamb]

It is helpful to hear what is happening now. Does the Minister see value in defining a national strategy—the approach taken in Scotland and Wales—to try to drive the good things that he says he wants and make sure they happen everywhere, or does he resist the idea? It is important for us to understand whether there is an opportunity to work together with the Department to try to achieve something that is greater than the sum of its parts. Is he up for that and could he persuade his colleagues, or does he positively resist what we are arguing for?

[Chris Skidmore]

The right hon. Gentleman has stolen the latter part of my speech. When it comes to the broader point, I recognise that the Committee’s work, for which the Government are extremely grateful, reflects on the development of a national strategy. Currently, the Government do not consider the formal publication of a national strategy to be necessary. However, the Government will seek to review the approach through the spending review and the upcoming prevention Green Paper, which will build on the November 2018 Department of Health and Social Care report “Prevention is better than cure”, and its priorities. Also, we will look forward to the value that the early years family support ministerial group will add to the Government’s approach. Although I cannot commit in today’s debate to taking forward a national strategy, the Government are certainly working on a future Green Paper and the approach might change.

It is important to reflect on a balanced collection of the evidence that demonstrates what works, which will then inform any future approaches as part of the future prevention Green Paper. I realise that my response does not entirely answer the right hon. Gentleman’s question, but I want to reflect on the fact that the present does not necessarily rule out a change of direction in future.

Various Members mentioned children’s centres. The Government believe that children’s centres have an important role to play in early intervention, but it is right that local councils continue to decide how to use them as part of the wider system of local services. As part of our local government programme, local authorities are looking into how early years services can be improved. The right hon. Gentleman raised the question of Ofsted inspections. When inspections of children’s centres were suspended, there was at the time an agreement that they were not fit for purpose. However, children’s social care services and all registered early years prevention, including that delivered in children’s centres, remain subject to robust and regular Ofsted inspections.

When it comes to the consultation that has been mentioned and the delay in moving forward, the Department still needs to understand how local authorities effectively use centres to improve outcomes as part of their broader strategy before we go further. That is why we will be investing in What Works, which I will talk about later in my speech, working with the Education Endowment Foundation and delivering the £8.5 million local government programme. The programmes will inform the next steps in our strategy, including any future consultation. We need to look at the evidence from the programmes before deciding whether a consultation is indeed the correct way ahead.

--- Later in debate ---

[Norman Lamb]

It is very good to see you in the Chair, Mr Gapes, and it is a pleasure to serve under you for the last part of the debate. I do not want to detain people for long, but I thank the Minister, particularly given that this is not his portfolio, for engaging in the discussion. He made an interesting point at the end about the Government’s £6 billion investment in early years. How extraordinary it is that we are making that investment without really having any idea about how it is being spent and whether it will be in any way effective.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin), made the very good point that we are committing more Government resource to children whose parents are both in work than we are to the most disadvantaged children. I understand the value of that from a work perspective, but the Government have to understand that that increases the divide between the most disadvantaged and all the rest.

I thank the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), who has stayed to the bitter end, for all his work on the Committee. I thank the Scottish National party spokesperson, the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day), and the shadow Minister for their contributions. The striking thing was that everybody who contributed to the debate, including the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Drew), was making the same points to the Minister.

Perhaps I am being over-optimistic in seeing a little chink of light. Although the Government’s approach is wholly inadequate and passive in response to such significant evidence, I note the point that the Minister made in response to my intervention. He said that we have three key things coming up: the inter-ministerial working group, the Government’s Green Paper on prevention, and the spending review. Combined, they provide us with an opportunity to follow the evidence, to start spending money in a way that applies evidence about what works, and to monitor what is happening around the country. It is not about directing local areas and imposing things on them from the centre, but holding them to account because we have the data nationally to do that.

We have an opportunity that, as has been said, is completely non-party political; it is just about the effective use of public money, and investing at the moment when it is of most value and impact—early, rather than later, when the damage has already been done. There is an opportunity here, and I urge the Minister and his colleagues to grasp it, rather than to continue in a way that fails too many children across our country.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the Eleventh Report of the Science and Technology Committee, Evidence-based early years intervention, HC 506, and the Government response, HC 1898.

Net Zero Carbon Emissions: UK’s Progress

Norman Lamb Excerpts

Thursday 28th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Layla Moran]

The hon. Gentleman is right. Report after report and evidence after evidence show that the UK is not doing enough to drive down emissions.

[Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)]

I am delighted that my hon. Friend has secured this debate. She has made the point that emissions have not fallen. In fact, most recently, they have increased. Does she agree that the target of ending carbon vehicles by 2040 is not ambitious enough?

[Layla Moran]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The theme of my speech today is that we are not doing enough.

Sustainable Seas

Norman Lamb Excerpts

Thursday 17th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman, who was instrumental in getting consensus around the recommendations to the Foreign Office. Ascension Island could benefit from a huge boost from tourism if it was designated. He is right that the Antarctic krill fishing industry is very heavily regulated, but, again, it is in danger of over-exploitation in order to feed our insatiable demand for farmed fish, including salmon. Increasing the no-take areas and protecting them properly is really, really important.

[Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady and her Committee on a very good report. I was struck recently by the Simon Reeve series on the Mediterranean, which highlighted, in particular, the vast areas of plastic greenhouses around Almería in south Spain, where they produce enormous quantities of vegetables and fruit for European supermarkets, including those in this country. I have written to all the supermarkets in this country, but I am not convinced that proper measures are in place to guarantee that the supply chains are meeting high environmental and labour standards. Those chains make use of migrant labour from Africa and have awful working conditions. Does she share my view that the supermarkets have a real responsibility here?

[Mary Creagh]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question, and I share his concern about the plastics that come off the greenhouses where our tomatoes and cucumbers are grown, which are discarded and then literally chucked into the sea. We treat the sea as a waste disposal unit, and it is not. There is more that supermarkets can do in tackling the full carbon footprint of the fruits and vegetables that they import and making sure that they stamp out any abuse and any forced and slave labour in their fruit and picking supply chains. We know that that they is an area where forced labour and child labour are prevalent.

Budget Resolutions

Norman Lamb Excerpts

Wednesday 31st October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)]

Thank you for calling me to speak, Madam Deputy Speaker. I had been misled into thinking that my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) would be next, but I am delighted to be called.

I welcome the Budget and in particular the fact that over 70,000 more people are in work in the north-east than when Labour left office—the equivalent of every man and woman in my constituency. This Budget ensures that there will be more.

The £14 million of direct investment in the South Tees Development Corporation brings the total pledged to the site over the last year to £137 million. Tees Valley Mayor Ben Houchen will now be able to deliver two major new metals projects, which will create 1,500 high-quality jobs. Despite the worst efforts of the Labour party, people recognise that something special is stirring in my region and that new hope is being kindled on the banks of the Tees.

There is social justice, too. The hon. Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) mentioned mental health in her speech and I agree with her completely that it is a major crisis for many young people. I would add that £2 billion was committed to mental health in the Budget. That is an important investment, which it is important to note.

On universal credit, a fortnight ago, I visited my local jobcentre in Loftus. The team there were passionately committed to supporting people into work. The billions committed by the Chancellor means that Torsten Bell of the Resolution Foundation was able to state unequivocally that

“the Government’s flagship welfare reform is now more generous than the benefit system that it is replacing.”

On Hallowe’en, let us put an end to the scaremongering that we keep hearing about that vital programme. As a nation, let us embrace the principle that everyone will now be better off in work than on welfare.

We also need to look to the future in other ways. Boldness and bravery must be our watchwords. On housing, the fundamental problem is Government-induced restriction on supply. Delivering demand-side policies without addressing the artificial constraints on the availability of land will serve only to increase taxes and inflate housing costs still further. Last month, in my paper for Freer, I called for us to lift the restrictions on development within half a mile of stations in the green belt.

[Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Resolution Foundation. Does he also recognise that it identified that better-off households, the top 10%, will be £410 a year better off, whereas the poorest households will only gain £30 a year? Does he support that?

[Mr Clarke]

I support tax cuts for hard-working people throughout our country. They had to put up with the highest burden of taxation in this country for generations.

To go back to housing—I am conscious of time—the small release of land that I am proposing would create enough land supply for at least 1.5 million new homes, while leaving 98% of all existing green belt land entirely untouched. Indeed, the remaining area of the green belt would still be over 115% larger than it was in 1979. There is growing cross-party consensus on this topic. I pay tribute to the campaigning work by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh). We should also be looking at innovative proposals such as those from London YIMBY, which set out how we could empower individual streets to set their own design codes and build upwards rather than outwards.

We also need to look to Brexit. We must stop looking at our leaving a dysfunctional and anti-democratic EU as a problem to be mitigated, rather than as an opportunity to be seized. Trying to cling desperately to the skirts of the customs union is frankly unworthy of the world’s fifth-biggest economy. The announcement that there will be a special economic area in the Tees valley is genuinely welcome news. I hope that it will become the first free port in the UK after Brexit, and, indeed, the first of many. But if that free zone is to be a success, it will need meaningful powers. I refer Ministers to the speech I gave in Westminster Hall in the debate I secured with the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field). As we sit here today, we do not know the precise nature of our future trading relationship with Europe. I can say with confidence, however, that half measures and a lack of national self-belief must be rejected utterly as we forge our new path in the world.

Brexit, Science and Innovation

Norman Lamb Excerpts

Thursday 6th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House takes note of the Science and Technology Committee’s Second Report on Brexit, science and innovation, HC 705, and the Government Response, Fifth Special Report, HC 1008; further takes note of the Science and Technology Committee’s Eighth Report on An immigration system that works for science and innovation, HC 1061; believes that the Government should seek to agree with the EU the far-reaching science and innovation accord proposed by the Prime Minister in her Mansion House speech and in The Future Relationship Between the United Kingdom and the European Union White Paper, Cm 9593; calls for this accord to be negotiated separately from wider EU-UK trade negotiations; and further calls for the science and innovation accord to include details of an immigration system that works for the science and innovation community.

It’s me again, I’m afraid. The motion relates to two recent reports from the Science and Technology Committee, and I again thank the members of the Committee for their work on the inquiries. I also thank the Liaison Committee for recommending to the Backbench Business Committee that the House should have the opportunity to hold this debate today. The House has spent many hours discussing the implications of leaving the European Union for the big political issues, such as trade, regulation and freedom of movement, often in ways that are deeply divisive between those who support remaining in the EU and those who believe we should be leaving, which was the decision in the referendum. Today, however, we have an opportunity to explore the effects of Brexit on something which, at least in theory, is less politically contentious for many but just as important to get right.

No one is rushing to the barricades to demand the end to scientific collaboration, about which we should all be able to agree. I am sure that Members across the House will want to join me in underlining the absolute importance of science and innovation to the economy, but I hope that today will also help to generate some political momentum to make it certain that science does not become a casualty of the Brexit process, particularly given the concerns that no deal could emerge from the negotiations.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s introductory remarks. Despite our views on Brexit, I am sure that we are on the same page. Does he agree that this country has led the world in many scientific discoveries for hundreds of years and that there has been close collaboration on such discoveries across Europe for hundreds of years? Scientific collaboration did not start on 1 January 1973 and will not end on 29 March next year. Can we agree on that?

[Norman Lamb]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. In a sense, these reports are all about seeking to ensure that collaboration does continue beyond March next year, and I of course completely accept that fact about collaboration, not just across Europe, but across the world.

My Committee has produced two reports this year looking at the impact of Brexit on science and innovation. They build on work undertaken by my two predecessor Committee Chairs and their Committees in the 2015 Parliament. One of those Chairs was the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe), who continues to be a member of the Science and Technology Committee. I pay tribute to him for his work and note that he is in his seat for this debate. The first of this year’s two reports, as referenced on the Order Paper, was published in March following a summit with more than 50 representatives of the science and innovation community. We are grateful for the community’s willingness both to respond quickly to our call for evidence and to participate in that event.

The report recognises the current strength of British science on the world stage and the Government’s commitment to science and research through a range of policies. For instance, the Government have made science a key pillar of the industrial strategy, and they have also committed to increase R&D spending further to the OECD average of 2.4% of GDP by 2027.

Those commitments are very welcome, but the shadow of whether the UK will participate in all aspects of EU schemes such as Horizon 2020 and its successor programme after March 2019 looms large. Whatever form of Brexit we end up with, there is a need to make sure that the international standing of UK research is protected, and indeed strengthened, following March next year.

A key recommendation of our report is that the Government should explicitly commit to seeking associated country status for Horizon 2020’s successor programme, now known as Horizon Europe. The UK has received €4.73 billion from Horizon 2020 to date, and Horizon Europe is set to be a huge increase in ambition, and the pot of money available will total €100 billion from 2021 to 2027.

Since our report, the Government’s no deal technical note on Horizon 2020 funding has underlined the importance of such close association. The note confirms that, without a deal that secures associated country status, we will not be eligible to participate in some very important elements of Horizon 2020 during its remaining years, including European Research Council funds. The campaign group Scientists for EU has calculated that we stand to lose around £0.5 billion each year in the event of no deal by not being eligible to access those funds, although it is important to say that presumably we would not be paying in during that period either.

The plans for Horizon Europe set out an enhanced role for third countries—in other words, countries outside the EU—in the new scheme when Horizon 2020 has run its course. The Government have played their part in shaping the programme for Horizon Europe, but the Minister has said that participation is contingent on three things.

First, it is contingent on the programme’s continued focus on excellence. I think we have reassurance, but it would be helpful if the Minister updated us. Secondly, it is contingent on agreeing a suitable participation fee. The Minister has said that he supports participation but “not at any price”. Thirdly, it is contingent on securing a suitable level of influence on the programme.

The last point remains a challenging issue. We are likely to be one of the biggest contributors to the programme if we do participate, but the proposed rules for Horizon Europe prevent third countries from having “decisional powers” over the programme. In financial terms, it appears that we will not be allowed to get more out than we put in, as we have been able to do in the past.

The Minister will need to be able to sell the idea of participation to the Treasury, which on the face of it is made more challenging by there being no voting rights, according to the EU’s current position. On the other hand, formal voting is rarely, if ever, necessary, and there may be other ways in which the UK could have influence over the programme if the EU will not shift on formal voting rights. Either way, the science community takes the view that striking an agreement is vital, as this international funding programme is so important and so highly regarded.

Incidentally, I also urge the EU negotiators to demonstrate some flexibility, because if the UK is to be one of the largest contributors to the programme, it does not seem unreasonable that we should be given decision-making powers as a third country.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman is making some sound and sensible points about the negotiations on the future of Horizon 2020. We have been a net beneficiary of those funds. Does he accept not only that, overall, as the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee said, we contribute a great deal more than that to the EU budget but that Horizon 2020, which deals with elite science, is not the only source of science funding? Taking into account the regional funds that go into science, we are actually a major net contributor to the science budget, not a gainer.

[Norman Lamb]

I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point, but it is also important to say that, internationally, the Horizon 2020 funding scheme is regarded as the best in class. There are those, among both Brexiteers and remainers, who support participation in the scheme because it just makes sense for science. I would be grateful if the Minister updated us on progress on the critical issue of negotiating a satisfactory way for this country to participate.

Shortly before our report was published, the Prime Minister’s Mansion House speech set out the Government’s intention to secure

“a far-reaching science and innovation pact with the EU”.

That would, in principle, address such concerns about our future relationship. A key recommendation of our report back in March was that the Government should therefore seek to agree such a pact as soon as possible. We argued that, because co-operation in science and innovation is a win-win for both the UK and the EU, getting an early agreement could set a positive tone for the rest of the negotiations. Sadly, that particular opportunity has now all but evaporated and discussions on the high-profile political issues are, of course, intensifying against a backdrop of red lines and deadlines, which are getting ever closer.

We see a need for urgency on this. Ongoing uncertainty is damaging to future collaborations, as partnerships and bids take time to develop. At the moment, no one who is considering bids for funding under the successor programme has any idea whether we will be part of it or not.

[Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)]

The report was published in March. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we have since seen the White Paper on the Government’s wider Brexit strategy, which makes it clear that the Government wish to develop discussions towards having an association strategy? Many of the issues raised in March have therefore been followed by more detail in the White Paper.

[Norman Lamb]

I agree that what the Government have said is encouraging but, going back to the report, getting this agreed and ending the uncertainty is important because people want to develop bids now, and every month that goes by causes increased uncertainty. That is the key point I want to make.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one area where continuing uncertainty is a real problem for the future of our scientific research excellence, as mentioned in the report, is access to people? The expertise, the discoveries and the developments that the Exiting the European Union Committee saw on our visit to Cambridge fundamentally rely on the quality of research scientists and others.

One of the United Kingdom’s great strengths is collaboration between people. The Science and Technology Committee reports on people going home and on a decline in applications. Until there is certainty about the continuing flow of the best people from around the world into the UK to carry on that work, will that not be a problem for the future?

[Norman Lamb]

The right hon. Gentleman pre-empts what I was going to say. That was the subject of our second report, and he is right that, whenever we go to a research lab in a university or a research institute, we find a global community—a community not just of Europeans but of people from around the world.

If our pre-eminent position is to be maintained and indeed strengthened, we need to make sure we can continue to attract people to our country.

I have one other point to make about the danger of this uncertainty. Why would anyone risk their bid, which might involve other universities from across the EU, by listing the UK as a lead partner if there are question marks as to whether we can receive funds on behalf of others? The danger of this continuing uncertainty is also that the UK, which has been very good at leading research collaborations, will lose out on the opportunity to do that during this period of uncertainty.

The Committee also argued that it was important to try to separate out science and innovation from the rest of the process so that it does not become collateral damage. The no deal technical note shows why that is a pressing issue; science could suffer as a result of a no deal scenario, and it is in no one’s interests to let that happen. I would like to hear the Minister’s views on the possibility of creating an accord on science and innovation that could withstand a no deal scenario. I hope he will address that during the debate.

Access to funding has clearly been a big issue in this report, but we are also clear that a science and innovation pact—this relates to the point made by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn)—has also fully to cover the people element. We were told that a pact that did not address the need to attract and retain the people needed to support science and innovation would be of limited value. We were given the clear message that access to the best people is the most important priority; beyond the collaboration and the funding issues, we have to be able to bring in the best people for research in this country.

At the time, the Migration Advisory Committee’s report on immigration and the UK economy was many months away. We were told it was due in September, so, presumably, it is due any day now. We recommended in March that the MAC should be asked to bring forward its conclusions relating to the migration of scientists and researchers so that the comprehensive pact could be agreed early on. The Government rejected that recommendation in their response. We were told that agreeing a pact—now described as one of the “accords” in the most recent Brexit White Paper—remained an ambition but that we would have to wait until September for the MAC to produce its report before anything relating to immigration could be considered. We are in September now and this becomes a pressing issue.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said. I declare an interest: I am a member of the board of the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine and the Innovative Vector Control Consortium. Does he agree that in attracting the highest calibre scientists and researchers from around the world, any legislation needs to look at the qualifications and experience of those people, not just a purely salary-based criterion? So often, science does not pay enough; the salaries are not high enough. We might find that if an arbitrary limit of £30,000, £35,000 or £40,000 a year were set, we would be excluding the best and the brightest, simply because scientists do not work for lots of money—they work for other, higher ideals.

[Norman Lamb]

Was I right in hearing that the hon. Gentleman was referring to the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, an amazing place, which I visited in my role as Chair? It undertakes incredible work in a previously deprived part of Liverpool and demonstrates that investment in science in some of the poorer regions of our country is vital. He makes an important point and, like the right hon. Member for Leeds Central, he pre-empts what I will say on this subject.

As a result of issues such as the one the hon. Gentleman raises, we decided specifically to explore the issue of immigration rules and what will be needed to ensure that the UK can maintain its pre-eminent position. Again, I do not think that this should be in any way controversial, for either Brexiteers or remainers; those who favoured Brexit were simply arguing that they wanted control of immigration rules, not that we should exclude the brightest and best people from our country. So for our report “An immigration system that works for science and innovation”, the second cited in today’s motion, the Committee asked the science community to work quickly to set out what it wanted to see in an immigration system. We are particularly grateful to the Wellcome Trust for hosting a workshop so that we could develop some concrete proposals. I hope that they will be of use to the Government as they seek to navigate their way through to their future position for this country.

Our proposals were designed to tackle the rapidly approaching problem of what to do about European economic area immigration when the transition period ends. We were warned that the worst thing to do after Brexit would be to roll EEA countries into our existing rest-of-the- world system, as that was seen as too restrictive and so would not facilitate the free flow of people to carry out research in our country. But in the future, if our proposals relating to EEA countries are accepted, we saw that there would be advantages to rolling out our proposals beyond the EEA, so that there is a single immigration system that works for science and innovation, and that attracts great people from wherever they are around the world to come to work in this country.

Our proposals for a new immigration system that works for science and innovation are based on several principles. We must bear in mind that this is important not just for academia, but for industry, and it is therefore crucial for our economy, too. Let me set out those principles. The first is that we need to be able to attract individuals who have different types and levels of skill, and who are at different career stages, as well as their dependants. That means going beyond the “brightest and the best” whom the Government refer to so that we can attract and retain people such as the technicians, who are so crucial to undertaking research; they may be part of a team we are seeking to recruit from overseas. Secondly, we need to be able to attract and recruit highly skilled people, wherever they are from, without being subject to an annual limit.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on bringing this important report before the House. Does he agree that we are already seeing challenges—I have certainly seen them in my constituency—relating to technical staff and the thresholds in the immigration system as it stands, which are putting people off coming to the UK to work or have already caused them to leave? The UK Government will have to be very bold and imaginative and to embrace fully these proposals if we are to retain and attract staff in the future.

[Norman Lamb]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention and I agree with what she says. It should be in everyone’s interests that we facilitate bringing bright and great people to our country, whatever level they are at, because that benefits our economy, employment, our ability to fund our public services and so on. Those who come here need to be able to travel outside the UK for research purposes without it harming that individual’s ability to apply for indefinite leave to remain. The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) was very persistent in pursuing that point during our inquiry. If spending time abroad on field trips and collaborating with others is part of someone’s research, they should not be penalised if they decide they want to make this country their home for the longer term.

The system also has to be efficient, and streamlined, with a low-cost application process for employees and employers. We currently have some of the highest visa fees in the world, which can be off-putting and burdensome. The cost of a tier 2 visa for a researcher, their spouse and three children will rise this month to £21,000, a fee that is way beyond what many people involved in research can pay. We argued in our report that the Home Office should not just use salary as a proxy for skill —that point was made by the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy). It is a sad truth that some high-skilled jobs in research are relatively poorly paid, and the system needs to recognise that. This country should not do itself harm by denying those people the ability to come here and thereby benefit our economy.

The specifics of our proposals fell into two parts: for short-term migration to the UK, we proposed that the Government establish visa-free and permit-free work in the UK for up to 180 days for skilled workers. Eligibility should be verified at the border with proof of intent to leave within that period, and a letter from the employer describing the nature of the skilled work. For long-term migration, we outlined a five-year skilled work permit for those with either an offer of employment—with a minimum salary that reflects the going rate for the job, as well as regional and public or private sector differences in salary—or third-party sponsorship, such as from a university.

There are precedents for these approaches, both at home and abroad. For short-term migration, we currently allow visitors from Canada and the USA to visit the UK to do academic research, attend conferences and undertake training for up to six months without a visa. In the US, the ESTA—electronic system for travel authorisation—visa-waiver programme allows entry for business or tourism for up to 90 days. For longer-term migration, the French have a “talent passport” model, which includes a scientist category under which researchers who have a hosting agreement and the equivalent of a master’s degree or above can apply for a visa for up to four years, with family members also able to apply for residence permits and to work.

A report commissioned by the Wellcome Trust analysed the visa systems of 22 countries and found that half of them have a dedicated immigration route or provision for researchers. Other countries do it to support science and research; we can do it as well. There is no reason why we cannot. We suggest that the Government would need to undertake further work with the science and technology community to co-create a system at the detailed level, but our proposals show the way forward. The Committee and the community have worked hard to be constructive and proactive on this issue, and those are the qualities that I expect to see in the Government response, when it arrives.

During our inquiry, we also uncovered opportunities for the Government to make changes now, unilaterally, to improve the current non-EEA immigration system while negotiations with the EU are ongoing. We saw a need to revise and clarify the criteria for tier 1 exceptional talent visas, which currently have low take-up. Some 2,000 visas are available each year, but there are currently only around 400 applications, which is way short of the potential capacity. Many believe that that part of the system is not working because the exceptional-talent criteria are too restrictive.

We called on the Government to reinstate the tier 1 post-study work visas, so that talented international graduates who have chosen to study at a UK higher education institution are able to contribute further to the UK economy by working here for up to two years. Our call has been supported this week by Universities UK, and a ComRes poll found that 72% of people think that international students should be able to stay to work for a year or more after graduation, with 52% in support of their being able to stay for two years or more.

Finally, we recommended that the Government remove the cap on tier 2 general visas. They have removed the cap for doctors and nurses, which frees up space for engineers and other professionals, but why should there be an arbitrary limit on skilled workers more generally? Surely it makes sense to encourage them to come to this country.

The Government’s response to our second report is due later this month, but I hope we will get a flavour of what to expect from the Minister’s response today. I hope that he will recognise the urgency of the need to arrange new immigration rules. The planned transition period gives us some time to develop an immigration system, but universities have said that they need two years’ notice of changes to immigration processes so that the prospective staff and students can prepare properly. I hope the Minister will be able to give us an update on agreeing an accord on science and innovation, which has been discussed for many months now.

Many other related issues are not covered in detail in the two reports, but I suspect that Members will wish to raise them in the debate. Examples include the Government’s decision to ask pharmaceutical companies to stockpile medicines as preparation for no deal; the future regulation of medicines when the European Medicines Agency moves from London to Amsterdam; and concerns about Euratom in respect of nuclear research and the availability of medical radioisotopes, which are essential tools for diagnostic tests and the treatment of cancer and other diseases.

To conclude, Madam Deputy Speaker—I am sorry to have tried your patience—I hope that, as a result of both reports and today’s debate, the Government will work to secure the accord on science and innovation as quickly as possible, and include information on how they expect the people element to work for highly skilled workers. It is crucial that we do all we can to maintain the UK’s pre-eminent position as a science and innovation superpower. It is in everyone’s interest. Moreover, provisions need to be made to protect science in the event of a no-deal scenario. I would like to hear what action the Minister has taken on that, as well.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Mr Sam Gyimah)]

I thank the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) and the Select Committee for their report, which was published in March. I welcome its recommendations. A lot has happened since March, so while I would like to take the opportunity to respond to the points that were made in the report, I will also give reassurances in terms of developments since it was published.

The world is changing and the world of science is changing. For the UK to remain at the forefront of scientific research and endeavour, we need to invest financially, but we also need to be open to collaboration. The best science is done internationally and through collaboration. The best science is not just about curiosity and blue-skies thinking; the best science affects us in our day-to-day lives. In terms of our collaboration with the EU, from the development of an Ebola vaccine to the discovery of graphene, the toughest material ever tested, the partnerships we have built with the EU have led to life-changing discoveries.

It is heartening to know that the UK plays a vital role in this landscape. Since 2014, UK researchers and innovators have been awarded 15% of all Horizon 2020 funds—about £4 billion—and we have co-ordinated about 20% of all projects. From the Euratom research and training programme, the UK receives about 17% of its annual budget. The UK also hosts the most advanced nuclear fusion reactor on behalf of the EU.

The Government are not only putting their money where their mouth is on science, with this country’s highest ever investment in public R&D, we are determined to be a top collaborator with the EU and the world in future. Currently, the EU is our biggest collaborative partner. We are a top-five partner with each of the EU member states and the EU as a whole. We are working to make sure that that remains so. That is why we want to agree an ambitious science and innovation accord with the EU, one which facilitates the exchange of researchers and ideas along with allowing for UK participation in EU research programmes, including the successor to Horizon 2020—Horizon Europe—and Euratom research and training.

The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), said that Labour has committed to associate with Horizon Europe. Not only have this Government committed to doing so, but we have published our intentions in a position paper and we are actively in discussions to make this happen.

[Norman Lamb]

I am pleased to hear the positive tone that the Minister is taking. How confident is he, on the basis of the negotiations so far, that we will be a partner in Horizon Europe?

[Mr Gyimah]

I am extremely confident that there is scope for a win-win deal as far as science is concerned, and in my speech I will outline some of the reasons why.

To pick up a point that was made by the hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), it is important to be conscious of the language here. The language of the texts that are used is the language of negotiation, but that necessarily does not reflect our desire and our ambition, because in a negotiation we make sure that we play our cards very closely and often as close to our chest as possible. We do that and so do our counter-parties in the EU.

I want to give the House the assurance, having spoken with Commissioner Moedas and fellow Ministers in various member states, that it is clear that there is an appetite on their side as well to continue the EU’s long- established relationship with the UK.

We want not only to confirm our relationship through a co-operative accord, but to build on that through exploring full association. We are taking steps to look at what it would take to achieve this, and, together with my officials, we are in constant dialogue with other association countries—my officials were in Switzerland last week to discuss the Swiss experience of going through the negotiations that we are going through—but as I have said in the past and to the Select Committee, association cannot come at any cost and any agreement must work for both the UK and the EU.

We must be sure that our priorities for the programme are recognised and understood. Those include ensuring that the programme remains focused on excellence. If there were desires to widen participation, for example, we would argue that that is what EU structural funds are for, rather than funds from the science and innovation programme.

We also want EU added value, and we want this to be open to the world, as outlined in our position paper, which was published in March to feed into the design process. We are also keen to ensure an appropriate financial contribution for associate countries, as well as a suitable degree of influence. As I said to fellow EU Science Ministers in May at the last competitiveness Council, it is important on the EU’s part that they do not take actions or steps that devalue being an associate member and partner as they think about their own positions in this negotiation.

A number of points were made, particularly by the right hon. Member for North Norfolk, about the timetable on the regulations for Horizon. As he will be aware, the Commission published its draft proposal setting out the Horizon Europe programme on 7 June. This proposal is being discussed in detail in the Council, the working groups and the European Parliament. As such, the detail will not be set in stone until those institutions agree. This process may therefore continue beyond March 2019. Until that regulation is finalised, association to the programme will not be possible.

On why we do not have an early science deal, despite the fact that the desire and the will are there, it is difficult for us to associate with a programme that is still being discussed, negotiated and designed.

Quite rightly, a question was asked about what we mean by a level of influence. Until the draft Horizon Europe regulations are finalised, we would not want to comment on some of the specific details of the programme, but we would like the detail of specific elements to include participation, but also influence as associate members. We would want UK scientists, for example, to continue to play a role in technical discussions and exert soft influence in the process.

The Select Committee has been concerned about the level of urgency and focus as far as this negotiation is concerned—within Whitehall, but also within the EU. I give the House the assurance that we are playing a full and constructive role through discussions and the Council working groups on shaping the initiative, which will be supported through Horizon Europe.

We are determined that, while we are still members of the EU, we will use every lever of influence we have to help to shape the programme that we will want to associate with further down the line. The meetings started this week, and we will continue to play an active role until we are no longer a member state.

I am also aware that we are not the only ones who will be personally impacted by the results of these discussions. That is why I have asked the UK science base to inform the development of policy through the high-level group that I chair once a month. Its meetings provide an excellent forum for key members of the science and innovation community to offer their thoughts and concerns and have proven highly valuable.

We have also had two rounds of talks with the Commission. They were productive conversations, where the Commission agreed that science and innovation should be an area of co-operation between the EU and the UK. Through these mediums, we are ensuring that Horizon Europe and the Euratom research and training programme will provide value for money and be suitable for us to associate with. I can assure the House that an excellent team of professionals is working round the clock to make sure that science and research are not forgotten as we go through this important negotiation.

I am aware that this is not just about money; it is also about ensuring that the UK remains a partner of choice for international collaboration in the EU, but also on a global scale. The Select Committee will be aware that we have made significant progress in exploring new avenues with existing partners—signing agreements with the US and Canada, and publishing a joint UK-China strategy and, more recently, an agreement with the Israel Innovation Authority. Those achievements reflect our shared commitment to drive growth and tackle global challenges, and I want the UK to maximise all opportunities to continue to contribute to life-changing discoveries across the globe.

Mobility is absolutely crucial to success in this field, and I recognise that co-operation in this context is dependent on the UK’s ability to continue to attract global talent, including from the EU. With that in mind, I assure the House that we are carefully considering the options for our future immigration system. The Department is in regular discussions with the Home Office, and I have personally had discussions with the Home Secretary on how to support the movement of those engaged in science and research. We look forward to the publication of the Migration Advisory Committee’s report, and we will consider its conclusions and recommendations before taking decisions on the future immigration system.

We want to carry on bringing together brilliant talent and inventive minds from across the globe. We have shown that we are serious about this, with the recent introduction of the UK Research and Innovation-led scheme to support the temporary movement of scientists and researchers. We have also doubled the number of tier 1 exceptional talent visas for top global scientists to 2,000, but I note the concerns that were raised earlier in the debate. Removing doctors and nurses from the ambit of the tier 2 visa cap also provides more scope, but I take on board the points that have been made about friction.

Those changes will help to underpin the UK’s position as a hub for international collaboration and research. The £1 billion UK Research and Innovation Future Leaders Fellowships programme is also open to international scientists, and that is example of us putting our money where our mouth is in terms of attracting the brightest and the best.

Despite that progress, there are other things we need to think about and act on, one of which is ensuring the existence of an appropriate regulatory environment. On that front, continued co-operation is in the best interests of the EU and the UK. I understand that there are further questions about what the future looks like, and I want to reassure the House that I am actively engaging with my European counterparts and with colleagues across Whitehall to make sure that we secure the right outcome for the UK science base as we exit the EU.

We are working constructively with European colleagues to find a positive path towards a future relationship on science and innovation, but we are also being a responsible Government in preparing for every eventuality. On 23 August, we published a technical notice setting out the actions we will take to enable continued participation in Horizon 2020. First, we have given UK participants a guarantee that the Government will underwrite EU funding for all ongoing Horizon 2020 projects, as well as for successful bids submitted before exit. This guarantee applies even if participants are notified of their successful bid after exit. In July, the Chancellor announced an extension to the guarantee, which will now, additionally, fund UK organisations that successfully apply to calls open to third country participation after exit day and until the end of Horizon 2020.

I am aware of some recent press reports suggesting that a no-deal scenario will threaten the ability of UK participants to co-ordinate Horizon 2020 projects. I am happy to clarify that UK entities would still be able to lead projects and carry out all usual co-ordination tasks as a third-country participant. The funding guarantee provided by the underwrite, and the extension that is in place if required, includes funding for co-ordination tasks if they are carried out by a UK co-ordinator. This would help ensure that the UK remains at the centre of collaborative science and research.

On the practical considerations, to deliver the underwrite guarantee, we will soon launch an online portal where UK participants can register their details. The portal is designed to make sure that our delivery partner, UK Research and Innovation, has the initial information it needs about current participants. I encourage all UK participants to register their details when the portal is available; this will help UKRI to keep them informed of what they need to do to receive their funding if the underwrite is required.

We are considering what other measures may be necessary to support research and innovation in a no- deal scenario. This includes looking at how we continue to support excellence-based research such as that currently funded by the European Research Council and Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions, which are not covered by third-country participation. We should not, however, lose sight of the fact that a good deal, including an ambitious science and innovation accord, is the best outcome for both the UK and the EU, and this remains our top priority.

[Norman Lamb]

This has been quite a triumph: we have had a debate on Brexit that has been rational and where there has been broad consensus across the House. We have had a proud Brexiteer, the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman)—

[Matt Warman]

indicated dissent.

[Norman Lamb]

Well, someone representing a Brexit constituency then has made the case for a more liberal position on immigration for scientists and PhD students. I think there has been a clear call from this debate to the Government, and I welcome the constructive response from the Minister on the absolute importance of a deal for science that protects and, indeed, enhances science in this country. We cannot take our pre-eminent position in science for granted. We have to protect and, indeed, strengthen it, and the deal we do with the EU will be of vital importance to achieve that.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House takes note of the Science and Technology Committee’s Second Report on Brexit, science and innovation, HC 705, and the Government Response, Fifth Special Report, HC 1008; further takes note of the Science and Technology Committee’s Eighth Report on An immigration system that works for science and innovation, HC 1061; believes that the Government should seek to agree with the EU the far-reaching science and innovation accord proposed by the Prime Minister in her Mansion House speech and in The Future Relationship Between the United Kingdom and the European Union White Paper, Cm 9593; calls for this accord to be negotiated separately from wider EU-UK trade negotiations; and further calls for the science and innovation accord to include details of an immigration system that works for the science and innovation community.

Industrial Strategy

Norman Lamb Excerpts

Wednesday 18th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

The hon. Gentleman talks about predictions, but let us look at the past. We have cut corporation tax in every single year since 2010, but revenues from that tax have gone up. That shows exactly that the Government’s strategy is right.

Let us consider ideas about investment in our people and their education. When I go around schools in my constituency, I am struck by the fact that everyone is talking about STEM subjects—science, technology, engineering and maths. These subjects are being fostered and encouraged by the Government. The message is very much going out, right through the educational establishment and across schools, and it is very encouraging that that is happening. In my constituency, a number of schools are looking in particular to increase STEM participation among female students, which is very exciting. All these things are part of an industrial strategy. All these things will make the country more prosperous and more productive—they will drive future productivity growth. The Government are to be commended for taking an unusually medium to long-term view of the UK economy. Far too often in this House, we sling insults, with lots of abuse and all that, and we are very focused on the short term. It is exciting that in this industrial strategy we can think in terms of the medium and longer term.

On that note, infrastructure spending is very dear to my heart, as the Member for Spelthorne. Heathrow—the “H” word—is something that this Parliament will have to decide on, hopefully in the next few months, but certainly in the next couple of years. I have always been clear about my support for the third runway—or rather, I should say, the expansion of Heathrow. That is vital to drive forward the economy, productivity growth and prosperity, so we will have to tackle that.

On the broad range of infrastructure issues, investment in human capital with regard to STEM subjects, and research and development—

[Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)]

I absolutely welcome the increased investment in research and development to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but does he agree that aiming to get to the OECD average in 10 years is not exactly ambitious for this country?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

There are a huge number of ambitious initiatives in the industrial strategy. We are very good in this House—Opposition Members certainly are—at running the country down and pointing out shortfalls. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes) pointed out, we have some of the best universities in the world, and we have the best talent, as the Secretary of State mentioned. The trick, and the ambition, is to try to marry some of that talent with commercial productivity, and that is what the Government are trying to do. That is an exciting development. When we look at world-beating innovation and scientific research, we see that this country is right at the top of any list. We should celebrate that and try to improve on it, and I fully accept the remarks that have been made about that.

I am delighted that we are debating this issue because, as far as I can recall, it has been a very long time since we have talked about industrial strategy, certainly in this House. We are putting to bed a lot of the ghosts of the 1970s. I know that the Labour party does not necessarily want me to talk about the 1970s, but they were a disastrous era, when the so-called industrial strategy collapsed into a slightly absurd game of trying to pick winners and of backing industries that were totally failing. It is a real relief to hear a plan from the Secretary of State that moves away from some of those old ideas. Anyone who thinks we will drive innovation, R&D and talent by nationalising vast swathes of the British economy—anyone who thinks that is a viable option—deserves some sort of break or respite, because they are clearly not thinking particularly straight. I do not think it is right to confront this country with threats of nationalisation and confiscatory taxation. I do not think that helps the investment climate, and it is not a good form of industrial strategy. I am delighted that we are discussing this, and I look forward to contributions from Opposition Members that will be made in a more constructive spirit than the speech we heard just a few minutes ago.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Richard Harrington)]

We have had a really excellent debate today, as I think all right hon. and hon. Member would agree. One of the most important challenges facing this or any Government is seeing that the industrial sector—basically our economy—can develop in partnership with the Government.

In my brief career as an A-level economics student in the late ’70s, I visited a regional Neddy in Newcastle. We also went to London—it was the first time I had been to London, although not the last—to see how they worked. It seemed to me, at that time, to be civil servants and Ministers deciding which companies to pick. That is not what we are doing. This is a groundbreaking partnership involving the Government and industry working together. In my time at the Department, I have seen it involve hundreds of companies in a real way.

[Norman Lamb]

The Minister will be aware of the small business research initiative and the report, commissioned by the Government and prepared by David Connell, that was published last November. It is a really good report, but there has been no Government response. Will he or the Secretary of State be willing to meet me, in my role as Chair of the Science and Technology Committee, to discuss the report?

[Richard Harrington]

Both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I would be delighted to meet the right hon. Gentleman to discuss that important matter.

As I was saying, I have seen many companies involved in this industrial strategy. It is much more than the same few companies that are used to lobbying the Government from the centre. That is one of the great achievements. The shadow Secretary of State and shadow Minister made partisan speeches—the former rather more than the latter, I might say—and I could spend a long time rebutting them, but time does not allow. I must, however, respond to a few of their points. The shadow Secretary of State said there was no guidance for sector deals. It is all in the White Paper—there are six of them—and I am very happy to send her a copy. In fact, she can choose from one of the many languages that it is printed in. I will send her one of each.

The shadow Secretary of State said there was not enough research and development and that this was all hot air, but actually it lays a pathway for the biggest increase for 40 years. There is an extra £7 billion of research and development funding to 2022. After the 2.4% target, we are aiming for 3% and to be world class. She also mentioned, as did several of her colleagues, the issue of steel. We have had regular meetings with the managements of all the steel companies. I have visited two steel companies in the last week. Moreover, everyone in the Government, from the Prime Minister down, has been involved with the situation regarding President Trump and the United States. As for the sector deals, we are regularly talking about them with unions and companies alike. So this is not, as the hon. Lady said, gathering dust. It is very important to us. As for the local industrial strategy, it is really beginning to develop, and not just in three areas; it is being tested across places with different economies to see how it works.

We heard many other contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison) represents a constituency that she is always fighting for, because she understands, as do her constituents, the need for skills and new technology and the need to drive down costs, which is key to the whole industrial strategy. I look forward to visiting her constituency tomorrow and on Friday.

I have a lot of respect for the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey). We have worked together in various capacities. We might have been on opposite sides of the table, but we have not always been in opposition to each other. He mentioned Jaguar Land Rover, as did the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), and the recent announcement not to renew the contracts of 1,000 temporary staff at Solihull. I spoke to the managing director of Jaguar Land Rover on Monday, and he made it clear that that decision has been taken to safeguard the competitiveness of the plants in the European market. The automotive industry is a very good example of how the industrial strategy works, and I know it has an extremely bright future.

Fireworks

Norman Lamb Excerpts

Monday 29th January 2018 Westminster Hall

[Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)]

Does the hon. Lady agree with the view of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals that private use should be restricted to certain key dates, such as 5 November, new year’s eve, Diwali and Chinese new year? Does that make sense to her, because of concern about the fear caused to animals?

[Susan Elan Jones]

There is a very strong case for that. At the very least, the Government should launch a public consultation on the issue.

In June 2016 a Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson), stated that the fireworks industry is worth £180 million and directly employs 250 people, and that thousands of others in the supply chain would be affected by new legislation. So there we have it, a Conservative Minister making the economic case for the status quo, and a Back-Bench Labour MP waxing lyrical about bonfire nights in north Wales.

Should that not be the end of the debate, especially when we consider how important fireworks are in bringing people together and in their use across a whole range of multicultural festivals? Can we not just agree that spontaneous communal gatherings with fireworks are such a nice phenomenon and bring such local joy that the only problem is that we do not have more of them? Should we not just recognise that, with the first documented use of fireworks in this country being way back in 1486, it is simply something that we do at local spontaneous gatherings as well as large organised displays? The answer to that is no—the movers of the petition and others have a very valid case to make, and it is supported by a range of people across society.

Industrial Strategy

Norman Lamb Excerpts

Monday 27th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

As my hon. Friend knows from the Budget, we are committed to a big expansion of housebuilding. It is therefore important to ensure we have the skills and the workforce to take up those opportunities. One of the prime areas of focus in the construction sector deal is investment by the sector in training the next generation of construction workers, so we can avoid precisely the problem he describes.

[Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)]

Does the Secretary of State recognise the urgency of reaching a decision on our future participation in successors to Horizon 2020? Does he also recognise that further public investment will be needed to reach 2.4% of GDP on research and development spend? How will he ensure that that public investment is spent around the country, so that everyone benefits from it?

[Greg Clark]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his questions. He is right that international co-operation in research—not just with other European countries, but around the world—is the foundation of our success. Typically, Nobel prizes are these days awarded to teams representing many different countries. We are very clear in the strategy that we want to continue and extend the joint work we do with other countries. On the increase required, he will see in the strategy document that it is to be allocated by our scientific community, but with a particular regard to how we can make sure that clusters of excellence in research all around the country can benefit from the increased funding.