Oral Answers to Questions
Richard Foord Excerpts(1 week, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kirsty McNeill
The hon. Gentleman might not be aware that unemployment actually came down in Scotland this week. We promised that there would be no return to austerity, and workers’ payslips across Scotland were indeed protected in the Budget. More than half of employees will see either a cut or no change in their national insurance bill. The smallest businesses and charities are protected, and our decision to increase employer national insurance will raise more than £25 billion to help to rebuild Britain.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Ian Murray)
I am in regular contact with ministerial colleagues from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero on a range of issues relevant to clean energy production in Scotland. Scotland is key to the UK Government’s clean power by 2030 mission, which will deliver cheaper bills, energy security and future jobs, and drive growth in the Scottish economy.
Richard Foord
The roll-out of offshore renewables in Scotland should happen alongside the growth of supply chains there. That is vital if the energy transition is to deliver jobs and investment in Scotland’s oil and gas communities. It is welcome that the Government have allocated £200 million to a clean industry bonus, but that falls short of the £500 million that Labour pledged in its manifesto. How do the Government plan to strengthen the clean industry bonus to build thriving renewable manufacturing in the UK?
National Resilience and Preparedness
Richard Foord Excerpts(3 weeks, 4 days ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Order. I suspended the sitting until 11 o’clock but, with the mover of the motion and the Minister present, I see no reason not to start. I will call Richard Foord to move the motion and then the Minister to respond. As is always the case with 30-minute debates, there is no opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up. Without further ado, I call Richard Foord.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered national resilience and preparedness.
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I have brought this debate to the House so that the people I represent can hear from the Government what they are doing to make the UK more prepared and resilient.
I was partly inspired by the Hallett inquiry into covid-19, and its module 1 report published in July, but I want to go beyond pandemics to think of the UK’s broader resilience and preparedness. At Cabinet Office questions last month, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster confirmed that the Government would respond to module 1 this month, and we look forward to hearing what the Government have to say. I want to focus on three areas: future pandemics, food security and hybrid threats.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this issue forward. It is important to have efficient contingency plans across the United Kingdom for all sorts of national crises and disasters, like those that the hon. Gentleman referred to. Local communities are encouraged to engage in activities, emergency plans and response units. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is more the Government can do to engage with the devolved institutions—in particular local councils—to ensure we have a joint strategy across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Order. The hon. Gentleman is an old friend and has been here a long time. We really must get out of the habit of reading into the record pre-prepared interventions. An intervention is an intervention, not a contribution to the debate.
Richard Foord
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the civil contingencies legislation in this country puts a lot of the onus on the devolved institutions and a lot of the responsibility on local government. We cannot afford for national Government to therefore shed all their responsibilities and simply rely on local and devolved institutions.
Resilience is the capacity to withstand or to recover quickly; I suggest that the UK Government do not currently offer us that. The covid-19 pandemic exposed critical weaknesses in the planning and preparedness for large-scale emergencies. While the UK has made great strides in terms of our recovery—and we did after the pandemic—we may still lack the capacity to withstand other crises. Our vulnerabilities to emerging climate change, to food security risks and to hybrid threats from the UK’s adversaries leave us unprepared to endure shocks and unable to recover swiftly.
On covid-19, module 1 of the Hallett inquiry was a crucial call to action. The report concluded that the nation was “ill prepared” and that citizens were “failed” by the systems we had in place at the start of 2020. I think of how Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister at the time, was wandering around hospitals shaking hands while the national guidance proposed that we should do something completely different. The report revealed that the UK’s emergency planning was too much focused on influenza and failed to account for any other sort of pandemic.
One of the most critical failings identified was the “unduly complex and labyrinthine” nature of the UK’s civil emergency planning structures. Responsibility for pandemic preparedness was dispersed across multiple bodies, leading to inefficiencies and a lack of clear leadership. The inquiry also scrutinised the Government’s risk assessment processes, finding five major flaws that significantly affected the UK’s preparedness, including a lack of focus on prevention and insufficient consideration of interconnected risks, including economic and social vulnerabilities.
The 2016 preparedness exercise Exercise Cygnus, which simulated the impact of a flu pandemic, identified critical gaps in the UK’s preparedness, including insufficient capacity in the health system and a lack of essential supplies such as PPE. The recommendations from the 2016 exercise were not acted on, and when covid-19 emerged the same shortcomings persisted, with delays in the provision of PPE, inadequate testing, and healthcare services that became overwhelmed in some places.
Over 200,000 excess deaths have been attributed to covid-19 in the UK, many of which may have been preventable with better planning and better resilience. The pandemic also inflicted severe economic damage, with the UK experiencing one of the deepest recessions among the advanced economies. Businesses closed and jobs were lost. The strain on the public sector and on public services like our NHS is still being felt to this day.
The inquiry’s report set out key recommendations to overhaul the UK’s approach to civil emergency preparedness. The recommendations included regular pandemic response exercises and enhanced data sharing. Yet just last Thursday, Clare Wenham from the department of health policy at the London School of Economics stated:
“We’ve had the biggest pandemic of our lifetimes”
yet in 2025 we are
“we’re worse prepared than we were when we went in.”
When the Minister responds to the debate, it would be interesting to know where the Government are in relation to the World Health Organisation pandemic preparedness treaty. One of the 10 key recommendations from the covid-19 inquiry’s module 1 report emphasised the importance of enhanced data collection and data sharing. The emphasis on domestic resilience—the subject of this debate—has to be balanced with the obligation to co-operate internationally. Pandemics do not respect borders and require global solutions. The Government should act swiftly to implement the inquiry’s recommendations, engage with international frameworks such as the World Health Organisation treaty, and rebuild public trust in the nation’s ability to protect its citizens.
Covid-19 also highlighted some of the difficulties in other aspects of our resilience. We need only think about the supermarket shortages we saw and how people reacted: that was a reminder of just how vulnerable Britain is to food supply shocks.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing forward this really important debate. The latest food security report from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs found that fewer households were food secure in 2023 than in 2020. No element of national resilience can be more important than food security, so does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should introduce a comprehensive national food strategy that tackles rising food prices, ends food poverty, ensures food security and improves health and nutrition? Does he further agree that we must give the Groceries Code Adjudicator more powers not only to protect consumers but to address unfair price rises?
Richard Foord
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I shall now get into the subject of food security. She draws attention to the Government’s food security report. Since the 1980s the UK’s self-sufficiency in food production has declined, going from 78% in 1984 to just 60% today. The statistics emphasise what my hon. Friend said. As for the Groceries Code Adjudicator, my hon. Friend is dead right: we need supermarkets to honour their deals and pay on time.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. On the point about the reduction in food security—I think it is actually below 60%, at 58%—he, as my constituency neighbour in the west country, will know the importance of the role that farmers and food producers play in our community, but we have also just seen 18 months of the wettest months on record, following swiftly on from one of the driest summers on record, in 2022, and we know there will be a devastating effect on food production as we see increased extreme weather conditions. Does my hon. Friend agree that climate resilience and action on climate change will also be an important part of the national resilience strategy?
Richard Foord
My hon. Friend is spot on. A report produced last October by the University of Exeter and Chatham House highlighted the fact that climate change and environmental degradation are a real weakness in the UK’s national security strategy. Authors Tim Lenton and James Dyke from the University of Exeter contributed to that report, and talked about the national security strategy having a glaring blind spot for climate threats. The report specifically identified risks to the food supply chain as a critical concern, no doubt exacerbated by some of the challenges we have seen lately from Government policy around agricultural property relief and the proposed changes to inheritance tax.
By contrast, Finland is a shining example, not just on food security but in many respects in relation to resilience. Finland has strategic food reserves, whereas the UK very much depends on real-time logistics, which poses severe risks when we see severe weather events, fuel shortages, or conflict.
Another factor is the UK’s departure from the European Union. Until 2021 a significant portion of our imports came from the EU, and trade disruptions following the UK’s departure from that bloc have heightened the risks. Between 2018 and 2023, import volumes from the EU decreased by 6%, and it is not yet evident how the UK is compensating for the lost relationships with our European partners in terms of food supply resilience.
The UK’s self-sufficiency in fresh vegetables—key in supporting the health of our nation—is at its lowest since records began. We are at just 53% for vegetable self-sufficiency. I have been involved in a campaign to have sections of British supermarkets that illustrate where products are grown in Britain or sourced in the UK, because at the moment it is easy in supermarkets not to know where food comes from. People are able to buy food from all around the globe, all year round. While that may be good in times of peace, we have seen during recent threats to global security that it may not persist.
Threats to food security have reminded us of what we could see in the future for our national security, so let me move finally to the issue of defence and hybrid threats. Defence is no longer just about protecting against armed attacks. Over the Christmas period I read Keir Giles’s book “Who Will Defend Europe?” The chapter on hybrid threats is excellent at illustrating how such threats range from cyber-attacks to disinformation. Those forms of aggression from states such as Russia mean that when we think about defence, we must think so much more broadly than just bullets and bombs.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
On the subject of defence, and particularly technology, does my hon. Friend agree that mandating battery back-ups for all mobile phone masts, both existing and newly installed, would provide a simple, robust solution to ensure uninterrupted communication access, particularly in rural areas such as mine in North Cornwall?
Richard Foord
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I have not considered battery back-ups for mobile phone masts, but it strikes me as an example of a kind of psychology that we need to get into in this country—a way of thinking about our critical national infrastructure and how we might support it, rather than just supposing that everything is going to be all right on the night.
Just last week, NATO’s deputy assistant secretary-general for innovation, hybrid and cyber warned that Russian hybrid attacks are now at a level that would have been absolutely unacceptable five years ago. We must not underestimate the damage that Russia can inflict on the UK without firing a bullet. The UK’s relaxed approach to security has left some of our critical national infrastructure vulnerable. A stark example is the Loch Striven oil fuel depot in Scotland, which stores fuel for NATO warships and aircraft but was reported late last year to be now surrounded by land brought into Russian ownership.
The UK’s lack of preparedness is evident in many areas. A damning report by the Royal United Services Institute on the NHS’s wartime capabilities reveals that it has no capacity to manage either military or civilian casualties during conflict. I have seen this eroded and undermined in my Honiton and Sidmouth constituency. In east Devon, we have five community hospitals from which beds were stripped out under the last Government. We have seen about 150 beds removed; if that trend is scaled up across the country, it is little wonder that we see shortages of hospital beds during a spike in flu cases, let alone thinking about our preparedness for any sort of national emergency. Hospitals beds are one factor, but we need to think about blood supplies, transport and train personnel, shortages of which would mean the system would be overwhelmed in no time.
A couple of months ago, my researcher Fraser Johnson went to Finland. The Finnish Government showed him that they have taken a long-term approach to resilience and preparedness. They require their people to have a whole-of-society approach to these things. Defence is not solely the responsibility of state authorities: it involves citizens, charities, non-governmental organisations, businesses and schools. The schools teach children how to analyse sources and combat disinformation. Finland has regional security committees that conduct local defence exercises twice a year. The concept of citizens as security actors ensures that resilience is embedded throughout society. Helsinki’s emergency preparedness is a model of comprehensive planning. It has underground shelters equipped with oxygen supplies, water reserves and beds for 800,000 people to be used in staggered eight-hour shifts.
Of course, Finland is not the UK; it has some fairly unique challenges, such as being desperately cold and having a very long border with Russia, but we need to take some lessons from our north European neighbours. Finland’s broadcaster operates a secondary news desk 30 metres underground with its own energy supply, ensuring uninterrupted communication during emergencies. The Finnish National Emergency Supply Agency maintains a network of 1,000 public and private partners to ensure stockpiles of six months of fuel. We saw during the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 not only that the UK had become dependent on gas exports from Russia, but that we did not even have sufficient gas reserves in the UK, with the result that the price here spiked considerably.
Despite its proximity to Russia, Finland achieves all that with a defence budget of 2.4% of GDP, so it is partly about how we use the funding that we have. Our geographical distance from Russia should not lull us into complacency. By their nature, hybrid threats are difficult to detect and combat, and their impact will only escalate without decisive action. In January 2024, the Chief of the General Staff called for a shift in mindset to prepare for the possibility of war. The journalist David Parsley broke a story months later about how the Ministry of Defence is sketching out plans for a so-called citizen army of perhaps 200,000 volunteers, trained by reservists.
The UK should adopt a total defence approach focusing on stockpiling, training and central co-ordination to enhance resilience against hybrid threats and other challenges. We must move beyond our piecemeal responses and develop a proactive plan to safeguard our nation and its future. Will the Minister commit to implementing the UK covid-19 inquiry’s recommendations to strengthen our emergency preparedness? Will she prioritise a national food security plan to ensure resilience against climate change and supply chain disruptions? Will she outline the steps the Government will take to develop a comprehensive strategy to counter hybrid threats and protect our national infrastructure?
Oral Answers to Questions
Richard Foord Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I am sure that colleagues on both sides of the House support the values of the International Association of Parliamentarians for Peace—with which I know my hon. Friend is involved—and its work to support human rights across the globe. That, I think, is the sentiment that we take into this festive period.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
The Prime Minister
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment to the Intelligence and Security Committee, and thank him for raising the question of our troops in Estonia, who, as he says, will be there over Christmas without their families. They are right on the frontline, with a very clear sense of purpose, as part of our NATO contingent, and we thank them. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we must continue to support Ukraine—that was the subject of our discussions in Estonia yesterday—and ensure that it is put in the strongest possible position, whether in negotiations or not. We must also make it absolutely clear that this conflict could be ended straight away if the aggressors, Russia, backed off.
Oral Answers to Questions
Richard Foord Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Pat McFadden
The right hon. Member asks a very important question about the twin interests of national security and economic growth. In this territory, we work with UK organisations that hold genomic data to make sure that they have robust data protection systems in place, and our security services give them advice on these matters on a regular basis, so that our pursuit of growth does not conflict with our very important national security objectives.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
Ashley Dalton (West Lancashire) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Pat McFadden)
The Government’s first responsibility is to keep the public safe, which is why national resilience is a top priority for us. In July, I announced that I would lead a review of resilience, and work has been progressing across Government. We have engaged at all levels with the public, private and voluntary sectors, and this work is overseen by the dedicated resilience sub-committee of the National Security Council, which I chair. It is also closely linked to our consideration of the covid inquiry module 1 report, to which the Government will respond next month—within the six-month timeframe set out by the chair of the inquiry.
Richard Foord
The module 1 report recommended resilience and preparedness, and particularly
“Bringing in external expertise from outside government and the Civil Service to…guard against ‘groupthink’”.
How is the Minister planning to bring in that external expertise? Would he consider issuing a brochure to British citizens on preparation for crises, as the Swedish Government have just done?
Pat McFadden
The hon. Member raises an important point. The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Ms Oppong-Asare), has done a great deal of work on consulting people outside Government—external experts across business, the voluntary sector, local government and so on. It is really important that, as part of this, we hear voices not just from Whitehall but from beyond, too.
G20 and COP29 Summits
Richard Foord Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
Yes, I did raise the position of China’s stance in relation to the conflict and there is a clear read-out of the meeting. It is not the first time that has been raised by this Government or, in fairness, by the previous one.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
Not all members of the G20 at the summit are as concerned about the Russian invasion of Ukraine as the UK is. Ahead of the summit, it was said that the Prime Minister would talk about the “unfathomable consequences” if Putin succeeds. Did the Prime Minister talk to some of those sceptical leaders about those consequences? If so, what did they say?
The Prime Minister
Yes, of course I did. Russia is a member of the G20. Putin was not there. The Conservative party seems to be suggesting that we should not have been there either, which I find a very odd implication. But, yes, it is really important to take every opportunity at these sorts of meetings to have the discussions that we need to have at leader level not only with our close allies, but with those who do not agree with us, so that we can raise those concerns and try to find a way forward, which is what we did.
Anniversary of 7 October Attacks: Middle East
Richard Foord Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
The Government’s position is that Hamas and Hezbollah are terrorist organisations. We stand very firm on that and rightly call them what they are.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
I join the Prime Minister in condemning the Iranian ballistic missile attack on Israel last Tuesday, and I support the role of UK armed forces in defeating it. Back in January, the Prime Minister said that parliamentary approval of military action is needed only when deploying troops. We do not know how Israel will respond to the Iranian attack, and the Government could find themselves asked to contribute at short notice. Can the Prime Minister set out what he meant when he said that a parliamentary debate and vote would happen only when deploying troops?
The Prime Minister
The whole House condemns Iran’s attack of a few days ago—we all saw the impact—and the whole House will understand that there will be occasions when it is important for a Government to act without first coming to this House.
Oral Answers to Questions
Richard Foord Excerpts(6 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Pat McFadden
All lessons should be learned about the procurement pressures at that time, including the lesson that my hon. Friend mentioned.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
Pat McFadden
The great danger is preparing perfectly for the last war. The real challenge in resilience is looking around the corner for things that have not already happened. As we respond to the covid pandemic, it is important to keep that in mind, and we will try to do that.
NATO and European Political Community Meetings
Richard Foord Excerpts(6 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
Yes, I do. We have already been able to put further resource into Europol. Last Thursday, we had a very live discussion about sharing data and intelligence, and about an overarching strategy on prosecutions, with our European allies, who were keen to learn more about what we were proposing, and how they could play their part with us to smash the gangs; because the gangs operate across borders, that can be done only in conjunction and collaboration with our EU partners.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
The last Government spent quite some time engaging with isolationists in Washington. They sought to influence conservative think-tanks in the US that are listened to by Republicans, such as the Heritage Foundation. I appreciate the Prime Minister’s point that it is for the American people to decide who governs them later this year, but what more can his Government do to stress to Republicans, and to candidate Trump, that European and American security are indivisible?
The Prime Minister
On the first part of the question, luckily I do not answer for the last Government; I answer for this Government. We will work with whoever the American people elect as President, but specifically on the question, the special relationship between the UK and the US was forged in the most difficult of circumstances and has endured for many years, and it is important both to the US and to the UK to maintain that special relationship. I have had an early opportunity to make my position clear on this. Again, it is a continuation of the position of the last Government: that special relationship matters to us, whoever ends up being the President of America.
Oral Answers to Questions
Richard Foord Excerpts(8 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Julia Lopez
I thank my hon. Friend for his role as rural connectivity champion; I discussed that role yesterday with the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore). I am pleased to see that he recently attended a visit to see how the supplier Voneus is investing in a wider solution for premises on Walney island. I assure him that we already take a technology-agnostic approach to our contracts, with some suppliers using wireless connectivity and exploring fixed wireless access and low Earth orbit satellites.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Saqib Bhatti)
The Government have been absolutely clear that no one should be left behind in the digital age. Digital inclusion is a cross-cutting issue spanning many different areas. I chair the cross-Whitehall ministerial group for digital inclusion to drive progress and accountability across Government, and we have increased the frequency of our meetings—that is how important we see this issue as being. I regularly meet relevant organisations, including by attending the Centre for Social Justice’s digital exclusion roundtable and the upcoming meeting of the digital inclusion APPG.
Richard Foord
Digital inclusion works only when people trust website links. My constituent let me know that by clicking on a dodgy link, he was tricked into making an investment of over £108,000, which turned out to be a scam. The Government’s latest digital inclusion strategy was written 10 years ago. Does the Minister accept that there are good reasons why many older people want to be able to look somebody in the eye when making investments or doing their banking?
Saqib Bhatti
Choice is important, which is why our digital inclusion approach cuts across many Departments. I am sorry to hear the case of the hon. Gentleman’s constituent. I am happy for him to write to me, and I can talk to him about our national fraud strategy as well.
Access to Redress Schemes
Richard Foord Excerpts(9 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House recognises the challenges faced by individuals and businesses in accessing effective dispute resolution and obtaining redress in cases of injustice; believes that the Government needs to address these specific challenges, namely a fragmented and inconsistent redress landscape; considers statutory guidance to be an essential measure to ensure compensation and redress schemes follow common principles and lead to fair and independent outcomes; and calls on the Government to create statutory guidance with common principles for setting up and operating a redress scheme.
It is my honour to move the motion that stands in my name and that of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg). I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate. I also thank the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), for her recent correspondence with the Comptroller and Auditor General, calling on public bodies to have redress schemes that are effective, timely, proportionate and fair.
Samuel Beckett famously wrote:
“Try again. Fail again. Fail better.”
What if we learned nothing from our previous failure? What if we simply failed, failed again and approached the failure as in the past, only to fail a bit differently and with many of the same mistakes as before? That is the situation we face with compensation and redress following scandals.
I imagine that every Member of this House will have received correspondence from a constituent who has been failed and treated unfairly in the wake of a scandal. Rather than being able to access swift and fair redress, they have instead been subjected to further hardship, delays and unfair treatment. Sometimes that mistreatment can be as devastating as the pain caused initially by the scandal. There has rightly been significant attention nationally in recent months on the Post Office Horizon scandal, and in particular on the various schemes set up to provide redress to the victims of what was the most widespread miscarriage of justice in British legal history.
A sub-postmaster of a post office in my constituency was one of the hundreds wrongful convicted. Janine Powell was wrongfully accused of stealing £74,000 from her post office branch in Tiverton. She was subsequently sacked and arrested, before being convicted at a trial in Exeter in 2008. She described feeling “confused; dismayed; numb”. That is because Ms Powell was sentenced to 18 months in prison, serving five months. She was sent to prison just two days after her daughter’s 10th birthday. She said that the hardest part of her wrongful imprisonment was leaving her children. She said:
“I’ve missed out on doing things with them—I can’t get that back.”
No amount of money could ever make up for what happened to Ms Powell, but compensation can at least try to make up for some of the loss they faced. Sadly, the various Post Office compensation schemes that have existed have failed to provide swift and fair redress, as I know from another constituent case that I am dealing with.
According to the law firm Howe and Co, which represents 150 sub-postmasters, the compensation scheme
“continues to be exceptionally slow…and refuses to entertain applications from persons who are plainly entitled to apply”.
This afternoon, I hope to outline that the Post Office case is but one example of a wider problem. No guidance exists on when and how compensation schemes should be established or what an overseeing body should look like. That means that each scheme has its own unique and dysfunctional set of rules. Reinventing the wheel each time a scandal emerges means that victims are failed by the very system that is meant to right the wrongs of the past.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Lab)
The hon. and gallant Member is making an important point about how we seem to have unique circumstances in trying to overcome some of these issues. For example, the sodium valproate issue was raised through Baroness Cumberlege’s “First Do No Harm” report. As with the infected blood scandal and the Horizon scandal, it has been outlined time after time that redress should be forthcoming. However, the Government again seem to be dragging their feet. Why does he think that would be?
Richard Foord
The hon. Member is exactly right to draw a thread between several of these scandals. That is partly because when a new scandal emerges, the organisation responsible is often the organisation charged with redress. Andrew Bailey, while chief executive of the Financial Conduct Authority, said in 2017 that
“it just does not seem to be sensible that, every time one of these things happens, we have to set up something new.”
Beyond the Post Office schemes, we have heard criticism both here and in the press on the infected blood inquiry, as the hon. Member mentioned, and Windrush. That criticism has pointed to intolerable delays or the problematic features that often let the offending firm or institution off the hook.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I am interested to develop my hon. Friend’s thought about the Financial Conduct Authority. If I am able, I will speak at greater length about it later in the debate. It administers the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, which is a fund set up by levies on financial services companies themselves. It is the maladministration of the FCA or a lack of proper regulation that often leads to these claims being brought. Essentially, the people paying for the scheme have to do so because of the incompetence of the FCA.
Richard Foord
My right hon. Friend is exactly right. The FCA is not directly accountable to Parliament, but is accountable to Parliament through the Treasury. I, too, have had constituents finding themselves in a David and Goliath scenario, trying to tackle issues of unfairness with the FCA.
Likewise, in finance, we have seen the mis-selling of interest rate hedging products and widespread financial misconduct against small and medium-sized enterprises by the Royal Bank of Scotland, for example. Last year, the all-party parliamentary group on fair business banking conducted the first systematic review of compensation schemes in the UK and found flaws common to several of them. Schemes are frequently blighted by unnecessary complexity, delays and a huge emotional and legal burden on victims. Often schemes are shrouded in secrecy and lack proper independence.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
I am listening to the hon. Gentleman’s speech carefully, and he is making some excellent points. Will he join me in deploring the methods by which organisations avoid their responsibilities to many of our constituents? For example, the business of my constituent George Dosoo, LD Partnership, took on a loan from RBS, now NatWest. In 2012, he discovered that a sum of £150,000 was removed without authority from the partnership account. Despite George obtaining recent legal opinion indicating that his case has merit, NatWest maintains that the case is time-barred and will not reopen it. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that time-barring is another device that is far too often used by businesses and institutions to deliberately undermine our constituents’ ability to obtain recourse?
Richard Foord
The hon. Member is right about time-barring. I have a similar case with a constituent of mine, which might chime with hers. Nigel Cairns is trapped in what he describes as a
“complete nightmare scenario, with no way of escape”
after egregious misconduct by a bank. In 2007, Nigel took out a loan of £350,000 from HSBC. He had his house demolished in readiness to rebuild. In preparation for the work, the bank declared the termination and return of the loan. That was in 2007, when the financial crisis was very much with us. The bank subsequently agreed to reinstate the loan, but altered some of the terms and conditions so that the interest rate became double what Nigel had originally agreed to. After 10 years of repayments, the bank declared that unless he could sell the property or repay the loan, it would have to foreclose on him. The Financial Ombudsman Service refused to look into the matter initially and subsequently Mr Cairns received only £1,500 for the stress and anxiety of the case.
The APPG’s review, looking across 12 compensation schemes, found that over the past 20 years, the number of people affected amounted to a little over 78,000 people. When we consider some of the harrowing cases we are describing today, that number is thankfully quite small, but it says to us that it is a small enough number that these people could have timely redress and compensation, if only we had a body that could sort it out. That brings me on to another example: infected blood. During business questions this morning, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), as she always does on a Thursday, drove home on behalf of her constituents the need to compensate promptly those people affected by the infected blood scandal. In the last 24 hours, we have heard of a proposed Government amendment to the Victims and Prisoners Bill to try to bring about compensation. I completely agree with the right hon. Member that by not setting a deadline for that compensation, we allow this issue to run and run. In the other place, the Liberal Democrat peer Baroness Brinton sought to take that up with the Government, and proposed an amendment that was much more vigorous in setting a timeframe for compensation, but the Government chose not to adopt it.
I have a constituent whose friend who has been affected by the infected blood scandal. Some of the tales that she has passed on are really harrowing. Her friend said:
“In my 20s I was planning my funeral and feeling like I was contaminated and filthy. I met and married someone prepared to date a woman with poisoned blood.”
She speaks of how it caused a
“host of long-term devastating side effects”.
She continued:
“I lost my career as an IT consultant, it made me infertile so I have been unable to have a family, and we had we had to stop IVF and surrogacy attempts because I became too ill to be a parent. I’ve had brain, body, psychological and emotional impacts from this virus. And then decades of exhausted fighting for an evasive and oft-denied justice, which caused its own damage, including most recently the end of my marriage.”
Such people deserve to be compensated promptly. They do not need the stress and worry of a scheme that always seems to roll out into the future, and of having to fight at every turn.
Mass redress schemes are set up on an ad hoc basis. They are voluntary, and established to tackle a specific scandal, following failure of a given organisation’s internal complaints procedures. How do we ensure that the victims of our largest and most damaging scandals, and any unfortunate future victims, are protected from unfair treatment and appropriately compensated? We need the framework for redress to be improved to ensure that we do not make the same mistakes again. This debate is a call to action for Ministers. The Government must establish a clear framework based on best practice.
The HBOS Reading compensation scheme is another example. In 2017, after 15 years, six individuals were sentenced to a cumulative 47 years in prison for their role in a fraud that left its victims, in the words of the sentencing judge, “cheated, defeated and penniless”. Eight years on, we have had more than two years of the discredited Griggs review, and a further two years reviewing the review and coming up with new recommendations. We are now in the fourth year of the Foskett panel. We would think that by now that we would have got it right, but all the perpetrators of the crime are out of prison, the victims have yet to be compensated, and serious questions remain about the panel.
There is a set of underlying principles that would establish a common-sense bedrock for any compensation scheme and how it should be built.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Ind)
On the composition of the Foskett panel and the huge delays in the compensation due to those defrauded in the HBOS scandal, there have been allegations that Lloyds bank had a big part in deciding who was appointed to the panel. Would that not explain the delays, and why people are not being paid the compensation that they believe they deserve?
Richard Foord
The hon. Member is right that in redress schemes, the perpetrator of the injustice is often charged with trying to put it right. Of course, the perpetrator has a vested interest—indeed, it is not even vested; it is just an interest—in trying to pay out as little as possible, and in accepting as little culpability as it can.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Does the hon. Member agree that many victims are annoyed by the way that these schemes become a feeding frenzy for lawyers, who in many cases are the only people who ultimately benefit? What really sticks in the throat of many victims is that many lawyers may be getting more out of the schemes than the individuals affected.
Richard Foord
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for his intervention. Probably nobody in this place knows more about the Horizon compensation schemes than he does. Lee Castleton, one of the sub-postmasters affected by the scandal, said that during the past 25 years,
“£135 million has been paid to some of the victims, but we’ve had £150 million plus paid to lawyers.”
We need a set of underlying principles. We need: a collaborative approach and process; timeliness; independence; recognition of adversity; transparency; broader eligibility; greater accessibility and legal costs; a clear appeals mechanism; and, finally, fairness and efficiency.
Christian Wakeford
The hon. and gallant Member is kind in giving way. Moving back to the sodium valproate scandal, we keep saying that justice delayed is justice denied, but in that case, it is not only children but grandchildren who are impacted, because it looks as though the effects of sodium valproate disorder are being passed on to grandchildren as well. Schemes need to be not only fair but pragmatic, so that once compensation is delivered, they can still be open to claims. I say that thinking of the further after-effects of one of the biggest scandals in the health service since thalidomide.
Richard Foord
The hon. Member is exactly right about how younger generations can be affected. We have recently seen attempts by some Horizon victims, and indeed children of victims, to seek compensation. The tragedy of his point about justice delayed being justice denied is that older victims of these scandals are dying before they see that justice, and before enjoying any of the compensation that they deserved.
I set out nine underlying principles that would establish a common-sense bedrock for a compensation scheme. To deliver those principles for fair redress and to guarantee independent oversight, we need an arm’s length body to design and adjudicate the schemes. The existing voluntary mechanisms for redress are far too fragmented. We need a standing, independent body that can provide consistency for victims of scandals—no matter the sector—which can be activated whenever a new scandal emerges. It should be constituted of experts, so that it guarantees independence of judgment, and should be accountable directly to Parliament for the expenditure of any public funds and for its overall conduct. Critically, victims must also have representation on the panels.
The structure would come at no extra cost to the taxpayer, as the current compensation framework often proves lengthy and costly for both victim and taxpayer. Taken together, the nine UK redress schemes—whether active or completed—studied by the all-party parliamentary group on fair business banking have cost at least £3.7 billion. That figure covers not only the amount of compensation that has gone to victims, but, as we have discussed, the fees to solicitors, accountants and firms that have engaged to undertake reviews—and indeed firms that are reviewing reviews. More often than not, victims are left feeling cheated. They eventually cling on to some sort of late, inadequate consolation of redress and compensation. In the case of the Post Office, many of the 555 sub-postmasters who were exposed to the scandal have still received little compensation, because most of the money was swallowed up.
We need lessons to be learned from the array of scandals that I have set out. I am curious to hear what the Minister has to say about the proposal for an arm’s length body to deal with situations of the kind that I and right hon. and hon. Members have described.
Alex Burghart
I was going to come to that point. Although the right hon. Gentleman is right that there is currently no public guidance, that does not limit the sharing of knowledge between Departments and policy areas. There is a great deal of dialogue and shared learning between officials when schemes come into existence. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) suggested in his opening remarks that the wheel was always being reinvented. That is not the case; a learning process happens within Government.
Richard Foord
I do not suppose that lessons are not being learned and that one set of civil servants is not passing lessons on to another set; rather, this is about victims having the reassurance that when there is a perceived conflict of interest, they have somewhere else to go.
Alex Burghart
The point I was making was very much that we have internal schemes of learning, and we ensure that each new scheme learns from the experiences of those that have gone before it.
Richard Foord
I am very grateful to all Members who have participated in today’s debate, often prompted by conversations that they have had with individuals in their constituencies and therefore often paying great heed to just one person’s case. In recent years, there have been one or two positive developments on accessing compensation—for example, the interim compensation awards that we heard about have helped to speed up redress—but there are still some serious problems that are common to so many of the cases that we have used to highlight the problem this afternoon.
We can no longer have the same organisations that are responsible for the original harm also responsible for adjudicating what is fair compensation. Even in cases where there is not a conflict of interest, victims might perceive that there is, and as we have heard, they have nowhere else to go, so there needs to be the right of appeal. We cannot have the ludicrous situation in which an individual or small business who was subject to mis-selling, for example, has no recourse but to go back to the very bank that lent them the money in the first place. We need an independent, expert arm’s length body that could oversee redress schemes and would provide a cost-effective way to tackle mass scandals. It would ensure speedy resolutions that place the burden on those who commit the wrongdoing, not the victims who are caught up in these appalling situations. The recommendations of the APPG on fair business banking are an excellent way of introducing that framework.
I conclude by thanking all Members who took part in today’s debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House recognises the challenges faced by individuals and businesses in accessing effective dispute resolution and obtaining redress in cases of injustice; believes that the Government needs to address these specific challenges, namely a fragmented and inconsistent redress landscape; considers statutory guidance to be an essential measure to ensure compensation and redress schemes follow common principles and lead to fair and independent outcomes; and calls on the Government to create statutory guidance with common principles for setting up and operating a redress scheme.