House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(7 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Damian Green)
On the day that the country is celebrating our Paralympic athletes, I am sure the whole House will want to join me in thanking them for a summer of thrilling and inspirational sport.
It is right that we continually review the way support is offered to and accessed by disabled people. That is why I was pleased to announce an end to stressful and bureaucratic employment and support allowance reassessments for people with the most severe lifetime conditions. We are also transforming the way disabled people access support through our new digital Access to Work platform and providing help to budding disabled entrepreneurs to set up their own business.
Kevin Hollinrake
I am holding a round-table event on 31 October for those with disabilities, parents and employers, to try to remove the barriers to employment. Does the Secretary of State agree that for some the barriers are simply too high? Will he welcome the positive response from Disability Rights UK to his recent announcement that those with long-term and severe disabilities will not have to undergo regular repeat assessments of their condition?
Damian Green
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the round table. He is right that there are too many barriers to work for disabled people, and this Government are determined to do everything possible to break down those barriers. Like him, I was pleased that a number of disability groups welcomed the announcement that I made on 1 October. I was particularly pleased to see the chief executive of the MS Society, Michelle Mitchell, say that it was a victory for common sense. She went on to say:
“We are therefore delighted that the Government has listened to our concerns and have agreed to stop reassessments”.
I am pleased that the sector was so pleased with the announcement.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I, too, welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement. Which conditions will the exemption cover, and when does he expect the change to be introduced?
Damian Green
It is not so much the conditions as the individuals. We apply the exemption on an individual basis, as there are clearly conditions where at some stages people will be able to work and at other stages they will not be able to work, so the exemption covers conditions that can only deteriorate as well as conditions that may stay the same. On timing, we will be consulting on a wide range of measures in the work and health Green Paper, which my predecessor promised would be with us by the end of the year, and I am happy to repeat that promise today.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
I, too, welcome the announcement that people with severe lifelong conditions will no longer face repeated work capability assessments. My right hon. Friend has clearly recognised how stressful people find these assessments. Although mental health conditions can follow an unpredictable path, will he consider taking steps to reduce the stress and trauma experienced by people with long-term mental health conditions undergoing work capability assessments?
Damian Green
I am happy to try to reassure my hon. Friend about that because she is right. One of the things that has improved in the diagnosis field has been the number of people who have been correctly diagnosed with mental health conditions in recent years, and clearly this is a group who in some cases have particular difficulties in getting back to work. The stress and strain of constant reassessment may well contribute to that, so we are always looking at ways of improving the assessment that we do to make sure that they achieve what they are meant to achieve and do not just act as an increaser of strain on people.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Constituents who have been refused employment and support allowance tell me that they are experiencing barriers being put in their way when they apply for mandatory reconsideration of the decision. They tell me that they are being told to put the application in writing and to give reasons in advance, and then if the request is rejected they are not given reasons for the refusal. Will the Secretary of State take a look at this situation because it does seem that there is a deliberate attempt on the part of at least some officials to thwart people in having their cases reconsidered?
Damian Green
I am not at all aware of officials actively acting to thwart mandatory reconsideration. As the hon. Lady will know, the Social Security Advisory Committee supported the mandatory reconsideration, but there are a number of recommendations on the table that we are looking at and that will improve the process. With all these processes, there is a need for continuous improvement, and that is what we will seek to do.
Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)
My right hon. Friend’s announcement will be particularly welcome to a constituent of mine who is a long-term mental illness sufferer. He has been sectioned four times and is still required to have the work capability assessment. I very much hope that the process to which my right hon. Friend referred will be a quick one and that people such as my constituent will soon be able to benefit from this announcement.
Damian Green
Yes, I quite take the point my hon. Friend has made—certainly as he describes the constituency case he has taken up. Someone like that should not be reassessed while we are establishing the details of the appropriate guidance so that the new system can be put into effect.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
I am glad the Government have said they are going to end the needless and distressing practice of reassessing work capability people with lifelong, progressive and incurable conditions. I hope the Secretary of State now accepts that his predecessors got this very badly wrong over recent years. Will he now take steps to overhaul the work capability assessment to ensure that all ESA claimants, including those with invisible and fluctuating conditions, are treated with dignity and respect?
Damian Green
I am grateful for the support for my announcement from those Benches, even though I sense it came through slightly gritted teeth. As I have said to previous questioners, we are constantly looking at ways of improving the work capability assessment, and of course that work will carry on.
Dr Whiteford
I thought I was being quite restrained.
The other thing the Government have got badly wrong in recent times is the decision to cut financial support to ESA claimants in the work-related activity group—people assessed as currently unfit for work. At the time, that decision caused huge disquiet on both sides of the House, and deep anger and concern outside it. With those changes due to come into effect shortly, will the Secretary of State make representations to the Chancellor ahead of the autumn statement to reinstate that support, which sick and disabled people need so badly?
Damian Green
As I am sure the hon. Lady knows, no one who is already claiming ESA in that group will see a cash loss. What we are seeking to do is to make it as easy as possible for as many people as possible to get into work, because doing a job is, for most people, the best route out of poverty. The various changes announced by my predecessors were all aiming at that end, which is the best one for the vast majority of people receiving these benefits.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
The Government’s climbdown regarding their discredited work capability assessment is welcome, but given that 60% of people who appeal against their WCA decision are successful, that academics estimate that between 2010 and 2013 an additional 590 suicides were associated with WCA and that the Government’s data show that the people who have been found fit for work are four times more likely to die than the general population, why will the Work and Pensions Secretary not scrap the WCA process immediately and completely?
Damian Green
Because the work capability assessment, which was, of course, introduced by a Labour Government, has been reviewed five times since 2010, and each time we have improved it. I am glad that the hon. Lady has welcomed the recent improvements that we have introduced. [Interruption.] I would be grateful if she waited for her next question before she asks it. One thing I would particularly take issue with her over is her implied link between suicides and the work capability assessment. I do think that that is an unhelpful use of what is always clearly a deeply tragic situation for political ends. I think she will have known that there is no direct evidence to support that, and I do not think it is a very constructive way to seek to improve the work capability assessment.
Debbie Abrahams
Just as a point of fact, these are academic estimates, and the Government’s data show that people have died.
Unlike with the work capability assessment, the Government plan continually to assess all disabled people for the personal independence payment, regardless of their disability or condition, regardless of the fact that 59% of PIP appeals are successful and regardless of the wholly inappropriate process. After the outcry over proposed cuts to PIP in the Budget, and having had to abandon proposals to restrict access to PIP by changing eligibility to the daily living component, the Government are looking for alternative ways to make cuts to PIP—this time by changing the guidance and making it harder for disabled people successfully to appeal PIP decisions. Are the Government not ashamed that they are putting disabled people in such dire circumstances?
Damian Green
I am not at all ashamed of the introduction of PIP or the fact that many more people are eligible to receive PIP than were eligible to receive disability living allowance. It is a better benefit, and most of the disability support groups recognise that it is a better benefit, so I simply do not recognise the hon. Lady’s characterisation of PIP.
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Penny Mordaunt)
The personal independence payment assessment is designed with all health conditions and impairments in mind, including autism. About 38% of those with autism are currently receiving higher rates of PIP.
Ian C. Lucas
Autism is a complex medical condition, and there is a fundamental failure in the personal independence payment system in that assessments are being made by people who have no detailed knowledge of the medical condition involved. Will the new Secretary of State and the Minister assess whether it is possible to have real medics and people with professional medical opinions carrying out assessments, so that these people can be looked after?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the important fact that the assessment and the person’s experience of it are appropriate. He is quite wrong to say that these are not healthcare professionals. Both our assessment providers’ training covers autism. Capital and Atos give their health professionals specific information that has been developed by the National Autistic Society.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Damian Green)
Work is the best route out of poverty. There are 557,000 fewer children in workless households than in 2010. The Prime Minister is clear that tackling poverty and disadvantage, and delivering real social reform, is a priority for this Government. To that end, I will be returning to the House with a number of announcements over the coming months.
Patricia Gibson
The latest OECD figures show the that the risk of income poverty is growing for young people, and that was before the impact of the coming into force of benefit cuts hitting children. Will the Secretary of State accept the warnings from the Institute for Fiscal Studies that child poverty will increase by 50% in the next few years and abandon the cuts to universal credit, which will punish low-paid workers, especially single parents?
Damian Green
I simply point out to the hon. Lady that since 2010 there are 100,000 fewer children in poverty in this country, and, overall, 300,000 fewer people in poverty. I have already said that work is the best route out of poverty. I am sure that she, like me, will welcome the fact that we have far more people in work in this country than most other advanced countries. That is the best long-term way to ensure that children do not suffer poverty.
Lisa Nandy
I very much welcome the change of tone since the Secretary of State took up his new position, but what I would really like to see now is a change in policy. He should be ashamed that the IFS is predicting a staggering 50% increase in child poverty over the course of this Parliament under his Government, who are still committed to a policy where a living wage does not pay enough to live on and where tax and benefit changes will be directly responsible for that increase in child poverty. When will the 2.5 million children who currently go without enough food to eat—who go hungry in this country—see some real action from this Government?
Damian Green
I disagree with the hon. Lady on the points that she makes on income and on tax. On income, the introduction of the national living wage means that a full-time worker who was previously on the national minimum wage is now £900 a year better off, and many children will benefit from that. On tax, over the course of the previous Parliament, we took 4 million of the lowest paid out of income tax altogether. Those are practical measures that help people on low incomes and help children in low-income households.
Ben Howlett (Bath) (Con)
As the Secretary of State will know from his recent visit to my constituency, earlier this year I worked with local Bath charity St John’s Hospital to set up the Action Against Child Poverty group in Bath, bringing together over 50 charities and £100,000 of funding to tackle the issue of the one in five children who live in poverty in my constituency. Will he agree to meet Action Against Child Poverty in Bath, this time in London—don’t worry!—to learn about the group’s work and extend his congratulations on its work?
Damian Green
I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in congratulating the group in his constituency. It is exactly the sort of thing that one wants to hear that the third sector is doing, and I am happy to meet the group. I am grateful that he is depriving me of yet another trip to Bath. I am always happy to go there, but I quite like to spread myself around the country a bit.
Mr Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
Helping parents on jobseeker’s allowance or income support to start their own business is one way of reducing child poverty. Will the Secretary of State support the new enterprise allowance, which helps unemployed people to start their own business and raise household incomes?
Damian Green
The new enterprise allowance is indeed an extremely helpful tool in our armoury of ways to help disabled people. We have seen 20,000 firms started up—20,000 disabled people helped—through the new enterprise allowance. I intend to continue and expand the scheme, which is so good for disabled people.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) said in March 2014 that he believed the Government would eradicate child poverty by 2020, yet, as has already been mentioned, the Child Poverty Action Group highlighted last week that child poverty is set to rise by 50% by 2020. Does the Secretary of State agree with the former Secretary of State or with the Child Poverty Action Group, and are the Government still committed to eradicating child poverty by 2020?
Damian Green
The Government are certainly committed to reducing child poverty. The Child Poverty Action Group made a number of specific demands. One demand was to expand childcare support, which the Government have done, extending the 15-hour offer to the most disadvantaged two-year-olds. Universal credit now reimburses up to 85% of childcare costs, up from 70%. CPAG also demanded support to progress in low-paid work—it is absolutely right about that—and we are undertaking a number of trials to deliver evidence on in-work progression, which will be delivered by Jobcentre Plus, because I agree with CPAG that that is an extremely good step forward.
Margaret Greenwood
In 2011, the Government said that universal credit would lift 350,000 people out of poverty. By 2013, that had been downgraded to just 150,000. The Office for Budget Responsibility published its report on welfare trends last week and made it clear that the cuts going ahead under universal credit will mean that it will be less generous than tax credits. How many children, if any, do the Government expect universal credit to lift out of poverty?
Damian Green
Universal credit, which is now being paid to more than 300,000 people, has already shown that people will get into work and progress in work faster and that they are more likely to seek work. If the Opposition accept, as I think they do, that work is the best route out of poverty, they will welcome universal credit because, when it is paid to more parents it helps children in those families to be in households where there is work. That will be the best way to get them out of poverty.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Pensions (Richard Harrington)
Transitional arrangements are already in place. We committed £1 billion to lessen the impact of the state pension age changes on those who were affected, so that no one would experience a change of more than 18 months. In fact, 81% of women’s state pension ages will increase by no more than 12 months, compared with the previous timetable.
Carolyn Harris
Last week, I and more than 100 cross- party colleagues presented petitions in support of the Women Against State Pension Inequality campaign. Will the Minister acknowledge that those women have been subject to a grave injustice and that now is the time for the Government to introduce appropriate transitional payments for the women most affected by the pension changes?
Richard Harrington
I can only reiterate to the hon. Lady what has been said many times before. The Government made transitional arrangements that came to more than £1 billion. [Interruption.] She is chuntering at me from a sedentary position. I could not hear, but will try to imagine what she was saying. The Government have made the transitional arrangements, and no further moves will be made to assist those women, all of whom will benefit in time from the significant increase in the new state pension.
Gill Furniss
There are shocking reports of women affected by the changes introduced last April being left destitute. Many of them who have been on low pay all their lives where occupational pension schemes were not open to them have taken on caring responsibilities, saving this country lots of money. What immediate measures will the Government take to address this appalling situation and put these wrongs right?
Richard Harrington
Those women, or indeed those men, under the state pension age who are in the position of destitution the hon. Lady mentions are fully entitled to a comprehensive benefits system, of which I am sure she is aware.
Nic Dakin
I pay tribute to Rosemary Jordan and the north Lincolnshire WASPI group. The Minister is better than the answers he has just given. These women are being badly affected. The Prime Minister has given a commitment to this nation to look after those people who are just managing, and the women I have seen in my surgery are just managing as a result of these pension changes. The transitional arrangements that were made back in 2011 are not good enough. I urge the Minister to go back to the Department and improve the offer.
Richard Harrington
As the hon. Gentleman is aware, I have said many times, as have other Ministers, that the transitional arrangements have cost more than £1 billion and there are arrangements in place for those people in destitution. It becomes a question of the public money that is spent. At the moment, the new state pensions are costing £89 billion a year, plus pension credit and everything else, and there is no further money available.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
I am very surprised that no Government Members want to ask questions about this topic. The Prime Minister celebrated her 60th birthday earlier this month, making her part of that sisterhood of 1950s-born women who have been so shabbily treated by her predecessor’s Government. My hon. Friends the Members for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) and for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) have already referred to the mass petitions organised by WASPI, and we have heard about the amazing change of mind of not one but two previous pensions Ministers, who have acknowledged that the whole thing was wrong and a bit of a mess. Unlike other members of the special sisterhood, the Prime Minister will probably not have to rely on the state pension, but will the Minister appeal to his boss to use the power she has and to compensate some of the most needy women in our society?
Richard Harrington
I find it strange that the hon. Gentleman and his party were in the House when the Pensions Act 2011 was passed, yet their 2015 manifesto made no mention whatsoever of negating it.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Welfare Delivery (Caroline Nokes)
Department for Work and Pensions visiting officers can assist people with the completion of their PIP forms in their own homes, as can family and friends. Claimants can also authorise another person or organisation to help them handle their PIP claim.
Tom Pursglove
I am grateful to the Minister for that answer, but completing the forms can be a particularly difficult experience for those with mental health conditions. I was pleased to hear what the Secretary of State said earlier about reassessments, but what specific help and support is provided to that particular group of applicants?
Caroline Nokes
We want to help people with the form as much as possible. That is why we give them up to a month to complete the return form, as well as additional time if they require it. We provide guidance online so that friends and family can look at it and go on to assist the person with the completion of the form. We also allow them to use their own words to describe their condition and to provide as much detail as they would like, or as much as their condition allows.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
Caroline Nokes
There are opportunities in the Green Paper for exactly that sort of information to be fed back, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work will be delighted to provide as much support as is needed.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
My constituent John Mullen had been working abroad for two years when he fell ill earlier this year with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. When he came back to this country, he was told that he would not qualify for personal independence payments until January 2018. Given what the Secretary of State has said about relaxing the cuts in welfare payments, will the Minister look at his case personally and make sure that my constituent has the money that he needs right now?
Caroline Nokes
As the hon. Gentleman knows, we cannot intervene in individual cases, but if he sends the detail of the specific problem with regard to those who have lived abroad and moved back, my hon. Friend the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work will be delighted to look at it.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Penny Mordaunt)
The Department is committed to improving continuously assessments for all our benefits, and we have responded to a range of recommendations from a number of independent reviews. As part of our continuous review of the work capability assessment, we will be consulting on further possible improvements in the forthcoming Green Paper.
Huw Merriman
I welcome the Government’s recent announcement. May I ask the Department to consider creating an individual health statement for each disability claimant to give every local and national agency that is responsible for paying benefits access to the relevant information, so that we can end the practice of repetitive form-filling and evidence gathering? That would reduce individual stress on the vulnerable and reduce bureaucracy in our essential public services.
Penny Mordaunt
That is a sensible suggestion, and I thank my hon. Friend for making it. If we can use all the data that Government hold—for example, care plans or evidence for someone’s war pension—better to reduce stress and bureaucracy for individuals and arrive more quickly at a good result on the assessment, we should do so.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
How confident is the Minister of the robustness of emergency payments for disabled people who lose their ESA or PIP? What would she say to my constituent who suffers from chronic lymphoedema? He wrote to me two weeks ago, having lost his benefit:
“I can’t seem to concentrate on what I should do. I have no money at all. My electricity and my gas have run out. As for food I don’t know what to do.”
How can we have a system in which people are left in such a predicament?
Penny Mordaunt
I am sorry to hear of the circumstances of the hon. Lady’s constituent. Enormous numbers of decisions are made on ESA, PIP and on all sorts of other benefits. In some cases, the wrong decision is taken and it is overturned on appeal. We need to concentrate on ensuring that we arrive at the right decision in the first place. That has been our focus over the last few weeks, and we are doing a lot of work to ensure that medical and other evidence is submitted earlier in the process so that such circumstances do not arise. I would be very happy to look at the situation of the hon. Lady’s constituent.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
John Nicolson (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Penny Mordaunt)
Our policy is developed by utilising service user panels. Provision is strictly monitored and measured by independent audit, and the provider is held to account through the contract that we have with them.
Martyn Day
For the fourth year in a row, the Infrastructure and Projects Authority has said that the roll-out of the personal independence payment project is
“in doubt with major risks…apparent in a number of key areas.”
What action is the Minister taking to address the urgent problems with the PIP assessment, which is causing further hardship to disabled people trying to access vital support?
Penny Mordaunt
I start by pointing out that PIP is a vast improvement on what went before. It is a more targeted benefit and it takes into account a whole raft of other conditions, such as mental health and sensory conditions, not just physical disability. It is a vast step forward in that respect. We cannot rest on our laurels, however. We must continually improve, and there is a robust improvement process, based on user and claimant feedback, which looks at the assessment and also at record keeping and a raft of other areas.
John Nicolson
Let us examine that claim. My constituent Leila Kennedy lives with dwarfism, and her Motability car was removed from her after a PIP assessment. She had to use public transport, which she was unable to do, and she lost her job as a result. Does the Minister really think that Government policy is delivering compassionate outcomes in such cases?
Penny Mordaunt
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will write to me with further details of that case. Under PIP, more people are entitled to use the Motability scheme, but clearly we want to make sure that any decision taken on a PIP assessment is the right one. A key part of that, as we know from looking at cases that have been overturned on appeal, is getting the evidence submitted earlier in the process.
Christina Rees
Reports suggest that Capita rewards its assessors on the basis of how many assessments they complete every month, which leads to rushed assessments where applicants are not given enough time to describe how their condition affects them daily. What is the Minister doing to ensure that applicants are given enough time and that such a reward system is not operating?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for her question because it gets to the heart of what I have just described. If we do not have a good-quality assessment and good quality in all the evidence needed early in the process, we will end up causing distress to an individual who has to go to mandatory reconsideration or an appeal. We are doing work in the Department to address this, including giving a bit more flexibility for certain cases at that early stage, with the hope that the evidence we need will then be submitted at that stage. That is recent work, and we are rolling it out at the moment.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
For those with a mental health condition, the PIP assessment has transformed opportunities. Under disability living allowance, only 22% accessed the highest rate of benefit; yet under PIP, the figure is 68%. With more people with mental health conditions being identified, what more can be done to signpost them to the wider support of the NHS, charities and the Government’s pilots?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for the work he did at the Department on these issues. He is absolutely right that mental health now has the priority it needs, and that PIP is delivering for such people. I would give him one example, which is the work we are doing to build on the excellent work that he did with the Disability Confident scheme. We have further beefed up the scheme, which will give employers a general grounding in these matters, and act as a platform for organisations such as Mind and others that can offer bespoke advice.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Most Members in this House will have someone come along to their advice surgery every week with a problem about PIP. The area that worries me most is Motability, because people come to my surgery who are clearly going to win at the tribunal stage, but their Motability is removed right at the beginning of the process. Can we not look at a change of policy, whereby the Motability stays until all the appeal processes have been concluded, which would be a great help to many people?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. Historically, we have not paid benefit during an appeal. The key to cracking this is to ensure that the assessment is done correctly. I would point out to him that the mandatory reconsideration process would be over before the person had to return the vehicle.
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Penny Mordaunt)
Building on the work of my predecessor, we have introduced a new Disability Confident scheme to identify the value that disabled people bring to businesses and to give employers the tools and techniques they need to recruit, retain and develop them. The new scheme went live in July, and it will be formally launched soon. I must thank my hon. Friend for being an early adopter.
Graham Evans
I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, and I pay tribute to her predecessor. Earlier this year, I held my fifth annual jobs and apprenticeship fair at Mid Cheshire College in Weaver Vale. In July, I undertook my first Disability Confident fair, where I signed up 19 Cheshire businesses to become Disability Confident employers. Will my hon. Friend tell the House what steps the Government are taking to encourage more small and medium-sized enterprises to take up this very important role?
Penny Mordaunt
In addition to the Disability Confident scheme, we are trialling the small employer offer, which will provide some additional support to those who may have less capacity within their own organisation. We are also working closely with the Health and Safety Executive, with its reach to SMEs, to target our services better.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
Recent analysis suggests that as well as an employment gap, there is a wage gap of about 13% between disabled workers and their non-disabled counterparts. What is the Minister going to do to raise employers’ awareness of this abuse?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that important point. We quite often talk about getting people into work, but we clearly also want them to have a career: we want them to develop, reach their full potential and pursue all their talents. The Green Paper, which we will publish shortly, will look at some of these issues, but the beefed-up Disability Confident scheme will also be very effective in doing that.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
Penny Mordaunt
I agree with my right hon. Friend. We need to do more to ensure that the support we offer is understood by employers. Disability Confident will help with that. We also need to raise employers’ awareness of what they are missing: huge talent and huge insight in their workforce. We will shortly bring forward schemes which will do just that.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister may be aware there is a massive pool of talent among people who suffer from neurolinguistic difficulties and challenges, and autism and dyslexia. What more can the Government do to show that, if we recognise their challenges, these young and old people make very good employees?
Penny Mordaunt
Absolutely; part of the solution is ensuring that our own staff are fully aware and able to encourage employers to take on these people. There are many other things we can do to highlight the positive contribution they have made. We are doing a huge amount of work with Hidden Impairment, including training our staff and our ongoing communication with employers.
Suella Fernandes (Fareham) (Con)
The Minister for Employment (Damian Hinds)
We are committed to battling financial exclusion. Under universal credit, through universal support, we are working with partners to help claimants manage their finances and avoid debt.
Suella Fernandes
Sixteen million adults have less than £100 in savings, with younger adults, larger families and single parents most at risk of struggling with their personal finances. The all-party group on financial education for young people, which I chair, has, supported by Young Enterprise, concluded that people need better money management skills in life. What steps is my hon. Friend taking to increase financial education and money management skills for young people and those in receipt of benefits?
Damian Hinds
I commend my hon. Friend for her work with the all-party group, which has been particularly effective. In jobcentres, the first work search interview provides the opportunity to identify barriers, including financial capability. Under universal credit, personal budgeting support can be offered in partnership with jobcentres, local authorities and other local service providers.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the hon. Member for Fareham (Suella Fernandes) for asking that very important question. The new Money and Mental Health Policy Institute, of which I am a member, highlighted that it is so much harder to recover from mental illness if one is in debt. Adults with mental health conditions are three times more likely to be in debt than adults without mental health conditions. What specifically is the Minister doing to ensure that people with a mental condition who are in receipt of benefits and in debt are supported appropriately?
Damian Hinds
The most important thing we do is work in partnership at a local level with mental health organisations such as Mind to increase understanding of jobcentre operations on these issues, as well as to extend help to individual claimants. It is very important to understand the full range of barriers and challenges that somebody may face.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Welfare Delivery (Caroline Nokes)
The Secretary of State announced in a written ministerial statement on 15 September 2016 that we will be deferring the application of local housing allowance rates for supported housing until 2019-20. At that point, we will bring in a new funding model.
Vicky Foxcroft
In Lewisham, funding for supported accommodation has fallen by more than half since 2010. My constituent Winston Morris suffers from multiple sclerosis and is wholly reliant on his wheelchair. He was made homeless and had to move into his sister’s living room, where he sleeps, eats, uses the commode and bathes. More than a year later, he is still there. Despite being on the housing waiting list, there is no clear timeframe for when he will be rehoused. This is completely unacceptable. Will the Minister meet me to discuss his case to prevent other vulnerable people from falling into similar situations?
Caroline Nokes
Local authorities are absolutely best placed to make decisions on supporting vulnerable people in their own areas and commissioning supported services that are needed locally, which is why I would be very happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss the specific issues she raises. It is important that we work to establish the best funding model for supported housing.
Jess Phillips
First, I very much welcome the Government’s announcement to exempt specialist providers such as women’s refuges from changes to housing benefit. I know that the Government have a plan to help refuges and women’s refuges remain sustainable in the future, so I would like to hear what they plan to do for all other sorts of supported living accommodation for elderly people, people with learning difficulties and some of our ex-servicemen and women who, as I heard on the radio today, are having their services shut.
Caroline Nokes
I commend the hon. Lady for the sterling work she has done on refuges. What we know is that there is a massive variety of types of providers of supported housing, and it is critical that in the consultation process we find a solution that works for all of them.
Caroline Nokes
What is critical is that we get the solution right, which is why we are bringing forward the consultation and why we deferred the local housing allowance cap for supported housing until 2019-20.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Pensions (Richard Harrington)
We have a well-established regime of checks and balances in place, for example the Pension Protection Fund and the Pensions Regulator. The Government keep this framework for pensions under constant review, and amend it when evidence demonstrates that such change is needed.
Stephen Metcalfe
As I have stated previously, one of the welcome provisions in the Pensions Act 2014 was the raising of the Pension Protection Fund cap. Will my hon. Friend update the House on when that clause might be implemented, because two years on it has still not been put in place and pensioners in my constituency are suffering the consequences?
Richard Harrington
Let me first acknowledge the work that my hon. Friend has done to ensure that the long service cap was established. Pensions legislation is, as he knows, a very complex and technical area, and it is important that the secondary legislation for the cap operates as it was intended in all circumstances. This process can take time. However, I can assure him that this has been a priority for me from my first day in office. As I recently announced, I intend the long service cap for the PPF to come into force in April 2017.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
My own personal occupational pension scheme has just been reduced. It is not a problem for me personally with my generous parliamentary salary, but it is symptomatic of the problems facing occupational pension schemes and pensioners. Is not the real long-term solution to establish a compulsory universal state earnings-related scheme for all, with defined contributions and defined benefits?
Richard Harrington
As the hon. Gentleman knows, this was looked into by the Turner review and by many people and institutions since. Automatic enrolment is in place, which is a great step forward. Millions of people have now enrolled. I hope that, as time evolves, this will become the main form of pension for people other than the new state pension.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Penny Mordaunt)
For PIP, it is 3%; and for ESA, it is 14%.
Mr Hollobone
What main reasons has the Minister identified for why valid claims are ending up in the tribunal, and what changes to procedures can she suggest so that the Department awards these valid applications either in the first place or on reconsideration?
Penny Mordaunt
As I stated previously, we have been doing some work in this area. One of the key things that will help is ensuring that we have more flexibility early on in the process so that where cases are complex, the evidence is submitted. There is also huge scope for using the information that the Government, and different parts of the Government, have to cut down on the bureaucracy altogether. The Green Paper will look at all these issues.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
My constituent receives ESA and has been seeking a review of her action plan by Ingeus, but neither Ingeus nor the DWP will take responsibility for reviewing it, despite the Secretary of State having a statutory obligation to do so. Will the Secretary of State investigate my constituent’s case?
Penny Mordaunt
I am sorry to hear that. If the hon. Lady writes to me, I shall look into it further.
John Nicolson (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Damian Green)
I am pleased to update the House on our continued efforts to support disabled people to access essential services and support more easily. Last month we launched a new digital service for Access to Work, so people can now apply online, making the application process quicker, more convenient and more efficient. Statistics published today show that already around 500 people a week are now making claims online, on average taking less than 20 minutes to complete a claim—a huge improvement from the delays and difficulties many experienced with the old system.
John Nicolson
I am glad that the Secretary of State feels so complacent. Only weeks ago the House was assured that tax credit cases would be expedited as a matter of urgency, but claimants are still waiting for weeks without their cases being resolved. The Secretary of State’s Department is responsible for dealing with child poverty. Will he tell us what he will do to push the system forward and make it work?
Damian Green
I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman that I absolutely take the point that the system is not perfect, and, one suspects, will never be perfect, but, as I have said, we are taking steps to improve it in every area. The hon. Gentleman mentioned child poverty. As I have said before, there are many thousand fewer children in poverty than there were in 2010. Overall, there are 300,000 fewer people in poverty than there were then, and there are 100,000 fewer working-age adults in poverty. I hope the whole House agrees that work is the best route out of poverty, and that using the benefits system to try to help people into work is the best thing that we can do for them in the long term.
Mrs Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)
The Minister for Employment (Damian Hinds)
I welcome both those pieces of news, and the employment that will be brought to my hon. Friend’s constituency. What she has said about the opening of the hotel reflects a national trend. We know from surveys that the demand for staff in the hospitality industry continues to be strong, and it is one of the factors that are helping us to achieve a record level of employment.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
According to the International Monetary Fund, a series of forecasts has shown that the vote to leave the European Union will lead to low global growth and rock-bottom interest rates for years to come, and that as a result, despite the saving of trillions of pounds, workers who are due to retire in the next few years will not even have their basic needs met. Today, as the deputy Governor of the Bank of England defends the Bank’s approach to the economy to Members of Parliament and outlines his concerns about pensions, will the Secretary of State tell us what the Government are going to do to shore up the pensions of people who have done the right thing and earned their retirement?
Damian Green
The best thing that the Government can do—and, of course, it is what we are doing and will continue to do—is ensure that our underlying economy is strong and continues to create jobs as it has over the past six years, because, as we know, that is the best way to preserve and enhance both the state and the private pensions systems in the future.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Penny Mordaunt)
I pay tribute to the taskforce, and also to my right hon. Friend’s work with the all-party parliamentary group on autism. We have introduced a number of measures. We have a contract with Autism Alliance UK, and I am grateful to the alliance for training more than 1,000 of our own staff. We will introduce further measures, and the Green Paper will focus strongly on autism, outlining not just our ambitions but what we intend to do now.
Mr Speaker
I call Mr Virendra Sharma.
Where is the fellow? He was here a moment ago, and now he has beetled out of the Chamber. All this beetling out of the Chamber is a very unhealthy phenomenon when an hon. Member has a question on the Order Paper. Members should look at the Order Paper a bit more carefully. I call Caroline Flint.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
It has been brought to the attention of the Public Accounts Committee that universal credit is paid per calendar month, which, as has been pointed out by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, affects those receiving four-weekly pay very badly. I know that, since our evidence inquiry, the Minister’s officials have met representatives of the union to discuss their concerns. May I ask the appropriate Minister to follow the matter up? It is an anomaly that affects a great many retail workers who are ending up without their universal credit being paid.
Damian Hinds
The right hon. Lady identifies the issue around four-weekly versus two-weekly versus monthly cycles of pay. As she mentions, it came up at the Select Committee. I know that Lord Freud is considering what the implications are and is continuing his discussions.
Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
Damian Hinds
Indeed, I welcome the news of the record levels of female employment. My hon. Friend is right that enhancements in childcare are an important part of this. Within that, the extension in universal credit support from 70% to 85% of costs is important, coupled with the fact that it applies at lower levels of hours, which will enable some mums to get back into the workplace sooner than might otherwise be the case.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Damian Green
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for highlighting that case. Reading out bank details over the phone is bad enough and, clearly, if his constituent is blind there are additional problems. If he will write to me, I will ensure that we look at that matter carefully.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
I hope that Ministers were as concerned as I was that not one of the offenders leaving prison earlier this month who were mentioned in the chief inspector of probation report found work? Will Ministers commit to raise that issue with all employers they meet, not least in the public sector, where our record is still not good enough, so that we can all be safer?
Damian Hinds
My hon. Friend is right to identify the importance of helping ex-offenders into work. We know that, if they get into work, they are much less likely to reoffend. The See Potential campaign is important in that regard. Many employers have signed up to that and I commend them for doing so. I and the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah), the Minister with responsibility for prisons, are in regular contact about how we can further improve our offer for ex-offenders and we will continue to work on that.
Corri Wilson (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
Penny Mordaunt
As I mentioned earlier, we have identified a number of things through the PIP continual improvement process. Some recurring trends have been down to straightforward things—for example, the failure of computer systems to integrate. However, we have the standards to which she has alluded. Where that is not happening, I would be grateful if hon. Members would let me know. We have a rigorous process to look at and to audit where these things are and where they are not taking place.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
Disability Confident is an excellent initiative, but there are still far too few disabled people in employment, particularly those with learning disabilities. Can the Minister look at what we might do to give financial incentives to employers to take on people with disabilities, because it seems that getting people to give someone a go is the best way to show that any doubts they have about employing people with a disability are unfounded?
Penny Mordaunt
This is a very important issue. The Green Paper will look at it, but outside that, if we are really serious about closing the disability employment gap, we have to look at job creation and create opportunities for everyone, including those who may have particular needs, to do meaningful activity, to work and to have flexibility. Therefore, we are looking at those things.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
Damian Green
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing up that individual case. Obviously, if he wants to send details, I will look at them. Clearly, each case has to be assessed on its merits, so I cannot give any blanket commitments at the Dispatch Box, but I will certainly look at the individual case.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that with more powers over health and social care being devolved to local government, it makes sense to at least consider transferring the administration and responsibility for attendance allowance to them too?
Penny Mordaunt
This was part of the consultation on business rate retention and is being considered at the moment.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
Damian Green
Ministers have absolutely not abandoned the idea of the northern powerhouse, as I am sure the hon. Lady knows, but we are also equally determined that the benefits of the high employment, low unemployment regime we have established over recent years are spread to all regions of the country, including her own. We will continue the very successful work that we have done in that field over the past six years during the course of this Parliament.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
I know the Minister is passionate about sports opportunities for disabled people, especially with today’s homecoming parade for our Paralympian champions. However, Mencap today highlighted that only nine out of 252 Paralympic events are open to those with a learning disability. Will the Minister meet Mencap urgently to look at how this can be addressed?
Penny Mordaunt
It is absolutely vital that we ensure that, whether in school or later in life, people with disabilities can participate in sporting activities. That is good not just for physical health, but for mental wellbeing. I would be very happy to meet Mencap.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
Youth unemployment in Wolverhampton remains stubbornly high despite recent progress. City of Wolverhampton Council is running an excellent project to help young people back into work, which is part-funded by the European Union. The Secretary of State and I campaigned to remain in the EU. Can he guarantee that such projects will be funded by the Government once we leave?
Damian Hinds
As the hon. Lady knows, a statement has been made about the European social fund and what happens to projects at different stages. I commend what is happening in her constituency and welcome the fact that in Wolverhampton North East youth unemployment has fallen by 54% since 2010.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I do not know whether it is just in my area, but at every weekly surgery I will have one person who has been refused PIP who is clearly entitled to it. I had a lady this week with multiple sclerosis; she is clearly entitled to it and will get it when she goes to the independent tribunal, but why do such people have to wait until then? Surely this can be corrected at an earlier stage.
Penny Mordaunt
We now have mandatory reconsideration, but I understand my hon. Friend’s frustration. The key to this is to ensure that we get the decision right in the first instance. We are looking very closely at those cases that have gone to appeal and been overturned to see why the right decision was not taken earlier in the process. I have mentioned some of the things we are going to do and the Green Paper will have more, but I absolutely hear my hon. Friend.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
Dozens of Women Against State Pension Inequality petitions with thousands of signatures have been presented already across the UK, with more on the Order Paper today and tomorrow. The Secretary of State needs to accept that these women are not going anywhere and a solution is needed. Does the Minister agree that if there is no money for pensions, there is no money for weapons of mass destruction?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Pensions (Richard Harrington)
The Government have already made a concession to the WASPI women. The state pension is very much part of public expenditure and always will be, and it is absolutely not the case that defence expenditure and that on the state pension can be compared.
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)
The most recent Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs figures show that my constituency now has the highest level of child poverty in the country, and we know that two thirds of children living in poverty live in working households. For my constituents this is not a country that works for everyone. Will the Secretary of State now agree that he must come to this House and reverse the cuts to universal credit so that my constituents and others are supported, rather than penalised for this Government’s choices?
Damian Green
I hope the hon. Lady will recognise that the figures I have quoted on a number of occasions show that child poverty and the number of children living in workless households has fallen. Clearly, there will be different percentages in different constituencies around the country, but we will continue on a path that gets more people into work and means that fewer children are in workless households, so that the prosperity can be spread across all parts of this country.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
The Minister will be aware that independent research commissioned by the Scottish National party has found that the Government’s figures on a solution for the WASPI women were wrong. Instead of £30 billion, mitigation could cost much less, at £8 billion. Given that there is a surplus in the national insurance fund, why does he not do the right thing and ensure that those women get mitigation?
Damian Green
Since September, the Scottish Government have had the power to pay benefits in many new areas; they can create new benefits and top up reserved benefits. The days when this Chamber was just a relaxing place where SNP Members could come to whinge are over. They now control a Government who have the power to do something about this and put their money where their mouth is.
Several hon. Members rose—
Implementation of the 1995 and 2011 Pensions Acts
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
I am grateful for the chance to present a petition calling for fair transitional arrangements for 1950s-born women who are affected by changes to the state pension age. That group of women is bearing an unfair burden. When the Pensions Act 2011 was debated, Ministers promised transitional arrangements to ease that burden, but those have not materialised, leaving women in the constituency of West Dunbartonshire and many others facing hardship. I thank all those who have signed the petition and those in similar terms presented by other hon. Members. I also thank the Journal Office for all its work in registering the petitions.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of the county constituency of West Dunbartonshire,
Declares that as a result of the way in which the 1995 Pension Act and the 2011 Pension Act were implemented, women born in the 1950s (on or after 6 April 1951) have unfairly borne the burden of the increase to the State Pension Age; further that hundreds of thousands of women have had significant changes imposed on them with little or no personal notice; further that implementation took place faster than promised; further that this gave no time to make alternative pension plans; and further that retirement plans have been shattered with devastating consequences.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to make fair transitional arrangements for all women born in the 1950s (on or after 6 April 1951) who have unfairly borne the burden of the increase to the State Pension Age.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001923]
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
I present a petition on behalf of the residents of South Down relating to the implementation of the 1995 and 2011 Pensions Acts. The petition that I am presenting is identical to the one presented by the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes). He has already referred to the content of that petition, so I will not read it all out.
The petition states:
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to make fair transitional arrangements for all women born on or after 6 April 1951 who have unfairly borne the burden of the increase to the State Pension Age.
The Petition of residents of South Down.
[P001946]
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
I present a petition on behalf of residents of the Motherwell and Wishaw constituency and others who kindly signed the petition while it was there in my constituency. I am grateful for the chance to present this petition calling for fair transitional arrangements for 1950s-born women affected by changes to the state pension age. The text of the petition has already been read by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes).
I should declare an interest. I am very fortunate to have been born a year before the date that applies for the change to pension arrangements, and I feel a deep obligation to those women, some of whom came to my constituency office suffering real hardship. As a result of what has happened to them, some of them have had to apply for help from the Royal Society for the Relief of Indigent Gentlewomen of Scotland to raise their incomes.
The Petition of residents of Wishaw and Motherwell.
[P001945]
Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse
(7 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary to make a statement on the remit, organisation, budget and staffing of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Amber Rudd)
I would like to make a statement on the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. I know that the whole House will agree with me when I say that the work of the inquiry is absolutely vital. Victims and survivors must have justice, and we must learn the lessons of the past. The inquiry’s remit is to examine whether institutions in England and Wales have failed to protect children from sexual abuse. It is an independent body, established under the Inquiries Act 2005. The Home Office is the sponsor Department, and I am responsible for the terms of reference, appointing the chair and panel members, and providing funding. Last year, the inquiry had a budget of £17.9 million and underspent by over £3 million. The appointment of staff and the day-to-day running are matters for the chair.
I appointed Professor Alexis Jay as chair of the inquiry on 11 August, following the unexpected resignation of Dame Lowell Goddard on 4 August, and I am aware of questions around the reasons for that resignation. Let me spell out the facts. On 29 July, the secretary to the inquiry met my permanent secretary and reported concerns about the professionalism and competence of the chair. My permanent secretary encouraged the inquiry to raise those matters with the chair. He reported this meeting to me the same day. My permanent secretary also met members of the inquiry panel on 4 August. Later that day, Dame Lowell tendered her resignation to me, which I accepted. Less than a week elapsed between concerns being raised with the Home Office and Dame Lowell’s resignation. My permanent secretary’s approach was entirely appropriate for an independent body.
The second issue relates to my evidence to the Home Affairs Committee. I was asked why Dame Lowell had gone. Dame Lowell had not spoken to me about her reasons, so I relied on the letter that she had sent to the Committee. In her letter, she said that she was lonely and felt that she could not deliver, and that that was why she had stepped down. Dame Lowell has strongly refuted the allegations about her. The only way we could understand properly why she resigned would be to hear from Dame Lowell herself. To echo any further allegations, which are now likely to be the subject of legal dispute, would have been entirely inappropriate. We now owe it to the victims and survivors to get behind the inquiry in its endeavour. My own commitment to the inquiry’s work is undiminished, and I invite the House to offer its support in the same way.
Mr Speaker
I have no wish to be disobliging to the Home Secretary, but for the record, and for the propriety of these proceedings, I should just mention that in no meaningful sense of the term was she making a statement to the House, which is a matter of conscious and deliberate choice by the Government. The right hon. Lady was responding—she has done so timeously—to an urgent question, which I have granted. In other words, the Home Secretary is here because she has been asked to be here, not because she asked to be here. That is quite an important distinction, which we ought to respect in the language that we use.
Lisa Nandy
The Home Secretary is right to say that the inquiry is of profound significance not only to survivors, but the whole country. She is right to remind us that it is independent, but these events and the problems that have beset it since it started also raise fundamental questions of accountability.
The Home Secretary referred to the evidence that she gave to the Home Affairs Committee on 7 September, in which she said that “all the information” she had was that Justice Goddard had quit because she was a “long way from home” and “too lonely”. The Home Secretary said that she was relying on a letter. Why did she not ask Justice Goddard why she had quit the inquiry? We have since learned that senior officials in the Department were aware on 29 July—before the resignation—of concerns about Justice Goddard’s conduct. It is also alleged that Liz Sanderson, an adviser to the Home Secretary’s predecessor, who is now Prime Minister, and Mark Sedwill, the permanent secretary, knew about the concerns long before then. Will the Home Secretary clarify whether that is the case?
On what date did the Home Office become aware of the problems? On which exact date during the 16 months that the chair was in post did the Home Secretary or her predecessor become aware of the problems? Who made them aware of those problems? Given that 38 Home Office staff are seconded to the inquiry, how could the Home Secretary have been unaware of the concerns as late as 7 September? Can she tell us why, given that the Home Office knew of serious questions about the behaviour and leadership of the inquiry, she went on to authorise a pay-off to Justice Goddard worth £80,000?
Will the Home Secretary confirm that she is the only person who can terminate the chair’s contract and that misconduct is grounds for dismissal under that contract? If so, why was that not acted upon? Has she or the Prime Minister intervened to request that Justice Goddard appears before the Home Affairs Committee? If not, will they do so urgently? Can she explain the circumstances surrounding the departure of the lead counsel, Ben Emmerson, QC? Has any compensation been paid to him or the four other senior lawyers who have quit the inquiry? Will the Home Secretary assure survivors about how the inquiry will proceed?
Finally, this inquiry was established to shine a spotlight on institutions characterised by a culture of secrecy, denial and cover-up in which child abusers were able to operate in plain sight without challenge or consequence. It is a tragedy that the inquiry has been dogged by allegations of a similar nature, with which child abuse victims will be far too familiar. If the inquiry is to proceed with confidence, the questions must be answered.
Mr Speaker
It is very cheeky for an hon. Member to use the word “finally” in what I might call the Hughes sense—a reference to the former Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark, who was wont to follow that word with several further sentences.
Amber Rudd
I will endeavour to answer the hon. Lady’s questions as fully as possible. She initially asked about my comments to the Home Affairs Committee on why Dame Lowell Goddard had left, so I want to quote from Dame Lowell’s letter, in which she says:
“It was never easy operating in an environment in which I had no familiar networks and there were times when it seemed a very lonely mission.”
It was with reference to that note that I gave my answer to the Committee.
The hon. Lady had several queries about staffing. The independence of the inquiry can be maintained only by it being absolutely clear that such matters are for the chair. It is not for the Home Office to control staffing; it is for the chair to appoint members of staff, and the chair has the operational independence to do so.
The hon. Lady also inquired about whether I had asked Dame Lowell Goddard to appear before the Home Affairs Committee. I have indeed passed on that specific request.
My Department has followed the correct formal procedure at all times and will continue to do so in order to ensure that there is true accountability regarding transparency, which is so important. The fact that the inquiry is independent is absolutely essential to garnering the support that is needed from the expert panel, which is part of the inquiry, and from victims and survivors.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
May I support the Home Secretary in emphasising the importance of this inquiry carrying on its important work? Will she also acknowledge that Alexis Jay and other panel members, as well as her own permanent secretary, will be appearing before the Home Affairs Committee tomorrow? Does the Home Secretary agree that it would be very helpful if Lowell Goddard agreed to appear in person in front of us? Finally, while respecting the independence of such an inquiry, there is a duty for the Home Secretary and the Home Affairs Committee, as a scrutinising body, to make sure that it is fit for purpose and is spending public money wisely. Does she agree that it is not sufficient for a chairman to be entirely self-regulating if things are going wrong, as she appears to be suggesting?
Amber Rudd
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He is right to say that we need to point out that the permanent secretary is appearing before the Home Affairs Committee tomorrow, as is the new chair, Alexis Jay. I am sure she will get the confidence she deserves from the Select Committee and from other parties who have listened to her.
My hon. Friend is right that the operational independence of the chair is also dependent on support from the expert panel, and when my permanent secretary was approached by the secretary of the independent inquiry about concerns on 29 July, he rightly referred the secretary to ask the expert panel to take this up with the chair. The relationship between the chair and the expert panel is central to this, and so in that way the chair would not be able to act independently, because she needs the support of the expert panel.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
The Government are now on their fourth chair of the inquiry into child sexual abuse. No inquiry in modern times has been mired in such chaos. At the very least, this suggests a certain incompetence, both in setting the terms and in selecting the personnel to lead the inquiry. This is bad for policy and for the Home Office but, above all, it is a terrible situation for the survivors of child sexual abuse, who have put so much hope and trust in the successful conclusion of this inquiry.
The latest scandal is the departure of Dame Justice Lowell Goddard, amid allegations of high-handedness and racist remarks. The Home Secretary said—this has been repeated—when she appeared before the Home Affairs Committee on 7 September that “all the information” she had was that Lowell Goddard had quit because she was
“a long way from home”
and “too lonely”. She says that she was reliant on Justice Goddard’s letter, but why did she not ask—why did she not get a formal response from her as to why she was going? In the absence of any attempt to get formal information, other than the letter, the Home Secretary finds herself in a position where she will have to defend herself against accusations of misleading the Committee. It is clear from the statements of the victims and their families that they believe there will be no change to the remit of the inquiry and no reduction in its scope. Who, on behalf of the inquiry and the Home Office, has communicated that to them? Was this Home Office policy at the time? Has it changed, and why has it changed? Will any attempts be made to scale back the inquiry? Does the Secretary of State agree that if that were to happen—scaling back an inquiry on which so many hopes rest among individuals who have spent a lifetime in pain and misery because of early abuse—it would be to make the survivors pay for the Government’s failure in managing this inquiry?
Amber Rudd
The hon. Lady confuses a number of items in her questions, and I respectfully say to her that questions to me about scaling back the inquiry reveal that she has failed to understand that this inquiry is independent. I urge her to look at the terms of reference, which were set out last year to Parliament, as they are very clear about independence. To maintain the confidence of the survivors and victims, it is essential that that independence is maintained and is seen to be maintained. There is no question of the Home Office scaling back an inquiry; this is for the chair of the inquiry, Alexis Jay, who has such a strong reputation in this area, including for her work on the Rotherham inquiry. I urge the hon. Lady to acquaint herself a little more with what this independence means, and I hope that that will mean that she will have more confidence in the process.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
Having worked for many years with my constituent Tom Perry, who works with Mandate Now and the Survivors Trust, which seek to require all staff working in regulated activities to report concerns about a child’s welfare to the local authority, I know how important this inquiry is. Does the Home Secretary agree that the inquiry is indeed a vital tool for uncovering where children and young people have been failed by Government and institutions in the past, and will she undertake again to look at mandatory reporting?
Amber Rudd
My right hon. Friend raises a personal case, and it is important for us all to bear such cases in mind when we think about the scale of this inquiry and people bringing forward criticisms. There are always these independent stories that remind us how important it is to get truth and justice for these people, and to learn from those stories so that we can ensure that institutions make improvements. Of course I will look at what she has suggested.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
Every MP in the Chamber is anxious for the inquiry to succeed, but before we can draw a line under recent difficult problems and move on, we need honesty and transparency from the Home Office. When the Home Secretary appeared before the Home Affairs Committee in September alongside the permanent secretary, she left Members with the impression that Justice Goddard resigned because, in short, she was “lonely”. There was no mention of concerns about conduct then or, indeed, in her subsequent letter to the acting Chair of the Committee. For clarity’s sake, did she know before giving evidence that day, or before writing the letter, about the concerns that had been raised? Will she confirm that only she could remove the inquiry chair from office and that the limited grounds for doing so included misconduct? Is that not why all these questions about the state of her knowledge are so important?
Will the Home Secretary confirm that the secretary to the inquiry, to whom she has already referred, is a lifelong Home Office staffer and that that secretary regularly meets the permanent secretary to provide progress updates? Is she categorically stating that these issues were not raised before July? If they were not raised before July, why on earth were they not raised before then? When did the permanent secretary or the special advisers first make either the current or previous Home Secretary aware?
When the Home Secretary gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee, was she being economical about what she knew, or had she been badly briefed by the permanent secretary—it has to be one or the other? Finally, does she accept that, by sticking its head in the sand, the Home Office hierarchy allowed the inquiry to descend into a state of paralysis, which we must never see again?
Mr Speaker
Order. I fear it is rather discourteous for the hon. Gentleman to suggest or imply that the Home Secretary might be “economical” with what she knew. That comes fairly close to crossing the line. Given that he has a prepared text, and therefore had full knowledge of what he was going to say, may I suggest that, for the future, he ought to phrase things rather differently?
Amber Rudd
I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that there is no “paralysis”—he particularly used that word. The inquiry is at full tilt and working at full speed under Alexis Jay, and it will continue to do so.
The hon. Gentleman asks about the dates. I believe that I set them out very clearly in my response to the urgent question: I knew about this on 29 July, and that was one week before Dame Lowell Goddard resigned. I point out that the allegations to which he refers are absolutely denied by Dame Justice Goddard, so it would not be appropriate for me to refer to them or to speculate on them while there may indeed be legal action following them.
Seema Kennedy (South Ribble) (Con)
Many of our constituents have suffered child sexual abuse and live every day with its consequences. Will the Home Secretary confirm to the House that this inquiry will be a No. 1 personal priority for her?
Amber Rudd
I can confirm that this is a priority for us. It is a priority for this Government and Members across the House. As my hon. Friend says, we all know of constituents who have suffered and who are, quite rightly, expecting action.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
Is the Home Secretary aware that there is bound to be disappointment? When she appeared before the Select Committee at its hearing on 7 September and replied to questions about why Justice Goddard had resigned, she did not give further information that was relevant to the resignation or that involved any possible legal action. On the wider issue, will the Home Secretary accept that there is now a lack of confidence—there is no other way to put it—that the inquiry will carry out the very crucial task of looking into the sexual exploitation of children? There is also no indication whatsoever of a timescale; the inquiry could go on for many years. It would be an absolute farce if such an important inquiry ended in the way that many of us fear.
Amber Rudd
I urge the hon. Gentleman to give his support to the inquiry. Let us all try to find a way of being confident about it. Alexis Jay, the chair, has said that she hopes to conclude the inquiry by the end of 2020, but it is perhaps for us in the House and for the Home Affairs Committee to give her assistance. I am not suggesting anything but the most thorough of scrutiny, but it may be that we need to give as much assistance as we can to make sure that the new chair can do a thorough and successful job going forward.
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
I very much welcome the appointment of Professor Jay to take the inquiry forward. Can the Home Secretary confirm that victims of child sexual exploitation in my constituency will be able to engage with the inquiry and share their experiences?
Amber Rudd
My hon. Friend is right. Alexis Jay has the experience to be able to lead the inquiry and under the truth project, one of the strands within the inquiry, we are encouraging people to come forward and speak to the inquiry about their experience.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
The Home Secretary is right to talk about the independence of the inquiry. We all want Professor Jay to be able to make a success of such an important inquiry now, but there is continued concern because this is the fourth chair and the second legal team, and because of the lack of transparency about the problems that there seems to have been from both the inquiry and the Home Office. Is the Home Secretary satisfied that the transparency arrangements for the inquiry are strong enough and that there will now be enough accountability for the progress of the inquiry?
Amber Rudd
The right hon. Lady has come to the crux of the matter—have we got the right balance of independence and transparency? I recognise that that is something that I need to reassure people about and hopefully demonstrate. One of the reasons for being here today is to make that point. I will watch carefully to make sure that we continue to get the right balance, providing the independence that is necessary while being as transparent as possible.
Craig Williams (Cardiff North) (Con)
I think it is worth reiterating the importance of independence, and I hope my right hon. Friend agrees with me. I hope she will reinforce to the House that protecting the strictly independent nature of the inquiry is incredibly important. Will she continue to give that reassurance?
Amber Rudd
My hon. Friend is right. Ensuring that people have confidence in the inquiry is also about maintaining its independence.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Instead of making this all about lawyers, judges and even Ministers, may we bring the focus back to where it really belongs—on the needs, wishes and interests of the victims? Will the Home Secretary give us an assurance that as the inquiry goes forward, any request for access from victims’ representatives to her or to the inquiry will be met, that the victims’ voice will be heard in Government, and that any victim who is pursuing justice by another route will not find that route prejudiced by any shortcomings in the inquiry?
Amber Rudd
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for making that important point. The inquiry is, of course, about the victims and survivors. When I wanted to make inquiries about appointing a new chair, I did, of course, consult the victims and survivors consultative panel to ensure that it was supportive, which indeed it was. The right hon. Gentleman is right—we must make sure that the victims and survivors are always at the centre of our words and our deeds.
Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)
As well as it being vital that this important inquiry is strictly independent, as hon. Members have emphasised, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is vital that we let it do its work and await its report, rather than anyone seeking in any way to pre-empt its findings?
Amber Rudd
My hon. Friend is right. We are caught between our impatience to find out more and the need to keep the inquiry independent. We are hoping for an interim statement on the inquiry for the current financial year—the end of March next year—and I hope that that will shed some light on progress to date.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
The Saville report took 12 years and spent £190 million to report on a single incident that took place over two hours. This inquiry has been given the mission impossible to report on hundreds of thousands of incidents that took place over many decades. Is it not time for the House to confess that this was a political escape hole to recover from an embarrassing situation, and to make it clear that the matter is, of course, of vital importance, but that the committee must be allowed to reshape the report and its inquiries so that they can be reported within our lifetimes?
Amber Rudd
I do not share the hon. Gentleman’s view about this being a political inquiry of any sort. I think it is essential, important and valued by everybody—in this House certainly, and in the nation generally. We have a Select Committee that will continue to make its inquiries. As I said earlier, Alexis Jay has indicated that she hopes to conclude the inquiry by the end of 2020.
Byron Davies (Gower) (Con)
Given that we are where we are now with the resignation of Dame Justice Goddard, does my right hon. Friend agree with Professor Jay when she says that the inquiry is “open for business”? Does she agree that it can now go forward with its vital work with confidence to demonstrate its accountability?
Amber Rudd
Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. We may have discussions, urgent questions and statements on issues of staffing, but the fact is the inquiry is going ahead, it is taking evidence and the chair is working hard to make sure she delivers as soon as possible.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
It is not taking evidence from everyone yet. I am the appointed representative of some of the survivors from my constituency, and my office is assisting others with statements, and none of that has gone forward yet. Is there not a danger that this is going to become another lawyers bun fest, with judges and barristers resigning, and with large numbers of lawyers not just queueing up, but at the front of the queue, to make large amounts of money not only representing people to the inquiry, but, simultaneously, taking legal civil action against the authorities? What are the Government going to do to ensure that the survivors are at the heart of this rather than the lawyers?
Amber Rudd
We always make sure that survivors are at the heart of this. There is, nevertheless, a legal role to be played, and there are expenses associated with an inquiry, but there is no blank cheque. One role with which the Home Office does have constant engagement is making sure that the budgets are carefully set and challenged each year so that the proper costs are associated with this.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I am sure the inquiry is moving forward in the right way, but I hope we are not being deflected from dealing with child abuse that is going on at the moment, especially of children who are trafficked into this country. One thing we could do urgently is move the protection of children who are trafficked from local government to national Government and the Home Office. If the Home Secretary would be willing to look into that, it would improve things enormously.
Amber Rudd
I know of my hon. Friend’s action and strong reputation on the issue of trafficking, and I would of course be delighted to speak to him on any matter in this area on which he has advice to give. I would like to reassure him, though, that a key element of this inquiry is about learning from the past to improve institutions going forward.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Will the Home Secretary accept that there are some serious questions to be asked about the due diligence that was undertaken in the appointment of Justice Goddard in the first place? Has she had an opportunity to discuss with her predecessor what steps she took to ensure Justice Goddard was up for the job? Can she confirm for me exactly what date she expects the interim report, exactly what date she expects the final report and what the total cost of the inquiry will be?
Amber Rudd
We have asked for the interim report by the end of this financial year, so we would expect it in March or April next year. I have already indicated that we hope that the final report will be completed by the end of 2020, but I cannot be prescriptive about that; that is for the chair to decide, but that is the indication she has given.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Can the Home Secretary reassure my constituents that the work of this important inquiry was not stopped each time a chairman stood down? Can she reassure the House that there is a robust system of deputy chairs in place?
Amber Rudd
Considerable work has already been done over the past 16 months. The new chair is aware of the need to get confidence back and to pick up activity with all due urgency. I assure my hon. Friend that she is taking that obligation, with the momentum that she has now picked up, very seriously.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
When I asked the former Prime Minister an oral question about the loss of survivor testimonies that were submitted through the inquiry website, he said that he would write to me. What he meant was that he would print a press release from the inquiry website and forward it on. This patronising and irresponsible approach has been the only consistent theme of the inquiry. Is it not time that this Government started listening to the legitimate concerns of survivors and experts, and acknowledged that unless something changes, it is simply being set up to fail?
Amber Rudd
I respectfully ask the hon. Lady perhaps to engage with the inquiry in a slightly more positive manner. This Government set it up, and we are absolutely serious about wanting to assist survivors and victims, and wanting to make the changes to institutions that are necessary as we move forward.
Amber Rudd
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, but I like to think that this Government had some part in making sure that that took place.
If the hon. Lady would like to write to me about the particular instance to which she is referring, I would of course be happy to respond, and she can rest assured that I will do so.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. Unless I am much mistaken, the hon. Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), who is a most assiduous attender at our proceedings, was not here at the start of these exchanges in the Chamber. [Interruption.] If she was, that is fine. I had been advised that she was not, but her word is good enough. If she says she was, that is good enough for me. Was she here at the start of the exchanges on this matter?
Maria Caulfield
Do Professor Jay and the panel have the resources they need to complete this inquiry, and if not, what extra help can be given to them?
Amber Rudd
My hon. Friend raises an important point. These inquiries are not always popular because they can be costly, but the Home Office has a management technique to make sure that we always look carefully at the costs that might be involved. I assure her that we will always make sure that they are sufficiently funded to do the job well.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
As part of its work, the inquiry was due to look into the sexual abuse of children in the care of Nottingham City Council and Nottinghamshire County Council as one of its first-phase investigations. As the Secretary of State knows, survivors in my constituency have already waited not just years but decades for their voice to be heard. What assurances can she give to my constituents, who are desperate to secure a measure of justice, about the timeframe for those investigations?
Amber Rudd
I completely understand the need for the hon. Lady’s constituents to have a better view on the potential timing of the progress of this inquiry. We now have a chair who has said that she is going to move with momentum and pace, so I would expect them to hear from her soon. I am sorry to have to repeat this, but it is for the inquiry to decide how to proceed. I urge the hon. Lady to engage with the chair in order to get an answer.
Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
Following the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), with the movement of people and the vulnerability of children a matter of concern to all of us in this House, what steps are the Government taking with other nations to tackle the global challenge of child sexual abuse in order to learn from that and better inform the inquiry?
Amber Rudd
Internationally, we are viewed as being ahead of other countries in trying to address this. We have a number of initiatives online to make sure that we share good practice and engage with other countries. The Modern Slavery Act 2015 is one way of making sure that less abuse takes place. Again, we are an international leader in that area.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I have known far too many people in my life who have been abused. A colleague at theological college used to cry herself to sleep every single night because of the abuse she had suffered as a child. A young member of the congregation where I was a curate self-harmed for months on end because of the abuse that she had suffered from one of her teachers. Another ordinand was abused by the Bishop of Gloucester—a man in power and authority, and spiritual authority, over him. For all those people, and doubtless for all the others we all know, the thing that matters more than anything else is getting to the truth, so that what they know in their heart is known by everybody else to have been the truth. I say very gently to the Home Secretary that if at any point she has a choice between letting everything out into the open and keeping some things back, she should always go for the former, not the latter.
Amber Rudd
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is incumbent on those of us who have anything to do with an inquiry about transparency and abuse to ensure that we are as transparent, accountable and frank with people as possible. I reassure him that I will always do that, but I would like to turn the emphasis back to the inquiry and the new chair so that we can make the progress that is so essential to his and all our constituents.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
David Cameron was very fond of quoting Justice Brandeis’s dictum that sunlight is the best disinfectant. In the spirit of the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), does the Home Secretary agree that we need to get all the facts out in the open now? Will she allow, and in fact even encourage, former panel members to share their fears and concerns in public so that we can start with a completely clean sheet?
Amber Rudd
I would like to reassure the hon. Gentleman that the new chair takes that approach in terms of full transparency, but I do not want to mislead him by saying that the Home Office can do too much on that. We can be frank and open about every stage that we have been involved in, but it is for the inquiry to answer some of the detailed questions. I remind the House that Alexis Jay will be in front of the Home Affairs Committee tomorrow and hopefully will be able to answer some of the hon. Gentleman’s questions.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr iawn, Mr Speaker. When the Macur report was presented earlier this year, it contained hundreds of redactions, apparently to avoid prejudicing court actions, much to the dismay of victims in north Wales. What can the Home Secretary do to ensure that the report of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse will have a minimal amount of redactions to help victims to obtain justice in the courts?
Amber Rudd
I can honestly say that I share the hon. Gentleman’s view that an inquiry of this nature and seriousness should have the minimum amount of redactions. What the Government and the country expect is a full, open inquiry that will allow our constituents and people in our country who have been abused to have the truth and justice opportunity that they are seeking, and then for us and the institutions involved to learn so that such abuse does not happen again.
Community Pharmacies
(7 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Michael Dugher (Barnsley East) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the budget for community pharmacies in 2016-17 and 2017-18.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (David Mowat)
Members will have seen media coverage over the weekend about our consultation on the community pharmacy contractual framework. I shall set out the current position, the process going forward and how the final decision will be announced to the House.
In December 2015—10 months ago—the Government set out a range of proposals for reforming the community pharmacy sector. Our intent was to promote the movement of the sector towards a future based on value-added services, together with much stronger links to the general practitioner sector.
We proposed ways in which to make a reduction to the £2.8 billion currently paid to the sector. Part of the rationale was the increase of 40% in the budget and an increase of 18% in the number of establishments in the past decade or so. Each establishment now receives an average £220,000 of margin over and above the cost of drugs disbursed. Many of the establishments are in clusters.
The 2015 spending review reaffirmed the need for the privately owned community pharmacy sector to make a contribution to the publicly owned NHS efficiency savings that we need to deliver. We are confident that the changes proposed will not jeopardise the quality of services required or patient access to them, but some services will be delivered differently, which is why we have set aside £112 million to recruit a further 1,500 pharmacy professionals to be employed directly by the NHS in GP practices.
The Government have consulted on the reforms since December 2015. On 13 October this year, the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee rejected our proposed package and sent a list of remaining concerns. We are now in the process of considering its final response, and expect to be in a position to make an announcement to the House shortly.
Michael Dugher
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. Community pharmacies play a vital role in frontline healthcare. Nearly 12,000 communities in England provide free advice to patients, and more than 1 billion items were dispensed in the community last year—an increase of 50% on 2005. Reports in recent days, however, make it clear that the Government are determined to press ahead with massive cuts to community pharmacies in this and the next financial year.
Serious questions remain about the impact of those cuts. When will Ministers finally publish an impact assessment of the proposed plans? How many pharmacies will close? Which regions will lose the most? Will they be in clusters or not? What will be the rate of loss in urban, as opposed to rural, areas? Will the Minister confirm that only about one in 10 community pharmacies will be helped by the pharmacy access scheme?
Community pharmacies and the cuts to them are a complete false economy for the NHS. They can only add further pressures to our already overstretched A&E units and GP surgeries. What is the Minister’s assessment of the downstream costs to other parts of the NHS as a result of cuts to the community pharmacy budget, especially given the evidence from Pharmacy Voice that one in four people who would usually visit a pharmacy for advice would instead make a GP appointment if their local pharmacy was closed? In areas of higher deprivation, such as those in my constituency, the numbers are much higher.
We have seen massive opposition to these cuts, not just from pharmacies and voices on both sides of the House, but from the 2.2 million people who have signed the biggest petition in healthcare history. To conclude, Ministers have, to be frank, been all over the place. We have had mixed messages and false hope. The Government announced a pause to the cuts. Is not there now a compelling case for that pause to be made permanent?
David Mowat
The hon. Gentleman has not had any mixed messages from me. A pause was announced because the original consultation gave the intent to go ahead with this on 1 October. Given the change of Government and of Prime Minister, and given the new Chancellor and new Ministers, we took the opportunity to look at it again, to make sure that we get it right for patients, the NHS and the pharmacy sector itself, and that is what we intend to do.
The hon. Gentleman asked several questions, but first he said that the pharmacy sector is vital, and we agree with him. In some instances, however, there are as many as a dozen pharmacies within half a mile of each other. That is not an isolated occurrence. Each of those pharmacies receives £25,000 per annum, and it is our job to consider whether that money could be better spent in other parts of the NHS.
I am not in a positon today to announce the final format or shape of the GP access scheme.
David Mowat
That is speculation. We continue to look at the most recent communication that we have received from the negotiating body of the PSNC. I remind the House that 60% to 65% of these pharmacies are owned by public companies or private equity. The fact of the matter is that the Government have a responsibility to make sure that that money is spent effectively, and that is what we are going to do.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman said that GP access needs to remain good. I confirm and repeat the point that I made earlier: 1,500 additional pharmacists will be recruited into the GP sector by 2020. That is a massive investment, and it will make a big difference.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
I should declare that Boots has its headquarters partly in my constituency and partly in Nottingham South. May I gently say to the Minister that there is great concern about the proposals? If there was ever a time to argue to increase the role of pharmacies, it is now. They perform a hugely powerful job in making sure that people do not, to be frank, bother their GPs and A&E with matters that are best dealt with by pharmacies because they are of a minor nature. The Minister makes a good point about clustering, but he has to get this right, because, if he damages pharmacies, there will be fewer of them, not just in poorer areas, but in remote rural areas. I urge the Government to take a hard good look at the issue, to make sure that this is the right approach as the pressures on the NHS increase.
David Mowat
I agree with my right hon. Friend. Boots makes a big contribution. It owns 1,724 pharmacies and is the biggest of the big four, which between them own 40% of all pharmacies. The Government’s position is that community pharmacists make a big contribution, but I repeat that the number of locations has increased by nearly 20% over the past decade, and each one gets £25,000 per annum just for being open and for being a pharmacy. One consequence is that we have seen a great deal of clustering, and 40% of pharmacies are within half a mile of three others. It is right that the Government look at that and make a judgment.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher) on securing this urgent question and on his exceptional campaigning on the issue. He is, no doubt, as disappointed as I am by some of the Minister’s replies.
Ministers appear to be intent on pushing ahead with the cuts that have been outlined, under which thousands of community pharmacies could close and patients could lose out on essential medical services. The Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee has described the Government’s proposals as “founded on ignorance” and warned that they will do “great damage”. The National Pharmacy Association says that the proposal is a “dangerous experiment” that
“shows a complete disregard for the well-being of patients.”
Is that not an absolute indictment of the Government’s handling of this matter? The Minister has said that he will make an announcement shortly. Given the concern among Members from across the House, including Conservative Members, can he be more specific and tell us when he will give us a final decision? Will he also be negotiating a solution with the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee? As the Minister knows, his predecessor talked of the potential for up to 3,000 pharmacies to close. Is that correct, in the Minister’s judgment? If not, can he tell us how many pharmacies he thinks will close, and how many of those will be in deprived areas?
Has the Minister had a chance to study the PwC report that describes the cash savings that community pharmacies bring to the NHS? What will be the financial impact on the NHS of more patients presenting themselves at A&E departments and GP surgeries because pharmacies have closed?
Is not the real reason why Ministers are pressing ahead with these cuts the complete mismanagement of NHS finances? Hospitals ended last year £2.45 billion in the red. We have had continual warnings from experts in the NHS, and over the weekend we learned from the Prime Minister that there is no more money for the NHS. The Secretary of State and the Prime Minister would be wrong to continue to ignore the advice of experts and pretend that everything is going to be okay. Unless the Government get a grip of the funding crisis facing the NHS, I fear that these cuts are just the start and that there is worse to come.
David Mowat
The Government spend more than the OECD average on the NHS. We spend more than the commitments made by the Labour party before the last election. That does not mean that we do not have a duty to spend that money as effectively as we can, however, and that is exactly what we intend to do. The money that may be saved by the measures we are consulting on will not go to the Treasury; it will be recycled back into NHS England. That is what NHS England wants to happen.
The hon. Gentleman mentions the excellent PwC report, which reaffirmed the value of community pharmacists to this country. PwC did not consider whether that same value could be still provided after some savings to the network. That is what we are looking at, and it is reasonable and responsible for the Government to do so. To say that that is not the case is simply incorrect.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned that the previous Minister talked about 3,000 pharmacies closing. We do not believe that the number will be anything like that big. In some areas, there are 10 or 11 pharmacies within half a mile of each other. [Hon. Members: “Where?”] Leicester, Birmingham—we can talk more about this. It is quite possible that at the end of the review, some of those pharmacies will merge. If that happens, it will not mean that provision has been reduced. We do not believe that patient provision will suffer at all from the changes that we are considering.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
Community pharmacies play a very important role locally. Many of them have taken on useful services, such as eye tests and hearing tests, which definitely help to reduce the workload of GPs and of the NHS. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need a community pharmacy service that is better integrated with primary care and public health in line with NHS England’s five-year forward view?
David Mowat
It will not surprise the House to learn that I agree. Last Thursday night, I announced to over 1,000 pharmacists at their annual dinner that we are moving ahead with an urgent access scheme. From the beginning of December, all 111 calls for repeat prescriptions will go directly to pharmacists, not to the out-of-hours GP service. That is a tangible difference. We will do just the same with a minor ailments scheme, which will be commissioned right across the country so that, by April 2018, pharmacists will be paid—over and above any money that comes out of this settlement—for minor ailments work on things such as earache and so on. Those are exactly the sort of sensible steps that need to be taken to integrate pharmacy more closely into GP practice, and that is what we are doing.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
In Scotland, we already have a national minor ailments scheme within our community pharmacies, and it has had a huge impact. The Scottish Pharmacy Board estimated at the beginning of the project that 10% of those making GP visits and 5% of those making A&E visits could be seen in community pharmacies, so our investment has been in completely the opposite direction—in that of developing and strengthening such pharmacies. On top of minor ailments, one of the big areas that has made a difference is in chronic disease management. For people on repeat prescriptions, the pharmacist requests their next prescription and has it ready, while for housebound people, they deliver it, as they do with blister packs.
The concern about these changes is that pharmacists are afraid it will be a case of cutting and then seeing who survives. If it is felt that there are too many pharmacies in one place, reducing their number needs to be done in a planned way, otherwise rural and deprived areas will end up without one. The Government should be making sure that community pharmacy is a real part of the NHS, not slashing it.
David Mowat
The hon. Lady made several points. On her last point, the access scheme on which we are currently consulting will protect pharmacies in rural and deprived areas. That is precisely the point of the scheme.
The hon. Lady’s first point was that Scotland has moved ahead on minor ailments, and we agree. I am on the record as saying that the pharmacy first scheme in Scotland is a good model. We want the profession to move away from just dispensing towards more value-added activities, such as services. That is precisely why we are putting into effect the minor ailments scheme that has been piloted. It will be implemented right across the UK—right across England, I should say—from April 2018.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
In the lee of Watership down in my constituency, the village of Kingsclere was so alarmed by the Government’s plans that it raised a petition, possibly for the first time in its history, in support of its precious local pharmacy. Will the Minister confirm that, notwithstanding the consultation, the idea of protecting the dwindling number of rural pharmacies will come out at the end of the consultation as part of the access scheme?
David Mowat
Yes, I will confirm that. I am not in a position to announce today precisely how the access scheme will work, but I agree with my hon. Friend that a central part of it will be to make sure that everybody has a baseline distance to travel to get to a pharmacy and that everybody in the country will be able to access pharmacies within a reasonable time.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
NHS England’s five-year forward view stresses how important prevention is. Community pharmacies, which are anchored in the communities they serve, are vital in keeping people out of their GP surgeries and out of accident and emergency. The Minister talks about distance. What will the distance be? If I reflect on my own constituency, where the millionth signature of the petition was signed, my constituents really value each and every one of our community pharmacies. How many will he be cutting and how far does he expect people to travel to access one?
David Mowat
The hon. Lady mentions the five year forward view. If she reads the “General Practice Forward View”, she will see that central to it is the recruitment of 2,000 pharmacists into GP practices across the country by 2020. That is how we will embrace the pharmacy profession and link it much more closely to GPs. I am not in a position, because we have not yet announced it, to discuss in detail today the final form of the access scheme and how it will work. Let us be very clear, however, that we do not expect people to have appreciably more of a journey to any pharmacy. We are talking about tens of metres, if any. The fact is that we will protect the pharmacies that need to be protected, so that everybody in the country has access within a reasonable time.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
Where sensible savings can be made, it is absolutely right that they should be explored, particularly if they are ploughed back into the health service. However, at a time when people in Cheltenham are turning increasingly to expert pharmacists for minor ailment support, can the Minister assure me that no changes will take place that undermine the welcome trend of going to pharmacies and not GPs?
David Mowat
As I said, that is our intention. Our belief is that the package in its entirety, which we will announce shortly, will actually enhance the role of pharmacies in providing services.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
How many community pharmacies will close as a result of these cuts?
David Mowat
We do not believe that any community pharmacies will necessarily close as a result of these cuts. That will depend on a number of factors. [Interruption.] I will answer the question, which is fair. It depends on the margin they make from their pharmacy activities and on the additional margin they make from their retail activities. Given that 65% of all pharmacies are owned by public companies or private equity, it depends on the position those organisations take to their businesses. That is very hard to predict.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
Will the Minister say a little more about how he sees these plans tying in with the agenda to better integrate health services? In Weldon in my constituency, GP and pharmacy services work very well together for local patients under the leadership of Dr Sumira. What best practice is out there, and what attention is the Government giving to it?
David Mowat
As I said, we are recruiting an additional 2,000 pharmacists into general practice by 2020. We will also link community pharmacists into the NHS 111 system in a way that has never been done in England, so that repeat prescriptions will go direct to pharmacists and not to out-of-hours GPs. By 2018, pharmacists will receive additional payment for looking after minor ailments.
Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)
I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party pharmacy group. In February this year, the Minister’s predecessor, the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), said there would be an impact assessment. In answer to a parliamentary question I tabled last week and the Minister answered, you also said that an impact assessment will be published, so that it would inform the final decision. Can the Minister tell us when that will be published? Will it be shared with representatives of community pharmacists?
Mr Speaker
I did not say anything about any impact assessment, but the Minister might have done for all I know. I have a feeling we are about to learn about it.
David Mowat
As my predecessor said, an impact assessment is being produced, and when these proposals are published in their entirety, that will be published at the same time.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
On Thursday, my local clinical commissioning group will announce whether it is going to press ahead with plans to downgrade A&E at the Huddersfield royal infirmary. Can the Minister not see that when our A&Es are under so much pressure, we need community pharmacies and GP surgeries to see patients on the front line? I appreciate what he says about clustering, but having seen the last bank branches close in my rural communities, I am sorry but I just do not have confidence in it.
David Mowat
All I can do is repeat the point that I made earlier. The Government completely agree that we need community pharmacies. The Government completely agree that they have a vital role to play in keeping patients away from GPs and, potentially, from A&E as well. That, however, is not the same as saying that the 11,800 pharmacies that we have at the moment are precisely the right number, or that the clustering is at precisely the right number as well. It is right for the Government to review this and to establish whether or not the £25,000 of NHS money that every pharmacy receives every year is money well spent.
Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)
As we have heard, pharmacies have the potential to help the NHS become more efficient and community based. Community pharmacies are an integral part of the integrated care communities that the Success regime in Cumbria is promoting in order to take the pressure off our overstretched GPs and A&Es. We are really struggling to recruit doctors in Cumbria, so any loss of community pharmacies is a serious loss to our community. Can the Minister assure me that these wider health challenges are being taken into account?
David Mowat
Yes, I can assure the hon. Lady that we fully understand the issues in places such as Cumbria. To an extent, the access scheme is designed to make sure that large rural communities are properly protected. I can only repeat that we value the services that pharmacies provide and that we do not believe that there will be a substantial detriment to them as a result of a bit less clustering.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
Given that as part of the Greater Manchester devolution deal, the Greater Manchester health and social care partnership has taken control of the £6 billion a year health budget, will Greater Manchester be treated differently? If not, is there not a case for the area to be allowed to determine for itself how best to make use of community pharmacies?
David Mowat
It is my belief that the devolution deal does not include pharmacists, so the responsibility for that sector remains in the Department of Health. The proposals that we shall shortly outline will therefore include proposals for pharmacies that will apply equally to Greater Manchester.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The Minister may not know how many pharmacies are going to close, but Reena Barai, an award-winning community pharmacy in my constituency, estimates that one out of four pharmacies in the London borough of Sutton, which is 11 pharmacies in total, will be closed. These will predominantly be the independents—not Boots or Superdrug. Why does the Minister think that, for years, successive Governments have encouraged people to visit their pharmacies for certain conditions or tests, instead of GP surgeries and A&E? Was it not because it was better for their health and cheaper?
David Mowat
I can only repeat that we value and can see the value in community pharmacies. We do not believe that any reductions will be skewed towards the independent sector; nor do we believe that the sector’s position overrides our duty to look at clustering and to make sure that the money we spend in this sector—£2.8 billion—is spent most effectively and cannot be spent better on other parts of the NHS.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
As far as residents in the Kettering constituency are concerned, community pharmacies are a good thing. They relieve the pressure on the overburdened A&E at Kettering general hospital, and they are the only place to go when people cannot get an appointment at their local GP surgery. Can we please make more use of the community pharmacies that we have? If the Minister is right, and he suspects that not many community pharmacies will close, let me tell him in all candour that the process he is going through is completely cack-handed, because it is spreading fear among the community pharmacy community up and down the country?
David Mowat
The current process began in December last year, and will be brought to an end shortly. I do not know about the specifies of the pharmacy scene in Kettering, but I repeat that we regard pharmacies as vitally important to the NHS. One of the proposals that we shall announce shortly is a proposal for an integration fund of £300 million, which will be used entirely to provide services and pay for pharmacies to provide them. It will be informed by the review that is being conducted by Richard Murray of the King’s Fund, and Kettering will benefit from those services in just the same way as other parts of the country.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
May I enthusiastically endorse the comments made by the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone)? Community pharmacies are an underused resource. We currently spend £10 billion a year on diabetes treatment, 80% of which is spent on treating avoidable complications. Instead of cutting pharmacies, why do we not get them to do more to help with diabetes prevention, and to identify the 1 million people who have diabetes and do not know about it?
David Mowat
We intend to do more to help pharmacists to help with diabetes prevention. Diabetes is one of several long-term conditions that the Murray review is examining. There are ways in which pharmacies can be used to avoid repeat or ad hoc GP appointments, which is precisely what we want to happen, but that is not the same as not keeping under review the amount of money that we pay pharmacists for dispensing, and ensuring that we are getting a good deal.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he agreed with the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone). The density of the United Kingdom’s pharmacy network is approximately double the density of networks in Holland, Sweden and Denmark. No one thinks that it should fall to the same level as theirs, but there are opportunities for us to review clustering and ensure that the NHS is receiving value for money, and that is our duty.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher) on his urgent question, although I am slightly sorry for the excellent Minister, who is having to deal with the question before the Government are prepared to make an announcement. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) that community pharmacies are very important in Northamptonshire, given that the rest of the national health service in our area is under such pressure. If the amount saved is really going to be so small, I urge the Minister to say, “Actually, let’s drop this. It is just not worth the battle.”
David Mowat
I can only repeat that we value the contribution that community pharmacies make, and that the savings that we shall propose shortly are needed for other parts of the NHS. We believe that provision will not be affected, and that other parts of the package, including the integration fund and the hiring of an additional 2,000 pharmacists for the GP sector, will make this sector work better than it does at present.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that should one in four community pharmacies close, the effect on the elderly, the vulnerable, the poor and those with long-term conditions could be very serious indeed, and potentially catastrophic?
David Mowat
We do not believe that the proposals that we will be announcing shortly will do anything to the detriment of any of those patient groups.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
Community pharmacies play a vital role in primary care, and there is a very important relationship between them and our constituents and their patients and customers. My constituency contains a healthy living pharmacy that provides added value. Is not the Minister’s reductionist proposal about price rather than quality, and should we not be looking at the quality of pharmacy provision? Healthy living pharmacies in Hyndburn, and in Lancashire generally, provide an exceptional service, and should not be under the dark cloud that is hanging over them as a result of the Minister’s proposal.
David Mowat
The hon. Gentleman has made a good point. A large part of the value added from pharmacies is related to quality, and we need to reward the pharmacies that are trying harder than others to provide it. The hon. Gentleman mentioned healthy living pharmacies, and there are many examples. Part of our package will address the quality issue, which is one of the issues that the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee asked us to consider.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
If the Minister wants to make the savings that he has talked about, he should work with the pharmacists and listen to what they have to say, because they have the ideas about how to make those savings. In my constituency, they talk to me about the potential for reducing repeat prescriptions, among other ideas. If he does that, he will play a role in looking after the heart of our community, which is what pharmacists are, and the heart of our NHS, which is also what they are. They also play an incredibly important role in every community in providing much needed footfall for other local businesses.
David Mowat
We have been talking to the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee for 10 months. We have tried to incorporate, in the proposals that we are going to make, some of the points it has put to us. I can only again tell hon. Members, as I have already said to many others, that we value the contribution that the pharmacy sector can make. We wish to see that move over and above what it is now, in terms of dispensing, into more value-added services dealing with minor ailments, repeat prescriptions and long-term conditions. We want to do all those things, and we will.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
The Minister should tread with great care. I have visited many community pharmacies in my constituency, and in each and every one I saw lots of value-added activity—preparing medicine trays, delivering medicines or whatever—and a keenness to be involved in wider activities. There is a real danger that the Minister, in seeking savings, will cost the health service and communities more.
David Mowat
That would be a danger, had we not spent time over the past 10 months to try to get this right. We are confident and believe that we have done so.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
May I give some advice to the Minister? If he wants reforms—I think that the feeling on both sides of the House is that we need a high-performing, innovative pharmacy sector, which is at the heart of every community, urban and rural—and if he wants to generate enthusiasm in the workforce, he should not demoralise them at the very beginning. His predecessor was the person who said, “Let us cut 2,000 pharmacies.” That is the truth. The Minister should not just reach out to pharmacies at posh dinners—he should come to Huddersfield, which is more exciting than Kettering, and talk to our pharmacies.
David Mowat
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point: I should not just reach out to pharmacists at posh dinners. In the past three weeks, I have visited a number of pharmacists. I have even opened a new pharmacy. I bow to no one in my view of the value that they can add, but they agree, and I think most Members in the House agree, that the community pharmacy network must move from a model based on dispensing to a model based more on services. We are going to help pharmacies to do that, and these proposals in the round will achieve that.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
As we have said, primary care is the cornerstone, indeed the foundation, of the NHS, and pharmacies represent a successful public-private model. This proposal does seem to be a totally counter-intuitive one. When I, on the Public Accounts Committee, questioned the chief executive of the NHS last month about the Department of Health accounts, he expressed surprise that there may be a reprieve for pharmacies, because the reality is that this is an in-year cut that is already happening; it is part of NHS England’s delivery of savings this year. Can the Minister clarify the reports over the weekend—what are the figures we are talking about? The reports were that the cuts would be £113 million in 2016-17 and £208 million in 2017-18. Are those the correct figures?
David Mowat
The figures to which the hon. Lady refers were announced in the consultation in December 2015. The only change since those figures were announced in that consultation in 2015 is that, because of the delay in looking at this again, the in-year saving this year is likely to be lower.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
Those of us who wish the Minister well would probably best describe his performance at the Dispatch Box this afternoon as “courageous”. I feel that he has been sold a hospital pass on this one. He is responsible for a policy that lurches from the inchoate to the indefensible; that talks on the one hand about recruiting thousands of pharmacists and on the other about closing thousands of pharmacies. I am sorry, but we cannot keep loading, even on to the willing shoulders of the community pharmacies, more and more responsibility while we are draining away the financial lifeblood. Would the Minister care to become the most popular Minister on the high streets of our nation by saying that he is going to have another look at this nonsense?
David Mowat
I am always keen to be popular, but I am also keen to do the right thing. Nobody is talking about thousands of pharmacies closing and I do not believe that will happen, but we have talked about hiring 2,000 more pharmacies in the GP sector. That is true, but that is not incoherent; that is the right thing to do.
I just say this to the House: we all need to distinguish at times between the pharmacy profession, which we need and will nurture and help to grow and that can produce all these added values, and those people who own the pharmacy shops, 65% of which are public companies and private equity. The House should just reflect on that.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
It really is possible that the centre-ground in British politics is changing. Here we have a Conservative Minister coming to the Chamber to say, “I’m going to put hundreds of small firms out of business, but don’t worry; I’m going to get them all working for the Government.” It is absolutely bizarre, and the Minister is now trying to convince us by saying, “Don’t worry, they’re all hedge funds anyway.” We know it is not the Boots in the centre of Chesterfield that is going to be shutting; it is the community pharmacies in each of our communities. So will the Minister at least give us the commitment that no community will be left without a pharmacy and that no doctors’ surgery will be allowed to have a pharmacy close on its doorstep?
David Mowat
I will give the hon. Gentleman the commitment that no community will be left without a pharmacy.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I cannot impress strongly enough on the Minister the danger of these proposals. In my constituency the pressures on primary care are such that GP surgeries cannot recruit GPs and many practices are now not meeting Care Quality Commission standards because they are in old premises that are unsuitable. The thought that on top of that we would reduce the possibility for people to attend their local community pharmacy for simple healthcare needs is frightening. When the Minister publishes the impact assessment, will it provide any sort of reassurance and clarity that those complex primary care factors have been properly taken into account?
David Mowat
We have talked all afternoon about the need to protect access to GPs, and I repeat the point I made earlier: our proposals in the round should increase the degree to which pharmacists are linked into GP practices. The hon. Lady says that many practices are getting poor-quality assessments, but the fact is that over 80% of them are getting good-quality assessments, and we need that to continue.
The proposals we are setting out in the round are expected to make pharmacy access better than it is now, and the orientation of the pharmacy profession towards services and away from just dispensing should happen more quickly.
Points of Order
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. At last week’s Prime Minister’s questions I raised some serious concerns about the practices of Virgin Care, based on direct experience as a former employee after my NHS service was transferred. Virgin Care has since issued a statement to the media stating that it has no record of my raising such concerns at the time. I am glad it brought that up as its failure to keep accurate records is one of my concerns. However, it is clear that it is implying dishonesty on my part, and I hope you will be able to advise me, Mr Speaker, on setting the record straight in that regard, because I want to make it clear that I did raise concerns on many occasions, including directly with the chief executive of Virgin Care, Mr Bart Johnson, in person at a meeting in the autumn of 2012. This was therefore known at the highest level within the company before it issued its statement suggesting the opposite.
In short, when the company suggested that I was being dishonest, it was trying to obscure the truth. Mr Speaker, may I ask you what resort Members have when the rich and powerful seek to intimidate or smear as we seek to do our duty in this House, and could such actions infringe the privileges of this Chamber?
Finally, can we reiterate that even the richest individuals and the wealthiest corporations should always stick to the truth about this House and its Members, however inconvenient that truth may be to their private interests?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me notice of her point of order. Moreover, I understand her concern if the veracity of what she volunteered in good faith to the House has subsequently been called into question. Specifically, she asks me what recourse she has in these circumstances. In response, I make a number of points. First, if anybody was seeking to intimidate the hon. Lady as she goes about her parliamentary business, any such attempt has manifestly failed. Moreover, on the basis of my knowing her for the past 17 months, it seems entirely obvious that any such attempt would be doomed to fail. The sooner that point becomes clear to everyone outside the Chamber as well as within it, the better.
Secondly, I think that the hon. Lady has found her own salvation in that she has taken this opportunity to raise a point of order with me on the Floor of the Chamber in which she has registered her discontent as well as putting the record straight in terms that appear to brook no contradiction. If she thinks that any further clarification or airing of the issue is required, various parliamentary avenues are open to her, and I do not doubt that she will pursue them with that combination of forensic precision and terrier-like tenacity for which she has become renowned in all parts of the House.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Let’s get Richard Branson in here.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) for his sedentary contribution to our proceedings, helpful as it was.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This afternoon when I raised the issue of mitigation for the WASPI women during Work and Pensions questions, the Secretary of State indicated that the Scottish Government could deal with the issue by making additional payments to the WASPI women in Scotland. Perhaps unbeknown to us on these Benches, the Government are going to introduce legislation to give enhanced powers to the Scottish Parliament over pensions, but we have not heard about it. I have checked the legislation, and section 28 of the Scotland Act 2016 precludes us from making payments on reserved matters and specifically excludes pensions. I am sure that the Secretary of State unwittingly alleged that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government had competence in that area, but I seek your guidance, Mr Speaker, on what could be done to bring him back to the House or to correct the record in some way.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman is a dogged and assiduous Member of the House at all times, and I say to him that if the Secretary of State judges it necessary to return to the Chamber to clarify the position or seeks to insert a corrigendum in the Official Report, it is open to that Minister to do so. Whether that will happen remains to be seen. Meanwhile, the hon. Gentleman has put the record straight with crystal clarity, doubtless to his own satisfaction but perhaps more importantly to that of the constituents whom he seeks to represent.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will have heard the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat), saying a few moments ago that he hoped to make an announcement “shortly”. Can you use your good offices to ensure that when he has made his decision, he comes to the House to make a statement?
Mr Speaker
I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to ask me that age-old question: “What does ‘shortly’ mean?” As we know, in Parliament the term “shortly” has a degree of elasticity associated with it. The Minister has heard the hon. Gentleman make his point. Before he became a Minister, he was an extremely active and effective parliamentarian who took pride in his responsibility to the House, and I am sure that he continues to do that. It is unimaginable that he would do anything other than come to the Chamber in those circumstances. In so far as the point needed to be underlined, however, it has been duly underlined by the notable campaigner from Leicester. I thank the Minister for his persistence and his courtesy in responding to the urgent question. I gently say to him that, now and again, he said that all he could do was to repeat his previous answer. He said it with great good humour and a degree of world-weary resignation. As I have often had reason to observe in the Chamber, repetition is not a novel phenomenon in the House of Commons. We will leave it there for now.
Savings (Government Contributions) Bill
Monday 17th October 2016
(7 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Savings (Government Contributions) Act 2017 View all Savings (Government Contributions) Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jane Ellison)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Let me start by reminding the House why the measures contained in the Bill are so important. We want people in this country to have all the tools at their disposal to save money in a way that works for them. We want to make it easier for everyone to build up the savings that they need, to meet their ambitions and to feel secure in their personal finances. We have already set to work to make that the case, putting an end to 17 million people having to pay tax on the interest they receive on their savings and making the biggest ever increase to the individual savings account allowance—to £20,000 from April next year—but we want to do more. The Bill will introduce two new schemes—the lifetime ISA and Help to Save—that will support more people as they save up for the future and provide them with new options to do so.
The lifetime ISA will provide a new option for young people who are looking to save for the long term. We want to make sure that they have a choice in how they save. For some, the pensions system alone is the way forward and we have done a lot to improve it, such as through automatic enrolment and initiatives such as the pensions dashboard. In our consultation last year on pension tax relief, we heard that the pensions system on its own is too inflexible for young people, so the lifetime ISA complements that system while giving people a new option that has been designed with flexibility in mind.
The lifetime ISA is a way of saving up to £4,000 a year. Someone can open an account between the ages of 18 and 40 and carry on saving up to the age of 50. On top of any interest they receive on their savings, they will earn a 25% tax-free bonus from the Government that is paid straight into their account.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
Is the Minister at all concerned that this lifetime ISA will introduce an added complexity to the savings market, in particular for young people? Choosing whether to go for a pension or a lifetime ISA could be one of the most important financial decisions in a person’s life. Does she think that there is merit in increasing investment in independent advice and financial literacy so that young people are able to make informed financial decisions?
Jane Ellison
On the latter point, I will discuss advice a bit later on, but we are keen that people have access to good advice and good information. On the hon. Gentleman’s first point, this is about complementary products. It is not an either/or choice. The feedback from last year’s consultation was that many younger people did not want to make a binary choice between saving for later in life and saving for a house. This product is simple in its design but gives people that flexibility. As he says, it is important that people get advice, but the welcome that the proposal has received from consumer advocates indicates that people think that it is simple and flexible.
Jonathan Edwards
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. Their incomes mean that many young people are perhaps more hard-pressed than older generations. They do not have the choice of investing in a pension and a lifetime ISA, so they will be deciding which one to go for. The Government need to address that worry with these proposals.
Jane Ellison
That interaction has been addressed in the Bill’s impact assessment. There was some concern about the Help to Buy ISA and the interaction with automatic enrolment, but we have seen no evidence of it driving a higher opt-out rate. In fact, the opt-out rate for automatic enrolment is lower than forecast—even on the forecast that was revised down. I note the hon. Gentleman’s concern but I think it has been addressed in the work that we have done.
What is attractive about the lifetime ISA is that people do not have to make an immediate decision about why they are saving this money, which goes back to the hon. Gentleman’s point about people not having to make that decision at an early stage when they cannot see what is ahead.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
Anyone saving into an auto-enrolment pension will get tax relief up front, but anyone who invests in a lifetime ISA will be making that investment out of taxed income. Does the Minister see the unfairness in that?
Jane Ellison
Obviously, we have the Government bonus, which I mentioned, but I go back to the point about this not being an either/or choice; this is about people having potentially complementary products that are for different purposes. This product is not about replacing a pension; it is about giving people a complementary product to help them save for later in life, while keeping open the option of building up money to put towards a house. As we have seen, many hundreds of thousands of people have taken that opportunity with the previous ISA product.
The lifetime ISA can be used by people to get on to the property ladder for the first time and can be put towards a home worth less than £450,000. Through this Bill, from April next year a new, more flexible way to save will be available to people, as one of a number of options.
The Bill also introduces Help to Save, which is about finding a better way to support families who are just about managing but are struggling to build up their savings. All Members will be aware of the research carried out by a number of bodies, particularly the excellent Centre for Social Justice, which estimates that 3 million low-income households have no savings at all. That is not a nice position for anyone to be in: living without having any kind of financial safety net in place and knowing that if they lose their job, they have barely got enough money to pay next month’s rent.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Minister acknowledge the concern of some that the two-year qualifying period for Help to Save is lengthy for people on very low incomes? Will she also acknowledge the credit union movement’s concern that as a result of the Government response to the consultation on Help to Save—this is how I understand it—it is going to be excluded from offering Help to Save products?
Jane Ellison
We have announced that we will be going with a single provider, National Savings & Investments, at the outset, but the primary legislation does not preclude more people providing the product in future; it was essential that we got national coverage for offering this product, but, like all of us in this House, I have huge respect for the credit union movement and we certainly see a role for it going forward, not least in respect of advice and support, a point referred to a moment ago. Perhaps we will tease more of that out in this debate, but I hope that gives the hon. Gentleman some reassurance.
The two-year period comes from looking at the advice and research that has been done by groups that deal with people in this category, and trying to capture the moment at which a savings habit is ingrained. This does not mean people cannot take money out; there is no penalty for taking money out earlier if they want to access it, but the bonus comes at the two-year point, and I will come on to deal with that. This is based on research by groups and charities that work with people in the target market for the product, so there is a robust reasoning for that two-year period.
If someone is trying to put some of that hard-earned money aside in an effort to be more financially secure, we want them to have the full support of their Government as they do so. That is why, through this Bill, we want to introduce the new Help to Save accounts by no later than April 2018. They will be open to any adult who is getting working tax credits or universal credit and working enough to earn the equivalent of at least 16 hours’ pay at the national living wage. That means about 3.5 million people are likely to be eligible.
As has been mentioned, people can save up to £50 a month for two years—we are talking about £1,200 in total—and the Government will give them a 50% bonus. If after those two years someone wants to do that again for the next two years, they will be able to do so. This way to save also offers complete flexibility. What people want to do with the money they have saved and with the Government bonus they have earned is completely up to them, and if they want to take their money out at any time, they can; there will not be any charge or penalty for doing so.
Jonathan Edwards
As usual, the House of Commons Library has produced a fantastic briefing on this Bill. In relation to this product, it mentions the conclusions of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which says that only £70 million has been allocated by the Treasury to cover this new savings product in 2020-21, which is nowhere near enough to cover the Government contribution of 50% if everybody who is eligible takes up the product. Has the Treasury got its figures wrong?
Jane Ellison
We know that, historically—the hon. Gentleman is right on this—it has been difficult to target financial advice at some of those who are being targeted by this product. Indeed, not many financial products are being targeted at this particular group. However, I can reassure him that we will be doing everything we can—all hon. Members and credit unions have a role to play in this—to promote this product. If the take-up exceeds our expectations, we would be delighted, and we will certainly be working to that effect.
The scheme provides a real incentive for people on low incomes to keep saving what they can. That means that more and more families will have a rainy day fund, so that they can cope with unforeseen events that come their way. I am talking about the sort of events that many of us as constituency Members recognise. They are the ones that drive people into our advice surgeries because something has happened. Research from the debt charity, StepChange, suggests that if families have £1,000 in the bank, they are almost half as likely to fall into problem debt, by which it means being in arrears with at least one bill or credit commitment. This is a savings vehicle that will really help people to build up a pot of money, which can be used for any purpose at all, but which is also there if needed for a rainy day.
In conclusion, this Bill is all about rewarding people who are trying to save for their future and providing them with new options to do so, and it encourages more people to follow their example. Whether we are talking about a young person who wants flexibility in how they save for their future, or someone on a low income who is trying hard to set aside a bit of money each month, we want to ensure that they have a helping hand along the way. Through these two new savings vehicles, that is exactly what the Government will provide. It therefore gives me great pleasure to commend this Bill to the House.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, as always, to debate opposite the Minister. I thank her for outlining the overarching principles of the Bill, which will introduce the new lifetime ISA and the Help to Save scheme. As we have heard, the lifetime ISA is a new savings product that will be available from April 2017 in which people under 40 may deposit up to £4,000 a year. The Government will then top up those savings by 25%. The savings accumulated in the LISA can be used as a deposit towards a first home, or can be accessed once a person is 60 to “complement”, to use the Government’s word, their retirement income. In the absence of using the product to save for a house deposit, it will be possible for a person to remove funds from the LISA before they are 60, but there will be a charge of 25%, effectively to remove the Government top-up from the funds withdrawn.
The Help to Save scheme will be available for people in receipt of either universal credit or working tax credit. If they receive working tax credit, they must have minimum weekly earnings equivalent to 16 hours at the so-called national living wage.
Mr Gareth Thomas
I was grateful to the Minister for her response to my question. Will my hon. Friend commit our Front-Bench team to probing the Government further on whether there should be a two-year qualifying period, or if the period should be reduced to 12 months? Similarly, will she commit our Front-Bench team to exploring in Committee whether credit unions can be allowed to take part alongside National Savings and Investments? NS&I already offers national coverage, so there is no reason why credit unions should be excluded.
Rebecca Long Bailey
My hon. Friend makes important points and we would support him in pushing the Government to respond to those questions. I will highlight some of the concerns of our Front-Bench team about the Help to Save scheme in particular. Credit unions are vital for the roll-out of any savings scheme that targets the most deprived communities.
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The hon. Lady helpfully outlined the circumstances in which the lifetime ISA kicks in. Does she welcome that ISA to enable young people to save, given that half of present ISA holders are over 55?
Rebecca Long Bailey
I welcome the Government’s sentiment of encouraging people to save. If I may make a little progress, the hon. and learned Lady will get a fuller response in due course.
The Opposition have serious concerns about both policies under the Bill and a number of questions, with which I hope the Minister can assist. The Labour party warmly supports the Government’s principal aim of encouraging saving. Many working people in Britain are not saving enough or not saving at all, and that is storing up a multitude of problems not just for their personal finances, but for the public purse. The helpful House of Commons Library briefing states that 28% of people say that they have no savings at all and that 38% would struggle to pay an emergency expense of more than £500. In addition, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation surveys on poverty and social exclusion consistently find that between a quarter and a third of households say that they are unable to make regular savings. In the most recent survey, which was conducted in 2012, 32% of households gave that answer.
It is therefore right for the Government to examine methods and structures that will encourage saving, but I am sure that the Minister agrees that they must also address the root causes of this low saving trend. Will she examine carefully the reasons why many people do not save at all? Is it because they are splashing out on fancy cars and extravagant purchases, or is it because wages are too low and the cost of living is too high to get through the month for some people, never mind whether they have a bit of spare cash at the end of the month to put into a savings plan?
Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady agree—this is perhaps unlike some of the measures brought in by Chancellor Gordon Brown—that it is important to keep products as simple as possible? It is also hugely important that they are transferable—a Help to Buy ISA can be transferred into the lifetime ISA—and complementary.
Rebecca Long Bailey
Indeed. Products need to be explained as simply as possible and there needs to be a commitment from the Government that there will be an adequate advertising campaign to avoid any ambiguity about a product. I shall shortly come on to some of my concerns about the specific products to which the Bill refers.
It is important to examine the fact that those who live in more deprived areas or areas that do not have access to a healthy range of high street financial services are often more financially excluded, having limited access to reasonable lending facilities. This in turn leads many to rely on extremely high interest lending facilities such as payday lenders, which are often the only lending facility available. In many cases, that initiates a cycle of debt and sucks any possible savings surplus out of the monthly pay packet. It cannot be lost on the Minster that for some time now food banks have been reporting surges in the number of people in full-time employment who are accessing them. This in itself may suggest that many people have no spare cash to live on day to day, let alone to save.
These problems bring me to the Opposition’s main problem with the Help to Save scheme that the Bill introduces. We wholeheartedly support moves to encourage saving for a rainy day, but in many cases the idea that those on universal credit and working tax credit have a spare £50 at the end of the month is extremely optimistic. People can barely make ends meet, as the Government found out last year when there was a cross-party backlash after they tried to take thousands of pounds from the recipients of much-needed tax credits. The transition to universal credit will arguably leave people in an even worse position.
Rebecca Long Bailey
I will pre-empt the Minister’s reply that Help to Save is incredibly similar to the saving gateway scheme that was piloted by the previous Labour Government.
Jane Ellison
I do not wish to interrupt the hon. Lady, but it is important to make the point that this is about people saving up to £50. It must not be suggested that everyone must save £50. The figure is up to £50, and that can be a very small amount. I would just like to make that clear.
Rebecca Long Bailey
I thank the Minister for clarifying that point, but I think that some people would struggle to save even £5 a month, let alone £50.
Let me go back to the point I was trying to make about Labour’s scheme. We did introduce a similar scheme, but it is important to note that we had not spent the previous six years eroding the disposable income of the people whom it targeted. Help to Save might well look good on paper in terms of helping those on low incomes to save, but I must warn the Minister that, given the long-term effect of Government cuts and wider austerity measures, it will not have the desired impact in many cases. The cuts the Government are making to universal credit alone will cost 2.5 million families up to £1,600 a year, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Where will these families find even £1 a month, or up to £50 a month, to put into this savings scheme?
It appears that the Government are not expecting the measure to put rocket boosters, as it were, under savings by those on low incomes. Their costing for the policy is £70 million in 2020-21. Some 3.5 million people will be eligible for the scheme, so if my and the IFS’s calculations are correct, that works out as a Government bonus of £20 per eligible individual in 2020-21.
I was very excited to read the Government’s impact assessment in the past few hours. However, the Minister should note that it arrived at only 1 pm today, and while I am pleased that it arrived at all, she will appreciate that it is really not acceptable to provide such information at the 11th hour if the Government wish to be transparent and capable of being effectively held to account. None the less, I was interested to see that the Government’s expected take-up rate was 500,000 people in the first two years. I will be grateful if she explains the rationale behind that figure. For example, are specific groups more likely to save than others?
Lucy Frazer
The hon. Lady refers to the impact assessment. After the sentence she referred to, it says:
“These estimates were informed by information from similar savings schemes and government savings pilots.”
Rebecca Long Bailey
I thank the hon. and learned Lady for reading from the impact assessment, but I was asking whether specific groups are more likely to save than others, and I do not think the assessment provides that information.
Most importantly, however, how will the scheme help the remaining 3 million people who simply cannot afford to participate in it? I can sum up my concerns about this element of the Bill by reiterating comments made by our former shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, who stated that the scheme was
“like stealing someone’s car and then offering them a lift to the bus stop.”
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
I have to confess that I am a little confused by the hon. Lady’s arguments. Is she saying that because the scheme will not target all 3.5 million people who may be eligible, the Government should do nothing? Despite the fact that it might be a partial success or that a large number of people might take up the scheme, she seems to be saying that because not everybody will take it up, this is not worth doing.
Rebecca Long Bailey
No, that is not what I am saying at all. It is important that we address this issue, but we have to be clear about how we do so. Dealing with the root causes of poverty and people’s inability to save is the first important thing that the Government need to look at, and then the second element they need to consider when rolling out the measures in the Bill is the specific groups they intend to target. If they do not target the 3.5 million people who are eligible to take part in the scheme, how will they help those who do not take part in it?
There is considerable unease about the lifetime ISA policy across the pensions industry, the trade union movement, the Office for Budget Responsibility and Select Committees of this House. The Opposition support the idea of incentivising people to save for the future, especially for retirement income, but we are concerned that the scheme could create a diversion from saving in traditional pension products, rather than being an add-on to one’s main pension plan. Even a former Pensions Minister stated that the LISA “could even destroy pensions”. The UK faces a pensions time bomb. Eleven million people are signed up to defined benefit schemes in 6,000 pension funds in the UK, but PricewaterhouseCoopers recently produced data showing that the collective deficit in those 6,000 schemes had risen by £100 billion in just one month so that it stood at £710 billion at the end of August. Earlier this year, the OECD reported that we were facing a “global pension crisis” in which a person buying an annuity today who had saved 10% of their wages into a pension for 40 years could expect just over half the earnings of someone who had saved the same amount but retired 15 years ago.
This situation is very worrying, especially when the state pension in its current form certainly cannot be relied on to plug the gap. Last week, the OBR published a report concluding that recent pensions and savings measures introduced or announced by the Government would create a £5 billion a year black hole in the public finances. The report states:
“The net effect on the public finances is positive in the early years, peaking at £2.3 billion in 2018-19 before turning negative from 2021-22—the year after our March 2016 forecast horizon…But the small net gain to the public finances from these measures over the medium-term is reversed in the long term as the net cost continues to rise, reaching £5 billion by 2034-35. Expressed as a share of GDP—a more relevant metric when considering fiscal sustainability—the net cost builds up until it reaches a steady state toward the end of the period of just over 0.1 per cent of GDP. If that steady-state effect was to continue to the end of our usual long-term projection horizon of 50 years, that seemingly small cost would add 3.7 per cent of GDP to public sector net debt.”
The report also said that these measures
“shifted incentives in a way that makes pensions saving less attractive—particularly for higher earners—and non-pension savings more attractive—often in ways that can most readily be taken up by the same higher earners.”
That is a pretty worrying assessment of the Government’s pensions and savings policy, in which the LISA will play a large part.
I am also worried about the level of assessment that the Government have carried out about the impact that the LISA could have on pension savings, and, more specifically, their auto-enrolment scheme. The Work and Pensions Committee has outlined its concerns about the threat to automatic enrolment in workplace pensions, the roll-out of which is having a great deal of success. The Committee was particularly worried about the risk of people opting out of a workplace pension in order to save in a LISA, thinking that it will be more of a beneficial pension savings product when it is not. The Committee highlighted extreme ambiguity about whether the LISA is intended to be a pension replacement.
As the House will recall, the previous Chancellor stated in his Budget speech that the LISA was for
“those under 40, many of whom have not had such a good deal from the pension system”.—[Official Report, 16 March 2016; Vol. 607, c. 966.]
That was something of an indication that this was a new-generation pensions product. On the other hand, the Department for Work and Pensions has stated that the LISA is
“not a part of the pension system but an additional flexible savings product”.
I am pleased that the Minister has, once and for all, clarified this point and stated that it is a complementary product. None the less, many witnesses who gave evidence to the Select Committee said that all indications so far suggested that the LISA was being interpreted as a pension product, including those from the Centre for Policy Studies, which actually developed the LISA and stated that many employees not already in a pension scheme would have to decide whether to save through a LISA or enrol in the pension scheme. Royal London stated that many people could in fact opt out of workplace pensions.
Will the Minister therefore confirm whether she has made any assessment of the impact of the LISA on automatic enrolment into workplace pensions? Will she confirm what safeguards will be put in place to ensure that people do not opt out of auto-enrolment? Will the Government mount a detailed advertising campaign, as suggested by the Select Committee, to ensure that people do not wrongly view the LISA as their main pension product? The Pensions Regulator has argued that by 2017, when the LISA is available, thousands of small and micro-businesses will not have rolled out auto-enrolment. Have the Government considered timing the LISA roll-out to coincide with the full completion of auto-enrolment to avoid the risks I have outlined?
It is acknowledged that LISAs will be successful among those who have savings elsewhere. There might simply be a case of them transferring those savings into LISAs, but will the Government provide the distributional analysis of the income groups who will specifically benefit the most? Will they confirm what impact the scheme will have on women and minority groups, especially, and therefore provide a much more detailed impact assessment, as the Work and Pensions Committee suggested? Will the Minister confirm what the Government will do to assess those groups that are not currently saving or unable to save, and what will they do to ensure that these people will be able to avail themselves of the scheme? The Select Committee has suggested that those who might benefit most from the scheme could be those who can afford to contribute to a pension scheme and deposit additional savings in a LISA to complement their retirement savings—higher earners, in other words. In these difficult economic times, Opposition Members question whether the scheme is an effective use of up to £2 billion of public funds.
Another concern is not simply that people will use the LISA as an alternative pension product, but that there will be nothing to stop them from taking the money early for other purposes, aside from as a deposit for a house. The Bill enforces a 25% charge for the early withdrawal of funds, which effectively removes the Government bonus, but people will not lose anything from their savings. That will therefore not be a significant deterrent from removing money early, so there is a significant risk for those who use the product as their sole pension income.
LISA funds may be used towards a deposit for a first home. That is not a bad thing, but the Government are failing to address the wider problems that are causing the housing crisis. There is no point having a deposit if there are no houses to buy. We need a significant private and social house building programme supported by the Government, not populist policy making. It is a shame that fewer new homes were built during the previous Parliament than under any peacetime Government since the 1920s. Labour has committed to build more than 1 million new homes over the next Parliament, and that is the level of intervention that is required of any Government who truly want to ensure that everyone can live in a decent and secure home.
Mr Gareth Thomas
Before my hon. Friend concludes her speech, may I suggest one further area on which Labour Front Benchers could press the Government in Committee? The Bill does not include a requirement that any employer should offer payroll deduction services, but that could help all savers, especially those on low and middle incomes. In that way, people could, if they wanted, have money deducted from their pay at source by their employer. Ideally that would go into a credit union, but it could go into any other source of savings. I suspect that that would create a significant boost to savings in this country.
Rebecca Long Bailey
My hon. Friend makes a very important point that Labour Front Benchers are considering in detail.
The Opposition have serious concerns about the policies in the Bill, as I have outlined, and I hope that the Minister will respond to my various queries. However, as I have confirmed, we support the overarching aim of encouraging people to save at a time when they are not doing so. There is significant room for improvement in the Bill, so we will try to amend and improve it as it makes its way through Parliament in the coming weeks to try to alleviate some of our stakeholders’ concerns about the possible effect of the lifetime ISA and the Help to Save scheme.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak briefly on Second Reading and to support two schemes that are an excellent part of what should be a wider strategy to tackle a fundamental and chronic lack of saving in all age groups and all income levels in our country. I want to say a few words about the schemes themselves and then about the scale of the problem and what more the Government might like to do in the years to come to address a chronic issue that should trouble us all, particularly the Treasury.
The problem is greater than many of us like to imagine; the state of saving in this country is worse than we like to kid ourselves. I remember going to visit my grandparents when I was a child and seeing on their mantelpiece a jam jar in which they used to put sixpences to save up for things such as a holiday to Blackpool and for rainy days, should things have got worse. Back then, I think they were the only people on their street who did that and who could afford the coach to Blackpool once a year. I think that my grandmother would put half a crown in a box just below the sofa, to save up for something or other every year, such as a new chair or stool for the house.
That seems like another country and another age—something that could never happen nowadays, when we are all so much richer and have so much greater access to spending. Of course, the statistics—we have heard some of them already—show that that is not the case at all.
Those experiences come from a time before the rise of hire purchase, credit cards, overdrafts and mortgages, all of which, although they have brought with them problems and difficulties that we have to cope with, have created a safety net of sorts against the real fragility that previous generations used to feel, going back as long as anyone can remember. The historian in me thinks of medieval, Georgian and Victorian times, when people used to feel that they were living fragile lives because they could fall from what were then called respectable lives into abject poverty purely as a result of ill fate, including illness, losing a job and having an unscrupulous landlord.
We like to think that those things could not happen today, but, of course, they can, and the statistics that we have heard from both Front Benchers show that very clearly. A quarter of households have less than £1,100 in their total financial assets, and debts of more than £3,500. One in 10 of us has available savings—rainy day money in the jam jar on the mantelpiece—of less than £100. That means less than £100 if someone happens to lose their job, if their company goes bust or if they were in the private rented sector and had an unscrupulous landlord. That should make us all very worried indeed.
Even beyond the poorest in society—those who should be very concerned about short-term saving—there is a crisis in long-term saving, and it looks more and more like an impending disaster for the country. We are all—rich and poor, young and old alike—simply not saving anything like enough.
The latest Deloitte survey shows that, by 2050, the retirement savings gap—the difference between what people will save and what they need to save, if they want to have a reasonable standard of life in retirement—will be £350 billion, which is an increase of £32 billion from five years ago, despite the many measures introduced by the previous Administration and the coalition. On average, each of us has to put away an extra £10,000 every year to avoid what we could think of as a miserable old age. Even people on middle and higher earnings—including all of us in this Chamber—would probably struggle to do that, if we want to pay our mortgages, bring up our children and enjoy a reasonable standard of living in the interim years.
One reason for that, among others, is that we are living much longer. Not only will future Governments struggle to maintain current levels of state pension payment, but we are spending longer in retirement and the cost of retirement income has risen. The latest BlackRock survey calculated that for a 70-year-old male to buy £1 of retirement income via an annuity would have cost £6 in 1970, but today it would cost £12. The cost of retiring is rising dramatically. We all know this, but it is worth underlining that we need a fundamental change in our cultural attitudes towards money and saving.
George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)
Many of us in the Scottish National party would agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman has said so far. However, the argument against the lifetime ISA is that far from encouraging extra saving, it diverts existing savings from pensions into housing and stokes up the housing market. It does not actually resolve the problem that he has described so eloquently.
Robert Jenrick
I am interested in the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, and I will say more about the lifetime ISA in a moment. The point of it is that many of us in our 20s and 30s—I am just about in that category—are more preoccupied with getting on the housing ladder than we are with looking out for our retirement, and that is a major worry for the Government and for future Governments. The lifetime ISA is flexible, however, because it enables people to spend money in the early years to try to get on the housing ladder, and later to convert the product into something else with a view to retirement. The hon. Gentleman raises a major problem, and we need to look at many solutions; this, I am afraid, is only one.
There needs to be a fundamental change in all our attitudes. We should not purely seek instant gratification; we, as individuals, and the Government must promote ways in which to defer gratification through saving, in contrast to our present, quite corrosive, consumer attitude.
I warmly welcome the lifetime ISA. It is an extremely popular product and there has been a lot of interest in it. I do not represent a particularly wealthy constituency— the average wage is just below the national average—but many of my constituents have said to me that they would like to take up the lifetime ISA. Clearly, offering a 25% top-up as well as the usual tax advantages of an ISA gives us all a strong incentive to save. ISAs are popular, as we know from the millions of people who have taken them up over the years. Contrary to some of the comments that we have heard today and comments in the press, ISAs are simple. We all understand them, and they are part of our saving culture.
I welcomed the news in April that the limit would be raised on the standard ISA from £15,000 to £20,000 a year. That might sound like a great deal of money to many people, but as the problem of insufficient saving affects all income levels, it is an important measure. This is an exciting development for those of us—particularly the younger generation—who will not benefit from generous final salary pension schemes. Although the scheme is not intended to take over from pensions, it creates more flexibility in the sector. Under the previous Chancellor, we saw that across a whole range of issues to do with pensions, flexibility is key.
The lifetime ISA will help younger people to save for a deposit, which is, as we all know, the primary preoccupation of every young person with more than a basic level of income. If this vehicle allows us to help any of them to get on to the housing ladder and then to convert to a product that will help them to save for the rest of their working lives, it will be very useful.
Help to Save explicitly does the same job for those on very low incomes. I appreciate that there are many people, including many in my own constituency, for whom saving seems like another country; it is extremely difficult for them to do. But the alternative is to do nothing and to accept that we live in a country where people cannot save in that jam jar, and where the Government cannot create mechanisms to incentivise them to do so and top up what they have saved. The 50% contribution rate is clearly a great incentive, which we should all appreciate and welcome.
Rather as the IFS has said, it would be helpful for the Government to do more work on understanding which groups are the most critical in terms of saving, and to develop more products that specifically target the core group that we are most worried about—the people who have only £100 or £1000 in the bank as a rainy day fund. That is a very worrying state of affairs.
What else should I raise? One area we should look at is savings interest tax. I am in favour of simple and bold tax reforms that will not complicate the already far too complicated tax code even further, but send everyone in society the extremely clear message that the Government believe we need to save more and will back that up with action. I would strongly welcome a further move to take more people out of paying savings interest tax. The announcement in April, creating a £1,000 threshold for those on the basic rate and a £500 threshold for higher rate taxpayers—was excellent, and we should look at more changes, not least because current levels of interest rates are so pitifully low that the Government are receiving very little, and rapidly declining, tax revenues from savings income. In 2013-14, the income to the Treasury was £2.8 billion, but it is estimated to be £1.1 billion this year and to continue to decline further. Those are obviously large sums, but what would create a greater incentive and give a stronger signal than to say that we will no longer charge tax on savings interest?
My last point is simply to reiterate the one made in debates in recent weeks, which is that interest rates are too low in this country. That has had a very corrosive impact on pensioners and anyone trying to save in this country, on the gap between the rich and the poor, and on the wider economy. I, like many others, was delighted to hear the Prime Minister imply in her speech in Birmingham that she would like to take action on this matter.
Mr Gareth Thomas
The hon. Gentleman is making a very powerful application to serve on the Public Bill Committee. Given his point about low interest rates, does he not share the concern of many outside the House—indeed, it is a concern of mine—about the fact that the qualifying period to get the Government’s bonus payment under the Help to Save scheme is two years, rather than just 12 months? Would not a shorter period be a further and more sensible incentive to get people saving more quickly?
Robert Jenrick
I listened to the hon. Gentleman’s intervention earlier, and I would be interested to hear the Minister’s views on that. We want to create as many incentives as possible for everybody—from the rich to the poor, from the young to the old—to save because, as I hope I have made the principal point of my remarks, this country is facing a crisis and we all need to take responsibility for it.
On interest rates, the Bank of England now needs to take action. I did not believe there was any real cause to lower interest rates earlier this summer. It misread the initial signals after the referendum and acted too soon. We have already seen that the consequences of the referendum, at least in the short term, will not be as severe as it imagined. I hope the Bank of England—of course, it is independent—does not reduce interest rates further, and that we can now move away from the policy of quantitative easing as soon as possible for many reasons, but particularly for the sake of pensioners and savers.
I want the Government to create a long-term strategy on saving that tries to change the culture in this country towards looking to the future and putting money aside. The Government need to back that in many ways, some of which will involve extremely difficult decisions. One of those decisions will, of course, be to continue to raise the state pension age to protect the triple lock, which I would like to happen as soon as possible. The two schemes we are considering today are excellent. I fully support them, and I hope that they will be the first of many from the new Administration.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick). I was interested that he closed by talking about a long-term savings plan for the Government. I suppose the long-term economic plan has crashed and burned, so they need another anachronism that they can use for the future.
SNP Members welcome any reasonable proposals that encourage savings—we will work, where we can, with the UK Government to seek to encourage pension savings—but we very much see the Bill as a missed opportunity for us all to champion what we should be focusing on, which is strengthening pensions savings. Instead we have another wheeze that emanated from the laboratory of ideas of the previous Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne), and his advisers, who had form on constantly tinkering with the savings landscape. The right hon. Gentleman may have gone from the Front Bench, but his memory lingers on with this Bill.
Let us recall what the former Chancellor said in his Budget speech this year:
“too many young people in their 20s and 30s have no pension and few savings. Ask them and they will tell you why. It is because they find pensions too complicated and inflexible, and most young people face an agonising choice of either saving to buy a home or saving for their retirement.”—[Official Report, 16 March 2016; Vol. 607, c. 966.]
The problem was that that assertion was not backed up by evidence, and it was half-baked. Young people under the age of 30 have the lowest level of opt-out rates of all those who have been automatically enrolled into workplace pensions. Department for Work and Pensions research found that for under-30s the opt-out rate is 8%, compared with 9% for 30 to 49-year-olds and 50% for those aged 50 and over. One would have thought that the Chancellor and the Minister had looked at the DWP evidence and recognised that the assertion behind the justification for these measures is quite simply wrong. The fundamental principle, that young people are not saving for a pension when presented with a solution for pension saving such as auto-enrolment, is wrong. After much effort, automatic enrolment has been successful in encouraging young people to save. We must not undermine those efforts by inadvertently encouraging people to opt out and confusing consumers with new, competing products. As has been stated by the likes of Zurich Insurance:
“There is a real danger that the LISA could significantly derail auto-enrolment and reverse the progress made in encouraging people to save for later life.”
I agree with that. Why would we want to undermine pension savings?
Of course we know that the Treasury has flown kites on moving from the existing arrangements for pensions—exempt, exempt, tax—to considering tax, exempt, exempt. That would have a drastic impact on incentivising pension savings, but clearly from the Government’s point of view it would mean higher tax receipts today rather than pensions being taxed on exit. This is a wheeze from the previous Chancellor to deliver higher taxation income today, rather than taxing consumption in the future—a modern day reverse Robin Hood.
Is it not the case that when this idea was kicked into the long grass along came the Chancellor with proposals to achieve the same ends through the backdoor? Is this the first step to moving towards tax, exempt, exempt? If it is, the Government should come clean. If they do so, we on the Scottish National party Benches will vigorously oppose it, because it would amount to an attack on pension savings. We should recall, after all, that it was Gordon Brown, when he was Chancellor, who raided pension schemes with his dividend tax changes—an attack that seriously undermined defined benefit pension schemes in particular.
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that what Gordon Brown did when he was Prime Minister—taxing pension schemes—was catastrophic? I know that, because I had a pension scheme and stopped paying into it.
Ian Blackford
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that that was the beginning of the end for defined benefit pension schemes in this country. At the time, just about every company in the FTSE 100 had a defined benefit pension scheme. There are hardly any today. My criticism of what the Government are doing with the Bill is that they are once again undermining pension saving. I will come on to the facts of the matter. We cannot get away from this: anybody saving into a pension does so out of pre-tax income. Anybody investing in the LISA will be doing so out of taxed income. That is unfair and unjust. As I mentioned earlier, this is more about a wheeze for the Government to generate taxation income. It is wrong and they should not be doing it without proper incentives for the young people they are targeting.
We would resist any further attempts to undermine pension saving and, specifically, to change the tax status of pension savings. That would be little more than an underhand way of driving up tax receipts—sweet talking workers to invest after-tax income in LISAs when their interests are best served by investing in pensions. We have considerable challenges in ensuring that we take appropriate action and provide the right kind of leadership to encourage pension savings above all else. That is not happening under this Conservative Government. Pension savings are the most tax-efficient arrangement for savers and that is what we ought to prioritise
We also need to revisit the issue of pension tax relief to make it fairer to pension savers. Many commentators and providers, such as Zurich, have suggested that a flat rate of pension tax relief could increase saving among low earners. While ensuring pensions remain an attractive investment for higher earners, it would be inherently fairer. Coupled with auto-enrolment, it would give a powerful boost to the pensions of millions of workers and help the vast majority of people to save more for retirement. It would also end the complexity of the current regime and set tax relief at a sustainable level for the longer term. That kind of approach rather flies in the face of what the Minister has signed off in the impact assessment, which states:
“The government could have done nothing more, relying on existing tax incentives to promote saving among younger people and working families on low income. However, this would have failed to provide the necessary level of support for those who are unable to use existing support to plan and save for their future.”
This is bunkum. Tax relief can be addressed, as I have said, but we must also take into account the fact that a review of auto-enrolment is due in 2017. We can strengthen auto-enrolment to deliver inclusion and encourage pension saving. We want to work with the Government to strengthen auto-enrolment and pension savings, which are the most efficient way for young people to save.
Just today, as we debate the Bill, the Financial Times has published an article highlighting new analysis on pension savings conducted by Aon. The analysis concluded that UK pension savings have a massive deficit of £11 billion a year. A poll of 2,000 pension savers indicates that only 16% of workers are saving enough to maintain their standard of living when they stop work. Why on earth do we want to take attention away, through the Bill the Government are bringing forward, from pension savings? Why are we not focusing on what we should be doing: fixing the problems in the pension industry? That is the priority of those of us on the SNP Benches.
The Aon analysis suggests that members of defined contribution schemes on average need to pay an extra £1,400 a year to achieve a decent retirement income. That is what we should be addressing in this Chamber here tonight. My message to the Government is this: let us all work together to tackle the under-investment in pension savings, to deal with the many challenges we face, and to enhance the attractions of pension savings. That is the priority. Today, too many people are excluded from workplace pensions.
I commend the introduction of auto-enrolment, but recognise that more needs to be done to enhance auto-enrolment and seek to offer affordable solutions to the low-paid, women and the self-employed who, to use the Prime Minister’s term, have been left behind. We need to tackle the issue of those who are currently excluded, such as the 20% of workers who earn less than £10,000 a year. We need to make sure we have an inclusive approach to pension savings that works for all workers.
The average value of conventional ISAs held by those aged between 25 and 34 is £5,186. The annual allowance for the lifetime ISA as proposed is £4,000, so from experience of ISAs this question needs to be addressed: who exactly will benefit? It looks like yet another policy to benefit the rich who can afford to save at such a level and therefore get the full benefits of the Government bonus. So much for the sermon from the Prime Minister about delivering policies for those left behind. It looks to us more like the same old policies for the benefit of the wealthy. When we look at the news today we see that the UK is looking to spend billions of pounds for the City to access the single market—and we should not be surprised. It is yet another case of the poor subsidising the rich.
We need to address the unintended consequences of quantitative easing, which has driven down yields, moderating expectations of future growth for pension funds and substantially increasing the deficit for many defined pension schemes, as the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) mentioned. If we add to that the decline in annuity rates, which is cutting expectations of pensioner income, it means that savers have to increase their contributions to defined contribution schemes. This makes for a challenging environment for pension savers, which needs to be addressed.
On 11 July, the former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb), said that
“there is a very real systemic issue with DB pension schemes that we need to look at, and my Department will be discussing it further in the months ahead.”—[Official Report, 11 July 2016; Vol. 613, c. 10.]
Since that statement, there has been silence from the Government. Where is the response to the fundamental challenges for today’s pensions and, as some might argue, the crisis in both defined benefit and defined contribution schemes?
We know of the significant factors affecting the BHS and British Steel schemes, and we know that hundreds of other schemes are facing significant deficits. Rather than seeing the Government face up to these challenges and the threat to the many beneficiaries of the schemes, we see a missed opportunity to tackle what ought to be the priorities. When will the Government respond in detail to what the former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions admitted, which we all know to be the case? I give the Minister the opportunity to intervene and tell us what the Government have done since the announcement of the previous Secretary of State. Where is the Government’s response? What do they have to say about the deficit on defined pension schemes? I see Government Members on the Front Bench looking down, but we need answers. What we get from this Government is no action.
Jane Ellison
I draw the House’s attention to the fact that we had DWP questions earlier today, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman took the opportunity to put his question then.
Ian Blackford
That was a politic answer. I cannot help but remark that I asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions a question earlier today, which was enlightening in itself. I asked a question about the WASPI women. I raised a specific point, saying that the SNP had put proposals in front of this Government as we were asked to do. We said that we could deal with the WASPI issue by spending £8 million, which, by the way, the Government could afford to spend because there is a surplus of nearly £30 billion sitting in the national insurance fund. What was the answer we got from the Secretary of State? It was to get the Scottish Government to do that. What he failed to realise is that this House has not given the Scottish Parliament the responsibility for pensions. Why not do that now, then? The Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government would certainly take responsibility for pensions and for pensioners, which this Government are walking away from.
Nothing is being done by this Government. They are like rabbits caught in headlights. That is exactly what we got when the Financial Secretary intervened just now. This is a Government who have no answers to the real issues and the real problems that affect us in the pension landscape. They have been caught doing nothing in the face of systemic risk, which the Government themselves recognise. The Financial Secretary turned around and said, “It is not for me, but for the Department for Work and Pensions”. Well, I am sorry, but she is a Minister of the Government, and this is a Government responsibility. She should be coming to this place with answers.
We also need to recognise that although this Bill will help some savers, it does little to help those who cannot afford to save for later life. Of course, we have had the benefit of the Work and Pensions Select Committee holding an inquiry into the effect of the lifetime ISA on auto-enrolment. Evidence from the Association of British Insurers stated:
“Presented as a choice, no employee will be better off saving into a Lifetime ISA than they would under automatic enrolment. This is due to the loss of employer contributions.”
A recent Standard Life analysis shows that the typical gain from tax breaks and minimum employer top-ups to a qualifying workplace pension for a basic rate taxpayer is between 70% and 85%, compared with the return of 25% from a LISA. That is the con that this Government are trying to inflict on the people of this country. The long-term cost of forgoing annual employer contributions worth 3% of salary by saving into a LISA instead of a workplace pension would be substantial. For a basic rate taxpayer, the impact would be savings of roughly one third less by the age of 60. For example, an employee earning £25,000 per annum and saving 4% of their income each year would see a difference in excess of £53,000. After 42 years, someone saving through a pension scheme would have a pot worth £166,289.99 at a growth rate of 3%. Under a LISA at the same growth rate the value would be £112,646.75. Is the Minister going to defend this?
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
My hon. Friend is making a really important point about the advantages of pension saving over the new LISA, but does he share my concern that the real beneficiary of the LISA will not be people on low and middle incomes, but exceptionally rich people looking for a tax-efficient way to save very large amounts in a year?
Ian Blackford
My hon. Friend is spot on. Those who are already investing large amounts into pension schemes and perhaps approaching the cap will be turning around and saying, “Thank you very much.” This is not a policy for low and middle-income workers; this is a policy for the rich. It is the same old thing from this Tory Government who learn nothing. No wonder they are so out of touch in Scotland and no wonder that they have only one Member of Parliament in Scotland when they do not do the right thing for the pensioners in our country.
There are clear risks for young people in taking the wrong decisions if they do not get appropriate advice—something that is lacking from these proposals. Will the Government make it clear that young people will be advised of the likely outcomes of opting for a LISA over pension savings? If not, why not?
The SNP is supportive of any initiative that promotes savings for later life, but the LISA is simply a gimmick that benefits only those who can afford to save to the levels demanded by the Government to get the bonus. Help to Save is another example. We agree that working to encourage savings is welcome, but in this case again, the UK Government have only scratched the surface rather than really targeting those who are struggling to plan for emergencies or later life. Individuals eligible for Help to Save have only limited resources for saving by definition, and they will now have more difficult choices to make between medium-term savings and longer-term aspirations.
The very fact that the Government expect the policy to cost only £70 million in 2020-21 implies that the Government top-up will, on average, be only £20 per eligible individual in that year. Yes, £20—that is what this Government are proposing in this Bill. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has taken the view that Help to Save is poorly targeted, and it questioned the purpose of the scheme, stating:
“There is also a deeper and critical question about which groups are really ‘under-saving’. The key justification for giving a household extra money only if it places funds in a savings account, rather than giving it extra money regardless and letting the household decide what to do with it, is that we have reason to believe that the household is saving less than is ‘appropriate’ given its circumstances.”
The charity StepChange found through its work with poorer families and those with existing problem debt that four in 10 people struggling to save experience an income shock, such as a broken boiler or car repairs, at least every six months; that 60% of those facing an income shock turned to borrowing; and that a third of them cut back on essentials such as food to cover the costs. It found that half a million families could avoid problem debt if they had £1,000 of savings.
Responding to the Government’s consultation on Help to Save, the charity had three concerns: the proposed two-year period over which a Help to Save account will run may disincentivise applicants, and the Government should think “very carefully” about the way in which the scheme is advertised, in order to minimise a potential problem caused by the perception of a rigid two-year account length; the Treasury should amend the eligibility criteria so that those aged under 25 who work at least 30 hours a week can apply for a Help to Save account; and the Treasury should look closely at the debt-collection and insolvency implications of the scheme, and the Government should protect money in Help to Save accounts from third-party debt orders or insolvency proceedings. The charity concluded:
“At the very least any bonus accrued should be protected.”
Once again, we have seen a missed opportunity to tackle the pension saving deficit head on. While helping some, the Bill does little for those who cannot afford to save for later life. The Government must be much more ambitious if they are to deliver real dignity in retirement. We do not intend to oppose the Bill tonight, for which I am sure the House will be grateful, but we will seek to deal with the missed opportunities and to strengthen the Bill in Committee.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
I hesitate to detain the House by repeating much of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) in his thoughtful speech, but I particularly wanted to speak in support of the Help to Save scheme, which seems to be the Cinderella scheme in today’s debate.
Rare is the politician who understands the difference between profit and loss and the balance sheet. That is normally left to dull accountants like me. We spend a great deal of time in the House talking about people’s differential profit-and-loss accounts—the difference in earnings, and whether some members of society earn far too much in comparison with others—and we do a fair amount in trying to close that gap. However, we often fail to recognise that the solution to those inequalities in society, and the solution to the problem of poverty more generally, are first multi-generational and secondly as much about the balance sheet—the asset share that those people may have for the future—as about how much they happen to earn at the moment. Anything that enables people with low incomes, who may be on benefits or the like but who are certainly at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder, to start to get the idea of saving and, in particular, investing the money saved in assets can only be applauded.
One of our problems in this country is that the collective balance sheet—the assets held both privately and publicly—is concentrated in far too few hands. Over the last 20 or so years there has been a diminution in the number of people who own shares or, indeed, have any asset base, even ownership of their houses. We need to reverse that, but sadly it has been far too low on Ministers’ agendas. A good example is the sell-off of the Post Office. The retail tranche of sales—the shares that were to be sold to members of the public in small lots—was scaled back, while the tranche that was being sold to large institutions such as Goldman Sachs was inflated. It seemed insane that a Liberal Democrat Secretary of State, in particular, would do that. There was a lost opportunity to spread what was known back in the 1980s, in the heyday of a certain politician, as the “ownership society”. The former Member of Parliament for Richmond, Yorks, William Hague, said that we should be a share-owning, property-owning society, and should roll back the frontiers of the state to enable that to happen.
I am keen for Help to Save to be promoted, because it allows people with very low incomes, or no incomes at all, to start thinking about their own asset bases and start saving for the future. However, I should like the Minister to consider a couple of issues. First, I do not understand why there is a cap on the amount that can be contributed. If someone earning a very low wage is able to contribute £20 a week or £20 a month year in, year out, why should we seek to limit that? Why should we not allow such people to build up a fund which they could use in the future, possibly passing it on to their children, who might then decide to do the same? Secondly, £50 seems a rather small amount to me, particularly for someone who is starting to build up an amount and getting into the spirit of saving. Thirdly, especially in the current interest-rate environment, requiring people to hold their savings in cash strikes me as self-defeating. Allowing them to go to their banks and buy, for instance, shares in Marks & Spencer or Royal Bank of Scotland—when, hopefully, they become available—would give them the idea that they could benefit from the country’s asset base.
It is worth noting that, when it comes to the lump sums that people want to accumulate over their lives, their aspirations are often quite modest. Many years ago a great friend of mine who works in television was devising a new quiz show, and wanted to establish what prize money he should offer so that he could deal with the show’s finances. A survey was conducted, and people in the United Kingdom were asked what amount constituted “change your life money”. In this age of the lottery, my friend thought that the answer would be hundreds of thousands of pounds, but in fact it was just over £6,000. That is what the vast bulk of British people thought was “change your life money” which would give them the chance to start to build for the future.
Suella Fernandes (Fareham) (Con)
The Money Advice Service recently found that 21 million families had less than £500 in savings. What does my hon. Friend think about the lack of financial literacy and money management skills among people who do not have the techniques and the basic understanding that would enable them to manage their personal finances?
Kit Malthouse
My hon. Friend has touched on an interesting issue. What she has said reflects one of the observations made by the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford). Over the past three or four decades people have, perhaps, been infantilised in respect of the financial choices that they make, and politicians in the House of Commons may have sought to make their choices for them. Personally, I would like the opportunity to decide between a lifetime ISA, a pension and a normal ISA, for instance, but then I am a chartered accountant of moderate skill—deeply moderate; I resigned on the day I qualified for exactly that reason—but I recognise that plenty of people feel confused and are unable to do so. We have taken the power away from them over the years, and we must start to reverse that. We must either put choice back into their hands, or educate them so that they can make those choices in the future. The financial world is becoming ever more complicated, and if people are to do well out of it—particularly those on lower incomes—they will need to have that kind of knowledge.
Another reason why people should take an interest in acquiring assets rather than the mere ins and outs of their monthly incomes is the fact that a number have missed out, recently in particular, on what could have been a big upswing in their wealth. Brexit has seen a massive rise in the stock market, and anyone who has had stocks and shares over the last couple of months will have done extremely well. Similarly, the housing market has risen prodigiously over the last three or four years.
Ian Blackford
Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that there has been a massive 16% decline in the value of sterling over the last couple of months? Moreover, the fact that the market has risen as much as it has is due, quite simply, to the overseas earnings of United Kingdom companies. It is not that the world thinks the United Kingdom has become a more investable case; indeed, some would argue that it has become a basket case.
Kit Malthouse
I entirely agree that overseas earnings are rising. That is why the stock market has increased so significantly, and I think that is a good thing. I am proud to say that I voted “out”. I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman thinks should be the level of the pound, but I think it should be at a level that increases our overseas earnings, means that people will re-shore manufacturing—because it is now more expensive for goods to be made overseas—and helps our exporters. I cannot see that that is anything other than beneficial for a country that is carrying a massive current account deficit.
The point that I am trying to make, however, is that 40 or perhaps 30 years ago many more people were investing in the stock market by buying shares in British Gas and all the privatised industries, and those people would have been benefiting from the present upswing. I am proud to ask my postman how his shares are doing every time I see him, and I should like to be able to say the same to most people on low incomes.
Ian Blackford
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should ask his postman how much his holiday will cost him next year. There is a real problem for the United Kingdom, which is that inflation is now going to increase. We have already seen the impact of the likes of Unilever seeking to pass on 10% price increases. At a time when wage growth in the United Kingdom is limited, we have choked off next year’s consumption. That is the effect of Brexit. This is not about wealth; it is about an economy that has been damaged by the Brexiters.
Kit Malthouse
The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to know that I disagree with him. I hesitate to get into a bit of economic argy-bargy in this debate—I was hoping to keep my comments short—but inflation is currently running at 0.6%, and as a result we have extremely low interest rates. The Bank of England’s target is 2%. I am pleased that the low pound may help it to get to that level because there is no doubt that low inflation, or a deflationary environment in real terms, is extremely damaging to the economy. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that the effect he desires of the drop in the pound has happened: my wife and I decided just this week that this February half-term we would go to Scotland on holiday rather than overseas. We would like to explore the glorious land of his birth. I hope that more and more British consumers will do the same. We may even see the rejuvenation of the tourism industry in lovely places such as Blackpool.
Mr Gareth Thomas
The hon. Gentleman has set out three concerns, if I remember rightly, about Help to Save. I wonder whether he shares my view and that of the hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) that the Government need to do more to explain why they think there should be a two-year qualifying period for the Government bonus for Help to Save, as opposed to just 12 months.
Kit Malthouse
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. The Government should look at exactly that. The barriers to saving that are in the way of people on low incomes should be removed as much as possible. I like his suggestion that people should be able opt to save out of their payroll—that employers should make the deduction. I like anything that makes it painless. The Government opt for PAYE because it takes our taxes away from us painlessly; we do not actually have to give them over. Doing the same with savings would be a good idea.
Throughout my life, my granny, until she sadly died when she was 94, put £5 every month in a post office savings account for me. She gave the savings to me on my 21st birthday. I have always been grateful for that money. I still have it sitting in that savings account. I hope and believe that I will be able to pass it on to my three children as a sign of what can be done by putting £5 away every month—a sign of the change that is possible from the first generation, from the back streets of Harrogate, to me now as a Member of Parliament.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure—on this occasion anyway—to follow the hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse). I rise in particular to support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) and to dwell on a number of the points that I have made in interventions.
The hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), who speaks for the Scottish National party, the hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) and my hon. Friend, in particular, addressed the scale of the savings crisis. In their own different ways, they underlined the need to do a lot more to encourage those on low and modest incomes to save. It is in that spirit that I gently underline, in this, I hope, more substantive contribution, the need for the Government to look afresh at their decision on Help to Save.
The Government have decided that they will make their bonus payment after two years, as opposed to 12 months. The hon. Member for Newark talked about the person who has only £100 in their bank account and dwelt on the difficulties they have saving. Two years is a long time. I think of a constituent of mine who does the right thing and is working. She is a teaching assistant and therefore on a low income. She has faced, given the scale of the housing crisis, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles rightly alluded, significant increases in rent, and she struggles to manage her income and to pay all her bills. She is surely exactly the sort of person we would want to benefit from a scheme such as Help to Save, but I suspect that, if she thought that she was not going to get any benefit from her savings for two years, the struggle to make ends meet in the intervening period would be a significant disincentive to her setting even small amounts of money aside in a savings account. I share the concern of others that the scheme will benefit only those on in-work benefits. Again, I encourage the Government to be a little more imaginative on the scheme.
I understand and see the logic of the Government’s need to have a Help to Save implementer with national coverage. Clearly, the Government have failed to persuade traditional banks or big financial players to offer the scheme, so I can see the attraction of NS&I. What I fail to understand is why credit unions cannot be allowed to offer the service to communities in their areas alongside NS&I. I hope that the Government will reconsider that point.
I have the great privilege of chairing the all-party group on mutuals. I commend the contribution of the Building Societies Association which, in its comments on the lifetime ISA and its briefing for the debate, shares the concern that others have expressed about the risk of the lifetime ISA conflating savings for a house deposit and savings for retirement in one product. Again, there are concerns that the scale of withdrawal charges will be punitive. I hope that the Minister will pick up those two points.
I welcome the support of the hon. Member for North West Hampshire for the idea of making payroll deduction a statutory right. He is right to say that the Government have a statutory right to take tax through PAYE, so why should they not also support a statutory right to allow people, with their employers, to save through a credit union, a standard mutual or a mainstream bank product?
Giving people the right to payroll deduction would be of huge long-term benefit. Many of the credit unions that are highly successful underline regularly how important the facility of payroll deduction is to their ability to offer financial services, particularly in the savings context, to their members. For a while, one issue prevented an armed forces credit union from being established. When one considers that before credit unions came along often the only products that were available for those serving in our armed forces on comparatively low incomes were those offered by legal loan sharks—the payday lenders charging huge sums of interest—one understands the scale of the benefit that credit unions are beginning to offer to armed forces personnel.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has a reputation as a shrewd and effective operator around Whitehall. Now that she is in the Treasury, she has even more power at her disposal. Many parts of government, whether Whitehall directly, agencies outside Whitehall, the NHS, individual academies, academy chains or indeed some parts of local government, still do not offer payroll deduction services for credit unions that want to serve their employees. One thing the Minister could do if she is not immediately persuaded—I hope she will be by the time the Bill completes its passage—would be to use the weight of the Treasury to encourage all Whitehall Departments to check that every bit of government for which they are responsible allows payroll deduction and lets credit unions offer savings and other financial services to their employees. If the police can offer payroll deduction services—many police officers and other police staff are signed up to credit unions—and if our armed forces can do it, why cannot all of government offer this service? I therefore hope the Minister will not only lead a drive on allowing payroll deduction, but will be willing to contemplate amending the Bill to make payroll deduction a statutory right.
It is worth reflecting briefly on the appetite across the House for more diverse financial markets. Arguably, one of the reasons why organisations within the financial services community can sometimes make high charges for their services is that there is not enough competition. Encouraging more savings through building societies, and in particular trying to build up the credit union sector, is surely something that every Treasury Bill, and indeed every Government Bill, should have at the back of its mind. Might there be an opportunity to encourage more tax incentives for savers? The armed forces credit union has been established. Why should there not be tax incentives to encourage more of our soldiers, sailors and air force personnel to sign up and support that credit union, and benefit from its services?
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my fellow Co-operative MP for giving way and apologise for not being able to be in the Chamber to hear the whole debate—I was at another debate in Westminster Hall. I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend’s remarks and pay tribute to his work on the armed forces credit union. I will certainly support the amendment that he suggests tabling. Does he agree that we should also look at countries such as Canada and Germany, where there is diversity in savings, and where much stronger credit unions are available to a much wider group of the population?
Mr Thomas
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Many financial services markets around the world are far more diverse than the UK’s, and therefore far more competitive. We need to build up our building societies and other mutuals such as credit unions, and further tax incentives that encourage saving and taking up other financial services through mutuals can only be a good thing.
I have no intention of voting against the Bill, but I share the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles. I hope that both Front-Bench teams will reflect on my suggested amendments and that we will see progress on the concerns that they address during the Bill’s passage.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) on his comments, particularly those about the Help to Save product the Government are introducing. He talked about the Government looking at the role of credit unions and whether it would be possible to use payroll. It would be helpful if the Ministers, whom I welcome to the Chamber, commented on those matters, as well as some of the IFS criticisms and the very helpful Library briefing.
I want to focus on the Government’s lifetime ISA. We should not question its intentions. Its simple aim is to increase savings among the young and to help more people on to the housing ladder, and surely none of us can have any objection to that in principle. The difficulty is that we do not, of course, start with a blank sheet of paper, and adding yet more products to the already complicated savings landscape risks bringing unintended consequences. I want to focus on that risk.
As the Library briefing rather coyly puts it, over the past 25 years, a string of largely tax-based savings incentive schemes has been brought in under different Governments. Some Members will remember the stakeholder scheme, yet not many will perhaps now remember personal equity plans, tax-exempt special savings accounts, child trust funds—they ceased not that long ago—or indeed the saving gateway, which was never rolled out nationally. When we consider the lifetime ISA and what it is proposed that it will achieve, we must also bear in mind what other savings products exist.
Under the general heading of “savings” I include pensions; they are simply a particular form of savings designed primarily to provide people with adequate income in retirement. Of course as we live ever longer, the value of having those savings, lasting well beyond an age to which people were expected to live not long ago, becomes more important. The Government have a crucial role to play as the body that will prop up all or any of us when we run out of savings. I want to focus on a couple of things within the product range of savings and the potential unintended consequences of this Bill.
The LISA was introduced in this year’s Budget after the Chancellor said that it was clear there was no consensus on the future development of pensions. But in a sense he revealed his own hand by increasing the ISA limit and proposing the introduction of the lifetime ISA. This showed the Treasury’s direction of travel very clearly. It is no surprise that the Centre for Policy Studies has welcomed this ISA since, it says, it is similar to a proposal made in the past. Indeed, Michael Johnson at the CPS has been advocating the end of pensions for a long time. I have described him as the Guy Fawkes of the pensions industry—he would love to blow the whole thing up tomorrow if he could. The lifetime ISA was just one of his steps towards that goal, with a workplace ISA coming in next.
That is where some of the problems start. The Chancellor’s main underlying argument for introducing the LISA was that younger people did not understand pensions—that they were far too complicated and were not popular and therefore we needed to use the well-known brand of the ISA. I have clashed many times with the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford)—mostly happily—on pensions issues. His contributions are normally way over the top, as, unsurprisingly, they were again this evening. However, he was right to use the quotation in the Association of British Insurers briefing, demonstrating that, interestingly, the opt-out rates in auto-enrolment among the under-30s have been the lowest of all age groups. That arguably suggests that younger people do not necessarily find pensions complicated when they are provided with a solution in the workplace into which they, their employer and the Government can all contribute and the paperwork is easy. So pensions do not have to be any more complex than any other form of savings, but what makes the whole sector more complicated is the constant temptation of successive Chancellors to act as product designer for the industry and introduce yet more different products.
Kit Malthouse
I am a little puzzled by my hon. Friend’s use of the statistic that the under-30s have the lowest opt-out rate. The under-30s will of course become the over-30s and the over-40s, and they might well opt out at that point. Their continuing to opt in at this early stage, when they might not have quite so much pressure on their wage packet, is not necessarily indicative of what they will do in the future.
Richard Graham
My hon. Friend makes a perfectly reasonable point, but he should bear in mind the fact that opt-out rates were expected to be 25% and are averaging 9% so far. The Government’s expectations about opt-out rates have therefore, happily, been proved wrong. He is right to say that the under-30s will become the over-30s, but we should all be trying to encourage those people to stay in and build up their savings through the pensions scheme, rather than introducing a competitive product that could, for various marketing reasons, seem more attractive and therefore divert people of all ages from the good and noble cause, which I think he supports, of building up more savings for their retirement.
Ian Blackford
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that auto-enrolment has been an enormous success, and that one reason for that success has been the relatively low opt-out rates? Does he also agree, however, that there is more to be done to ensure that we include low-paid workers, particularly women and the self-employed? That should be the focus, but the tragedy of the Bill is that it deflects attention from what we should be doing—namely, incentivising pension saving.
Richard Graham
That is an interesting point. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that auto-enrolment is not good for the self-employed, and there are other aspects of it, including women’s savings, that could be improved. Yes, there has been success, but my “yes” is a cautious one. After all, auto-enrolment has not been going for very long. The real test will be over the next couple of years when up to 4 million people could come into the scheme, taking it from roughly 6.9 million savers at the moment to more than 10 million fairly soon. We will have to see whether they come in with the same enthusiasm as did those who work for larger employers. My point is that introducing the lifetime ISA at this stage, before we know how smaller employers and their employees are going to react, risks undermining the success of auto-enrolment so far.
In 2005, the Pensions Commission described pensions, and the tax relief on pensions, as
“poorly understood, unevenly distributed, and the cost is significant.”
It was absolutely right. The cost to the Treasury is £34 billion a year, and it receives back some £13 billion in tax on pensions, so there is a huge cost involved. I am pretty sure that that is why the Treasury is rightly trying to shape a savings policy that is both good for individuals and not so expensive for taxpayers or for the Treasury as the intermediary. I would like to see a much more co-ordinated effort by the Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions to look closely at the existing range of savings offerings, pensions included, to see how they can be rationalised in order to come up with a simpler, less expensive method of encouraging people to save.
It is interesting that the online information sheet on the lifetime ISA does not mention the fact that contributions come from someone’s salary after they have paid tax. It also strongly urges people to
“use it to save for retirement”.
That is exactly what we would expect people to do with a pensions product, so the concept that the lifetime ISA is not competitive with auto-enrolment and other pensions offerings is slightly disingenuous. Others have made the point that it is competitive with auto-enrolment and therefore offers significant potential for many of our constituents. Let me quote briefly from one or two of those who have highlighted this issue.
The Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association, which used to be called the National Association of Pension Funds, illustrates my point that all pensions are now, rightly, considered to be savings products. It comments:
“We look forward to working with the Government to help make sure that the Lifetime ISA does help younger people build up their savings.”
It goes on to say that it is important to ensure that
“the regulation on charges and governance of the Lifetime ISA are comparable to those for pensions, which have been reviewed to make sure they offer savers good value”.
That refers to the cap on charges and the increased governance. The association is implicitly recognising that this product will be considered by consumers as an alternative to saving. Indeed, former pensions Minister Steve Webb says:
“There is a real danger that the new product will mean that many young people will not start saving for their retirement until their thirties”
because that option is available to them through the lifetime ISA.
It is also interesting that the Association of British Insurers, Zurich and Hargreaves Lansdown have all expressed concern. One of the points raised by the Institute for Fiscal Studies is exactly the same point that I made in an article earlier today in which I referred to the lack of clarity over the extent to which there will be new savings, as against the shifting of existing funds by people who have already saved in ISAs. We must recognise the fact that 21 million people have invested in ISAs. That is not a small body of people. It is not a narrow cohort consisting exclusively of the very rich, for example. If savings are recycled and 80% of the people who put money into a cash ISA in 2014-15 recycle their money into a lifetime ISA to get the 25% Government bonus, that would not necessarily demonstrate a success for the Government in terms of bringing in new savers and people who would not otherwise have the chance of getting on to the housing ladder. Rather, it would demonstrate that people who already have savings are being given an opportunity to increase the return on those savings, and that higher-rate earners will have an opportunity to provide lifetime ISAs for their children or grandchildren.
It would help if the Minister clarified what impact assessment the Treasury has carried out. How much money does it expect to come in from new savers? How much does it expect to be recycled from existing ISA-holders? Who will be the beneficiaries of the lifetime ISA? My concern is that the main beneficiaries of the vast weight of the £850 million that this will cost the Treasury and therefore the taxpayer will be people who already earn quite a lot, or their children, and that the benefits will not reach the many, even though that is the intention behind the Bill.
I have tried to address some of the issues and unintended consequences that could arise from the Bill. Hargreaves Lansdown has written a useful paper on simplifying ISAs and pensions, in which it proposes a number of changes to ISAs. It is worth flagging them up today. It proposes: consolidating six different types of ISA into one; limiting the cost to the Exchequer of the Government top-up to the lifetime ISA; simplifying ISA decision making for investors; reducing the administrative burden for the industry; retaining the help-to-buy element of the lifetime ISA in one simple ISA product; and eliminating the risk that the ISA will undermine pension saving. It goes on to make a similar number of recommendations on pensions as well. The last point about eliminating the risk that the LISA will undermine pension saving is the one to which I keep returning because it is possible to do these things in a different way.
The Pensions Policy Institute found that Canada, Australia, New Zealand, US and Singapore—all countries that broadly follow Anglo-Saxon approaches to finance and investment—allow early access from the same product used for pension saving. That is critical because it means that people do not have to choose between a LISA or auto-enrolment and that they can decide whether they want to save to get on to the housing ladder or to save for their retirement through the same product. It would be a major achievement of this Government and Treasury and DWP Ministers if they could work together to rationalise the structure of pensions and savings so that individual consumers can access the same product for different reasons without having to subscribe separately. That would eliminate the main concern of many about the unintended consequence of the LISA directly and negatively impacting auto-enrolment. That is why I will certainly not be voting against the Government but will abstain from voting on the Bill this evening.
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham). I am sure the Bill covers the self-employed, but that has not been brought up today. When I was self-employed 20 years ago, the then Government made a change to taxation which basically meant that a substantial amount of every pound that I put into my pension pot was taken out in cash, so I stopped paying into a private pension. The policy in front of us today proposes a break in that sort of behaviour, particularly for the self-employed. The self-employed have always been worried about the harmonisation of national insurance contributions. When I was the Prime Minister’s ambassador for the self-employed, I worked closely with my right hon. Friends the Members for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid) and for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) on trying to harmonise national insurance contributions so that self-employed people would eventually have the same state pension.
However, I want to talk about the lifetime ISA proposal, because it should not be confused with an extra pension top-up, about which every speaker in the debate before me has talked. It should instead be seen as a savings guarantee for the future. It was a tidy move by the Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions in reaching the point of harmonising NICs. This proposal takes us a little further into the realms of the self-employed being able to look after themselves in future.
I do not want the LISA to be confused with a pension supplement. It is not that. It is something that helps to save for the future. To put it in perspective, we hear a lot of doom and gloom, but let us look where we were seven years ago. The then Prime Minister, the former Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, used to say quite often that he had put an end to boom and bust, but we then went bust in the biggest possible way. Near enough 10 years down the line from that, we have to address how we are going to save for our future. As someone who took the decision 15 or 20 years not to pay into a pension plan, I wholeheartedly welcome what the Government are doing.
I want to provide some perspective. Unemployment is dropping in my constituency—so much so that a Labour councillor was boasting about his business and saying that he cannot get enough employees to fill the positions. The workplace pension has its place, but the LISA has a separate place. I hope that it will carry on and enable people to save for their old age.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
I do not want to start by correcting the hon. Gentleman, but I am pleased to have a savings account named after me, and the LISA is most definitely a “Lee-sa” and not a “Lye-sa”. Does he agree that financial education in schools is the crux of the matter? Children must learn how to budget in order to learn how to save and have a secure relationship with their finances.
David Morris
That is part and parcel of the mix. However, this Bill is about where we are going in the future. I take on board what the hon. Lady says and I am sure that everyone else in the Chamber and in the country more widely will have done, too.
Thank you for allocating this time to me, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wholeheartedly endorse what the Government are doing.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
We have had a number of contributions. The hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) told us about his grandparents getting to Blackpool courtesy of a jam-jar savings policy, which I thought was novel. The hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) summed up the Government’s proposals as a missed opportunity, as undermining pension savings and as not tackling the real issue. The hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), who does not appear to be here, spoke of the diminution in the number of people with an asset base and said that, in his modest opinion, we should try to push on and get people to have a bigger asset base.
In an excellent contribution, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) underlined the need for the Government to look afresh at the timescales in the Help to Save scheme and asked the Government to be more imaginative and reinforce the need to permit credit unions to participate in the scheme and the statutory right of payroll deductions of savings. The hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) gave us an enlightening exposition of his concerns that the proposal might be moving towards the death of the pension as we know it. I am not quite sure whether that was what he said, but that was the impression I got.
Richard Graham
Just to clarify, I said that the proposal risks undermining saving through a pension scheme and we do not want to do that.
Peter Dowd
I understand that clarification and I will touch on that topic in my speech.
Finally, the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris), who supports the Government’s proposals, spoke about his experiences as a self-employed person and said that the proposal is not a supplementary pension but a means of saving.
Labour welcomes the sentiments expressed today on both sides of the House about the need to address savings overall. In general, anything that allows more people to save for the future is to be welcomed. Helping younger people and those on low incomes to save is a particularly legitimate and worthy objective, and the Government are right to consider policies to incentivise it. The majority of people on low incomes or in precarious work—categories sadly growing in Conservative Britain—are far from being in a position to save. Six years of Tory failures and austerity has led to many not knowing from where the next pound will come week in, week out. The Government’s clueless approach to exiting Europe simply compounds the problem on a macroeconomic level.
How is it possible for people to save when it is hardly possible for many to live properly on a weekly basis? How can a person save for the future when they can barely get through the day? The scandal of low retirement savings for the less well-off is an indictment on any notion of a cohesive society. One in seven pensioners lives in poverty and a further 1.2 million have incomes just above the poverty line. Distributional analysis by the Women’s Budget Group shows that single female pensioners will experience a whopping 20% drop in their living standards. It is unconscionable that people who have worked hard and contributed to society are forced to spend their final years in hardship and insecurity. We agree that there are problems that need to be solved urgently but the TUC states:
“Products such as… the forthcoming Lifetime ISA are disconnected from the world of work and prioritise goals other than retirement saving.”
As for the lifetime ISA, it is hard to see how its introduction even begins to tackle the problems to which I have just referred; not only does it represent a missed opportunity to build on the success of automatic enrolment, as those on the SNP Front Bench have said, but its introduction could serve as a distraction to tackling the real issues at hand. It misdirects valuable resources, as the money the Government are spending on this scheme is likely to benefit mostly those on higher incomes, as has been mentioned on a number of occasions. It also needlessly complicates the pensions and savings landscape—an arena already fraught with complexity. Perhaps most dangerously, it has the potential to undermine the emerging consensus that a pension ISA approach would be detrimental in the round. Indeed, it has the potential to introduce just such an approach through the back door. That is a concern and we are seeking assurances from the Government that it is not doing that.
In the months leading up to the Budget, the concept of replacing the existing systems of pensions tax relief with an ISA-style approach was widely debated and almost universally rejected as damaging to people’s retirement prospects. I wonder, as do many others, whether, after enduring an embarrassing rebuff, the Tories are back again with the same intent under the guise of this Bill. Many in the pensions industry have described the LISA as a “stealth” move towards pension ISAs. The Work and Pensions Committee has said that the Government are marketing the LISA as a pension product and there is a high risk that people will opt out of their workplace pension as a result. Let me be perfectly clear: people will not be better off saving into an ISA as opposed to a workplace pension. The Committee found that
“For most employees the decision to save in a LISA instead of through a workplace pension would be detrimental to their retirement savings.”
Ian Blackford
Can the hon. Gentleman shed some light on why he thinks the Government would introduce a Bill that would make people worse off as a result of investing in an ISA than they would be if they invested in a pension? Does he not think that that is an abdication of responsibility by the Government?
Peter Dowd
The answer to the first question is that I do not know and the answer to the second is yes.
I have to give credit where credit is due, because the Conservative party has a particular talent for conjuring up political smokescreens and opportunistic gimmicks: it has given us a national living wage, which, by any stretch of the imagination, is not a living wage; we were promised a “big society”, yet the Government set about systematically undermining the notion of a cohesive society; and we were cynically assured by the late, unlamented Chancellor that we were “all in it together”. One thing I do acknowledge is that post-Brexit, given the poor performance of the Ministers responsible for negotiating it, we will all be in it together—and it won’t smell very nice. In the meantime, the Government continue unfairly and unjustly to condemn working people and vulnerable groups to pay for the Government’s failed austerity obsession—and now it is time for the Government to mess up pensions. Do they never learn from their mistakes? Are they so ideologically driven that they simply cannot admit that they get things wrong? These are mistakes, I might add, that others pay for. Have the Government not done enough damage to the prospects of hundreds of thousands of WASPI—Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign—pensions without thinking that through? Yet again, they have not thought about the potential for millions more to be affected.
When former Conservative pensions Ministers are referring to the LISA as a “Trojan horse” and warning that such “superficial attractions” will “destroy pensions”, alarm bells begin to ring on the Opposition Benches, if not on the other side of the House. Given this scenario, common sense demands ask that we ask this: are we now being presented with a savings Bill that will fundamentally undermine proper planning for pensions for the future? As many others have pointed out, the LISA is a sort of pension and not a sort of pension—it is both and not at the same time—and neither will it necessarily last for a lifetime. This seemingly opportunistically designed product risks even more pensioner poverty, which people can ill afford at any time, let alone in their later years. Moreover, the Tories’ approach of transferring responsibility and risk from the collective to individuals will not work, especially as the incomes of the poorest, the majority of whom are women, are being squeezed by public sector cuts and the roll-out of universal credit.
The Labour party is motivated and inspired by the real principle and value that we are all in it together—this is not a slogan and a soundbite, but a truism. We know that the majority of people are significantly disadvantaged by an individualised, dog-eat-dog approach, as opposed to a collective system that has fairness at its core. Today, people struggle with wages that are still lower than they were before the global financial crisis in 2008. There are now 800,000 people on zero-hours contracts and half a million people in bogus self-employment, and nearly 4 million of our children are living in poverty. Labour’s economic strategy is committed to tackling wage stagnation, particularly among those at the lower end, so that they are able and have the capacity to save for their future as well as living life now.
As the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has said:
“The pensions system that I want to see ensures dignity in retirement, and a proper reflection of the contribution that older people have made, and continue to make, to our society.”
Labour Members would like the Government categorically, unequivocally and clearly to assure the public that this Bill is not a veiled attack on pensions as we know them.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Simon Kirby)
First, let me thank everyone here today for contributing to this interesting debate. As my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary said in her opening remarks, the measures contained in this Bill are really important priorities for this Government, and both Help to Save and the LISA offer people in this country a new and effective option for how they save their money. Help to Save focuses on giving more support to those on low incomes. It will give a 50% boost to those who can get into the saving habit of putting aside a small, regular amount into their account each month. The LISA focuses on younger people. It is an account that will offer genuine choice and flexibility, not to mention—
Simon Kirby
I will give way, but I had hoped to address the hon. Gentleman’s many comments later on.
Ian Blackford
I am grateful to the Minister, but this is an important point. Will he explain to the House why he thinks it is right to encourage people to invest in the lifetime ISA rather than in a pension, given that a pension will give a better return, as has been demonstrated in the figures, such as the one I cited of a 32% difference over a 40-year period? Why are the Government being misguided and prioritising ISAs over pensions?
Simon Kirby
I thank the hon. Gentleman so much for that intervention, but the Government are not doing what he suggests. We are offering people a choice, and these two schemes are complementary and serve very different purposes. The genuine choice and flexibility to which I alluded are at the core of this Bill, but now let me deal with the specific points raised today.
The hon. Members for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) and for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) mentioned credit unions. The Government recognise that many credit unions were interested in offering accounts, but it was not clear that a multiple provider model would guarantee national coverage for the scheme. We will continue to explore further options for credit unions to support delivery of the scheme, and I am sure that we will have that conversation in more detail as the Bill progresses.
The hon. Member for Salford and Eccles talked of this scheme being a substitute for benefits, but it is about increasing the financial resilience of low-income families so that if they are hit with an unexpected bill or if someone loses their job, they will have money for a rainy day. If something unexpected happens to their income, they will have savings to bridge the gap. She also asked why two years was chosen. This is the period of time needed to encourage account holders to develop a regular savings habit—a habit all too lacking in many people, especially younger people. I reiterate that the amount is up to £50 a month. People may not be able to afford that amount, but any regular saving is something that all of us should encourage.
I wish to clarify one point. The hon. Lady mentioned that there would be an additional penalty if people took money out of a lifetime ISA. An additional charge will be applied to reflect the long-term nature of the account, and that will act as a disincentive to people removing money unless it is essential or if there is a very important change in circumstances to be taken into account.
I wish to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) for his contribution. Our constituents are looking forward to the introduction of these products, and I agree with him that they contain significant incentives. He also mentioned the abolition of savings tax. It is worth putting it on the record that 95% of people have no savings tax to pay thanks to the new personal savings allowance.
The hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) mentioned a smorgasbord of issues, a few of which I shall pick up on. He said that women were disadvantaged by automatic enrolment. Before it began, 65% of women employed full time in the private sector did not have a workplace pension; as of 2015, that had fallen to 35%. He said that a lifetime ISA was just for the rich, but it is for anyone between the ages of 18 and 40. They can open it and save into it until they are 50. The maximum annual contribution that an individual can make is £4,000. People can pay less than that and still enjoy the Government bonus. We expect that a large majority of those who use the lifetime ISA will be basic rate taxpayers.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned StepChange. Well, this is what StepChange has said:
“We welcome Government recognition of the need for a savings scheme aimed at those on low incomes. Our research shows that if every household in the UK had £1,000 in rainy day savings, 500,000 would be protected from falling into problem debt.”
He also mentioned the Association of British Insurers, which said in August:
“The industry supports the Lifetime ISA as a vehicle to help people save, in addition to a workplace pension.”
I hope that is fairly clear.
My hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) asked very sensible questions and made some thoughtful points. In particular, he asked about the limit of £50 a month. Individuals saving £50 a month for four years will earn a generous bonus of £1,200. It is probably an appropriate limit for people on low incomes, at whom the scheme is targeted. There has to be a ceiling.
The hon. Member for Harrow West asked about payroll deduction. I have to thank him for a very sensible and measured contribution. There is no reason why payroll deduction cannot take place. I cannot make a commitment to him today, but I can confirm that I am happy to see whether there is more that we can do in that area.
Mr Gareth Thomas
I am grateful to the Minister for his considered response to my request for payroll deduction. Would he be willing to meet me and the Association of British Credit Unions Ltd to discuss this issue further?
Simon Kirby
Yes, I would be very happy to do that.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) for his thoughtful contribution. Clearly, he feels very strongly about a vast number of issues. I respectfully disagree with some of his opinions, but I hope that he continues to contribute to this important debate, as it is important that we get it right. At the end of the day, this is about helping younger people and poorer people get into the habit of saving.
Dr Cameron
Given that the crux of the matter is to help younger people to save, will the Minister have a dialogue with colleagues about financial education at school, and why it is really important that children and young people have a stable and secure relationship with money and that they understand that at an early age?
Simon Kirby
I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady. Making sensible, correct and proper financial decisions is important for all of us throughout our lives. She has got her point in Hansard. I will also take it away with me.
Let me come back to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester. There was some confusion about the factsheet of Her Majesty’s Treasury. May I make it clear that the lifetime ISA is for long-term saving, and is designed to complement pensions? Contributions to an ISA are made from post-tax income.
My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris) mentioned self-employed people. We should never forget that many people do not have this quandary about whether they should auto-enrol or go for a lifetime ISA. There are sensible self-employed people who either want to save for later life or purchase their first home. I know that the lifetime ISA scheme will be very well received by them.
Finally, I thank the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) for his contribution. I disagreed with almost everything he said, but I genuinely look forward to his continued involvement in this important area. Let us not forget that we have a responsibility to the millions of people out there—young people and poorer people—who should be saving and getting the very best assistance they can from the Government.
In conclusion, when it comes down to it, this Bill is about supporting people who are trying to save. It does not matter whether they are a young person looking for a flexible way to save for the future or if they are someone who is on a low income and are making a big effort to save up some money each month, they deserve a savings account that will support them and give them a boost on what they manage to put aside. Although these two savings vehicles are new, they are intended to do exactly that. I am pleased to commend this Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Savings (Government Contributions) Bill (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Savings (Government Contributions) Bill:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 1 November 2016.
(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Proceedings on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading
(4) Proceedings on Consideration and any proceedings in legislative grand committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings on Consideration are commenced.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of any message from the Lords) may be programmed.—(Andrew Griffiths.)
Question agreed to.
Savings (Government Contributions) Bill (Money)
Queen’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Savings (Government Contributions) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:
(1) any expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown or a government department under or by virtue of the Act; and
(2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Andrew Griffiths.)
Question agreed to.
Savings (Government Contributions) Bill (Ways and Means)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Savings (Government Contributions) Bill, it is expedient to authorise—
(1) charges on certain withdrawals from Lifetime ISAs; and
(2) the recovery (with or without interest) of sums paid by way of government bonuses under the Act.—(Andrew Griffiths.)
Question agreed to.
Business without Debate
Petitions
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
I am grateful for the chance to present a petition calling for fair transitional arrangements for 1950s-born women who are affected by changes to the state pension age. That group of women is bearing an unfair burden. When the Pensions Act 2011 was debated, Ministers promised transitional arrangements to ease that burden, but those have not materialised, leaving women in the constituency of West Dunbartonshire and many others facing hardship. I thank all those who have signed the petition and those in similar terms presented by other hon. Members. I also thank the Journal Office for all its work in registering the petitions.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of the county constituency of West Dunbartonshire,
Declares that as a result of the way in which the 1995 Pension Act and the 2011 Pension Act were implemented, women born in the 1950s (on or after 6 April 1951) have unfairly borne the burden of the increase to the State Pension Age; further that hundreds of thousands of women have had significant changes imposed on them with little or no personal notice; further that implementation took place faster than promised; further that this gave no time to make alternative pension plans; and further that retirement plans have been shattered with devastating consequences.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to make fair transitional arrangements for all women born in the 1950s (on or after 6 April 1951) who have unfairly borne the burden of the increase to the State Pension Age.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001923]
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
I present a petition on behalf of the residents of South Down relating to the implementation of the 1995 and 2011 Pensions Acts. The petition that I am presenting is identical to the one presented by the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes). He has already referred to the content of that petition, so I will not read it all out.
The petition states:
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to make fair transitional arrangements for all women born on or after 6 April 1951 who have unfairly borne the burden of the increase to the State Pension Age.
The Petition of residents of South Down.
[P001946]
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
I present a petition on behalf of residents of the Motherwell and Wishaw constituency and others who kindly signed the petition while it was there in my constituency. I am grateful for the chance to present this petition calling for fair transitional arrangements for 1950s-born women affected by changes to the state pension age. The text of the petition has already been read by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes).
I should declare an interest. I am very fortunate to have been born a year before the date that applies for the change to pension arrangements, and I feel a deep obligation to those women, some of whom came to my constituency office suffering real hardship. As a result of what has happened to them, some of them have had to apply for help from the Royal Society for the Relief of Indigent Gentlewomen of Scotland to raise their incomes.
The Petition of residents of Wishaw and Motherwell.
[P001945]
Ambulance Waiting Times
(7 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
It is a pleasure to address the Chamber under your chairmanship, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is also a pleasure to see in his place my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Health, who is a very able Minister.
My speech is not an attack on the Government per se. It is my job as the MP for South Dorset to stand up and speak for people without fear or favour. In my six years as MP, I have seen the ambulance service increasingly struggle, and I hope that any information that I impart will lead to the improvement of the service.
I pay tribute to the men and women of the ambulance service, whose professionalism, dedication and selflessness have saved countless lives. People’s ability to dial 999 in an emergency in the expectation of receiving urgent and expert medical help has long been one of the NHS’s treasures. Now, it is the ambulance service itself that is facing an emergency. In the year to May 2016, ambulance response times hit a record low. Not a single one of the 10 ambulance trusts in England met the target of reaching 75% of incidents within eight minutes. Worryingly, the current national average for a response within eight minutes is 68%. This trend has grown over the past four years, which is the period for which the Government have published response figures.
Ambulance control rooms across the country are buckling under the twin strains of increased demand and dwindling resources. The increased demand is undeniable. Last year set a new record, with 10.8 million ambulance call-outs in 12 months—a staggering number. The London control room alone now fields 5,000 calls for ambulances every single day.
The numbers show that emergency calls for ambulances have risen by 6% year on year for 10 years. This has not been helped by the fact that people are finding it harder to see their GP, meaning that they fall back on A&E. Although we can debate the causes, the fact remains that there are simply not enough vehicles, paramedics and clinicians to cope with the increase in workload. At the same time, the resources available have been cut or frozen. Six of the 10 English ambulance service trusts are currently in deficit, having overspent their budget, despite making efficiencies. East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust alone had a £12 million deficit last year.
In my constituency, efficiency savings have directly affected the South Western Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust, which I shall refer to from now on as the trust. An ambulance call-out in the trust now costs 2.5% less than last year. The trust covers Bath and north-east Somerset, Bristol, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, Devon, Dorset, Gloucestershire and South Gloucestershire, Somerset, Swindon and Wiltshire—a huge predominantly rural land mass covering 20% of England. I highlight the trust’s area of responsibility because it is the most rural of all the ambulance trusts and the area is one of the most sparsely populated, which means longer distances, higher fuel costs, patients who are harder to locate and hospitals that are more spread out. This means that ambulances need to be parked at intervals across the region, as I see all the time.
Achieving response times and meeting budget targets under such circumstances is a challenge. It is not just the increased demand and reduced resources that are creating the problems; the target culture does not help. Though well intended, targets can skew both priorities and outcomes. For example, to meet target times, a fast-response paramedic on a motorbike or in a car might be sent to a critical incident that would almost certainly require ambulance transportation to hospital. Those red-category incidents include life-threatening emergencies such as cardiac arrest, where survival depends on swift and specific action. Sending the wrong resource in such a case might well tick the target box on response times, but the eventual outcome might not be so satisfactory. For example, if responders reach a patient only one second short of the eight minutes, it is considered a success, even if that patient dies.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this matter to the House. In 2014-15, the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service met its eight-minute deadline in only 60% of cases. Such problems beset all of us across the United Kingdom—here on the mainland and in Northern Ireland. Does he agree that it may be time to share those experiences and also ideas about how we can make things better across the United Kingdom? If we can do that together, to see what improvements we can make, we will all benefit.
Richard Drax
I entirely concur. As I said at the start of my speech, I am not here to condemn the Government, because they have the most appalling situation to deal with, given rising costs and all the things we know about the health service. Yes, more integrated systems, which the Government are working on, are definitely part of this. As I will say at the end of my speech—perhaps I will say it now—we really ought to think about the whole NHS and how it is run, not just the ambulance service. We need to do that free of politicians, with expert advice being sought from non-politicians—those who know how the health system works, not least the clinicians—so that we can re-look at this whole situation. We have enough money, but we have not spent it particularly wisely in every case.
Let me just go back to my example—you might well have lost the thread, Madam Deputy Speaker—about the target times for red-category incidents. I was saying that if responders reach a patient only one second short of the eight-minute target, it is considered a success, even if that patient dies. Conversely, it is deemed a failure if a patient lives, but help has arrived just one second over the eight-minute response time. Worse, the trust is marked down for it.
Once at the hospital, ambulance crews face yet another target: they must hand over their patient to the emergency department within 15 minutes. Anything over 30 minutes incurs a fine, although it is not applied to all areas and is capped by the trust’s commissioners. Yet, handovers can be achieved only if there are available beds and bays in the emergency department, which in turn can free up space only by transferring patients to wards or into surgery. That flow—from ambulance to emergency department to ward and, hopefully, to home and recovery—simply is not happening, because beds are not being cleared. The so-called bed blockers—the chronically ill and often elderly patients—languish in hospital beds because there simply is nowhere else for them to go. Without enough community care outside the hospital to discharge them to safely, there is no alternative, and so if the wards are full—they often are—there is gridlock. Regrettably, we have all become accustomed to the sight of ambulances lined up outside the emergency department with their crews tending to their patients until they can be handed over. In August this year, ambulances delivered patients to the Royal Bournemouth hospital’s emergency department 650 times. The 30-minute handover target time was breached 91 times, and in eight cases patients waited for more than two hours.
It is perhaps not surprising that ambulance crews feel demotivated and demoralised, and A&E staff are equally under pressure. They are all attempting to do their best—everyone recognises that—but perhaps that is in a system that sets them up to fail. Unsurprisingly, the attrition rate in the ambulance service in England is running at 11% a year, leading to each ambulance service having to replace more than one in 10 of its call handlers, drivers, clinicians or paramedics. I am told that these invaluable, experienced professionals eventually buckle under the physical and emotional demands of their jobs, often leaving for the better hours, conditions and pay offered by GP surgeries and clinics. The retention of staff is notoriously difficult in A&E departments, too, for similar reasons. A recruitment crisis now faces the ambulance service and A&E departments. Yet, for these most dedicated and professional workers, without whom the NHS would grind to a halt, there is little light on the horizon. Instead, and extraordinarily, fines are imposed on the cash-strapped services employing them.
Hold-ups from ambulance to A&E represent a waste of precious resources; in the trust’s area, that amounts to a staggering 5,000 hours per month, and the south-west’s hospitals are by no means the worst performing in England. For that reason, the trust and the Yorkshire and west midlands ambulance services have been trialling a new response programme. The aim is to get the right resource to the right incident first time. Rather than sending a response vehicle to meet a target, more time is taken to identify the reason for the call-out. Something that is life-threatening, such as strokes and heart attacks, will inevitably need an ambulance transfer to hospital, whereas a less serious case can be dealt with by a paramedic. Members might have thought that that sounds like common sense, but it seems to me, and I think to many, that targets, in part, get in the way of common sense. Sheffield University will report on the results of the programme. Interestingly, Wales is already using the system, with a 75% success rate, and Scotland is starting trials now.
Inevitably, waiting times for ambulances are increasing as pressures mount. Regrettably, there are consequences for the patient and, of course, their family and friends. Less well known are the physical and verbal assaults on ambulance staff. In the trust’s area alone, those have doubled in 12 months—that situation is, I am told, untenable. Death threats have been made to control room staff, while physical injuries have included a broken jaw and a career-ending attack with a baseball bat. Often, drink and drugs are to blame; sometimes, mental health issues, pain, sheer anxiety and frustration make relatives and friends lash out. I am not, for one second, condoning that behaviour—in fact, I condemn it—but I am just trying to explain it. I have some experience of this with constituents who are devastated when they do not get the emergency response they expect—when we dial 999, we do indeed expect a speedy response.
Ambulance service staff are united in calling for a formal, ongoing public information campaign that tells the public not only when to call an ambulance but what to expect when one is called. With the number of calls continually outstripping the number of ambulances available, expectations need to be managed. I would be grateful if the Minister expanded a little on that when he answers. By way of example, in Dorset and across the whole trust area, 58%—nearly 60%—of 999 calls do not result in patients being sent to A&E at all, and 14% of callers are treated and advised over the phone.
Calls to make funding for ambulance services and A&E a special case chime with calls for increased social care provision to free up beds in hospitals so that a flow can be re-established. That is particularly important in Dorset and the south-west, where so many pensioners choose to live.
I would like to share some observations from Mrs Fiona Smith, who is the manager of Milton Court sheltered housing in Poole, which is not in my constituency. Her charges, who are all in their 80s and 90s, live independently and successfully in their own homes, with support services provided by the company. If they suffer heart attacks or strokes, the ambulance arrives within 10 minutes, she says, but if they fall down, the importance of the incident is downgraded by call handlers due to immense pressure from other incidents. Mrs Smith recently waited for more than four hours with a frail 96-year-old lady who remained lying on the floor with a broken hip because protocols would not allow staff to lift her. Mrs Smith is at pains to point out that she is not criticising the ambulance staff; she simply believes that there is insufficient funding and staff. Her advice to me and the Government, and to others, is that we need to get our priorities right.
I know there is no short-term solution to the picture I have painted, and I sympathise enormously with the Government’s plight. In the past, Governments of all colours have had this massive problem, which is growing as the population gets older and lives longer, and the cost of medical care rises. More joined-up care is one way forward, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) suggested. I praise the clinical commissioning group in Dorset, which is working with all GPs and hospitals to try to ensure that a more joined-up care approach is working. I believe that that is happening across the country, and I am sure the Minister will expand on that. This is a vital way forward that will solve some of the problems.
Perhaps, as I hinted—I do not know whether the Minister can expand on this—we need to re-examine the whole NHS, rather than just picking on particular bits of it. Now and in the past, when politicians and Secretaries of State sometimes feel that that things need to be done—and they do—they unfortunately fail to look at the whole picture. This is not a criticism of our current Secretary of State, for whom I have high regard; I think he is doing an extremely good job in difficult circumstances. However, perhaps now is the time—as we see, to a certain extent, the writing on the wall and the warning signs flashing—for us to sit down and have another look at how the NHS is run. I leave that point with the Minister and his Department. I can only recommend that politicians are kept out of that debate until such time as ideas are put forward to us, because inevitably we would have to make the final decisions.
I end as I began by praising the staff of the ambulance service in the south-west, not least those who serve us in South Dorset and do a fantastic job. I have met many of them and cannot praise them enough. I now look to the Minister to expand on what I have said in the hope that there is some light at the end of the tunnel, and perhaps a little more money at the bottom of the bucket.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Philip Dunne)
It is a pleasure, Madam Deputy Speaker, to join you a little earlier than anticipated and to have you in your place presiding over this important debate.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) on securing the debate. I am grateful for this opportunity to discuss ambulance response times and to put on the record, as he did, my thanks to all those who work in ambulance services across the country, not just in the south-west. Ambulance services are a vital part of the healthcare system and provide rapid assistance to people in urgent need of help. We are all united in expressing our gratitude to them for the professional work that they do.
I acknowledge that the NHS is busier than ever. That is why we are backing the NHS’s future plan with an extra £10 billion by 2020-21, providing some of the funding that my hon. Friend concluded his remarks by calling for. The ambulance service is experiencing unprecedented demand in all parts of the United Kingdom, including, as we heard from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), in Northern Ireland. It is delivering over 3,400 more emergency journeys every day in England than in 2010. In the past year, calls to ambulance services in England rose by 400,000, from 9 million in 2014-15 to 9.4 million in the year ending in April. Including calls transferred from NHS 111, ambulance services deal with more than 10 million 999 calls every year.
The demands currently being placed on ambulance trusts mean that performance targets have been, and continue to be, under pressure. South Western Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust has seen a particularly sharp increase in demand for its services. In the year to date, there have been 11% more calls in the south-west than at the same time last year. These calls have led to over 1,800 face-to-face responses by the service, on average, each and every day. In June this year, the Care Quality Commission inspected the service, and recently published the report of its findings. Overall, the trust has been awarded a rating of “requires improvement”. Within this rating, there were some positive findings. In particular, the trust was rated as outstanding for being a caring service, and the majority of feedback from patients about their individual experiences was favourable. However, it was also deemed to require improvement for its emergency operations centres, emergency and urgent care, and patient transport services, on which my hon. Friend focused.
I am sure my hon. Friend will be pleased to know that we are undertaking a range of initiatives to meet these challenges. Sir Bruce Keogh’s review of the NHS urgent and emergency care system is tackling the root causes of demand. Under that review, ambulance services will be transformed into mobile treatment centres. As a result of significant advances in technology in recent years, an ambulance presenting at a patient’s home, or to wherever it is called to treat them, is in a far better position to provide more care without, in many cases, the need to transfer them to hospital. There is greater use at the front end of “hear and treat”, which closes calls with advice over the phone, and “see and treat”, which treats patients on the scene without onward conveyance. This is all happening as a result of the greater integration with the rest of the health system that my hon. Friend called for. The CQC recognised the trust as one of the highest performing in England on “hear and treat”, which enables clinicians to assess and triage patients over the telephone and close the call without the need to send an ambulance.
As part of the wider review, under the ambulance response programme that my hon. Friend mentioned, NHS England is exploring ways in which to change responses to 999 calls by the ambulance service to help improve patient outcomes and help ambulance services better to manage demand. The first element of the ARP is “dispatch on disposition”, which was first piloted in London and in my hon. Friend’s local trust area in the south-west. “Dispatch on disposition” gives call handlers more time to make a clinical assessment of 999 calls that are not immediately life threatening, ensuring that the most appropriate response, based on clinical need, is sent to each incident first time. Early analysis shows benefits for patients from “dispatch on disposition”, and I have recently accepted advice from NHS England to extend this pilot to all trusts to help inform the independent evaluation.
My hon. Friend focused much of his speech on his, I think, personal aversion to targets, and on some of the perverse consequences that can arise. Under the second phase of the programme, we are piloting new clinical codes in ambulance services in Yorkshire, the west midlands and the south-west. The codes are used by ambulance services to determine the appropriate response for each emergency call they receive. The trial seeks to ensure clinically appropriate responses to each presenting condition while making the best use of our ambulance resources.
The programme has clinical leadership at its heart and will be independently evaluated by the School of Health and Related Research at the University of Sheffield, which my hon. Friend acknowledged. The evaluation report will be laid before Parliament once the Secretary of State has made a decision on whether any changes are needed to the ambulance standards. The most seriously ill patients will continue to receive an eight-minute response under the programme, and a pre-triage system is being used to ensure that life-threatening cases are identified quickly and efficiently. Good progress continues to be made with the programme and NHS England will make recommendations to Ministers in due course.
Richard Drax
My hon. Friend is very generous in giving way, especially after I had so much time. I have just one question. Yes, my natural instinct is against targets; I do not like them, but I understand why we have to have them. When ambulance trusts or hospitals are fined for not meeting targets, would it not be more logical to look into the reason why and ask the executives, whoever they may be, to sort it out? If they cannot do so, can we then sack them? If the conclusion is that it is a matter of giving more money to help towards achieving the target, obviously it should be given.
Mr Dunne
My hon. Friend will be aware that the clinical commissioning groups around the country commission services from ambulance trusts. I am sure he will have looked into the experience of the CCG in his constituency to see whether it believes it is getting the service that his constituents and its patients require. I can speak for my area, where a change to the disposition of response vehicles, particularly ambulances, was proposed by the ambulance service. A trial period took place, and the CCG was persuaded that it needed to provide more money to the ambulance service to fund additional crews to improve coverage. It is specific to individual areas, but CCGs need to work with ambulance trusts to ensure that the relevant standards are achieved.
The South Western Ambulance Service established an action plan in response to the CQC report to identify activities to improve its performance and demonstrate the benefits of the ARP, including addressing staffing and fleet requirements, and working with A&E departments in hospitals to which it conveys.
My hon. Friend made some startling observations about the challenges and consequences of extended handover times, and his examples were instructive. It is clearly a problem when ambulance crews are unable to discharge their patients into emergency departments as efficiently as they would like. NHS Improvement is working with local commissioners and trusts to tackle those problems, including handover delays, when they present a continuing problem. The amount of time lost to handover delays at hospitals is a significant concern in the south-west service, as he indicated. He mentioned an aggregate figure. The figure I have is that, on average, 60 hours per day were lost to handover delays in August 2016. In July, a regional workshop was run by NHS England and the Emergency Care Improvement Programme, attended by the South Western Ambulance Service, acute providers and commissioners. A set of actions to address handover delays were agreed upon and a plan to implement them is being developed. Hopefully he will see the benefit of that shortly.
We recognise that there is currently a shortage of paramedics nationally. As my hon. Friend mentioned, the south-west area is no exception. A number of initiatives are being implemented to address that, from recruitment campaigns for ambulance staff and paramedics, to training schemes to upskill the existing workforce. In the CQC report, it found that South Western Ambulance Service has an appropriate mix of skills to provide a safe service, and that, where staff numbers are below planned levels, the trust is making good efforts to recruit new staff.
At the end of September, there were 1,568 ambulance paramedics at the South Western Ambulance Service, almost double the number of ambulance paramedics there in 2010. That is an impressive achievement, but there remains a vacancy rate at the trust of just over 3%, equivalent to 134 members of full-time staff. Health Education England is working with the College of Paramedics and has invested more than £2 million in a two-year paramedic pre-degree pilot, through which potential paramedic students are recruited into roles providing structured care in urgent and emergency care settings. Health Education England is also providing funding to ambulance services to invest in their existing workforce, train ambulance technicians to become paramedics, and upskill paramedics to advanced or specialist paramedic level.
In the south-west, Health Education England has provided £350,000 in funding to help retain staff so that they stay longer than my hon. Friend indicated they have in the past, and to improve engagement and provide the opportunity to train with the very latest equipment. I am pleased to note that 100% of the trust’s rapid response vehicles and dual-crew ambulances are funded to have a paramedic on board. In the six months to May 2016 there was, on average, a paramedic on almost 92% of all A&E conveying vehicles. The service is approaching the level for which it is funded, and I hope those initiatives ensure that there are sufficient paramedics to hit that 100% target.
In addition, to help to reduce system pressures, NHS England is undertaking a public information campaign about urgent care services. My hon. Friend urged us to do that to encourage the public to present at the right place and do the right thing. In particular, he referred to the use of NHS 111 as a front door to the integrated urgent care system to help improve its credibility as the place to get initial advice, rather than people dialling 999.
To conclude, I again emphasise that ambulance services are vital to emergency care and the NHS as a whole. We all want to be sure that, where loved ones suffer heart attacks or are involved in a serious accident, they will not be left waiting for medical help to arrive. The initiatives being taken in response to the record demand facing the urgent and emergency care system will ensure that patients continue to receive the quality care that they need.
My hon. Friend concluded his remarks by asking for a new approach to the integration of NHS services, to which I would add the integration of NHS services with social care services. He could have been describing the sustainability and transformation plans that are currently being finalised by health areas across the country for presentation to NHS England by the end of this week. They are bottom-up plans prepared by clinicians and senior management within NHS organisations alongside local authority organisations responsible for social care, which is precisely what my hon. Friend called for. I am pleased to say that, under this Government, that is being delivered.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Self-build and Custom Housebuilding (Time for compliance and fees) Regulations 2016
(7 years, 6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Gavin Barwell)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Self-build and Custom Housebuilding (Time for Compliance and Fees) Regulations 2016.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time in my new role, Sir David. The regulations were laid before the House on 14 July and, if approved, will come into force on 31 October. They will do two things: set out the time provided for local authorities to comply with the duty to grant sufficient planning permission to match demand on their self-build and custom house building registers; and provide for local authorities to charge fees, on a cost-recovery basis, for people to be entered on or remain on those registers.
The Government are committed to driving up housing supply, and promoting and supporting self-build and custom house building is integral to that commitment. We will set out in a White Paper later this year our overall strategy to meet the Prime Minister’s ambition to get this country building the homes we desperately need, but I will say briefly at this juncture that one of the problems with our housing market is that we are far too reliant on a small number of volume house builders, and we need to get a much wider range of people involved in building homes in this country. Custom house building and self-build are clearly part of that strategy.
Doubling the number of self-build and custom-build homes by 2020 will not only create much-needed new homes but, crucially, enable more people to live in homes that were designed by them to meet their specific needs. It will also provide welcome new business opportunities for smaller house builders, support and create new jobs, and drive innovation in alternative building techniques.
To take forward our commitment, we passed the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 and the Housing and Planning Act 2016, sections 9 to 12 of which relate to self-build and custom house building. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk—I am not at all surprised to see him here—for his support of my predecessor’s work in driving forward the Government’s ambitions for this sector and his continued support, promotion and passion for self-build and custom house building. My advice to any future Housing Minister is that my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk is like a stalker—in the most benign way possible—who will follow them around to all the events that they do.
My hon. Friend’s private Member’s Bill, which became the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015, came into force on 1 April this year. For the first time, all local planning authorities are required to keep a register of people in their area who wish to build or commission their own homes and must have regard to the size of that register when carrying out their housing, planning, land disposal and regeneration functions.
A fundamental barrier preventing more people from building or commissioning their own homes is the lack of suitable available plots for self-build and custom house building. The regulations, together with the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Regulations 2016, which were laid last week and are subject to the negative procedure, are the final component of our legislative framework to support the doubling of this sector.
If approved, the regulations will be critical to increasing the availability of land for self-build and custom house building in England. They will require councils to grant enough planning permissions to match the demand on their registers within three years of the year in which those entries were put on the register. That will ensure that land is made available for self-build and custom house building in a timely manner. In the Government’s view, the regulations strike the right balance between ensuring that councils have sufficient time to identify suitable land and satisfying the desire of those seeking land to build or commission their own homes.
The regulations also allow councils to charge a fee for people to be entered on the register and, where entries on the register count towards the number of plots for which an authority must grant planning permission, charge such people an annual fee in subsequent years while they remain on the register. Councils will be able to charge fees only on a cost-recovery basis, which will ensure that any fees charged are reasonable and reflect the costs incurred by councils.
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
Fees are crucial in relation to the regulations. What estimate has the Minister’s Department made of the fees likely to be charged by local authorities, if any?
Gavin Barwell
We are not expecting the fees to be significant. The work load required for local authorities to maintain a register of this kind is not huge, but given the financial pressures that local councils are under, it is reasonable that they should be able to recover the costs involved in this work, rather than for those costs to sit with the general taxpayer.
In conclusion, self-build and custom house building have the potential to play a significant role in securing greater diversity in our housing market, as they do in many other countries in the continent of Europe. We are committed to doubling the self-build and custom house building sector. We want it to become a mainstream form of housing, enabling more people to design their own homes to meet their specific needs. The regulations, if approved, will increase opportunities for aspiring self-build and custom house builders to realise their dream of designing and building their own homes. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Sir David.
I appreciate that the Minister was not in his position when the Housing and Planning Bill—now the Housing and Planning Act 2016—went through the House, but he will know from Hansard, if from nowhere else, that the Opposition are generally in favour of the measures in the Act to promote self-build and custom-build. We also agree with the Minister that we are too reliant in this country on volume house builders and that we need to diversify the range of people who are building homes, including through custom-build and self-build.
AMA Research suggests that the self-build and custom-build output remains steady at about 7% to 10% but that the overall number of new homes built each year in self-build completion is well below the 2007 peak of 14,000 homes. Perhaps I should not say this in these Brexit days, but as the Minister has said, the figures for a number of European countries are much higher. They do much better with custom-build than we do.
We broadly support the Government’s aim of increasing the output in this part of the house-building sector and share the analysis that more needs to be done to bring plots forward and to make a reasonable assessment of the local need for such plots by compiling a register, which is the subject of this statutory instrument. However, measures put forward by the Government must be reasonable and it must be possible for local authorities to deliver on them. In that regard, I have some questions about what the Government propose.
Our concern is that the Bill and the regulations might place unreasonable burdens on local authorities. For example, section 2A of the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 imposes a duty on relevant authorities to grant a sufficient number of development permissions in respect of several plots of land to meet demand as evidenced by the register. I will come to the register in a moment, but regulation 2 specifies three years, as the Minister said, as the period within which the registered number of development permissions relating to the base period must be granted to satisfy the duty.
What happens if not enough land is available or it cannot be brought forward at all or without huge or unreasonable costs? There is nothing in the regulations about the sanctions or what they might be. Can the level of fees be increased to acknowledge that large costs might be involved in bringing forward a plot with planning permission?
We know that the Government intend to provide support to cover the costs of developing the register under the new burdens doctrine, but we would appreciate clarification today on whether they intend to provide support for the costs of bringing land forward for development, including the servicing of the plots. If the Government are providing financial support for local authorities under the new burdens doctrine, how long will that support be in place for?
What system is in place to ensure that the costs remain proportionate? As I am sure the Minister understands, local authorities could face a situation whereby the only plots available have quite high costs for extending electricity supply and other services. That could place undue burdens on the local authority. What system is in place to ensure that that does not happen and that the costs attached to the available land are proportionate? The Government have run a series a pilots, which might have dealt with the issues. In that case, we would like to hear about those today.
On fees, regulation 3(2) says:
“A relevant authority must determine when a fee is to be payable, and must refund any fee paid by a person whose application to be entered on or to remain on the register is unsuccessful.”
Local authorities may have put a great deal of work into determining whether someone should be on the register, and they will have to refund the fee to be on the register if they do not then place the person on the register. That leaves the question of who meets the costs of the determination work that has to be carried out by the local authority. Will that cost simply be borne by local authorities and their council tax payers? That does not seem entirely fair.
Has the Minister thought about including in the system a determination cost, as well as a cost for simply being on the register, to ensure that local authorities are not out of pocket because they are determining a lot of applications that do not end up on the register, but for which they have to bear the costs? I am pressing that point because we all know that planning departments are really short of resources at the moment. Giving them more work with no additional resources will make a bad situation worse. Will the Minister provide some clarity on that?
We welcome different fees for different categories of applicant and the overall thrust of the policy. I look forward to the Minister’s response to my questions and concerns.
Jake Berry
I do not intend to detain the Committee long; I just want to make a few brief points about this important matter.
One of the issues with self-build in the UK is that whether or not we maintain a register and charge fees for it, as is proposed today, some people have a fear of undertaking self-builds. That said, lots of people already do it; in fact, self-builders are the biggest developers in the UK by number, beating Persimmon Homes, Bellway and all those big developers. However, people often feel that undertaking a self-build means that they will actually have to physically lay the concrete slab and the bricks, one on top of the other. Although I support the regulations, I think that the Government should provide more information, as well as the register, to allay people’s fears, to some extent, about what is involved in self-build. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk, who has done so much work to promote self-build.
Many people dream of building their own home but when lots of people think about bespoke or self-built homes, they think of the “Grand Designs” properties on television. Local authorities should be obliged to ensure that the message gets out to people looking to build their own home that they can build a house that any of us would want to live in such as a semi-detached house, or a two or three-bedroomed family house.
The self-build sector supports small developers. Many small developers such as B&E Boys in my constituency are really trying to get into the self-build sector because of the Government’s fantastic work promoting it. The regulations tackle, to some extent, what has always been the greatest fear of people who want to self-build: obtaining a plot. Obtaining a plot is extremely difficult because there are absurdly high land values for any land that is already consented, where all the planning gain has already gone to the benefit of the owner.
Another reason why land values are absurdly high is that so few plots are available. When people start to look for a plot to do a self-build, they rapidly realise that they may want to live in the village their parents brought them up in or near a really good primary school, but no plots are available. That is the huge value of the proposals we are discussing, because they are an obligation on local authorities to provide consented plots, or plots that will get consent, in the area people already live in. Those people will tell the local authority that they want to self-build their home and it will be obliged, within three years, to provide a list of sites. For many people, that will be enough: they will go on to instruct the architects, the builders and structural steel engineers to come and build their house, but for many that still will not be enough. Much as I welcome the regulations, I gently say to the Minister that I hope in addition we will look at promoting modular construction, which lends itself naturally to self-build.
Before I did this job, I was involved as a lawyer in trying to set up a modular construction business on behalf of a client, and the main barrier to getting the industry going is that it militates against the existing business model of many of the small developers we are talking about today. Their model is to build a house, wait until it is sold and then start to build the next one. They may have a piece of land with two or three plots on it and eke that development out over a four-year period while they sell them. Asking them just to put down a serviced slab with the services already in it will take all the development profit away from them, so among existing developers and builders there is a great fear of modular construction, although it actually does present a huge opportunity.
As the Minister will know, the Prime Minister has set out that the Government want to tackle our housing crisis, and I believe that modular construction both for self-build and for general construction is a fantastic way of mechanising our housing market, producing many more houses than is possible through only the standard construction technique.
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
Although my hon. Friend is right about the fears that some conventional, small-scale house builders have, and he is certainly right in what he said about modular construction, does he accept that it is also the case that, for what one might call the more agile small house builders, the issue also represents an opportunity? Once they have acquired a plot and got services in there, they could say to a potential customer, “Come with me and buy this plot. I will sell you this plot and then build for you the house you want to buy,” and then make the commensurate amount of profit from doing that, very much in accordance with what the customer wants.
Jake Berry
I agree; I was going to talk briefly about the market in the USA, which works in exactly that way. People go to the equivalent of IKEA—some of us may go there to buy flat-pack wardrobes and fear that three hours later we will have to get someone in who knows what they are doing to put them up—and, perhaps with the developer or landowner, see various different timber-framed buildings built to a high construction standard. They can almost say, “I want that house delivered to my plot in four or five days’ time.”
If we promoted modular construction, particularly in relation to self-build, it would de-risk so much of the development. We are asking someone to take on the development of building their own home but they are worried about slippage and first fix and second fix cost increases; promoting modular construction for self-builders would massively de-risk people who are taking it on. It has been very successful in the USA where it is now the norm to provide serviced plots. As I said, promoting modular construction is the only way to help tackle the housing crisis that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has, quite correctly, made the centre of her new plan for government.
On the idea of planning reforms, we heard from the shadow Minister that local authorities’ planning departments are massively overstretched. I recognise that from my constituency and I am sure many hon. Members also recognise that. The planning White Paper presents an opportunity. At my old business we had a planning lawyer, who I will not name—he would be delighted if I did name him—who must have been the best planning lawyer for supermarkets in the United Kingdom. He would be doing three or four supermarket applications every month. He would go to a small borough council such as Rossendale or Blackburn with Darwen, which I represent; it might be the first supermarket application it had had for 10 years. Bluntly, he would wipe the floor with the planning department—not because they were bad people, but because they did not have the depth of knowledge to deal with the application.
It is my personal view that in the planning White Paper we should consider making higher-tier authorities responsible for planning. Local planning departments from borough councils could go into higher-tier authorities, where they would be less stretched, would have the benefit of scale and would be able to deal with things such as maintaining the self-build register at a higher-tier level. They would have people to do that and to deal with more complicated planning issues such as supermarket applications.
I would be grateful if the Minister answered a few questions for me when he sums up. The point made by the hon. Member for City of Durham about how we pay for services on service slabs that may be available for self-builders is absolutely crucial. I know from developments that I have been involved with that simple things such as moving a sub-station can cost nearly £1 million. If we are providing self-build plots for people, we have to find a way to provide services at a reasonable price.
Also, I would be grateful if the Minister said what these regulations will specifically do to increase the number of planning permissions being granted. He mentioned that briefly in his speech, but it is really important that we focus on increasing supply because that is crucial for releasing the self-build revolution. I wonder whether any estimates have been made of the number of additional planning permissions that would come forward through the creation of this register.
I intervened on the Minister earlier to say that I have some concerns about fees. From my own experience, when planning authorities are given the ability to charge, they try to charge as much as humanly possible; there are lots of other expenses around running planning departments that they could perhaps legitimately move in. From his answer, I understand that the Minister wants this to be determined locally, which I think is the right approach, but I would be grateful if he kept a very close eye to make sure that the annual fee, in particular, is not too high. We do not want people to register and then fall off the register because the annual fee is too high for them. They will have been on the register for some time and will think, “I am not actually getting what I want, so why should I pay the annual fee?”
Will the Minister comment on whether the Government intend to make any Government-owned land available for self-build? Thinking about the Ministry of Defence, the Department for Transport and many local authorities, we see that there is a huge Government land bank. A way to put rocket boosters on this brilliant policy is to make sure that that Government land goes in to the register.
Finally, will the Minister say what he is going to do in his Department, and what obligation there is on local authorities, to advertise the availability of self-build plots? The danger is that we do something fantastic in Westminster that is really exciting for people out there who want to build their own homes, and that local authorities go away and create the register and do a really good job, as lots of planning departments do, but then forget to tell anyone about it. There is an obligation on all of us as constituency MPs to go out and promote this as an opportunity for our constituents, but it is not too much to ask that local authorities should make sure the people they represent have some knowledge of the register.
Mr Bacon
It is a pleasure to take part in this Committee, particularly as I am not a member of it. According to House rules I am allowed to contribute, and as long as there is not a vote that is apparently fine. I particularly endorse everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen said. He made many points that I was going to make, so I hope I will be quicker as a result.
The Minister kindly referred to my Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act. I served on the Public Bill Committee for the Housing and Planning Act 2016 because I wanted to be sure that sections 9 to 12 got through safely, as indeed they did. I thought the Minister was a little unfair to accuse me of being a stalker, since I saw him on only four occasions at four different events on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday last week. Taxpayers will be pleased to know that he gets into the office for about 6.45 am; I often see him parking his car at that time. On many occasions, which he does not know about, I have not gone out to nag him about self-build and custom housebuilding, so he should be grateful.
I am strongly in favour of the right legislative environment—it is unsurprising to hear me say that, given that I introduced the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Bill, which became the 2015 Act—but the experience from the Netherlands is that although laws may be necessary, they are not sufficient. What made the real difference in the Netherlands was not simply having laws—it had a target of 30% self-build at one point and that made scarcely any difference—but having the right environment in which self-build is easy to do. The local authorities concerned had the wherewithal and the knowledge, which is why the National Custom & Self Build Association’s proposal for an expert group, which it is in the process of setting up, will make such a difference.
It turns out that there are roughly three kinds of local authorities in this space. There are those actively in favour, such as Cherwell District Council, whose leader, Councillor Barry Wood, spoke at our self-build summit in No. 10 Downing Street last year. Only a small number, mercifully, are heavily opposed and will do everything they can to stop it. Several years ago, I saw one local councillor who, when asked whether he would support the proposals, folded his arms at a seminar said, “No, I am not going to do this. It won’t help me to meet housing need,” as if he knew more about housing need than the people who needed housing. Fortunately, such local authorities are in a minority.
The vast majority of local authorities are somewhere in between. They know that self-build is an issue that they are supposed to address but do not know a lot about it, and think that there are any number of potential difficulties. In the Netherlands, when there was an expert group, with people who had done it going around—charging by the hour, with a small subvention from central Government and part of the cost paid by the local authority—it made a very significant difference to the build-out rate.
With the help of the National Custom & Self Build Association, I put in such a proposal to the Treasury last year in time for the autumn statement, and again in time for the Budget this year; I have not yet been successful. The Minister knows that the proposal is still on the table because the chairman of NaCSBA and I made the point to him when we met him and the Secretary of State recently.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen said that despite this kind of building being very difficult to do, the self-build sector by itself accounts for more than any single volume house builder, such as Persimmon Homes. It accounts for 12,500 units a year. It used to account for 15,000 units a year, and if we were doing pro rata what they are doing in the Netherlands, it would now account for 60,000 units a year. When people ask me what I think of the present target of increasing the number of units done each year through this process to 20,000, I am tempted to say that it is the wrong question. The right question is what the level would be if this were as easy to do as it could possibly be. If it were as easy to go and get a serviced plot of land to build a house as it is to go into a Ford or Vauxhall dealership and buy a motor car, a lot more people would be doing it.
The hon. Member for City of Durham made a number of important points, including about making sure that the difficulties of the proposals do not impose unfair burdens on local authorities. She mentioned the new burdens money. Informally, officials at the Department for Communities and Local Government estimated to me, when that first became apparent last year, that the amount of money that local authorities will get through the new burdens money could be in the region of £40 million to £50 million. I would not sign my name in blood to that number, but it is a significant sum, so they should be able to cope.
The second point about new burdens is that there are various ways in which local authorities can meet their legal obligation to keep a register. They could do so by sharing it, doing it in concert with others or having someone do it for them, as long as they meet their legal obligation, so that it is clearly visible what their residents in a particular area are entitled to.
Jake Berry
Given that my hon. Friend speaks with expertise in this area, what does he think that local authorities and/or Members of Parliament can do to ensure that members of the public are aware of the register? As he said, some local authorities are now at the stage of being vaguely aware that they might have to keep a register. I guess that if they are only vaguely aware, virtually none of the people who live in their borough is aware. What does he think should be happening to promote the register?
Mr Bacon
Were I in charge, what I would introduce in carrots and sticks is probably not printable in a family newspaper. The truth is that my hon. Friend is right: most people are only vaguely aware of the register. Although we are now at a point where 89% or 91% of local authorities have a register in some shape or form, they are not yet meeting their statutory obligation to promote it properly.
However, on the figure that my hon. Friend referred to of 12,500 units a year, we know that according to Ipsos MORI numbers, a pipeline of 1 million people would like to acquire a serviced plot of land and start their own project in the next 12 months. “Grand Designs Live” at the National Exhibition Centre is coming up in a few days’ time—I heard an advert for it on the radio—and one would expect 120,000 people to go through that venue in a couple of days. The same will happen at the ExCeL centre and in Glasgow. Many hundreds of thousands of people are trying to build in this way.
Another index of the interest is to look at the magazines on the shelves of shops in motorway service stations; it is quite difficult to buy a copy of the New Statesman, The Spectator or The Economist because they cannot earn their keep on those shelves and not enough people buy them to justify their shelf space. To justify the space, a magazine has to be about one of the following: beautiful interiors, implausibly perfect abdominal muscles, gossip, cars, motorbikes and possibly caravans. That is about it, apart from Homebuilding & Renovating, which I am pleased to say makes the cut, because so many people buy it every month because they are so interested in how to do that work.
The key issue for us is how to turn that huge latent pent-up demand into something real and, if I can use a Hegelian term in the presence of members of the Labour party, “actualised” demand. Demand that means something in terms of supply and demand. That is the difficulty that we have faced.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen made an extremely important point about public land. The week before last, we visited the Netherlands for two days with an expert and members of the all-party parliamentary group on self-build, custom and community housebuilding and place-making; it will not surprise you, Sir David, that it has a longer name than any other APPG—for very good reasons which I will not go into. We had with us the head of accommodation for the Ministry of Defence.
The permanent secretary at the MoD, Stephen Lovegrove, has appeared before the Public Accounts Committee to discuss the retention of very expensively trained military staff. We heard that they are leaving the services because either the wife or husband comes home and says, “I am not living any more in this cold house with mould growing up the wall and a broken cooker.” That is down to the failure of a particular MoD accommodation contract. Given the amount of land available to the MoD, much of which is needed for training, but not all of it, it would be very easy for it to craft an offer to retain those expensively trained personnel and say, “We will help you craft the house of your dreams, and allow you to live in it at a rent from us, and then at a point in the future, calibrated depending on your loyalty, allow you to buy it from us.”
The same is true for doctors, nurses and teachers, particularly teachers in difficult-to-recruit-for subjects, who could have a home on county land, of which there is a huge amount. The same could be true for social services managers. My local head of children’s services tells me that they can recruit young social workers, now that we have a social work school, but they cannot recruit senior managers with 20 years’ experience of leading social work teams.
The policy could be applied creatively in many ways to meet other policy goals. In the Netherlands they have a thing called the “plot shop”. I had hoped that the Minister would come on our trip to the Netherlands, but he was unable to do so at the last minute. I am sure by a process of stalking, he will eventually come to the conclusion that the lesser evil is to accede to my request and visit the “plot shop” himself. It is not possible to understand what is achievable, Sir David, unless you see it for yourself in the Hague, Almere and Ijburg, where I was just the other day.
My great concern, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen referred, is fees. The regulations are about fees and although I agree with the hon. Member for City of Durham that local councils should be able to recover their fees on a cost-recovery basis, it is extremely important that that is not used as a way to kill off the latent demand. A local council actively opposed to the policy could use the fee structure in that way. The regulations provide local councils with considerable autonomy. Regulation 3(3) states:
“The amounts of fees charged by a relevant authority under paragraph (1) are to be determined and must be published by that authority.”
That is it. Basically, the authorities have considerable autonomy.
My plea to the Minister is simply this: will he keep a very close watching brief to ensure that the regulations are implemented as they are supposed to be, and undertake today that if it appears that things are going slightly off piste for any reason, he will be prepared to revisit and, if necessary, tweak the regulations?
Gavin Barwell
I thank all members of the Committee who have contributed. To handle their contributions in reverse order, I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk took offence at my characterisation of him as a stalker. I did say that he was a benign stalker. I am grateful to learn that he has exercised restraint on a number of occasions of which I was unaware.
My hon. Friend rightly argued that, generally, Government should not just assume that passing laws or making policies will drive change on the ground and that part of the job is advocacy and spreading the word—the gospel, as it were—around the country. He suggested that there should be a role for a passionate advocate for the policy around the country; it is difficult to think of a better person for that role than him.
My hon. Friend also referred to his experiences in Holland. I am looking forward to going with him. I should set the record straight: I was bumped by the Secretary of State, who then could not go, but by that point my office had filled up my diary with more engagements and I was not able to go either. However, I certainly look forward to joining my hon. Friend there and I thank him for all his advocacy in the area.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen made a number of important points. He started by focusing on the fundamental issue that our policy tries to address, which is the lack of available plots; he said, quite rightly, that increasing supply would drive uptake. However, there is also another issue: in some parts of the country, if people knew they could make land available for self-build or custom build for local people, we might see some landowners making available sites that they would not have made available if they thought they were going to be sold off to developers. One issue that we have not touched on in these regulations, but that is in the negative procedure regulations that go with them, is the ability for local councils to apply a local connection test to ensure that the sites they make available go to local people. That underlines my hon. Friend’s point.
My hon. Friend also made an important point about modular construction. The Government are very keen not just on modular construction but on off-site construction generally. To get the country building the homes we need, we want innovation in the industry. There is huge potential to speed up the rate at which we build homes; I have seen examples of that myself over my last three months in the job. This policy is a potential boon to that. I also point my hon. Friend to the Secretary of State’s announcement at the Conservative party conference that we will use the home building fund to try to stimulate the adoption of innovation in industry. There are people already doing it; what everybody involved says is that they need an order book of scale over time to increase supply, which would, hopefully, encourage others in the sector to take things up. My hon. Friend is quite right to point to that.
My hon. Friend asked what the capacity was. The Government’s objective is to double the number of homes provided through this route. He makes the case that we ought to be able to do better still, given what appears to be the demand out there. If we could recover what was lost in the great recession of 2008-09 and go beyond that, it would certainly be a good start; obviously I would like us to go as far as we possibly can.
My hon. Friend was absolutely right to emphasise the importance of Government-owned land. I point him back to the Secretary of State’s announcement at the Conservative party conference about accelerated construction. The previous historical model for the release of public land has been one of selling off large sites to a volume house builder. We want to use the Government’s position as a major landowner in the country to drive innovation, with respect both to the mixture of people doing the building and to the techniques used. We plan to divide the sites up and perhaps to have some self-build plots, but also to go into joint ventures with smaller builders, to encourage them to get into the development of the industry and potentially to promote off-site techniques.
Jake Berry
Many local authorities own very small sites. Until now, there has been no obligation—or, indeed, incentive—for them to release them, except for the financial imperatives they face. Will the Minister give some thought to obliging local authorities to release some of their own lands—smaller plots, such as those with just one house—for self-build?
Gavin Barwell
My hon. Friend is luring me into the wider debate about what we are going to do on housing. I will say just two things. First, there is a target to get local authorities to release a similar scale of public land to the Government’s own commitment. We have committed to release land that would be suitable for 160,000 homes over the course of this Parliament; there is a similar target for local authority land.
Secondly, my hon. Friend makes an important point about smaller sites. I think all Members would agree that in recent years there has been a trend for local authority plans to focus on large sites. That brings several dangers. It essentially guarantees that we will be dependent on large-volume developers, because large sites are really only suitable for such developers. It also creates a risk of local authorities falling below their five-year land supply targets, because if one of those sites hits the buffers and drops out, the local authority finds itself below the five-year land supply and the rules on speculative development then apply. There are many good planning policy reasons. If my hon. Friend bears with me until we discuss the White Paper, he will see that there are many good reasons for strongly encouraging local authorities to provide for a mixture of sites in their local plans, especially if we want a more diverse range of people to provide housing.
I am pleased to hear that the official Opposition favour the policy. I have now presented two statutory instruments, both of which have been supported from the Opposition Benches, and long may that continue. I am conscious that other bits of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 did not meet with such favour, but I will gloss over those for now.
The hon. Member for City of Durham asked a number of questions. The first was about how local authorities might identify sites. They can use a number of mechanisms, one of which was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen. Surplus local authority land may be suitable for such purposes. Authorities may, in certain circumstances, wish to acquire sites on the market, but there is also potential for them to use the planning system to deliver sites. For example, they could include as an application condition for a larger site that the developer provides a certain percentage of custom build sites.
The hon. Member for City of Durham raised a very fair point: what if local authorities cannot find enough sites to provide for the number of people on the register? The negative procedure statutory instrument that sits alongside this provides the answer to that question, which is that areas that have a high demand for self-build or custom house building, and very limited land for development through no fault of their own, are able to seek an exemption from the Secretary of State. Those regulations broadly set out how that exemption works, but I will provide a little bit of detail.
The Government’s view is that it would be unreasonable to require authorities to grant planning permission in respect of all their future land supply for self-build or custom build. At the moment, about 10% of new homes are self-build or custom build housing, and we want to double that. The regulations will enable those authorities where the demand for self-build and custom build is greater than 20% of their available land to apply for an exemption. That is how we would seek to address that issue.
Even if there is an exemption, the authority would still need to have regard to persons on the register when carrying out their general duties in terms of seeking further sites over time. Individuals in an exempt authority would be able to register in neighbouring areas with greater land availability, so it would not rule out opportunities altogether for people who live in those authorities.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Will the Minister confirm whether the negative statutory instrument also covers any possible sanctions against local authorities? If authorities do not meet the supply within the three-year period, will they be subject to sanctions?
Gavin Barwell
Obviously, we would have to keep that under review. The evidence from the vanguard programme is that there is generally an enthusiasm in local government for this purpose, but my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen made the point that we need to get out there and evangelise. We need to look at what action we will take if authorities do not meet their obligations. When we come discuss the housing and planning White Paper, the hon. Lady will see that a considerable amount of thought has been given to the extent to which the Government should intervene in local plans, and to what those thresholds should be. If she bears with me for a little while, she will hear some more details about that.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
On the important point of local authorities exempted from the regulations because they do not have the required land, if somebody in such an authority wanted to self-build, would they satisfy the local connection tests for other authorities around them so that they were not disadvantaged through no fault of their own?
Gavin Barwell
No they would not, but they would still be able to go on the register. In those circumstances, the neighbouring authority would keep two classes of register. Those people who have satisfied the local connection test would have first priority. However, people from exempt neighbouring authorities would still be able to go on the register and, if there were a surplus of land in that area, they would have an opportunity. They will be disadvantaged to a degree if their authority is exempt, but it will not rule out their prospects of acquiring land elsewhere. There will still be an ongoing duty on their authority to pay regard to the number of people on their list in seeking to secure additional sites over time.
Vernon Coaker
I gently say to the Minister that that is a little bit unfair to people who, through no fault of their own, have lost a right to custom build. That goes against the Government policy drive. Perhaps that is something that the Minister could look at with his officials. Has he made an assessment of how many people the issue might affect?
Gavin Barwell
We have not made such an assessment yet. I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman and to the Committee with some thoughts on that. I take his point; we will look into the matter and see how many people are involved. The point reflects the reality that there are a small number of local authorities in this country that are very heavily constrained in terms of their land supply. Clearly, there might be the opportunity for them to look at options beyond their authority boundaries in some cases. I am aware that some councils do that in terms of support via affordable housing.
I turn to the last two issues that the hon. Member for City of Durham raised. All three Members who have spoken in the Committee raised the issue of fees. We should recognise that there are competing pressures here. On the one hand, Members rightly worry about local authorities and the financial pressures they are under, and want to be assured that they are going to receive the level of financial support necessary to carry out these duties. On the other hand, my hon. Friends are also concerned that fees should not be set at levels that are going to prove prohibitive and stop the policy from working.
I want to come back to the specific point that the hon. Member for City of Durham made about new burdens, which she questioned me about. We recognise that this is a new burden and will be funded as such. The Government’s view is that over time, once local authorities have developed their processes and procedures and a pipeline of land has been identified, the cost of meeting the new duty will be recovered through the sale at market value of the plots that are envisaged, and also through the fee process. Clearly, there will be some upfront costs setting the process up before the process of sales begins. We recognise that is a new burden and will be funding accordingly.
The final point made by several hon. Members was about the overall level of resourcing of local authority planning departments. In terms of the conversations I have had in the first three months of this job, this is one of the rare issues where there seems to be a consensus. Those involved in local government, but also those in the development industry applying for planning permission, all say to me that we need to get more resources into our planning departments.
Mr Bacon
Before the Minister sits down, as I fear he was about to do, may I invite him to return specifically to the subject of fees? If a local authority can remove a very large broken fridge-freezer from my house for £11 and take it away on a truck—as it has done—it seems that the cost of keeping my name on a list should not be that high. There is huge autonomy at the moment for local authorities within these draft regulations. Although there are some very benign and encouraging attitudes from some local authorities, it is perfectly possible that some other, less enlightened local authorities will seek to use this fee structure as a way of punishing and restricting the activities of people who wish to get a plot of land and build their own house, or have someone build a house to their design. Will he undertake to keep a very close eye on this and, if necessary, to take further action?
Gavin Barwell
My hon. Friend has stolen the final remark I was going to make; that is exactly the undertaking I was going to give. Certainly there seems to be very broad support for this idea across this Committee today, so I hope that local authorities will show a similar level of enthusiasm. This is something that the Government will keep under review. Clearly, we would want to take action if we felt authorities were setting fees at levels that were not cost-recovery but were designed to dampen demand in their area.
Let me end by trying to address the point about the resourcing of local authority planning departments. The Government have consulted on this issue and are looking at whether there is a case for a general increase in fees and whether there should be some kind of greater degree of flexibility, so that if a local authority wanted to offer a premium service, in terms of speed, to those people who were prepared to pay a premium fee, or some other kind of service development, there should be some flexibility to allow that. We have got the results of that consultation, and the hon. Member for City of Durham will probably not be surprised to hear me say that if she awaits the White Paper she will get an answer on that issue. I hope I have given a clear impression that we have a lot of sympathy with the concerns that have been raised. This is one of those rare issues in my role as Housing Minister where people on all sides of the housing sector are speaking to me with one voice.
Having done my best to address the comments that were made, I will end by saying that it is good to hear strong support from both sides of the Committee for the principle of what the Government are trying to do. I pay tribute, again, to the work that my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk has done. These regulations, along with the negative statutory instrument that goes with them, and those that we have already enacted in relation to the 2015 Act that my hon. Friend took through, are a big part of our policy to double our ambition in this area.
In closing, I should also mention in part the other two crucial issues: ensuring that those people who want to build custom and self-build properties can get access to finance, which is something the home builders fund will help with, and the discussions we are having with the lenders to ensure that people can acquire mortgages on these kinds of properties. Those three considerations together—making sure there is enough small service plots, making sure people can get mortgages and making sure those who want to develop these properties can get finance—are the key to unlocking this issue.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Self-build and Custom Housebuilding (Time for Compliance and Fees) Regulations 2016.
Implementation of the 1995 and 2011 Pension Acts
Westminster Hall
(7 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
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
UK Exit from the European Union
(7 years, 6 months 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
Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petitions 133618, 125333, 123324, 154593, 133767 and 133540 relating to the UK’s exit from the European Union.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson. These petitions have now closed and have been on the books for a few months. Some of them have been overtaken by events and by subsequent debates in the Chamber, but it is important that we continue to discuss these matters over the coming months.
Three of the six petitions are essentially about the timing of our invocation of article 50, if we invoke it at all. The Prime Minister has said in recent weeks that the Government intend to invoke article 50 by the end of March 2017. Why has she picked that date? The Department for Exiting the European Union did not exist just a few months ago, so a lot of the Department’s work has to be about building capacity. As far as I understand it, the Department has 180 staff in the UK and can call upon 120 people in Brussels for advice.
We obviously need to build a strategy through conversations and discussions with devolved Assemblies, small businesses, large plcs, councils, local government associations and major metropolitan bodies. There have been, and continue to be, meetings with business groups and representatives of universities, the charitable sector, farming and fishing. There are ongoing roundtable discussions with a number of cross-cutting organisations and people, too.
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union and his Department have been performing sectoral and regulatory analyses and are looking at more than 50 sectors and cross-cutting regulatory issues. It is important that we invoke article 50 when, and only when, we in the UK are ready to do so. Martin Schulz, the President of the European Parliament, has said something indicative:
“I consider it to be very possible that the Brits will know exactly what they want at the start of negotiations, but that Europe still won’t be able to speak with a single voice”.
It is important that we know exactly what we want when we invoke article 50 by the end of March.
I suspect that the petitioners who want us to invoke article 50 immediately signed that petition because they do not believe it will happen. The petitioners who want us never to invoke article 50 effectively buried their heads in the sand after the referendum and are trying to replay the debate we had before 23 June. Some petitioners want Parliament to vote on article 50, which is a continuing debate—we debated it in the main Chamber last week.
There is an ongoing case in the High Court. I read an interesting article in The Daily Telegraph by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab), who has a significant Government legal background from before his election to this place. He surmises that the Government negotiate and sign treaties and that Parliament makes sure that we can comply with international obligations under UK law. The Government take the view—and I agree with their position—that the royal prerogative is the right way to invoke article 50, which is effectively the Government negotiating and signing treaties. Parliament will be able to scrutinise the Government’s discussions as we seek to leave the EU, and it will also have a significant say over the coming two years in shaping our exit from the EU through the great repeal Bill. Parliament will also have a significant say on shaping our future relationship with the EU, which will involve a separate negotiating process.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
It is all very well our saying what we want before article 50 is triggered, but after that point the EU will tell us what we are going to get. We will not have any negotiating power. Before we pull the trigger, would it not be better for us to have an idea of what we are likely to get and then to have a referendum on the exit package? That is very different from what people reasonably understood when they voted on 23 June.
Paul Scully
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I disagree with him because I do not believe that the European Union will tell us what we will get; rather, this will be part of an open negotiation. Why? Because there is not one body. There are 27 different voices within the European Union, excluding ourselves, and they will each be fighting for their patch. Each country will be fighting for its own important sectors and will have those sectors in mind when it comes to the joint negotiations. The one that is often cited is the German automotive industry, which sells 10% of its cars to the UK market. Germany will not want BMW, Audi and Volkswagen—all those major brands—to suffer as a result of the Commission in Brussels burying its head in the sand during the negotiations. Each corner and each country will fight for its own sectors, as will the UK.
Geraint Davies
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s generosity. Does he agree that it is striking that the 27 countries will decide among themselves what they will give us? We will not decide. They will have a big argument about it, as he says, but then they will say, “This is what you’re getting.” If the German car manufacturers think it is better to keep out the Japanese through tariffs and to sell more Mercedes to Spain and fewer to Britain, that is another decision. Ultimately, those 27 countries will decide collectively and then tell us what we are getting.
Paul Scully
By invoking article 50 we will effectively be working out how to separate the UK from the rest of the EU—that is, dividing up the assets and liabilities and deciding how we move forward with the institutions. Although that is intertwined, it is also slightly separated from our future relationship with the EU. Article 50 says that we have to take our future relationship into account, but there is plenty of time and we need to use the full two years to work out our future relationship.
I would not want to see our future relationship being hamstrung by waiting to invoke article 50 because we are trying to limit our negotiations on our future relationship with the EU. Frankly, that is what hamstrung David Cameron in the first place. If he had asked for more and had not limited himself in his renegotiations with the EU last year, we might have been in a very different place in the lead up to the referendum. We might have voted to remain. We should not limit ourselves in our negotiations on how we move forward once we have left the EU just so we can get to the point of invoking article 50 and starting the process next March.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Gentleman mentioned devolved Assemblies, Parliaments and Governments a moment ago. Will he be clearer about the role he feels they should have? A crucial factor is that when we went into the European Communities, as they were then, we did not have devolution. A significant amount of the responsibilities have now been devolved to Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. The people of those devolved Administrations and Governments must have a clear say on this process. What role does he think they should play?
Paul Scully
That is why my right hon. Friend made a big effort to visit Edinburgh very soon after she was elected Prime Minister: to show her intention to engage with the devolved Parliament in Scotland and with the Assemblies. Speaking to the devolved parts of the UK, and also with councils and metropolitan bodies, going right down to smaller units of government, will be integral to the discussions over the next few months. That is crucial.
Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
In July, the Prime Minister mentioned that Scotland will be “involved” in the negotiations. In October, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union said that we would be “consulted”. Which one is it?
Paul Scully
We will all be involved in the negotiations, because we will all—parliamentarians, devolved bodies and business—be involved in the debates and discussions held here over the next couple of years. We need to involve the country in this important debate.
As was said during the debate on the referendum, and as I said when I was campaigning to leave, this is a 40 to 50-year decision. Frankly, that is why I, as someone who has wanted to leave the EU for 20 to 25 years, am quite happy to be patient for six months before we invoke article 50. We need to get our exit right, and then spend the two years ensuring that we get our future working and trading relationship with the EU right as well. This is an absolutely crucial period for the UK to get it right for the economy, for immigration and for control and sovereignty within this country—the three pillars that I was talking about.
We will have our chance to vote as parliamentarians on the great repeal Bill, which will come into effect the day we finally leave the EU. It will transpose EU law into domestic law. We can then choose; we will be taking control. That vote and the votes on subsequent Bills will determine how we leave the EU. That is Parliament ensuring that we are complying with international obligations under UK law.
One of the petitions mentions freedom of movement; its title is “Not to allow freedom of movement as part of any deal with the EU after Brexit”. The Prime Minister has been clear that we need to restrict freedom of movement. By doing so, we can create a system that allows us to control numbers and encourage the brightest and best, but at the moment we are limited in that ambition.
To my mind, one of our biggest pull factors for migration, especially from within the EU, is not benefits or the other things that people talk about, but the jobs that we have created over the last few years. The UK has been a success story in creating many jobs in difficult conditions. Youth unemployment is 48% in Greece, 43% in Spain and 39% in Italy. We can and should attract skilled workers and entrepreneurs from around the world. Naturally, EU citizens on our doorstep are likely to be the most numerous coming in, due to their location. I want to end that sense of entitlement and ensure that skilled workers from around the world, whether from Bangladesh, Australia, America, Canada or India, are on an equal footing with unskilled workers coming into this country from other parts of the EU.
Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con)
To expand on the pull factors, does my hon. Friend agree that they are not benefits or the obvious things that people refer to, or even what he referred to, but the English language and the national living wage created by this Conservative Government? Those are two other pull factors that we simply cannot change.
Paul Scully
My hon. Friend makes a fantastic point. He is absolutely right. That is why I believe the UK will be on a sure and steady footing when we come to negotiate with the EU. Due to the rule of law, our language and the trading history and trading relationships we have built up around the world, we are still an attractive location for businesses and inward investment.
Ms Ahmed-Sheikh
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the importance of attracting skilled workers. What would he say to the skilled workers in the United Kingdom who form a huge part of our national health service and include many of our teachers, given that this Government can give them no guarantees about their continued ability to stay in this country to teach and keep us well?
Paul Scully
When one talks about huge numbers in the NHS, it is important to remember that, although they are an absolutely valued part of our health service, EU citizens make up 4% of NHS staff. Some 15% come from outside the UK, and a third of those come from within the EU.
None the less, it is important to value skilled workers and entrepreneurs. We need to attract the brightest and the best. This is effectively taking control, because it means that the UK can determine our own immigration policy. That may involve no change, or it may involve radical change, but that decision will be taken here, after full consultation with the UK public, rather than with one arm effectively tied behind our back by rules and regulations and the determination of Brussels. That does not limit our compassion or our ambition. We should ensure that we never confuse or conflate immigration of the type that I have been talking about with our responsibilities to refugees.
One of the petitions calls for designating 23 June independence day and celebrating it annually. It must have been a joke in Hollywood to premiere “Independence Day 2” on the day of the referendum result, Friday 24 June; I think someone in one of the movie studios had a sense of humour. However, 48% of people voted to remain. There are 27 countries considering their trading relationship with the UK, and expats around the EU considering their future. The world is looking at what we are doing.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
The hon. Gentleman just referred to trading relationships. Obviously, as part of the negotiations, individual trade agreements will need to be made with each of the other 26 European countries. Is he aware how long it takes to obtain a trade agreement and then an export certificate with countries outside the EU? We have been waiting for an agreement with China on pork exports since October or November last year, when the original temporary approval was given.
Paul Scully
The hon. Lady mentions individual trading agreements with each EU country. That is not possible. The point of being a member of the EU is that member countries cannot negotiate their own trade deals. If we leave, we will have to have a single trade deal with the remaining European Union countries. We will also then need to negotiate our own trade deals—we will be free to do so for the first time in 40-odd years—with other countries around the world, and not only the ones with which the European Union already has a trading deal but also, significantly, the many countries with which it does not. There are 168 countries outside the EU, and they get on fine.
Ms Ritchie
The point that I was trying to illustrate is that it already takes an inordinate length of time to negotiate trade deals with countries outside the European Union. How does that bode for the situation in terms of trade deals and trade agreements post-Brexit?
Paul Scully
If I may, I shall use what might seem like a slightly odd analogy. I have been in business for 20 years. Two years ago, I negotiated a lease for an office. It cost me £2,000 or £3,000 in solicitor’s fees, and about three months to organise. When I got my constituency office, I already had a nice lease to use as a template. It cost me exactly zero pounds and took me a week to organise. When we come to leave the EU, we can start either with a blank sheet of paper or with things that already work. I do not envisage—
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Gentleman is grossly over-simplifying the complexity of negotiating trade arrangements; I say that as somebody who has worked on them in Government. However, he mentioned his business experience; the volatility in the value of the pound is causing a great deal of uncertainty for businesses. For example, the value of the scrap used by the steel industry in my constituency is fluctuating due to the value of the dollar, but its exports are also being falsely boosted by the current value of the pound. Does he agree that we need to consider carefully whether the uncertainty created by the Government is giving a false impression of how the economy or different businesses are performing before we get into the detail of any fixed trade arrangements, particularly in certain sectors and with certain countries?
Paul Scully
My analogy of the lease was an extreme one. I am not expecting these things to take five minutes; nobody has ever expected organising trade deals to take five minutes. We cannot just transpose the words on one sheet of paper on to another, but my point is that we do not necessarily need to start with a blank sheet. We ought to look at a bespoke model for the UK, but that does not mean starting again from a blank sheet; we can take a little from here and a little from there, depending on what we want and on our mix of businesses, which is different from that of Switzerland, Canada, Turkey or any other of the countries often cited.
In his speech last week, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union said:
“We have Norway, which is inside the single market and outside the customs union; we have Turkey, which is inside the customs union and outside the single market; and we have Switzerland, which is not in the single market but has equivalent access to all of its productive and manufacturing services. There is not a single entity, but a spectrum of outcomes, and we will be seeking to get the best of that spectrum of outcomes.”—[Official Report, 12 October 2016; Vol. 615, c. 332.]
That still leaves us building blocks that we can use to do that.
The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) spoke about uncertainty. We need to come at the issue with a sense of mutual respect, co-ordination and co-operation in order to build a national consensus, without political point scoring or people burying their head in the sand about the referendum—I am not referring to today’s debate, but I am concerned that that is happening in the court case that is going on. As the hon. Gentleman says, business does not like uncertainty; I know that from my own business experience. I do not mind risk, because business is based on it, but it is about being able to control as much of the risk as possible. We will never be able to control 100% of the risk, but the more of it we can control and the more certainty we can bring into the equation, the better the outcome will be.
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman’s speech is developing in quite a fascinating way. May I take him back about 30 seconds, to his point about consensus, openness and involving the public? Should that involvement and openness extend to Parliament? If so, precisely what role ought Parliament to play in the process?
Paul Scully
I said that there would be votes on the great repeal Bill and on subsequent Bills to bring into UK law many of the laws currently in place on a European level. We may scrap some of those laws, keep some, and even enhance some, but it will be down to Parliament to vote on those matters and to tackle them. That is coming up soon. We parliamentarians will continue to have these discussions about leaving the EU. The Secretary of State said just last week that he would ensure a number of debates through the usual channels when we have particular matters to consider.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
May I double-check what the hon. Gentleman said about the great repeal Bill? I think he said that, when it comes before Parliament, some areas of European law may well be negotiated away—that when we bring things over from European legislation, some areas of them may well be dropped.
Paul Scully
The great repeal Bill will effectively domesticate all European law. There is a lot of legislation, so after that it will be up to Parliament over time to decide what to do with it. That is very much a role for Parliament.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Of all the European regulations that the great repeal Bill will incorporate into UK law, which does the hon. Gentleman most look forward to reforming or eradicating?
Paul Scully
What I really look forward to is being able to take control and make the Government accountable, so that we can look our electorate in the eye and say, “You know what? If you don’t like what we’re doing—if you don’t like the legislation we are pushing through—we are not going to sit there and blame Brussels, or any number of presidents who sit in Brussels and Strasbourg. It is our responsibility; we are accountable to you.” That is what I most look forward to: taking control.
Paul Scully
No. I have taken a good few interventions, and I know others want to speak.
My view on Brexit is not insular—quite the opposite. I am really excited about the prospect of a bright future in which we lift our head up to the world, trade with every continent, including Europe, and grab the opportunities that follow. Let us be patient, get it right and show the world how democratic accountability, global free trade and a fair, controlled immigration system are not mutually exclusive. Let us all follow the path set for us by the British people, and debate and discuss our independent future in a civilised and positive manner. Instead of being a semi-detached tenant of the European Union, carping from the sidelines—out of the eurozone, out of Schengen and out of the social chapter—let us work on being friendly neighbours, working for our common economic good, while remembering that there is a whole world beyond the political construct of the European Union.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
I speak as a member of the Council of Europe—like your good self, Mr Wilson—and of the European Scrutiny Committee. The first thing to point out is that, although the petitions under discussion are all very important and have been signed by tens of thousands of people, they are dwarfed into insignificance by the petition signed by the 4.1 million people who thought that the referendum should have had a turnout of 75% and a pass mark of 60%.
Obviously the referendum has happened and we acknowledge it, but it is important to remember that it was based on what were basically a lot of false promises. In practice, many people I have spoken to about the vote say that what they anticipated was lower costs; £350 million a week to the NHS, for example; less migration; and market access. It now transpires that in the short term we are seeing much more migration and that costs will be phenomenally higher. The Chancellor and the Government have abandoned the deficit targets, and we are going to see a colossal increase in borrowing and expenditure in the autumn statement, in anticipation of dropping revenues. As for market access, the hard Brexit approach that emerged at the Conservative party conference and that the public did not vote for—they only voted to leave the EU—has sent the pound to a 30-year low. That might be okay in the short term for some exporters, but it will generate inflation and problems.
People are increasingly realising that much of the inward investment that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) spoke about was from businesses such as Japanese car manufacturers, which wanted to be here not only because we speak English but as a platform into the biggest marketplace in the world. But Nissan, for example, is now saying that if tariffs rise they should get compensation. If other inward investors need that, it will be a nightmare for the national accounts and for attracting businesses. The country will be borrowing more. What is more, the Prime Minister criticised the Bank of England—although she has no control over it—on quantitative easing and borrowing, which have moved up interest rates. From a business point of view, we will borrow more at a higher cost because of those pronouncements. We will have less access to a big market and less access to skills.
Like the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, my background is in business—multinational business, as it happens; I was in charge of developing products for Colgate across Europe. Such companies will move production into the marketplace to avoid those tariffs. Businesses such as Tata Steel may be enjoying some short-term benefit from the exchange rate, but they know that 60% of their steel exports are into Europe, so in the long term obviously they will be looking to move. It is a nightmare.
Given that the reasonable expectations of people who voted for Brexit are not being borne out, it is reasonable to ask for a referendum on the actual exit package that we will get, rather than saying, “In principle, we’d like to go if we got this. Oh, it looks like we’re not going to get it, so let’s have a referendum on that.” We should do that before article 50 is triggered, because as soon as we trigger it, we have no negotiating power. The EU will then decide the terms of our exit within two years. Yes, the 27 countries will argue about what is best for them, but they will come to some consensus and say, “These are the terms of your exit.”
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam mentioned negotiating deals. As I said, he has been in business like I have. In business, someone with more power is in a better position. If the EU is negotiating with any country on behalf of Britain, it is in a much more powerful position to get the best deal than Britain negotiating individually with that country. What is more, if that country knows that we are desperate for deals because we are leaving the EU and wanting to expand, particularly if it is a very powerful country like China, it should hold back on its pork deal or whatever and say, “This is what you’re getting.” Britain will say, “We don’t like that,” and the Chinese will say, “Well, where are you going to go? You cannot go to Europe because you have shut the door behind you.”
Paul Scully
Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the fact that the simplest way of showing we were desperate for a deal would be to limit ourselves to a negotiating position that was so slim that we would effectively be saying, “We want the single market, we want to keep freedom of movement, and we want to carry on paying into the EU—we effectively want to be in the EU, in all but name”? That would be very limiting and smacks of desperation.
Geraint Davies
To be clear, I want to stay in the EU. I have a Bill on the terms of withdrawal that I hope will be given a Second Reading on Friday. It basically says that we should get the exit package—or at least a good understanding of what it will look like with regard to the balance between migration and tariffs and all the other costs—and, if the British public think that it is a reasonable representation of what they thought they were going to get, then fine, we will go ahead on that basis, before the triggering of article 50, after which it is a one-way street and we have no power. If the British public do not think it is reasonable, the default position would be to stay in the EU because it had all been a dreadful mistake. Frankly, it has been a dreadful mistake.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I am listening to the hon. Gentleman with great interest. Frankly, I think he is in the wrong job. I am sure he is an excellent Member of Parliament, but he has not understood the message of the 17.4 million people who voted to leave. He would be better suited to a job on the business section of the “Today” programme, because the first five minutes of his speech have been unremitting doom and gloom. Why would the EU want to negotiate with us? One reason is that they sell us £70 billion a year more than we sell to them, so it is in their interest to have a good deal with the United Kingdom post Brexit.
Geraint Davies
On the hon. Gentleman’s second point, rather than his first comment, there are only two countries in the EU that sell more to us than we sell to them: Holland and Germany. The other 25 nations have an interest in tariffs, because they obviously have a trade deficit. Germany might say, “We have all these Mercedes cars we’re selling,” but we know that when they block out the Japanese—who are primarily here because they want a platform for their car industry—and sell more cars to Spain, because the Japanese cannot, even they might agree with tariffs.
The simplistic proposition that was put forward by the purveyors of “It’s going to be all right; we’ll take control,” is farcical. That campaign was led by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the one and only right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), who—a recent article has disclosed—was in favour of remaining in the EU. I was saying as much well before that article came out, because all his family were in favour and it is rational to stay in. He made a calculation because his primary objective was to become the leader of the Conservative party and Prime Minister. He was going to be up against the then Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne), who was pro-remain. The majority of Conservatives—more than 60% of party members—are for Brexit, so his plan was to go on about how great it was going to be to take back control, while hoping that we would narrowly remain. He would then have become the great leader standing up to Europe within Europe. But it all failed.
From that article, it is clearly true that that is what it was about. The Foreign Secretary has claimed that the article was some sort of script for “Blackadder”, or whatever his latest claim is, but when I approached him just before the Brexit campaign, I asked him a question—which the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam was asked and did not answer—and which I used to ask cab drivers, or anybody else. I said, “Name me one law in Europe that you don’t like.” The right hon. Gentleman said, “Erm, there are four directives on bananas.” I said, “This is not some sort of joke. Can you think of anything?” Eventually, after some consternation, he said, “REACH.” Members will no doubt know that REACH—the regulation for the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals—applies the precautionary principle to endocrine disrupting chemicals in manufactured products. I said, “What’s wrong with that?” and he said, “Oh, well, I don’t really know,” and he walked off. His heart was not in it; his heart was in becoming the leader of the Conservative party. We are in this farcical position where we are going to lose out economically because the people of Britain have been sold a false promise.
On the point made by the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), if someone goes to a shop and buys a phone that they are told works in a certain way, and they go home and it simply does not work in that way, they have the right to go back and say, “Hold on, I was told that this worked in a certain way but it doesn’t. I want my money back.” We need another referendum.
Royston Smith
We seem to have turned this debate into some sort of attack on the Foreign Secretary. Were we to expand on that, we could equally talk about the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). Because he was actually in favour of Brexit, he was so lukewarm when campaigning for remain that it caused a leadership challenge in the Labour party. We would be better moving on from the personalities and getting back to the substance laid out so eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully).
Geraint Davies
It is fair to say that the Foreign Secretary is not completely responsible for a narrow victory and that, had the Labour party and its leader done a better job of explaining the fact that we have inward investment because we are a platform into a big market, and we have good rights at work because they are collectively agreed, and that all that might be lost and so on—I will not run through all the arguments—we might not have ended up where we are. Indeed, had the Prime Minister not been so complacent about staying in the EU that he decided not to give 16-year-olds the right to vote in the referendum and not to allow British people living abroad to vote, we would be in a different place. It is obviously not all the fault of the Foreign Secretary; I am simply saying that his primary objective was to become, essentially, the leader of Britain, and that as a result our destiny has changed. It is a great tragedy of Greek proportions.
Mr Hollobone
The hon. Gentleman has very honestly said that he wants us to stay in the European Union. Does he accept the result, or is the logic of his argument that he would vote against any deal in a second referendum and then seek to maintain our membership?
Geraint Davies
I am holding back my cards. It is certainly the case that I view the referendum as advisory, not mandatory. We are here as part of a representative democracy to look at things in detail on behalf of our constituents. It was an acclamation at the time, but, as the disaster is emerging, the opinion polls suggest that were people to be asked again next week, they would not want it. I am here to represent the best interests of my constituents, the majority of whom voted to remain. On a local scale, Wales will lose thousands of jobs and billions of pounds. I hope that people will be allowed another chance to take a more considered view with more information, before we go ahead and trigger article 50, after which we will have no negotiating power.
Paul Scully
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his generosity in giving way. When he talks about the referendum being advisory, does he remember that £9.4 million leaflet that went to every household? When I led the Westminster Hall debate on the petition related to that leaflet, I said that people were likely to forget all the words in it but remember the £9.4 million cost. I cannot remember the exact wording, but there was a line in there that said that the Government will accept the will of the people and will implement the result of the referendum. That was clear and unambiguous to every member of the public who received and read that leaflet.
Geraint Davies
Sadly for myself and indeed the country, I am not part of the Government. [Interruption.] There we are.
Do not misunderstand me—it was an extremely serious vote and the will of the electorate needs to be respected. However, one has to remember that the referendum vote was quite a narrowly defined vote and the suggestion is that now, if more information was available, people would act differently.
If it is increasingly obvious that the economic impact, in particular, and the other impacts will be so disastrous that they will be outside of what people expected, and if what is being offered—namely the hard Brexit—is not what people anticipated, it is reasonable that we should have another look at what will be a long-term change.
Regarding the spectrum of people voting, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam and others will know that only 15% of people over the age of 65 did not vote—85% of them did vote—whereas only a third of people aged between 18 and 24 voted. Now, people might say, “Well, that’s their fault”—I understand that point—but people of that age have more to lose, in terms of the length of time and all the rest of it.
The whole thing was sort of hurtled through and the reason we had this referendum—let us face it—was because David Cameron, the then Prime Minister, thought before the general election, “Well, I’ll offer a referendum to stop UKIP, so the Labour party won’t win”, and we have ended up in a situation with this referendum that he thought he was going to win but cackhandedly messed up. Obviously, we had this deception at the same time, and we have ended up in this position. In the light of what is happening, should we as responsible representatives just sit back and say, “Oh, what can you do?”
Stephen Doughty
I wonder if, like me, my hon. Friend has had conversations with his constituents and found that, regardless of which way they voted, they feel very much in the dark at the moment about the actual practicalities of where we are and where we will be in the future. I know that he too has a significant proportion of constituents who working in the higher education sector and who are wondering whether their research projects will be able to continue, and many who work in the aerospace industry—Airbus operates in the defence space and aerospace sectors across Europe, with multiple sites, so what is the future for that industry?—or in the steel industry. People want to know the practicalities—the pragmatic results—regardless of whether they respect the vote or otherwise. Does he feel, four months on, that he has any clearer answers about where we are to give to the constituents asking these questions?
Geraint Davies
Well, no. As I have said, I would like to think we would look again, because, as my hon. Friend has just pointed out, there is enormous uncertainty in all those industries and all those delivery systems, so the inward investors and co-operators cannot come in.
My hon. Friend mentioned higher education. In Swansea West we have seen the building of a second university campus, with hundreds of millions of pounds of European money. This institution is internationally acclaimed and networked, in particular, into research and development across Europe. Now, all of that networking and those partnerships will say, “Sorry, you can’t do that now, because you’re not going to be here”. So, after all those partnerships, we will have to do our own research on our own, rather than having this global space or platform in Europe to do it.
My hon. Friend also mentioned hospitals. Sadly, my mother has been very unwell and she is in a hospital in Portsmouth. As I left the hospital, I saw that there was a board showing six of the top surgeons in that hospital and none of them had “British names”. What that means is that some of the best people in the world have trained and are giving their services here, and the suggestion that after five years we will just ship people off because they have got the wrong name is ridiculous. We have always been an international place that attracts people who get Nobel prizes. We have seen a number of Nobel prize-winners recently saying, “It is appalling that we’re now going to pull up the drawbridge and become Fortress Britain.” As for the point about uncertainty, business and other service sectors simply do not know what will happen.
Of course, in the community of people who are EU citizens, the referendum result is a disaster, and not only because xenophobia is being sped up and people are in the streets, saying, “Go home”, and all the rest of it, but because the economic fact is that the average EU citizen contributes 34% more in tax than he or she consumes in public services. If we swap those people for retired Brits in Spain, France or wherever it is—I know there are about 2.2 million of those people living abroad and we have got about 2.6 million or so people from the EU living here—we would be swapping hard-working, tax-contributing, working Polish people and all the rest of it for people who have retired to the sun, and who would be more of a cost on the health service and make less of a contribution. How does that make economic sense, and was it debated?
The whole thing is a nightmare and what the Government are saying to those people is, “Well, we won’t allow you to have permanent residence here until we know everybody else isn’t going to send our people back”, and when will we get that assurance? So, the point about uncertainty is at the heart of the problem. Who will invest? Who will have these academic partnerships?
A dreadful situation is emerging. I realise that some of the opponents of this view want “Independent Trump Day”, or whatever they want here, and some people still think this is going to be a great idea, and are sure “Only Fools and Horses” and all that sort of stuff is fantastic. However, the reality is that this is an issue of such immense strategic importance that Parliament should look at it again and not simply say, “Well, that’s what they said. It’ll be unfortunate if it doesn’t turn out as we hoped.”
We realise we cannot negotiate; we realise now that, if we go along to a country, we will not represent the EU; and we realise that we already trade with the rest of the world. In total, 56% of our trade is already with the rest of the world; it is not like we were not trading with the rest of the world before.
Finally, on being desperate for any deal, I am particularly concerned about and engaged with issues around the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, and the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, in terms of new trade arrangements that would give companies particular powers to sue Governments. As the Minister will know, tomorrow the Council of Ministers is due to agree the provisional agreement of CETA in Slovakia. What that will do is immediately invoke powers for companies to sue Governments who pass laws that will affect their profitability in the future. By way of example, there is a sugar tax coming in now, assuming that the ideas on that have not changed, and fizzy drinks manufacturers are currently suing Mexico over a similar situation. So we could be in line for all sorts of things. I know that the Minister has said to us, “We haven’t been sued before”, but that is because at the moment we are the investor in small economies. Now the gun will be given to Canada, and the American subsidiaries will work through that. The point I am really trying to make is that we will be desperate to have trading agreements and we will want to sign up to virtually anything, at any cost, in the future, once we are out of the warm home of the EU.
I hope that there is still space politically to think again, and with those words I will give other people time to speak.
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
I apologise for being late, Mr Wilson; I had other parliamentary business, unfortunately.
Before I became an MP, I worked on the “Let Britain Decide” campaign. I really believed that the British public should have a vote in a referendum, so I was delighted when the Prime Minister at the time, David Cameron, agreed to it. During the referendum campaign, I was the Vote Leave co-ordinator for Yorkshire, so this issue is something that I am incredibly passionate about. At the same time, I am also very balanced and I understand that this issue rouses passions whichever side of the argument people are on. What I find frustrating, though, is that it is coming up to four months since we had the referendum and I cannot understand why we are still talking about the result of the referendum, harking back to the campaign and throwing stones—“He did this during the referendum campaign”; “Brexit did this”; “Remain did this”. We were elected to Parliament to do what is right for Britain. Is it not time that we actually did that? Over 17 million people voted to leave, and in my opinion their decision must be respected. We should pull together, whether remainer or Brexiter, and listen to the will of the British people, do what is right now and get the best deal for Britain.
Stephen Doughty
Does the hon. Lady understand that many people who voted, whichever way they voted, and who respect the result feel very confused about the Government’s strategy on the actual practicalities? That is where a lot of the concern is coming from and why we as representatives are taking part in these debates and asking these questions, because we do not know where we are headed. Whether we are pragmatists and whether we like the result or not, we simply do not have the answers yet or even a clear sense of direction. Does she not accept that that is a problem?
Andrea Jenkyns
I can understand the hon. Gentleman’s point exactly. I have worked in business for many years and I was disappointed that in the re-negotiation process we, as a country, revealed our hand before negotiations took place. That does not make good business sense to me, or to anyone else who has been in any negotiations, even at a micro-business level. It is wrong to have a blow-by-blow account of every step of the process.
We want what is right for Britain. The public voted for this. I know that lots of work has been going on in the background, with people pulling together and looking at everything, including trade deals. It is such a big area—I am involved in the all-party group on music and we have to look at things such as copyright laws. It is massive, as we all know. A blow-by-blow account will not be useful for Britain—in my personal opinion it could harm us in the long run—although I respect why the hon. Gentleman would ask such a question.
We should pull together and start to focus on four key things, one of which is trade. I recently got back from Taiwan and even met with Health and Trade Ministers there. Their door is open already and they are keen to set up some trade deals, and other countries are falling in line. We are not just about Europe; we should be looking at trading globally and also at supporting some of the rising BRIC nations, ensuring that their economic wealth helps to lift them into being economic powerhouses too.
Trade is one thing we need to look at; the others are control over our borders, control over our laws and control over the contributions to the EU budget. Trade barriers have been becoming increasingly obsolete. The EU has become increasingly protectionist in its outlook and slow to negotiate free trade deals. We need only look at the situation with Canada and how long that took, and it is not yet fully rectified. We cannot get over the fact that immigration is a primary concern for voters, and we must listen to them. Issues of mass migration have been ignored for too long. Having lived in Lincolnshire for a while, I can see how migration can be very good for our economy, but it should be about doing what is right for Britain, based on the skills we need and on any skill deficit we may have. Any Brexit deal will have to address a tailored immigration model that truly takes back control for Britain and is truly right for the country. Never mind looking at other models out there; it should be a model that is right for Britain.
The EU eroded the sovereignty of our Parliament and EU Commissioners face no accountability, so Brexit must bring back people’s rights to choose who is elected.
Patrick Grady
Can the hon. Lady name the first of all these hated European regulations that she would like to see repealed after the great repeal Act takes effect?
Andrea Jenkyns
I can name one. As an ex-retailer, who started at Gregg’s bakery at 16 and had a retail management career and various other business careers, I was speaking to the high street shops in my constituency. They say to us, “Why can we not have a two-tier VAT system, where VAT is cheaper on the high street and if people want to buy online they pay higher VAT, in order to help save our high streets and drive footfall into our towns?” I wrote to the Chancellor last year asking whether that could be a possibility, but we cannot do it because of EU legislation. We need control over such things, so that is one area I would like to look into.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
Will the hon. Lady give way?
Andrea Jenkyns
I am sorry but I have nearly finished, so I would like to carry on.
Andrea Jenkyns
Is the hon. Gentleman trying to intervene, or can I finish talking? [Interruption.] No, I am not offering, thank you very much. [Interruption.]
Andrea Jenkyns
In 2015, membership of the EU required us to contribute £6.5 billion a year—almost £18 million a day. That money should be spent on our own people. I urge colleagues on both sides of the House to listen to the British public, move on and accept the results of nearly four months ago. We must pull together to ensure that we do the best for this great nation of ours and get the deal that is right for our fantastic country. We have no choice: Britain must finally come first.
Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson. I suppose that it speaks to the chaos that reigns that we are debating a number of e-petitions this afternoon. Unfortunately, as we have heard in the speeches made, which I have found interesting, entertaining and astonishing in equal measure, we are no further forward, four months on. I absolutely respect how people voted in England and Wales, and I expect the Government to respect how the people of Scotland, and indeed of Northern Ireland, voted.
Andrea Jenkyns
I cannot understand why the likes of Scotland want to be the tail that wags the dog. Yorkshire has the same population size, and we voted out, so surely Yorkshire also has a big say in this; why should it be just Scotland that does?
Ms Ahmed-Sheikh
I thank the hon. Lady for that interesting intervention. As for the likes of Scotland, first, Scotland is a country and a nation in and of itself, and I ask that the hon. Lady treat it—[Interruption.] Does she wish to make a further intervention?
Ms Ahmed-Sheikh
Thank you, Mr Wilson. I ask that the hon. Lady treat my country with respect.
Patrick Grady
As I am sure my hon. Friend remembers, at no point was Yorkshire told, in an independence referendum, that if it voted to stay in the United Kingdom, it would also be voting to remain in the European Union. That is exactly what Scotland was told, and it has been denied the fulfilment of that promise.
Ms Ahmed-Sheikh
I thank my hon. Friend for answering the question asked by the hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Andrea Jenkyns). It is worth reminding everyone that during the independence referendum, the people of Scotland were told repeatedly that if they wanted to remain members of the European Union, they needed to vote no. Regardless of whether Members like to be reminded of that, it remains a matter of fact.
In Scotland, 62% of people voted to remain in the European Union. We have heard that “Brexit means Brexit”, but we do not know what that means, and it has become a matter of international jocularity; no one knows what it means. However, let us remember that the vote was on whether to stay in the European Union or come out, and that within the leave proposition, there were various visions. If the Government were to abide by any one of those visions, it would have to be the one that was in the manifesto upon which they were elected, and that was to remain members of the single market. Likewise, my party, the Scottish National party, is entitled to rely on the manifesto upon which it was resoundingly elected in May, which says, on page 23—I am sure that Opposition Members are very familiar with the SNP manifesto—that if Scotland finds itself being taken out of the EU against its will, it is absolutely right that its people be offered the opportunity to choose a different path for themselves.
Andrea Jenkyns
Would the hon. Lady like to say why the SNP would like to pull away from the relationship with the UK and become self-governing, but wants to cede more powers to the EU? That does not make sense, from where I am sitting.
Ms Ahmed-Sheikh
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention, but it makes no sense, unless she is suggesting that she wishes for the UK, in coming out of the EU, to pull out of relations with it. We keep being told that relations with the EU will remain, but will be different, which makes absolutely no sense to me, though I am not surprised to hear it. It would serve the Government well if they spent a bit more time understanding what the people of Scotland are saying, understanding the relationship between Scotland and the rest of the UK, and listening to what I thought the Prime Minister said, which was that she wanted to be Prime Minister for the whole of the UK.
Paul Scully
At the SNP conference, we heard Nicola Sturgeon saying that she wanted an independence referendum, and wanted to pull away from the UK but still be part of the EU. Can the hon. Lady say why someone would want to deny Scotland a huge market in the UK, when the two have great inter-dependability, if, as speakers have said, there will be an intransigent lack of negotiation with the UK on the part of the EU?
Ms Ahmed-Sheikh
I would be delighted if the hon. Gentleman afforded me the opportunity to forward to him what the First Minister actually said about the relationship in her speech. She was perfectly clear: Scotland voted a certain way, with 62% of voters in favour of remaining in the EU. I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands the mandate that the First Minister of Scotland has to implement the will of the people of Scotland. The First Minister has been clear in her statements that she wants the best deal for the whole United Kingdom, because that benefits everyone. We believe that that best deal is to remain part of the single market—and, indeed, that was a commitment in the Conservative party manifesto.
Royston Smith
Will the hon. Lady explain something? The SNP continues to campaign to stay in the EU, because the vote was 62% in favour of remaining, but when the Scottish people voted to remain part of the United Kingdom, the SNP continued to campaign for Scotland to leave the UK. The two things are inconsistent.
Ms Ahmed-Sheikh
It is very important that we get the chronology and the history right on when the referendums were held. In 2014, there was a referendum on Scottish independence, and 55% voted to remain in the UK, but that UK is no longer the same entity.
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Lady mentioned the 2014 result. I spent a lot of time in Scotland arguing for Scotland to remain in the UK alongside Wales. I think we are better off together. Does she not agree that the polling today shows that if there were another referendum in Scotland, there would be the same result? We were both on the same side in the EU referendum debate, and the people who voted remain did not do that to give a mandate for Scotland to become independent. It is grossly misleading to take the argument forward in that way.
Ms Ahmed-Sheikh
I do not believe that I have suggested at any point in any of my remarks that anyone is taking the referendum as a mandate for Scottish independence. Indeed, the only people who talk about Scottish independence in the Commons Chamber—I have witnessed this for myself—are the Government and the hon. Gentleman’s party. The First Minister has set up a standing council to come forward with a number of solutions to this unfortunate situation whereby the UK has accidentally found itself being required to leave the EU. If we are talking about current polling and straw polls, that does not now seem to be the wish of the majority of people in the United Kingdom.
The suggestion is that we look at the options available to us. First, let us find the best option for the UK as a whole. If that is not possible, the First Minister will of course look at the other options available to her—options that she has a mandate for in the manifesto on which she was elected. That brings me back to my point: the Government were elected on a manifesto that said that we would remain part of the single market. That is what business is saying it wants. At the Dispatch Box a few weeks ago, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy waxed lyrical about mass-engagement and the number of businesses he had visited up and down the country. I asked whether he could name a single business that was in favour of leaving the single market. Surprisingly enough, no answer was forthcoming, but that seems to be a common state of affairs with the Government.
That leads me on to where we find ourselves. Just today, the Prime Minister was required to state that she had confidence in the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as there are again differing positions in the Government on the single market. The Prime Minister was required to change statements and rebut the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the Secretary of State for International Development and the Foreign Secretary, because they are not singing from the same hymn sheet. It is no wonder that the country is in absolute chaos and the pound is in this position; no one knows what is happening. In such times, we should look at who has a plan. Who is the woman with a plan? I have clearly laid out Scotland’s position, and I expect Members in all parts of the Chamber to accept and respect that position.
In addition, because of the manner in which that referendum campaign was fought, we have had an exponential rise in hate crime. People who have come from other places and made this country their home are feeling vulnerable. It seems perfectly feasible for Members in this debate to talk about how we should encourage people with expertise from other countries to make this country their home, while in the same breath saying that we are unable to guarantee to EU nationals who have chosen to make this country their home that they, their families and their children, who are in our schools, can continue their life here. That is a shocking state of affairs. We cannot have one set of rules for one group of people, and one set for another. We should respect the people who have chosen to make this country their home.
Our position is clear: the democratic interests of the people of Scotland must be taken into consideration. The First Minister is happy to work with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. The Prime Minister said that Scotland would be involved. Involvement in the negotiations is key; consulting is not enough. If the Prime Minister wants to keep Scotland on board, that is very much in her hands.
Geraint Davies
I should make it clear that I am not in favour of Scottish independence. If Scotland became independent and became part of the EU, it would be trading within the EU and so would not face any tariffs. Does the hon. Lady accept that that would, sadly, provoke a lot of industry in England and Wales to simply migrate up the road to Scotland? It would be a disaster for England and Wales if Scotland were to go, and take with it all the industry, so that it could work in the EU.
Ms Ahmed-Sheikh
That is why I made the point that the cards are on the table. The Prime Minister gave her word to our First Minister, in Scotland, after the vote that Scotland would be involved in the negotiations, and she should act on that. On the hon. Gentleman’s point, if the good people of England and Wales wanted to make Scotland their home, we would be absolutely delighted to welcome them, as we are a country of inclusion.
The Government are asking the people of this country to trust them with the negotiations, but it is important to note that we have conflicting points of view among Ministers. How can we be asked to trust a Government when they do not even trust each other? That is the position we find ourselves in. The contrary position is taken in Scotland. We made our views clear: 62% of us voted to remain in the EU. Business knows that it is a disaster for us to leave the EU and the single market. The ball is very much in the Prime Minister’s court: she should act on the manifesto on which the Conservative party were elected to government, albeit by an extremely narrow majority. It is clear that the party is nervous about the majority and what it might mean in the future.
In closing, what develops is entirely within the Government’s hands, but let us ensure that Scotland and the other devolved Parliaments are involved in the conversation, the debate and the negotiations. If the Prime Minister wants to be the Prime Minister for the whole United Kingdom, she should include the whole United Kingdom in all the arguments. In the Opposition day debate last week, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union said, “I have been at the Dispatch Box a number of times. I am accountable.” Yes, he is, but we are still debating this issue because we have no answers. Let us be clear: the UK Government may have a mandate to leave the EU from England and Wales, but not from Scotland and Northern Ireland. Moreover, they do not have a mandate on the terms of that exit, because differing positions were offered during the referendum debate and the Government do not have a confirmed position.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
This has been an unexpectedly exciting debate that has raised some of the long-standing issues on both sides, and the wounds of those issues will not easily be healed without some answers.
I will focus my comments on the petition that calls for an immediate repeal of the European Communities Act 1972. Colleagues might be aware that I have a private Member’s Bill before the House that would protect in UK law all of the workers’ rights that are derived from the European Union. I fear that some of the most fundamental of those rights would simply fall away were the Act repealed today, including equal rights for part-time and agency workers, the right to annual leave and parental leave and the protection of employment upon the transfer of a business or the outsourcing of services. That is not to mention all the other areas of law that have been implemented through the Act. The Prime Minister has said that the Government will not address that. Instead they will look to pass a great repeal Bill to come into force once we have left the EU; only then will the European Communities Act be repealed. But where will that leave workers’ rights?
According to the Library, the great repeal Bill will likely seek to secure all legislation passed through the European Communities Act in the same form as it currently exists—namely, in secondary legislation. This comes to the point about which I clumsily sought to intervene earlier in the speech by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully). As Members are aware, using secondary legislation means that each law or directive can be changed through a statutory instrument. The Bill would therefore give this and any future Government the ability to amend or repeal fundamental rights without necessarily holding a debate or even a vote in the House.
The Prime Minister said at her party conference last month:
“Existing workers’...rights will continue to be guaranteed in law”.
However, there appears to be disagreement in her Cabinet. The Transport Secretary told the press on the same day as the Prime Minister’s speech that the Government want to keep only some workers’ rights measures. He, along with several other Cabinet members, are on record calling for the scrapping—or in one case halving— of employment protections. Arguments within the Conservative party aside, and whatever the intentions of this particular Government, the fact is that by maintaining employment protections in secondary legislation while removing Britain from the common floor of minimum rights that the EU ensures, the great repeal Bill will leave workers’ rights hanging by a thread.
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend is making a strong speech and I wholly support her efforts because I share her concerns. The matter goes beyond employment rights and into areas such as environmental protection. Whatever the Government say, the fact that secondary legislation will be used for employment protection opens the measures up to more malevolent forces to attempt to amend or weaken them. Does she agree that we should not rely on the assurances that the Government have given in public so far?
Melanie Onn
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. He has mentioned precisely the concerns that led me to introduce my Bill.
The other way in which the European Union has helped to secure and protect the rights of British workers is through the courts. A huge number of rulings from the Court of Justice of the European Union protect employees in our country. For example, the requirement for overtime and commission payments to count towards holiday pay is because of a European court ruling, as is the requirement to pay care workers a full wage for sleep-in shifts.
Geraint Davies
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. If businesses face tariffs in the EU, they will argue that they need to get their costs down and will say to the Government, “Hold on. Why don’t we have three weeks’ paid holiday instead of four? Why don’t we reduce environmental standards? That will give us all sorts of other benefits.” They will take rights away from workers so that inward investors will face lower costs to platform into Europe, given that we face tariffs. Is there not a real risk to people across Britain from that?
Melanie Onn
We must be careful not to paint all business in that way. However, the reality is that throughout the whole discourse on the referendum, workers’ rights have been portrayed as red tape and therefore cumbersome things that people would want to do away with. Companies’ bottom line is also an issue. If they need to save money somewhere, it is likely to be in areas where they see wiggle room, as we have seen in the past, so my hon. Friend makes a valid point.
The Transport Secretary—I feel as though I am picking on him, so I apologise for that—said last month of the great repeal Bill that decisions made by the European Court of Justice on the United Kingdom will cease to apply, so that is one thing that will change. So while some workers’ rights will be made more vulnerable, others will effectively be repealed, and it will be left to judges to decide whether to maintain them. It certainly does not feel like the sovereignty of Parliament is being restored: it is merely taking control from one unelected judiciary and giving it to another unelected judiciary.
The Minister needs to clarify things today. Will the great repeal Bill transpose existing EU case law into UK law, or was the Transport Secretary accurate in his description of the Bill last month? If the Government do not plan to do that, does the Minister agree that the Prime Minister’s promise that existing workers’ rights will be protected was misleading to say the least?
If the Government were serious about protecting existing workers' rights, they would secure them in primary legislation, not secondary legislation. That is exactly what my Workers’ Rights (Maintenance of EU Standards) Bill would do, so can the Minister say whether the Government will support my Bill when it comes before the House later in this Session?
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) on introducing this debate in which we have this six-pack of petitions of very different strengths and flavours, which, as other hon. Members have said, reflect the range of views, concerns, doubts, hopes and frustrations out there since the referendum vote. Other hon. Members have touched on questions raised in relation to Scotland and were kind enough to touch upon the fact that Northern Ireland also voted to remain. I want to address some of the questions raised in respect of the Northern Ireland position and the implications for the Good Friday agreement. Too often too many people here assume that the issues of Northern Ireland are taken care of with assurances of consultation with the joint First Ministers and pledges that people will do everything to avoid a hard border. There are more serious implications for the Good Friday agreement than just the possible profile of the border in future.
Margaret Ferrier
In an article penned by the Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade in yesterday’s Observer, he gave an undertaking that the Irish Government will work for special arrangements that take account of Northern Ireland’s unique circumstances. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, given the delicacy of the peace process, the UK Government should take the same approach in giving a guarantee that the interests of Ireland, north and south, will be treated with the utmost importance? Does he agree that the exclusion of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland from the Cabinet Office Brexit Committee is a disappointing signal that that will not be the case in reality?
Mark Durkan
I thank the hon. Lady for raising those issues. She is right to reflect on the fact that Charlie Flanagan, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, and the Taoiseach have reflected that they want to make sure that Northern Ireland’s very distinctive position is recognised and reflected in the future. Not only those in government, but all the parties in the Oireachtas have reflected that in the work of the Joint Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement—a Committee that Northern Ireland MPs have the right to attend and speak at. It has set out a programme of work in relation to Brexit to look at the trade implications that might arise, and at the dangers of the incipient borderism that may emerge once we have one jurisdiction in the EU and one jurisdiction out. Once we have differential legislation coming in, we will have the tensions and difficulties of borderism. Whether customs posts are introduced or not, borderism will be an increasing problem. The problem will not only be in border areas and constituencies such as mine and that of my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie), but across the north. Indeed, it will affect the south as well.
Before I touch on those particular questions, I want to address questions that are reflected in the petitions, not least the question of the role of Parliament. It seems strange that people who led a campaign in the name of taking back control to the UK Parliament now want to bypass that Parliament as far as considering next steps are concerned. It is clear that the people who are meant to be steering us forward have no plan, map, app or satnav for where they are going. The rest of us are being told that as far as the devolved institutions are concerned, we just have to tailgate wherever London’s impulses take them next—whatever whims, prejudices and fancies emerge, so long as there is some sort of consultation, we can safely tailgate London—but if people do not know where they are going, it is not sensible to follow them blindly. People in Scotland and Northern Ireland who voted to remain have the right to say that our position should be reflected. Members of Parliament from Scotland and Northern Ireland at least should have the opportunity to record their position here and in Scotland. The Conservative party imposed the new construct of English votes for English laws in this Parliament, but perhaps the compromise should have been English votes for English exits. We should let them decide to take themselves out of the EU and let those of us who want to remain retain membership of the single market and have access to EU measures and programmes.
People seem to forget that we had a referendum to endorse the Good Friday agreement. It was almost unique internationally, because it was a double referendum: it had to be held not just in Northern Ireland but in the south, and a majority was needed in both. It was John Hume’s great idea. It was a way of recruiting and respecting both senses and sources of legitimacy in Northern Ireland—the Unionist sense and source of legitimacy, which was bound up in the wishes of the majority of people in Northern Ireland, and the nationalist sense of source of legitimacy, which was bound up in the wishes of the majority of people in Ireland.
In that referendum, huge numbers of people overwhelmingly endorsed the Good Friday agreement. It was the high water mark of Irish national democratic expression—a form of articulated self-determination. It is part of the very delicate constitutional understandings that are at the heart of the Good Friday agreement, whereby we brought people to accept the principle of consent. Some Unionists used to resent the principle of consent because they thought it put Northern Ireland on the window ledge of the Union. Many republicans, of course, rejected the principle of consent because they said it created a Unionist veto and was partitionist. The Social Democratic and Labour party—a constitutional nationalist party that was the first nationalist party to put the principle of consent at the heart of our constitution—worked hard to consolidate the idea, and we got a span of acceptance around the principle of consent.
The principle of consent states that Northern Ireland’s future will be determined by the wishes of the majority of people in Northern Ireland, so it is confounded by the way in which Northern Ireland is being taken out of the European Union against the wishes of the majority of people there. The dual referendum is being confounded, too, because when people in the north and the south voted for the Good Friday agreement, they took Irish and UK common membership of the EU as a given.
The preamble of the agreement between the two Governments in the Good Friday agreement clearly makes significant reference to common membership of the European Union. Strand 1 of the Good Friday agreement, which deals with the institutions in Northern Ireland, refers to the European Union. Strand 2, which is about institutions for north and south—for the island as a whole—refers to the European Union. Strand 3, which is about relations throughout the islands of Britain and Northern Ireland, and takes in all the devolved Administrations plus the Ireland Administration, also refers to the European Union. So people cannot say that the European Union was not a conscious factor in people’s understanding when they voted for the Good Friday agreement.
The improvement in British-Irish relations, in the context of our common membership of the EU, was a major part of the backdrop to the Good Friday agreement. Without the experience of common membership of the EU and the improved relations in that regard, we would never have got the Anglo-Irish agreement in 1985, which was signed by Margaret Thatcher and Garret FitzGerald, and set the context for the subsequent peace process.
People need to be very careful about what they are undoing here. They need to understand the difference between a mere stud wall and a supporting wall. When people talk about blindly taking Northern Ireland out of the EU against our wishes and about removing the Human Rights Act, which was a key pillar in the support for and understanding of the Good Friday agreement, they are dangerously knocking through a supporting wall. I am not saying that there will be a collapse straight away, but if other issues create pressure later we will regret this move. That is why people need to look more fundamentally at some of these issues.
People do not seem to realise, particularly in respect of the workings of strand 2 of the Good Friday agreement, which is about north-south arrangements, that a large part of the traffic and the programme of work of the six implementation bodies that were set up under the agreement relate to EU moneys or programmes. The Special EU Programmes Body, which, as its name implies, manages the EU programmes north and south, would disappear. The work of InterTradeIreland is in large part to do with encouraging businesses north and south to engage with European challenge funds, to understand opportunities in European markets and to understand European directives. It also uses EU money to help businesses and academia to take part in research consortia and alliances. That work would be affected. The food safety body largely deals with EU health and food directives and ensures they are transposed in a consistent and compatible way, north and south. Similarly, Waterways Ireland has channelled EU funding in a lot of its work.
We could end up with Brexit meaning that the workings of strand 2 are, in effect, hollowed out, which is a matter of gross insensitivity—to nationalists in particular, but to all who bought into and supported the agreement as a balanced package, in terms of the institutions in the north, the north-south arrangements and the British-Irish east-west arrangements. It will not be good enough if strand 2 is hollowed out in a way that suits the Democratic Unionist party, the largest party in Northern Ireland currently. It never supported the agreement, it opposed it in the referendum, it voted no and it campaigned against it. It just so happens that it would suit the DUP for Brexit to hollow out that key aspect of the Good Friday agreement by default.
People may say, “Well, that can happen. It’s just a matter of luck and happenstance,” but that is not what the people of Ireland understood when they endorsed the Good Friday agreement in overwhelming numbers, and the people of southern Ireland changed the terms of the Irish constitution specifically to reflect that. We cannot turn around and say, “You’re unilaterally being taken out of the EU. We are unilaterally going to weaken strand 2 by pulling out the underpinnings and all the key bolts, because people in England voted in a UK vote.”
The Good Friday agreement made it very clear that some decisions are for the people of Ireland north and south alone, without external impediment. The way in which the Government are conducting Brexit—they are saying it is a one-size-fits-all, for all parts of the United Kingdom—is potentially going to constitute an external impediment to the due workings and development of the Good Friday agreement in the longer term. People need to recognise that just giving assurances about trying to avoid a hard border will not be enough.
Geraint Davies
I am listening very carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s excellent speech. Is he saying, given what has happened, that the Government should undertake to ensure that all the rights that are currently enjoyed—whether rights at work or environmental rights—the economic grants and even the subsidies to counteract the tariffs that will be introduced should now be given to Northern Ireland so we can sustain what the people who signed up to the Good Friday agreement across Ireland understood to be the case?
Mark Durkan
I thank my hon. Friend for that point. Yes, essentially I believe that is what the people of Northern Ireland voted for when they voted to remain. They want to maximise our opportunities within the EU, such as our access to programmes and funding. We have had generous access to significant funding from the EU and we have taken advantage of particular programmes, not least some of the cross-border measures. When people voted to remain, I believe they were also voting to preserve the Good Friday agreement. They wanted to try to keep it intact and do the least damage to it. Of course, people who voted against the agreement in the first place had no care about that. They do not care what damage is done to it; they just feel, “Well, somebody else will have to look after it,” and maybe literally pick up the pieces.
The other issues that the hon. Gentleman touched on go back to some of the points made by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam and others about the whole question of the great repeal Bill. Last week I described it as the great “download and save” Bill, because it will simply download and save existing EU law, but the significant question then is, who will subsequently control the delete key? Will the great repeal Bill make it clear that only Parliament may repeal or amend those key EU laws, or will powers be given to Ministers to make significant change to that legislation by regulation?
[Mr Charles Walker in the Chair]
That is a significant issue, because a number of Ministers would be happy to joyride around some of those laws, once they had said, “Oh, we’re behind the wheel,” and away they would go. Perhaps, as indicated last week, it would be a bit more like clowns with chainsaws or axes, as they go after particular environmental standards, employment rights, women’s rights or other things, just so they can demonstrate the powers under the great repeal Bill. I worry about what some people might do, in an excess of showing control, and the sort of joyriding that would take place.
Royston Smith
Other hon. Members have talked about what should be repealed given the choice. May I ask the hon. Gentleman about his thoughts on when we tried to repeal the unwanted, unfair and sexist VAT on women’s sanitary products? We could not do that through Parliament, but we would be able to do so if we had control in our Parliament. Is that one of the things he would be happy to repeal?
Mark Durkan
My view on that is clear, and I have been consistent. The hon. Gentleman has given the example of women’s sanitary products, but let us also remember that this Government have often cited EU restrictions against a lot of policy initiatives that many of us would want. EU obligations were quoted in favour of the unfair pension changes for women born in the 1950s, with Ministers and Government MPs insisting, “Oh, it’s because of the EU that we have had to do that, equalising in this sort of way and not adjusting.” It will be interesting to see how many of the Members who used that rationale in the past will say, “Now we are getting control, we can have a different take on the whole question of the pension changes and transitions.” Such excuses have been used in different ways and, similarly, were cited against having VAT concessions for hospitality or tourism, even though about 24 EU member states clearly have such variations in their rates.
The other question that I wanted to ask the Minister about the great repeal Bill is, as well as indicating whether any changes made to EU laws incorporated into domestic law will be under primary legislation or regulation, whether the Bill will automatically devolve powers that should go to devolved institutions, or will it have them retained for a period and subject to subsequent devolution legislation? In the particular context of Northern Ireland, some of us worry that under a so-called great repeal Bill powers would, in essence, be transferred to London, but not devolved before they have been exercised in London, perhaps to change some of the legislation or the standards on rights.
Doing that might be in the interests not only of the Government party in Westminster but, unfortunately, of the largest party in Northern Ireland, the Democratic Unionist party. A change in a law before subsequent devolution to Northern Ireland would mean that those of us who want to change it back might do so only by avoiding a veto from a political party such as the DUP. However, if under a great repeal Bill the functions and powers over legislation in the relevant areas automatically devolve to Northern Ireland, then anyone trying to remove those rights and protections, or to reduce the standards, could do so only with sufficient cross-community support and no veto from anyone else. That is a significant political difference, so again the Government need to be careful about what they are treading on and dealing with in such areas.
A final and fundamental point that I want to make about this in respect of Northern Ireland is to do with the Good Friday agreement and the particular provision at the heart of its delicate constitutional understanding. The agreement is a special political and constitutional hologram—Unionists can hold it up to a certain light and see things according to their principles, and nationalists in Ireland can hold it up to a certain light and see things according to our political ethic and outlook—but the fact is that it provides clearly for the possibility of a referendum on Northern Ireland removing itself from the United Kingdom into a united Ireland. That is provided for not only in the agreement, but in schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which translated the Good Friday agreement into law.
I want the Minister to address whether those specific provisions will be part of any new UK-EU treaty. Will there be specific provision for a UK that has left the EU to still respect and recognise that the Good Friday agreement provided for Northern Ireland to have the option of moving into a united Ireland? Such a provision needs to be included in any UK-EU treaty, if there is to be one, so that in Northern Ireland we are not hit with the kind of question that was used to vex and confuse people in the debate in Scotland, which is to say: “If you want to go into a united Ireland, you might not be able to go into the EU as well. You will be a new territory going into the EU, and therefore you will have to have new negotiations for Northern Ireland, and they could be very complicated.” People might also say, “A united Ireland will change the member state,” so even the Republic’s terms would be up for renegotiation and need a whole new negotiation.
That sort of scare was clearly used in Scotland, but it is one that we cannot allow any possibility of in future options for Northern Ireland. Some of us worked hard to get those provisions into the Good Friday agreement, and to get sufficient understanding around them. We cannot afford for those delicate understandings to be wounded or lost by the way in which the Government go about Brexit.
Some people have tried to say, “There is a precedent”—the German example is the perfect precedent—“so we don’t need anything in the new treaty.” However, the difference was, first, the weight of political interest in making that happen for Germany at the pace at which it happened and, secondly, the understanding that, because the original European Communities treaties specifically recognised the West German constitution—the basic law—which purported to apply to all of Germany, all that reunification did was to make de facto what, in recognising the basic law, was originally deemed de jure. That was the Germans’ equivalent of the old articles 2 and 3 in the Irish constitution—but the territorial claim of those articles was changed as part of the Good Friday agreement.
As diligent constitutional nationalists, we cannot afford for there to be any dirty work at the crossroads. There were understandings about the direct and straightforward premise of a referendum option for a united Ireland, and about how well it would be accommodated, and we cannot allow that to be confounded in any way by the terms of Brexit. The terms need to be specific, because we are also working in the context of different EU treaties from when German unification happened.
We also need specific provision so that no one in other EU member states will misunderstand that referendum option when it emerges in Ireland. People might say, “We, too, want the principle of regions being able to member-state hop, or to switch from one side of a border to another.” It needs to be clear that we are looking not for any wider or more general precedent for anyone else in or around the EU, but for specific recognition of the Good Friday agreement.
Geraint Davies
I am listening carefully, but is the hon. Gentleman putting the case that there should be a referendum now across Ireland about whether there should be a unification of Ireland, in order that the people of Northern Ireland who want to remain in the EU can do so as part of Ireland? He probably has not considered this, but will he consider extending that to Scotland—and indeed Wales, while he is at it—so they can join a unified Ireland?
Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)
Order. I would not want the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) to expand too widely on referendums about Irish reunification.
Mark Durkan
I am not advocating such a referendum in the short term. We have to deal with the challenges and issues of Brexit and reflect what people in Northern Ireland and Scotland voted for, just as other hon. Members want to emphasise what people in England and Wales voted for. I want us to do that in a way that takes care of the premises and promises that people signed up for and committed to in that great democratic compromise that was the Good Friday agreement. We want the specific provisions that I have mentioned to be in any new UK-EU treaty, and that will be a test of whether the Government properly stand by the Good Friday agreement. We need to be able to say to people that the option for a referendum is still there—that it is no lesser and will be no lesser than was intended when people committed to it in the Good Friday agreement. That is why the terms of any new UK-EU treaty have specifically to take care of that.
I am certainly not trying to say that something in Ireland or Northern Ireland should automatically be bolted on to Scotland. Scotland will clearly advocate, consider and deliberate about its own choices and issues in all these matters. I am not calling for a referendum in the short term—that would not answer a lot of the short-term issues and challenges—but I certainly want to ensure that nothing that is done now weakens that option in the longer term. If certain changes happen, we will not be able to pretend that the tyre is merely flat at the bottom. If we lose on some key points now, serious longer term damage will be done, and that will have delicate political consequences. I hope the Minister will do more than just recite the usual mantras about consulting Ministers in devolved Administrations and hard borders.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
It is a genuine pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker, as it is on the Procedure Committee. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) said that we were having an unexpectedly exciting debate. She is clearly not a regular at debates in Westminster Hall, which we should really start referring to as “Brexit Minister Hall” because we are graced so frequently with the presence of the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker). Several of us are regulars at these debates, and we are joined by other Members who make contributions. One strength of the petitions system is that we get to hear regularly about the issues that are of concern to our constituents, and as we can see from the six petitions that we are dealing with today, Brexit has been and will continue to be one of those.
I note that we still have not had the debate on the Floor of the House in Government time that we asked for, though we had a debate last week in Opposition time. There have been statements and all the rest of it, and it is clear that regular debates will continue to take place in all kinds of guises in this Chamber and on the Floor of the House. The question is when there will actually be votes, and when the House can have its say and make its voice heard.
Paul Scully
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there was an opportunity for a vote following the Opposition day debate last week? I made a bit of an effort to get here—from Strasbourg, ironically—to find that the Opposition had dealt away their right to a vote.
Patrick Grady
I am not privy to the usual channels, but I know that several colleagues were travelling here, and several of us were trying desperately to get away for our party conference. For some reason, people in this part of the world seem to think that the party conference season has finished before it actually has. There was a certain amount of confusion about whether there would be a vote last Wednesday afternoon, but perhaps we will have one some other time.
Three key points have arisen from the debate and the petitions that we are considering: when and how to invoke article 50 and Parliament’s role in that; the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972 and the question of a hard or soft Brexit; and the question of an independence day, which perhaps gives us an opportunity to consider in a bit more detail the role of Scotland and the other devolved nations.
On the question of when and how to invoke article 50, we were originally told that it would be triggered on 24 June 2016. That was the UK Government’s position going into the referendum, and that was abandoned by the Prime Minister without any shame whatever as he resigned that morning. We can therefore probably understand why, when the new Prime Minister says that article 50 will be invoked by the end of March 2017, several Members—and probably the public at large—might take that with just a pinch of salt. We might have to wait for the court case that was mentioned to come to an end before we know whether it is entirely possible for the Government to trigger article 50 under the royal prerogative.
The question of parliamentary approval for the article 50 process is very real. I believe in the popular sovereignty of the people of Scotland, but I well understand the frustration of Government Back-Benchers who thought they were taking back control only to find that it appears to have been handed directly to Ministers without any opportunity for the House to have its say. There seems to be a clear consensus that the broad outline of the Government’s negotiating position should be brought to the House before the article 50 process begins. We keep hearing Ministers say, “We don’t want to show our hand and give away our negotiating strategy.” Stating the objectives of a negotiation is not the same as stating the negotiation strategy. Perhaps the real reason why the Government have not set out their position is that so far they simply do not have one.
That brings us to the bigger question of what the Government’s negotiating position should look like. That is the question of a hard Brexit or a soft Brexit—or as I heard on the radio last night, a “clean” Brexit, which apparently involves withdrawal from the single market. I suppose that means there must be the option of a messy Brexit, too. We have also heard about a full English Brexit and a dog’s Brexit, so I expect that in the not-too-distant future there will be scrambled, poached, boiled and fried Brexits on offer as well. For Scotland, of course, it will be a deep-fried Brexit to go along with the Mars bars.
In any event, parliamentary debate and scrutiny is so important because the leave campaign gave us no prospectus for what Brexit would actually look like, beyond a bus with a promise that £50 million a day would be spent on the national health service. It is all too clear that the UK Government had done absolutely no preparation whatever. The only certainty and clarity in the debate about Brexit has come from the Scottish Government, whose position stands in contrast with the UK Government’s chaos and confusion. That position was outlined again by the First Minister of Scotland at the Scottish National party’s conference this weekend. There is no mandate for any part of the United Kingdom—certainly not Scotland—to be taken out of the single market. The Foreign Secretary apparently told the Foreign Affairs Committee that many people do not understand the term “single market”. That possibly includes him, given the press coverage that has been referred to during this debate. Anyone can access the single market; the key question is whether we are inside or outside—whether we are trading with the single market or within the single market. Those are two very different issues.
That is also why freedom of movement, which is the subject of one of the petitions, is so important and needs to be protected. In Scotland, our problem has been emigration, not immigration. We are clear that we want to welcome all those who can contribute to our society, and more importantly, that those who are already here are valued and welcome to stay.
The Government say that the European Communities Act will be abolished through a great repeal Bill. The First Minister of Scotland made it clear at the weekend that SNP Members of Parliament will vote against that Bill when it comes to the House. The mandate that I have from 78% of voters in Glasgow North and 62% of voters in Scotland is for Scotland to remain in the European Union. The Scottish Parliament will of course be required to give its assent to any Act passed by this Parliament that affects its powers.
The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) raised many important questions about the impact of Brexit on the devolved powers of the different Assemblies and Parliaments across the United Kingdom. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) made the point in the main Chamber last week that the principle of devolution to Scotland is that anything that is not reserved is devolved, so it stands to reason that once all the powers held by the European Union come back to the United Kingdom, they should be devolved to Scotland. The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union was not able to respond to that point in the Chamber last week, and I do not know whether his Minister is any more prepared to do so at this stage.
As has been clear from the debate, the great irony of the great repeal Act is that the first act of taking back control will give a democratic mandate for, and enshrine in UK law, all the hated regulations that the Brexiteers have campaigned against for so many years—regulations that protect our beaches, our air quality and, indeed, as the hon. Member for Great Grimsby said, all our workers’ rights. While Brexiteers might delight in the thought of eventually getting to unpick those regulations, when it came to what was actually going to happen, it was pretty thin gruel: it was various tweaks to VAT on sanitary products, some of which could probably have been done by negotiating a derogation in the first place. The notion of a two-tier VAT system will be very interesting to manufacturers in other parts of the world who want to import their goods to the United Kingdom.
Paul Scully
On the so-called tampon tax, I heard the hon. Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) say, from a sedentary position, “Is that it?”. The point is that the then Chancellor of the Exchequer faced a near parliamentary rebellion on the issue, and then had to take it to the European Union Finance Ministers and wait six months. Then the Prime Minister had to go to the Committee of Ministers with a begging bowl, effectively—and still there was not a result on that single, small issue, which should have been so simple to resolve. That shows why it is important to invoke article 50 and take back control.
Patrick Grady
Some of that is about the political will of the UK Government. As the hon. Gentleman said, they took those actions only after coming under massive amounts of parliamentary pressure here in the House of Commons.
Melanie Onn
That was not the first time the tampon tax issue had been brought to the House’s attention. If women’s issues and rights were put at the heart of every single policy at the outset of negotiations on them with the EU, we would not have been in that position in the first place.
Patrick Grady
Absolutely. A lot of it goes back to the case we were making before 23 June. We were saying not that everything was sweetness and light and that the European Union was perfect, but that there was an opportunity to play a constructive, more reforming role. That is certainly the role we see Scotland playing, if and when it becomes an independent member of the European Union.
Ms Ahmed-Sheikh
On taking back control, what we are actually talking about is taking back control and giving it to a Tory Government, who will have unfettered control over what to do. Whenever there has been an opportunity to deal with VAT, all Tory Governments have done is increase it. That does not give us much hope that if they did have control, they would reduce it.
Patrick Grady
Indeed. I am sure the Brexit Minister will feed back to his colleagues in the Treasury how keen Back Benchers are to liberate us from punitive VAT. The point touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh), and also mentioned by the hon. Member for Foyle, is about where the powers will lie once the great repeal Bill becomes law. Will they be held by this Parliament, or will the Government take more powers to make decisions by regulation?
Once that Bill has passed, that will be the so-called independence day. Of the 21,292 signatories to the petition that states that
“23 June should be designated as Independence Day, and celebrated annually”,
two were residents of my constituency. I therefore do not feel any particular need to speak strongly in favour of that petition. I suspect that in years to come, 23 June will not be a day for celebration. It may indeed end up as a day of deep regret, even for those who voted, earlier this year, to leave.
I sometimes wonder if I have woken up in a parallel universe and the independence day referred to is the day of Scotland becoming independent, because look at what has happened: the currency is plummeting; there is uncertainty for universities and industry; and we cannot even get our favourite brands from supermarket websites. That is what we were told would happen if Scotland became an independent country. That is why we had to vote no and stay in the United Kingdom. Perhaps I have completely misread the political situation.
Margaret Ferrier
On 18 April, the then Chancellor cited Treasury analysis that stated that the effect of Brexit would be to make every household £4,300 worse off, and to make Britain and its families permanently poorer. How much poorer does the Conservative party believe people in Scotland will be if we are pulled out of the EU? Is there an ongoing total?
Patrick Grady
That is a fair point. Again, we were told of all the doom, destruction, plagues and apocalypse that would come upon us if we became independent, much of which would be a result of us coming out of the European Union, and then it turns out that it has all happened as a result of us staying in the United Kingdom. The process is very contradictory. That is why Scotland reserves the right to look forward to its own independence day, should we choose that route.
We in the Scottish National party have always understood our independence to be defined by our inter-dependence. Independence in Europe is not a contradiction; it ought to be the definition of a modern, outward-looking country that wants to play its part in building a fairer society, at home and around the world. That—I have said this several times in this Chamber and elsewhere—is the difference between Scotland’s position in the Brexit debate, and the position of counties in the rest of the United Kingdom, and in England in particular. The previous Prime Minister gave his example of Oxfordshire, and we heard the example of Yorkshire mentioned, but as far as I am aware, neither Oxfordshire or Yorkshire has recently sought independence, neither has had a referendum, and neither has an Edinburgh agreement that says that it will be a valued, respected and equal part of the United Kingdom.
Scotland retains a right in principle to choose its own future, and indeed that was the subject of my debate here on the claim of right for Scotland. Instead, Brexit Britain risks becoming insular, inward-looking and closed in on itself, putting up barriers to people and seeing barriers to trade being put up against it. That is why the Scottish Government will do everything in their power to protect Scotland’s place in Europe.
We know that in the coming weeks serious proposals will emerge to show how Scotland could stay in the single market even if the rest of the United Kingdom leaves. The First Minister’s Standing Council on Europe continues to provide expert advice and work through the options. That is why the Scottish Government and all the devolved Assemblies’ genuine involvement in the Brexit process is so important. The question about it seeming to have been downgraded from some kind of involvement to some kind of consultation has come up time and again. If the Minister can respond on those points, I look forward to hearing what he says. The same goes for the question of the Scottish Parliament’s right to give or withhold its consent to a great reform Act. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) said, the exclusion of the Secretaries of State for the constituent nations of the United Kingdom from the Cabinet Committee on Brexit is yet another slap in the face. The one Conservative MP for Scotland is invested with responsibility as Secretary of State for Scotland, yet he is still excluded. That heaps insult on insult on the voters of Scotland.
A lot of the petitions were signed in the heat of the aftermath of 23 June. They are unlikely to be the last to be brought to us in Westminster Hall, but eventually we will have to stop debating and decide. The UK Government should not stand in the way of giving MPs a say, on behalf of their constituents, on the Brexit process. Waiting for the great repeal Bill—the great incorporation Bill is a more accurate name—is not enough.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), in his opening remarks, which were a helpful introduction to the debate, mentioned the “Independence Day” movie released the day after the European Union referendum. I am not sure how many hon. Members saw that movie, but I inform them that London, and the Palace of Westminster in particular, do not come off well. I suspect that the independence day the Brexiteers think they achieved on 23 June may end up proving to be similar.
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. Before I begin, may I say what a great process this is by which the public not just send us here but tell us what we ought to be discussing? I commend the excellent work of the Procedure Committee on bringing that about.
The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) asks whether and which EU laws will be devolved as part of the so-called great repeal Bill. I caution the Minister that the Bill will not really repeal anything and may turn out to be not so great. I congratulate him on his appointment, but he has a great deal on his shoulders as a newly appointed Minister—talk about being thrown in at the deep end. I wish him well, because it is in the interest of us all that he should do well in his post.
We have had some fantastic contributions this afternoon, and everyone spoke with heart. Rarely is there such quality and consistency in our debates. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) talked about the impact on the steel industry and said that he wants a second referendum. For various reasons I spent some time this summer trying to persuade members of my party that a second referendum would be a good idea. Now I consider that if we are to invoke article 50 quite as soon as the Prime Minister has suggested, that may not be practical. However, I fully understand the rationale for making that case. The reason is that we have no idea on what terms we intend to leave the European Union. I am not trying to be cheeky, but I wrote down what the hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Andrea Jenkyns) said, and I shall read out what I have written. She said that she does not recommend a blow-by-blow account, but she does not recommend doing it in the dark either. Well, I do not recommend doing it in the dark.
Jenny Chapman
The hon. Lady did say that. I think what we need from the Government is an understanding of the opening terms of debate of their negotiation. We understand that the terms with which a negotiation is opened may well not be what parties walk away with at the end; but surely if control is being brought back to Parliament, parliamentarians need some understanding of the Government’s opening position. I do not think that that is too much to ask. A White Paper, as suggested by the Secretary of State, seems to me a good idea, so that Members can debate and perhaps vote on the terms. We do not ask—just for clarity—to vote on invoking article 50; but we want to see the terms on which the Government intend to proceed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) spoke well about workers’ rights. She sees clearly that they are not red tape, and I completely agree with her. To her credit, she is introducing a Bill along those lines, and has asked the Minister to support it. I hope he might consider doing that, and perhaps he will let us know his position on the Bill.
The hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh) talked about chaos in Government, and she is right. There are conflicting statements coming from different Ministers. At Conservative conference the position, to be polite, appeared somewhat confused, with a lot of clarification after speeches. Perhaps the reason we do not have a clear idea from the Government of the opening terms is that they have not yet decided what they will be.
Geraint Davies
Does my hon. Friend accept that the triggering of article 50 will be a once-in-a-lifetime change and we will be out? Then there will be some discussion about the terms. In the light of that, does she agree that a case can be made for delaying the triggering of article 50, so that the emerging picture that the British public will have to confront is much clearer? I think they will have an increasing appetite for a referendum on the exit package and those terms. We are just being rushed through the door only to find that the other side is full of gas and fire.
Jenny Chapman
My hon. Friend makes a good point. What matters is that we get some consideration of the opening terms before article 50. That is the point. Whether that is done through a referendum or a debate and a vote in the House, the Government can proceed in various ways. However, my hon. Friend is right that to invoke article 50 before we have had that consideration would be irresponsible. It is for the Minister now to explain how he intends to involve parliamentarians and elected representatives in the devolved Administrations.
I thought that the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) made some extremely interesting points, and not just about the border. We are all concerned about issues of customs and the border with Ireland. I know that Ministers will be keenly considering the possibility of the Republic’s becoming part of Schengen. However, as the hon. Gentleman explained, there is a host of other issues to do with the delicate—that was his word—democracy in Northern Ireland and the Republic. That alone is worth considerable debate, and I expect that colleagues from Northern Ireland will insist on time being given to that set of issues.
I thank the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) for his helpful introduction on behalf of the Petitions Committee. He did a good job of balancing the conflicting opinions posed in the petitions, but it was an impossible task, because they are so contradictory. That brings home to me the level of interest in the issue that there is in the country, and the tricky balancing act that the Government will have to perform to satisfy those conflicting concerns. I suggest to the Minister that one way in which he might like to go about things is with a little more transparency and by being a bit more forthright in explaining what he thinks is the right position for the UK Government.
Paul Scully
As a point of clarification, the only petition that had reached the signature threshold that would normally mean it was considered for debate was the first one, about invoking article 50 immediately. However, we wanted to make sure that the views of as many as people as possible were included.
Jenny Chapman
It is to the Committee’s credit that it sought to reflect wider public views, including some that had not attracted as many signatures. However, having reflected on some of today’s contributions and some from last week’s debate, I want to be clear that Labour Members, above all else—and those of us present for the debate would have favoured a remain outcome—are democrats. The referendum result requires that we leave the European Union. Labour respects and accepts that, and so do I; no caveats.
On the issue of freedom of movement, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), the shadow Secretary of State, said last week, there was just one question on the ballot paper on 23 June:
“Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”
It would be wrong for any Member here, or campaigner elsewhere, to read into the result a blank cheque for their own policy prescription on immigration. The referendum result is not a mandate to remake Britain in Nigel Farage’s image, and, as the Foreign Secretary said last week, it is not a mandate to “haul up the drawbridge”. It would be foolish for the country to turn its back on the great talents of the world who want to contribute to our prosperity and way of life. Equally, it would shame the Government should we turn our backs on the EU citizens in our towns, cities and rural communities who already contribute to our prosperity and way of life.
Geraint Davies
My hon. Friend says that we should respect the referendum. Everybody does respect it, but does she agree that it is not inconsistent both to respect that judgment and, when we have the exit terms and know precisely what we are getting—in terms of the balance between migration, market access and cost—to put it again to the British people: “Is this what you had in mind, because this is a once-and-for-ever decision”? It is consistent to respect the first referendum and have an exit package referendum.
Jenny Chapman
It is. I am not arguing that my hon. Friend is being inconsistent. I am just suggesting that it may not be practical, given the situation in which we find ourselves, and given the timetable on which the Government seem to be embarking. Had the Prime Minister suggested that article 50 be invoked after we agreed terms, perhaps in a year or in 18 months’ time, there might have been more chance of what my hon. Friend desires. I am grateful to see him smile.
On immigration, we feel strongly that people from the EU who are here, working and contributing, should be welcome to stay. However, just as it would be wrong to read a UKIP-shaped mandate into the referendum result, it would also be wrong to deny that concern over free movement was one of the major reasons that many people voted to leave the European Union. It is clear that the status quo on free movement cannot continue, and Labour accepts the need for managed migration. Establishing rules on fair migration will need to be a central part of our Brexit negotiations, and Labour will hold the Government to account to make sure this difficult and sensitive issue is addressed with far greater decency and respect than was displayed at their Birmingham conference earlier this month.
On the timing of the triggering of article 50, a lot can be said on the lack of forethought shown by those who presented a referendum to the British people but who prepared no strategy for the eventuality of a leave vote. Similarly, a lot can be said on the standing of those who brought us to this position and then exited stage right into early retirement. We are now in a position in which the United Kingdom is readying itself to enter into an incredibly important negotiation process, the twists and turns of which will have a lasting impact for decades to come, yet we have no agreed plan for how to proceed in the national interest, to safeguard what we value most and to achieve the changes most desired by the people we are here to represent.
In their official response to the petition, the Government said:
“The British people have voted to leave the EU and their will must be respected and delivered. We should not trigger Article 50 until we have a UK approach and objectives.”
I emphasise the bit about having a “UK approach and objectives” to the Minister. He needs to explain exactly what the “UK approach and objectives” might be; he needs to tell us how he will reflect the will of the House —the whole House—in his approach and his objectives; and he needs to tell us how he intends to involve Parliament in that process.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Robin Walker)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. May I also thank the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) for his earlier chairmanship of this wide-ranging debate? When studying these petitions, I recognised there was a wide range of views reflected in them. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) did an excellent job of reflecting on those views in his introduction. As we have seen, the debate has gone even wider in some respects, touching on a number of things beyond even the six petitions we are debating.
I thank the hon. Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) for her kind welcome and assure her that I take the responsibilities she referred to very seriously. As someone who, like probably the majority of Members in the Chamber, campaigned on the remain side in the referendum, but who now recognises that we have to reflect on the mandate of the British people and deliver on that, I am determined to make sure we do that in a way that addresses some of the concerns that I and other Members raised during that campaign, but that delivers on what the British people have voted for.
As others have pointed out, it is a healthy development in our democracy that petitions that receive substantial support should be debated in Parliament. This is not the first petitions debate we have had; indeed, we have had some excellent debates already on issues such as the devolved Administrations and on having a second referendum. I am sorry that my hon. Friend—sorry, the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies); he was my friend when we served together on the Welsh Affairs Committee—was not there for the debate on the second referendum, because he might have been the only speaker in that debate to support what the petition called for. There were 13 speakers, including many from Labour and the Scottish National party, who all accepted that rerunning the referendum was not the right approach. Perhaps we missed his eloquent advocacy on that occasion.
Geraint Davies
I did not speak in that debate because I was speaking on behalf of socialists from 47 countries, as a member of the Socialist Group in the Council of Europe in Strasbourg. I spoke about the monstrosity and disaster of Brexit—the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) was there as well—and explained the reason we might need a second referendum, if what is negotiated by the Minister and his Department does not resemble in the slightest the reasonable expectations of those who voted to leave.
Mr Walker
I am grateful for that illustration of the hon. Gentleman’s views, but I think it is important that, in responding to this debate, I focus on the six petitions before us today, which were described with typical eloquence by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) as a “six pack”, with a wide variety of flavours.
To cover the full Government response, let me first reiterate the Government’s approach to this important process. It is a process we have only one opportunity to get right, so it is right to take the correct amount of time over it. We have been consulting with a broad range of stakeholders following the referendum result, which it is right to do, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam pointed out. We are consulting with the devolved Administrations, with the overseas territories and crown dependencies, with businesses and with other interest groups to build a national consensus across the whole of the United Kingdom on our negotiating position. We will continue to involve the devolved Administrations in preparing the UK’s position.
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union and the rest of the ministerial team have already heard from a wide variety of sectors and stakeholders. We will also be holding a series of roundtables in the coming weeks on a variety of topics, including aviation, life sciences, financial services, agriculture and fisheries and many more. Engagement will continue through a range of bilateral meetings, visits across the United Kingdom, and the Joint Ministerial Council, which engages senior figures from the devolved Administrations. That process is about building an informed and strong negotiating position for the whole UK, and I do not share the pessimism of the hon. Member for Swansea West on that position. I would gently point out, to a colleague for whom I have great respect, that the petition he spoke to, which had 4 million signatures, was not advocated or defended by any Member who spoke in that debate and does not appear to have the support of his own Front-Bench team or many Members of the House.
Three of the petitions we are discussing today concern article 50, when we will invoke it and how. Let me be clear: the British people have voted to leave the European Union, and their will must be respected and delivered on, but the process for leaving the EU and determining our future relationship is complex. I acknowledge that the largest petition we are debating—as my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam pointed out, it is the only one that would have reached the attention of the Petitions Committee on its own—calls for us to exercise article 50 with immediate effect. However, by not triggering article 50 immediately after the referendum—as the leader of the Labour party, the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), originally suggested—we have given ourselves the time to develop a UK-wide negotiating strategy and to avoid setting the clock ticking until our objectives are clear and agreed.
It is also right that the Government should not let things drag on too long. We have had pressure both internally, as we can see from the petition, and externally, from some of our counterparts on the continent, who are clear that they want us to get on with the process. As the Prime Minister made clear, we will trigger article 50 before the end of March next year. That should reassure those who, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam probably rightly said, signed the petition thinking article 50 might never be invoked that we are getting on with the process and preparing the ground to make sure we can do that in the most effective way possible.
Geraint Davies
If I could ask for some clarification about the timing, is the objective of the Minister’s Department to try to reach certain negotiating goals, which are private at the moment, before the March deadline? If they do not reach those goals, is there any flexibility to manage the deadline in order to maximise the benefits for the British people, or is it just a hard Brexit—“You get what you get; that’s tough”?
Mr Walker
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, but as for setting out negotiating goals, he should be clear about what the Commission and Council have said about the article 50 process: that they do not want negotiations before it has started. Of course we need to prepare the strongest possible position for the UK, and we will engage where we can to make sure we set the terms for those negotiations, but it is not possible to pre-negotiate any particular deal ahead of the formal article 50 process, so I think he is perhaps setting unrealistic expectations.
Mr Walker
No; I think the hon. Gentleman has had plenty of opportunity to speak already.
In terms of Parliament’s involvement—this is important; the hon. Member for Darlington rightly challenged us to make sure Parliament has an important role to play—we had an excellent debate last Wednesday, in which there was wide agreement that parliamentary scrutiny will play an important role in this process. I welcome the Opposition’s acceptance of the Government’s amendment, which made it clear that we should come forward, engage with the House and listen to the views of the House, but also ensure that we do nothing to prejudice the Government’s negotiating position—if I can paraphrase it that way. That was a sensible compromise in the debate last week.
As hon. Members will be aware, the Government’s position is that triggering article 50 is a prerogative power that can be exercised by the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Andrea Jenkyns) spoke about her work in the campaign to let Britain decide, and that is certainly a campaign I recognise. Even though I ended up on the remain side of the argument, I voted early on in my career for the British people to have their say through a referendum. Trusting the people has been a key part of the Government’s policy and the right approach to take. It is notable that the European Union Referendum Bill achieved cross-party support and passed through both Houses—I think by six to one. Parliament was clear, as were the Government, that it was for the people to decide whether to remain in the European Union or to leave, which the Government’s leaflet set out clearly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam pointed out.
However, Parliament will clearly have a role in ensuring we find the best way forward. The Department for Exiting the European Union will consider the detailed arrangements to provide for that. We have already enjoyed a number of excellent debates in both this Chamber and the main Chamber. While I am grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) for his suggestion that this Chamber be renamed, I think it might be early in the day for that.
Jenny Chapman
I am grateful to the Minister for his response to my query about the role of Parliament, but he is still being rather vague. He has said that his Department will come back with some more clear ideas about how Parliament will be involved. When should we expect that?
Mr Walker
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has set out that he is approaching the usual channels to ask how that can be done. We have had some queries about Government time. We would certainly like to look into that and see how it can be dealt with. I am about to come to the important role of the European Communities Act 1972 repeal Bill and the role Parliament will have to play in that. It is clear from the cross-party views expressed in last week’s debate that Parliament has an important role to play in scrutiny as we prepare for this process.
The second largest petition we are dealing with today calls for the immediate repeal of the European Communities Act 1972. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union have set out that we will introduce primary legislation in the next parliamentary Session that, when enacted, will repeal the European Communities Act 1972 on the day we leave the European Union. The Bill will transfer current EU law into domestic law, while allowing for amendments that ensure we have a functioning statute book at the point at which we leave the European Union.
Repealing the ECA now, as some have suggested—although nobody has suggested it in this debate—without having a withdrawal agreement in place would simply not work. It would be a breach of international and EU law to withdraw unilaterally from the EU. Such a breach could create a hostile environment in which to negotiate either a new relationship with the remaining EU member states or new trade agreements with non-EU countries. We are clear, therefore, that while ECA repeal is a necessary part of the process, it should be consequent to the legally correct article 50 process.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) mentioned her proposed Bill on workers’ rights. We will need to engage with that at the appropriate time, but I direct her to the clear statement from the Secretary of State on 10 October, in which he said:
“I have given an undertaking that there will be no reversal of the protection of workers’ rights, as has the Prime Minister. Indeed, she has gone beyond that and said that there will be an expansion of that protection.”—[Official Report, 10 October 2016; Vol. 615, c. 66.]
The Prime Minister has set out the ambition of enhancing the workers’ rights we have. We will come to debate the Bill proposed by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby at the appropriate time, but we should certainly ensure we enshrine those rights as we move forward in this process.
Melanie Onn
On the point about bringing forward legislation and amendments to ensure that law will be functional, does that not risk opening the gates to other areas of legislation and going beyond making the law functional in this country? It could put some of our legislation at risk from further debate by people who might not support some European legislation.
Mr Walker
Whenever a Bill is put before Parliament, there is an opportunity for further debate about the premises of that Bill, but the Government’s intention in this process is to translate the existing body of law. The advice we have taken to date, which is not necessarily the final advice, is that European Court of Justice jurisprudence would continue to apply in domestic law unless or until it is overturned following withdrawal. I hope that provides the hon. Lady with some assurance. We will debate that issue at another time.
Free movement was one of the key issues debated in the EU referendum. I recognise the point made by the hon. Member for Darlington that we cannot necessarily read into the result of the referendum every possible interpretation. I also welcome her statement that the Labour party wants to engage in this debate. That represents significant progress from where we have sometimes been in the past. As the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have made clear, as we conduct our negotiations, it must be a priority to regain more control of the number of people who come here from Europe. The precise way in which the Government will control the movement of EU nationals is yet to be determined, and we are carefully considering the options open to us.
I recognise many of the views expressed today. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam made it clear that we will want to continue to attract the brightest and the best. In my own Department, we have plenty to keep us occupied and to be working on. This will not be our decision in isolation. The whole range of Government, including other Departments such as the Home Office and the Treasury, will want to look at this, and we will want to come up with a system that works.
As the Prime Minister has said, there is no single silver bullet that is the answer to dealing with immigration. We have to look at the whole range of issues, from the rules we have for people coming into the country to how we deal with abuse of the system. That will be an important part of our considerations.
Jenny Chapman
While the Minister is on the topic of immigration, has his Secretary of State enabled him to say anything about EU nationals currently resident and working here?
Mr Walker
I will reiterate what the Secretary of State has said: it is absolutely his intention to secure the rights of EU nationals who are currently working here, but we must also secure the rights of British nationals working in the EU. That will be a priority as we go into the negotiations. I can reassure Members that Parliament will continue to have a very important role in scrutinising this and the Government’s further policies on immigration.
Finally, I come to the idea of having a new bank holiday called independence day. There have been a number of references to the film of that name. Alas, I am afraid that the Government have no current plans to create another permanent UK bank holiday. Tempting though it might be, an independence day would face fierce competition from the likes of Saint George’s day, Trafalgar day and many more. Within this context, it is hard to commit to 23 June over its many rivals. Unfortunately, it is just too costly, in the view of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, to introduce another holiday at this stage. When that Department analysed the impact of an additional holiday for the diamond jubilee, it was found to cost employers more than £1 billion.
We had questions from two Northern Irish colleagues—the hon. Members for South Down (Ms Ritchie) and for Foyle—about the position of the UK Government with regard to the Good Friday agreement, or Belfast agreement, and subsequent agreements of that sort. That is not the subject of this debate, but I refer them to the detailed evidence that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and I gave to the House of Lords EU Select Committee last week. I assure the hon. Member for Foyle that the UK Government stand by all their commitments under the Good Friday agreement and subsequent agreements. I have been out with the Secretary of State to the Republic of Ireland, where we had very good and useful talks on a number of matters of shared interest. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will continue to work as closely as we can with the devolved Administrations and our friends in the Republic of Ireland.
To sum up, I reassure Members that the Government are committed to getting the best deal for Britain, and that the Department is working hard to develop our negotiating position as we prepare to commence the formal process of exiting the EU. Our instructions from the British people are clear, and we must move ahead. This debate has provided a valuable opportunity to discuss some of the issues and the process, but what is most important is that we make a success of our negotiations. I welcome the role that this debate will play in supporting that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam said, we must create certainty for businesses and investors as we go through this process, and I am confident that we will continue to do that.
Paul Scully
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I thank and congratulate everyone who has contributed to this fantastic, wide-ranging, informative and, as was mentioned, entertaining debate. We must be optimistic and, as I said in my opening remarks, we must lift our heads and look up to the world as a whole, trading with Europe and every other continent. We must do what we can as parliamentarians to reduce the uncertainty for business and for the population as a whole.
We have heard the rhetoric, post-referendum, that leaving the EU will be a disaster, and there is an idea in some quarters that we should rerun the referendum. The rhetoric was that because the campaign was divisive, terrible and low grade, we should do it all again, but that is the wrong way to proceed. Let us make the most of it.
When I was asked during debates what my Brexit would look like, I said, “If we win the campaign, we need to include everyone in the discussion of what Brexit should look like.” Let us continue to do that, and let us work together to make this work for everyone: the 48% who wanted to remain, the component parts of the UK, the devolved Assemblies and Parliaments of all its countries, every area, every industry, and not least—we have talked about freedom of movement—people from all countries, to make sure we do not have the Faragist Britain that has been described.
I notice that I am wearing the British Bangladeshi Power and Inspiration 100 badge that I had on last night. It celebrates the achievements of Bangladeshis who have come here, integrated, had fantastic success and achieved so much in their life. There are people around the world whom we need to attract to make sure that we have the best and the brightest in the country.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petitions 133618, 125333, 123324, 154593, 133767 and 133540 relating to the UK’s exit from the European Union.
Written Statements
(7 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Competitiveness Council
(7 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Jesse Norman)
My noble friend, the Minister of State for the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has made the following written statement:
I represented the UK at the recent meeting of the Competitiveness Council in Brussels on Thursday 29 September.
The Council started with the regular competitiveness check-up. The Commissioner for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, Elzbieta Bienkowska, outlined the challenges faced by start-ups and scale-ups in Europe, particularly in comparison to businesses in the US. In the subsequent exchange of views, the key themes were the need to advertise available sources of funding for start-ups; the lack of access to risk capital; and the importance of providing effective support at regional and national levels. A proposal for a joint meeting of competitiveness and ECOFIN Ministers to discuss this issue was met with broad support. I intervened to express support for the focus on scale-ups and shared an example of UK best practice through the British Business Bank.
The next item was the collaborative (sharing) economy. A Commission presentation was followed by discussion in which several member states stressed the need for collaborative economy businesses to respect existing legislation and tax compliance. I intervened to support the Commission’s vision, as outlined in the recently issued guidance. As part of my intervention I highlighted initiatives by organisations such as Sharing Economy UK (SEUK) to promote responsible growth within the sector.
The next item was a presentation on the standardisation package. The core element of the package is the voluntary joint initiative on standardisation, which brings together all the actors of the standardisation community. A large number of standards-setting bodies and industry representatives signed it in June. The majority of member states signed it in the margins of the Council. I signed on behalf of the UK.
Over lunch, Ministers were joined by Jean-Louis Marchand, President of the European Industry Construction Federation (FIEC) to discuss the construction sector. There was agreement on the importance of the construction industry to the EU economy and the need to increase investment in the sector, including through the use of existing financial instruments. The role of digitisation was recognised, as was the need to remove barriers in the internal market. I highlighted a number of UK initiatives, such as building information modelling (BIM) and smart meters, where digitisation has been used to support innovation in the sector. I also cited the forthcoming services card (formerly known as the services passport) as an important mechanism to support the provision of cross-border services. Commissioner Bienkowska said that the card needed to tackle both regulatory and administrative barriers if it was going to add real value.
The afternoon session started with a discussion on the European steel industry. It focused on EU action since the start of the steel crisis in 2014. Commissioner Bienkowska said that she had been working closely with the Commissioner for Trade, Cecilia Malmstr?m to alleviate the impact of the pressures faced by Europe’s steel industry. She said that a level playing field was needed to make the industry fit for globalisation and highlighted the problems caused by global overcapacity and dumping. Many member states called on the Commission to bring forward its proposal on market economy status for China as soon as possible, with reform of the EU emissions trading system, energy costs and the circular economy also recurring themes. I intervened to welcome the establishment of the global forum on steel, as agreed at the G20 in September 2016.
The next item was a discussion on industrial policy in Europe. Several member states called on the Commission to commit to an ambitious and proactive industrial strategy in its forthcoming 2017 work programme. The Commission welcomed the initiative by highlighting all the work that was on-going to support industry. This was followed by an item focused on Europe’s transition to a low-carbon economy, on which no member state intervened.
The Slovak presidency then introduced the item on the unitary patent and the Unified Patent Court (UPC). The Commission noted that only two further ratifications were needed to bring the UPC into effect, and highlighted the urgency with which this was awaited by business. I intervened to commend the work that has gone into the UPC and said that the UK was actively looking into resolving the legal and practical challenges quickly and would provide a further update at the next Competitiveness Council.
The penultimate item was an update on a May conference on the challenge of balancing plant breeders’ rights with patent rights. The Commission noted that any solution should not re-open the biotech directive, but was working on guidance to clarify its effect.
Finally, the Commission presented on the proposed review of the supplementary protection certificate (SPC) regulation, specifically the introduction of the SPC manufacturing waiver. While some member states intervened to highlight the importance of the waiver, others outlined their misgivings, arguing that the right balance already exists between the rights of brand-name and generic pharmaceuticals manufacturers.
[HCWS193]
UNCRC
(7 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Vulnerable Children and Families (Edward Timpson)
The UK state party is a proud signatory of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) and today I want to reinforce this commitment.
The articles under the UNCRC set out a vision that all children—regardless of background or circumstance—develop their full potential, free from hunger and want, neglect and abuse. These principles reflect our own drive and commitment to social mobility and the ambitious reforms we each lead to ensure that Britain is country that works for everyone.
The 5th periodic reporting cycle with the United Nations concluded in June 2016. The UN Committee scrutinised the UK state party’s progress in implementing the CRC since our last report in 2008, and in July 2016 published their concluding observations.
I welcome these concluding observations. They recognise the great strides we have taken to make sure that all children have the opportunity to flourish and grow. For example, efforts taken to improve mental health services, improvements to law to ensure that children live in safe and loving environments, improvements to supporting and protecting asylum-seeking children and ensuring that all children have access to high-quality education. Indeed, all Government Departments play a role in building a society where everyone has fair and equal opportunities to go as far as their talent and their hard work will allow. And our policies recognise that children are far from secondary in this vision.
Alongside the celebration of our achievements, the Committee also offered recommendations on areas that require additional attention or greater push for change. As we each look to our ambitious programmes of reform to make sure that Britain is a country that works for everyone, I encourage you to reflect on these recommendations; for example, by reflecting the voice of the child fully in the design and implementation of policy.
Both the UNCRC articles and concluding recommendations serve as a helpful and important guide to making sure that our policies—whether they hold direct or indirect consequences—consider children.
My Department will issue the Committee’s concluding recommendations across Whitehall this week. I encourage all Departments to read these recommendations and take them into account as we work together to achieve social mobility.
[HCWS194]
Environment Council
(7 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
I am attending the EU Environment Council in Luxembourg on the 17 October, along with my hon Friend the Minister of State for Climate Change and Industry (Nick Hurd MP).
Following adoption of the agenda, the list of “A” items will be approved.
Under legislative activities the Council will debate proposals for a regulation on binding annual greenhouse gas emissions reductions by member states from 2021 to 2030 and on the inclusion of greenhouse gas emissions and removals from land use, land use change and forestry into the 2030 climate and energy framework.
Under non-legislative activities, the Council will aim to adopt Council conclusions on the convention on biological diversity and sustainable water management.
The following items are due to be discussed under Any Other Business:
a) 28th Meeting of the Parties (MOP 28) to the Montreal protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer (Kigali, Rwanda, 10 to 14 October 2016).
b) Communication on decarbonisation of the transport strategy.
c) 17th Meeting of the Conference of the parties (COP 17) to the convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) (Johannesburg, South Africa, 24 September to 5 October 2016).
d) 39th International Civil Aviation Organisation Assembly (Montreal, Canada, 27 September to 7 October 2016).
e) Unspent funds from the New Entrants Reserve (NER300) funding programme.
f) Natural resources management on the example of Bialowieza Forest: repercussions for Europe.
g) Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the reduction of national emissions of certain atmospheric pollutants and amending directive 2003/35/EC (NEC)—lessons learnt.
[HCWS192]
General Affairs Council and Foreign Affairs Council (Trade)
(7 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Mr David Jones)
The General Affairs Council (GAC) on Tuesday 18 October is expected to focus on: preparation of the October European Council; legislative programming and the inter-institutional agreement (IIA) on ‘better law-making’; and the mid-term review of the multiannual financial framework.
I will also represent the Government at an extraordinary meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council (Trade) dedicated to the comprehensive economic and trade agreement with Canada (CETA).
Preparation of the October European Council
Ministers will discuss the draft conclusions of the European Council. The European Council itself will take place on Thursday 20 and Friday 21 October. The agenda covers migration, trade and EU policy toward Russia; this item will include a discussion on Russia’s recent actions in Syria. The UK will play a full part in the discussion on these issues both at the GAC and at the European Council.
Legislative programming and the inter-institutional agreement on ‘Better Law-Making’
In April this year a new inter-institutional agreement on better law making was adopted. One provision of this is that following the adoption of the Commission Work programme by the Commission, the Commission, Council and European Parliament will issue a joint declaration setting out the top priorities and objectives for the year ahead. The Slovak presidency is expected to update Ministers on the process surrounding the joint declaration.
Multiannual financial framework
This will be a follow-up to the introductory discussion that took place at the last GAC on 20 September. Final decisions will be taken later in the year.
Comprehensive economic and trade agreement with Canada (CETA)
The presidency has also scheduled an extraordinary meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council in trade formation with a view to agreeing Council decisions on the signing, provisional application and conclusion of the comprehensive economic and trade agreement with Canada (CETA), before it is sent for deliberation by the European Parliament and for full ratification by all EU member states. CETA is an important trade agreement for the UK in terms of the economic benefit it will bring to British businesses while we remain a member of the EU.
[HCWS195]
Healthcare Safety Investigations
(7 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
“There is a culture within many parts of the NHS which deters staff from raising serious and sensitive concerns and which not infrequently has negative consequences for those brave enough to raise them”
(Sir Robert Francis QC, Freedom to Speak Up report - http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/2015021815 0343/https:/freedomtospeakup.org.uk).
The NHS has an excellent track record in recruiting and developing the very best—the brightest, the most dedicated and the most caring. Our staff have a passion for providing the highest quality care that they can, and a commitment to continuously improving their knowledge and their skills. We must not forget that what staff learn through the experience of giving care is at least as valuable as what they are taught in the lecture theatre. Learning through experience is the key to improving the quality of people's care. This includes learning from mistakes.
We need to create the right conditions to enable staff to learn from their experiences, including their mistakes. All too often, they tell us that there is a culture of blaming, not learning. That is why the Government want to change the atmosphere in which NHS staff work.
There is a strong connection between ‘psychological safety’ and a culture of learning within an organisation. In a true culture of learning, staff can feel confident they will be treated fairly, and patients and families can be assured that errors and the causes of them will be fully explored. Creating and sustaining this broader culture of psychological safety and learning is down to leaders and managers in the system. For them to be able to do so, the Department of Health, as steward of the health system, needs to set the right conditions for such a culture to flourish.
Recent inquiries have illustrated that staff need to feel more confident that the information they give to safety investigations, which have the sole function of learning from errors, will not be used unfairly. That is why we are proposing to create a “safe space”—a statutory requirement that information generated as part of a safety investigation will be kept confidential and will not be shared outside the investigation’s boundaries, except in a number of limited circumstances.
This is used currently by the Air Accident Investigation Branch (AAIB), where investigators are able to offer this safe space to those they speak to, thanks to the robust statutory framework in which they work, arising from regulation-making powers in primary legislation. A key aspect of this statutory framework is the duty not to share information given in the course of an investigation with any other individual or body, unless (usually) there is a High Court order.
The proposal outlined in this consultation is to create a statutory prohibition on the disclosure of material obtained during certain health service investigations unless the High Court makes an order permitting disclosure, or in a limited number of other circumstances.
This broadly mirrors the regime followed in the area of air accidents investigations. It would allow the investigator to say to staff involved in incidents:
“This investigation is not to attribute blame. The information you give me as part of this investigation will not be passed on to those not involved in the investigation unless there is a High Court order, or if the information you provide demonstrates to me there is an active and ongoing threat to patient safety represented by the practice or actions of one or more individuals that requires action”.
The safe space approach is designed to improve patient safety standards over time, by enabling clinicians to discuss openly and honestly their experiences, including aspects of care that ought to be improved. These are valuable lessons that others can learn from, and will improve standards, potentially across the whole system. By concentrating on finding these more widely applicable lessons, safe space investigations will address themes rather than re-examine specific cases. But should the investigation uncover evidence of immediate risks to patient safety, criminal activity, serious misconduct or seriously deficient performance then the police or relevant professional regulator will be informed and will take the appropriate immediate action.
Creating a safe space is also a difficult balance to achieve—between reassuring staff that the information they give will not be passed on, while also reassuring patients and families that they have the full facts of their, or their loved one, care. We all want the standard of that care to get better and better each year. The purpose of this consultation is to seek the views of patients, the public and the professionals who work in the NHS about our proposed approach. In particular, we want to find out from them about what needs to be changed, added, or strengthened in order to achieve the learning not blaming culture that will underpin quality improvement in the NHS.
Attachments can be viewed online at: http://www.parliament. uk/business/publications.
[HCWS191]
House of Lords
St Helena: Airport
(7 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they now expect commercial flights to start at the airport in St Helena.
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, scheduled commercial flights will begin when the conditions are considered safe to do so and the St Helena Government are able to contract an airline with the right aircraft and regulatory approval so that St Helena can develop its tourism industry and become less dependent on UK financial support.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
My Lords, I warmly welcome the noble Lord back to the House—
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I understand he has raised a huge amount of money for charity, which we all commend him for. I also welcome him to the Front Bench. It gives me hope—and I hope it will not be shattered. I want to help him today. Is he aware that Atlantic Star Airlines is willing to start a commercial air service with British Aerospace Avro RJ100 jets—a British company with British jets? It is sending a test plane this week and it reckons it can start the service within weeks. Will the Minister look into it and, if it is possible, get the service started as quickly as possible?
Lord Bates
First, I thank the noble Lord for his warm welcome. As he is a distinguished alumnus of the Department for International Development, as a Minister in that department, I particularly appreciate his praise. I know he has taken a great interest in the specific point he raised, and we are grateful for that. He mentioned Atlantic Star Airlines. We are aware that that flight is heading out from Zurich and is due to arrive on Friday this week. It is a kind of test flight, I suppose. The contracting of the commercial arrangements is a matter for the St Helena Government, but Her Majesty’s Government have made it very clear that we want to find an operator as soon as possible so that the airport can begin commercial flights and improve tourism on that island which we both care so much about.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I welcome my noble friend back to the Front Bench and to the service of the House. I suggest to him that, given the assiduous nature of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, on this matter, it might be a good idea to arrange for him to be sent to St Helena on the first commercial flight.
Lord Bates
I think that exile is a matter for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and negotiated through the usual channels.
Lord Shutt of Greetland (LD)
My Lords, I, too, welcome the noble Lord to his new role. It is now nearly six months since the announcement that the airport was not going to open. It has been a disastrous six months for St Helena, not knowing about the airport or whether the sea service was going to continue. Bearing in mind that the first call on the overseas aid budget is to look to the overseas territories, does the Minister agree that it would be right for some of those extra resources for overseas aid to be used to assist people who are trying their best in the tourism industry in St Helena, which was bereft of tourists this summer, so that those businesses can be kept afloat?
Lord Bates
Those specific points about compensation are a matter for the St Helena Government, and representations should be made there. But the Government are committed to this. That is why, when asked about the flight, I said Her Majesty’s Government would be looking to provide a subsidy during the initial period to ensure that that flight can operate. That is why we have also said that we are committed to ensuring that the Royal Mail Ship “St Helena” continues in service until June next year and why we have also commissioned these additional pieces of research to look particularly at the issue of wind shear—which, of course, is stopping some of those flights from coming in. I totally agree with the noble Lord on the importance of this.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, a fully functioning airport is absolutely vital, but there is an important lesson to be learned here. I asked the previous Minister about the contract for the airport and what risk assessments were undertaken. We were assured originally by the last Government that the contract would shift all the risk to the private contractor. It is important for the future that we learn the lessons from this huge and important investment so that we do not make the same mistakes again. Can he assure us that that will happen?
Lord Bates
I have read the remarks that the noble Lord made in the debate in, I think, June 2014, about the contract with Basil Read. It is important to say that the problem is not necessarily with the airport—the structure is good, strong and sound—but with the wind shear. It is important, particularly in areas of international development, that we ensure that British taxpayers’ money is spent wisely. That is why the Major Projects Authority and now the Infrastructure and Projects Authority have undertaken gateway reviews every year. The noble Lord may also be aware that the National Audit Office looked into this airport in June this year and published a report to say that the business case put forward by the previous Labour Government was in fact sound.
Lord Spicer (Con)
My Lords, if they can build a runway on St Helena in the wrong place, why can we not build one over here in the right place, at Heathrow Airport?
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, I join in the chorus of praise and welcome for the noble Lord. He actually tries to answer questions, which is a major benefit. In respect of the contract, a major mistake has potentially been made. Everyone knew that the winds were extremely fierce around the islands, so why was nothing done? What lessons have been learned and was anyone held responsible for what clearly was a failure of preparation?
Lord Bates
The noble Lord says that, but the wind was tested by the technical advisers and advice was taken from the Met Office. The issue came to light only when flights attempted to land in April, and of course we have to have the highest regard for public safety. It has been approved by Air Safety Support International as a category C airport, which is the same as London City Airport or Gibraltar Airport, for example. It is possible to see that it is used. Lessons need to be learned, of course, which is one of the reasons why, at the instigation of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, we are having a meeting for all interested Peers on 25 October between 1 pm and 2 pm in Committee Room 10A. I am very happy to extend that invitation to the noble Lord.
Sharing Economy
(7 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Holmes of Richmond
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to ensure that the United Kingdom becomes a global centre for innovation and growth in the sharing economy.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)
The Government commissioned an independent review on how to unblock the value of the sharing economy. Debbie Wosskow reported in 2014 and we have implemented many of her recommendations. The Government will consider whether further steps can be taken to support innovation in this area in their industrial strategy.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, growth in key areas of the sharing economy, not least transport and housing, is to rise from 5% in 2014 to over 50% in 2025. Could my noble friend write to all relevant departments to ask what plans they have to make sure that we capture all the benefits of the sharing economy? In addition, how are things going with the two proposed hubs in this area which were announced in the 2015 Budget?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Part of the process of developing the industrial strategy is of course to bring in information from other departments on how major changes in the economy are affecting them. One of the things that we ensure when consulting business is that we always include the sharing economy element in those discussions. I will write to my noble friend about the hubs.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab)
My Lords, it is 60 years ago today that Britain became a world pioneer when Her Majesty the Queen opened the nuclear power station at Calder Hall. Nuclear power has plugged our energy gap for the past 60 years. When will the Government try to have some extra innovation and look at wave power so that we can plug the gap in the energy demands of the future?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
As the new Energy Minister, I have been struck by the range of opportunities in energy. On nuclear, we have made the decision to go ahead with Hinkley and a potential whole new generation of nuclear power stations. We are looking at all these other areas and we have innovation expenditure. We will be sharing our thoughts further in due course—for example, in the context of the contract for difference decisions that are due in the coming weeks.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
In her Answer, the Minister claimed that the Government are protecting our global position as a world leader in innovation and growth. Could she then explain why, in the race for Brexit, they are shutting the door on the very global talent that we need—particularly for tech start-ups—to come to this country from Europe and the rest of the world?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
The noble Baroness is right that skills—especially digital skills—are important to our economy. We are extremely aware of that, including in the context of the Brexit discussions. I am sure she knows about all that we have done to ensure that we can get diverse digital skills from abroad, where that is appropriate, and to develop digital skills here in the UK, both through lifelong learning education and, more importantly, in schools, with computing now being part of the curriculum from five to 16.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, in the last Administration the noble Baroness was a Minister not just in BIS but in DCMS—a post that she has now had to give up, although I in no sense cast any aspersions on her very successful successor. Since that Administration, the creative economy has been moved back to DCMS and higher education has been carved out and sent back to DfE. Given that she talked about the industrial strategy that is coming, and that we are all looking forward to, what arrangements are going to be made to ensure that the work on that will not be restricted to BIS?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I can give the noble Lord that assurance. Obviously an industrial strategy has to be wide-ranging and, as I have said, key things such as the development of the digital economy and skills have to be at the heart of that. There is a Cabinet committee under the Prime Minister looking at the development of the industrial strategy, and that is bringing together the strands of work across Whitehall. There have been departmental changes; we have gathered energy—a major and important area—and I am trying to get to grips with its important challenges.
Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon (LD)
My Lords, on the subject of the industrial strategy, I draw noble Lords’ attention to the situation in Yeovil, which is the last integrated site capable of designing, manufacturing and assembling helicopters. As a result of the Government’s short-sighted decision to grant the order for the Apache to the United States without any tendering whatever, the Italian owner, Leonardo, has now concluded that we do not seem interested in producing helicopters on a stand-alone site and is now shipping all the work on assembly back to Italy. What is needed now is the Government’s clear statement that they wish to see helicopters made in Britain, of British manufacture, for our Armed Forces, as they have been for nearly 50 years now. Does the Minister realise what will happen if that should vanish or be in doubt as the Government’s intention?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Helicopters are some way from the sharing economy, which is the subject of this Question. We are looking at the procurement rules on the sharing economy and in other areas to make sure that we get the best deal for Britain. We will be looking at all the issues regarding the industrial strategy. Coming from the West Country, I look forward to talking to the noble Lord further on the subject of Yeovil.
Lord Geddes (Con)
My Lords, reverting to the subject of wave power, I opened my account in your Lordships’ House 40 years ago on the subject of marine power. Will my noble friend concentrate rather more on tidal power than wave power, because I do not think any manufacturer has yet produced a machine that could withstand the forces of waves—but tidal power is another story altogether?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My noble friend is right: some innovative demonstration work is going on in Scotland and we are awaiting a report from Mr Hendry on a possible tidal lagoon in Swansea—and elsewhere.
Lord Haskel (Lab)
As the Minister knows, much of the investment and work in the sharing economy is intangible. What progress are the Government making on measuring that work, as recommended in the Bean report?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I think that the noble Lord is talking about the work by the ONS on a subject we have talked about before: how you measure the sharing economy. He will be glad to know that on 12 October the ONS produced a progress report on how we advance measurement, how we sample and how we collect data. It is difficult because a lot of sharing economy transactions are non-financial and do not always involve business. The answer is that the good questions that he has previously asked have now been reflected in the work of the ONS. I look forward to seeing the results—I hope in higher growth figures for the UK economy.
Homelessness
(7 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment have they made of the level of hidden homelessness in England.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, I beg to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I refer Members to my entry in the register of interests. I am a councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, measuring hidden homelessness is inherently difficult, as there is no agreed definition or reliable method of data collection. Therefore, the Government have made no assessment of hidden homelessness.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, we live in one of the richest countries in the world. Does the noble Lord agree that the increase in homelessness over recent years is nothing short of a national disgrace? What assessment have the Government made of the Homelessness Reduction Bill introduced by Bob Blackman MP in the Commons, which seems very welcome and deserves cross-party support?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I share the noble Lord’s feeling that homelessness is something that we need to take action about. He will know that it is a very high priority for the Prime Minister and the Government. I agree with him that the Bob Blackman Bill is worth serious consideration. He will know that it has gone through pre-legislative scrutiny by the Communities and Local Government Select Committee, and the Government are considering it closely.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)
My Lords, will the noble Lord tell us what he defines as homelessness, and particularly hidden homelessness? Does he include all these young people who are forced to remain in the family home who would dearly love to move on and have property, or at least a small dwelling, for themselves?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, my noble friend has put her finger on the nature of the problem. As I said, it is difficult to define hidden homelessness for the reasons that she just gave. Many people may be staying with friends or relations for six months, perhaps having come down from a village or town to London, before finding permanent accommodation, for example.
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister deplore the fact that 100,000 children are living in homeless accommodation—temporary, insecure accommodation—in this country, the highest level since the early 2000s? When do the Government anticipate that the number of homeless children will begin to decline?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, the noble Lord is right: young people being homeless is a matter of concern. The Government have contributed a significant amount of money to the positive pathways framework—two-thirds of local authorities are benefiting from that—and £15 million has gone into the fair chance fund, helping 1,900 homeless young people with complex needs. Yes, there is a challenge; the Government are rising to it.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister explain the increase in people living in our streets over the past few years? What does he think is the driving reason for it?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, the last figure taken was taken on a night in the autumn of 2015, when 3,569 people were found to be sleeping rough in England. That is a serious position, there is no doubt; it has been at that sort of level over a period of time. The noble Lord will no doubt be pleased about the £40 million worth of assistance announced today in relation to helping with housing.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, there has been an increase in the number of direct access hostels, resulting in waiting lists. There is a logjam because there is no supported accommodation for people to move on to; even when people manage to find accommodation, it cannot be sustained, because there is no support for them. That results in increased rough sleeping. Does the Minister have statistics for the numbers of people affected?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, the noble Baroness will be aware that there is a sum of money— £100 million in this Parliament—to help vulnerable people to move on from hostels and refuges into low-cost permanent accommodation. We are pursuing that with a vengeance, with a view to getting those unacceptable numbers down.
Lord Bird (CB)
If the Government are not looking into hidden homelessness, could they look into the predictability of homelessness? There is a situation whereby people are coming out of care, out of the Army and out of prisons. It would be a very interesting exercise to head off homelessness before it becomes entrenched in the lives of our young people.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, the noble Lord is right. He will no doubt be pleased that £20 million of the £40 million package that has been announced was specifically for homelessness trailblazer areas, which include Southwark, Greater Manchester and Newcastle, to deal with people who are in danger of losing their homes and ensuring that we do it in a preventional way, which is clearly the best way in which to tackle the problem.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
The Minister said that dealing with this problem had a high priority, but will he explain to the House precisely what is meant by “high priority”? In conjunction with his colleagues in other departments, will he put a list in the Library of all those issues considered by the Government to be a high priority?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
The noble Lord is in danger of appearing like a Dickensian undertaker praying for a severe winter. I have indicated that £40 million worth of assistance, which I would think that most people would welcome, has just been announced. That indicates that it is a high priority to deal with the homelessness issue. It is clearly a complex issue—nobody is suggesting that it will be solved overnight. But the £40 million worth of assistance announced by the Prime Minister today is something that we should all welcome.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister join me in congratulating Shelter on a brilliant new report, published today, entitled Living Home Standard? Will he undertake to meet Mr Campbell Robb, the chief executive, to discuss the specificities of the report?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, the noble Baroness is right to address our attention to the excellent and helpful role that Shelter performs; we work very closely with it, and of course we will take up the report with it and have an early meeting to pursue its findings.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister please take back to his colleagues in government the fact that one of the major problems of underachievement by children is the underachievement of those who do not live in settled homes, who move around and whose education is disrupted? Returning to the 11-plus will not help at all, because those are precisely the children who have failed because the Government of the day have not given a high priority to providing housing, particularly in areas such as seaside towns, where children move all the time and have their education disrupted because there is no permanent accommodation.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, the noble Baroness asks something of a pantechnicon of a question, encompassing many different areas—but I can certainly share with her, in relation to housing, that it is clearly vital and that the lack of housing contributes to social problems, ineffective education and health problems. There is no doubt of that.
Housing: Under-occupancy
(7 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Quin
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what recent meetings have taken place between ministers and citizens affected by the under-occupancy charge.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)
My Lords, we met with an extensive group of stakeholders during the development of this policy and continue to do so on all policy areas. However, no recent meetings have taken place on the underoccupancy charge. Citizens and stakeholders are able to keep Ministers informed of their views through correspondence. The overall funding for discretionary housing payments has been increased: £870 million has been provided for the next five years to help those who are vulnerable.
Baroness Quin (Lab)
Having recently become involved with a charity in the north-east of England which helps and speaks up for people with learning disabilities, I have been struck by the number of cases in which the bedroom tax has greatly increased the problems that some of these people are facing. Will the Minister agree to meet with me and some of those affected? Also, will the Government look urgently at new ways of helping the people who have been hardest hit by this policy?
Lord Freud
The problem that I have in answering the noble Baroness right now is that, as she will be aware, we are currently awaiting a judgment from the Supreme Court on groups of people affected by the spare room subsidy policy. During this time, it is not appropriate for Ministers or officials to meet with particular groups. We had the hearing at the end of February, so we are expecting to hear the outcome of the case quite soon. After that, I will engage with the noble Baroness.
Lord Naseby (Con)
Is it not extraordinary that the previous Question was, rightly, about homelessness—indeed parts of the Shelter report addressed major problems—yet in this Chamber we have consistently heard disagreements and challenges to, and non-acceptance of, the very idea of underoccupancy? Would it not be a nice change if people recognised that most of the underoccupancy challenges do not have much validity? The people in those homes should think about downsizing appropriately or, if not, paying the relevant rent for overoccupying them.
Lord Freud
The number of those affected by the policy has now come down by 21%. Some have downsized; many others have got jobs. In the last years, the number on waiting lists has now come down very appreciably—by nearly half a million—as councils are able to manage those waiting lists more flexibly.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, the problem with the previous question is that the bedroom tax does not apply to the retired. It is actually the retired—well represented in your Lordships’ House—who have more accommodation available than younger people bringing up families, where their home should be their castle. Does the Minister concur that, if we were looking in that area, it would be an incentive to older people to downsize, not younger people with families?
Lord Freud
The policy is clearly directed at people who have a spare room. These tend not to be people with families; in many cases, they are empty nesters. They would be a typical group—people who have had a larger place but some of the people living in it have then moved on and they now have spare rooms. There is a point in time at which one should address the issue to get the downsizing. This policy looks to make sure that that time is during working age and not later.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of Housing & Care 21. As the Minister will be aware, there is a major problem coming down the road on retirement housing, particularly the imposition of a cap on housing benefit, which will impose itself on people in retirement housing where rents and the cost of housing are higher—often higher than the proposed cap on housing benefit. How are the Government going to address, beyond just using discretionary funds, the needs of these retired people who will be disadvantaged and also stop the undermining of future development of retirement housing in this country?
Lord Freud
We put out a Ministerial Statement in September outlining our approach to supported housing, including sheltered housing, which looks to divide the support into two, with one element coming out of the housing benefit bill up to the limit of the LHA amount in each area, which is then topped up by local authorities through a fund. This will help them drive the commissioning of the appropriate level of housing, and supported housing, for the people in their area.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)
My Lords, given the harsher council tax support scheme, it is estimated that one in three of those affected is in arrears and debt. Of the people affected by the bedroom tax, two-thirds are estimated to be in arrears and debt. Of UC claimants for housing allowance, it is estimated that more than three-quarters are in arrears and debt. These debts are manufactured by government policy and will blight lives for some in deep debt for many years to come. We have a new Government and I am sure that neither the Minister nor the Prime Minister wishes this state to continue. What are the Government going to do about it?
Lord Freud
There is a lot of complexity around the arrears issue, which we are looking at. The overall figures on arrears are much lower than some of the dramatic specific figures that the noble Baroness mentioned. The overall position is that housing association rent collection is running at 99% on average, and the bulk of housing associations—92% of them—say that they are outperforming their business plans on levels of arrears. There are specific issues, but there are a lot of definitional problems—I have said that to the House before—about what is an arrear and whether, if you are a day late, you go into arrears. We are trying to separate out what one could call book arrears from genuine arrears of the kind about which the noble Baroness is concerned.
Investigatory Powers Bill
Monday 17th October 2016
(7 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 62-III Third marshalled list for Report (PDF, 153KB) - (17 Oct 2016)
16:25 - Division on Amendment 100C - Ayes: 78 / Noes: 314 - Amendment 100C disagreed.
17:35 - Division on Amendment 118A - Ayes: 75 / Noes: 293 - Amendment 118A disagreed.
(i) to obtain the data (if not already in possession of it), and(ii) to disclose the data (whether already in the person’s possession or subsequently obtained by that person)”
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak also to the other government amendments with which this is grouped.
This group contains the government amendments in relation to the acquisition of communications data under Part 3 of the Bill. Starting with Amendments 96 to 100, a designated senior officer may believe that a communications service provider has the communications data he or she requires and grants an authorisation or issues a notice to that provider for disclosure of the data. However, in such a case the provider may not actually have the data but is able to obtain it. The Bill already provides for an authorisation or notice in respect of such data. These amendments simply make it clear that a second authorisation or notice for the same data and for the same purposes is not required in these circumstances. I trust the House will agree that these are sensible amendments, ensuring that neither the public authority nor the communications service provider is unnecessarily burdened.
Amendments 101 to 103 update Schedule 4 in two ways. The first is through minor and technical amendments to the description of the minimum rank for authorising communications data requests within the Competition and Markets Authority and the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner in Scotland. These amendments correct an error and reflect an organisational restructure in the respective organisations. Secondly, they add the Department for Communities in Northern Ireland to the list of public authorities which may acquire communications data for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime or preventing disorder. Communications data are of course a vital tool in investigations to detect, prosecute and prevent benefit fraud, providing vital investigative leads that would not otherwise come to light. These amendments ensure that the Department for Communities in Northern Ireland has the same powers as its English counterpart, the Department for Work and Pensions. They will allow it to continue to investigate crimes, such as organised attacks on the benefits system.
On Amendments 104 to 106 and 109 to 114, the collaboration agreement provisions in this part of the Bill are intended to ensure that, where necessary and appropriate, one public authority can make use of another public authority’s authorising and single point of contact expertise. They will bolster the strength of the regime by allowing for the sharing and use of best practice and experience. These minor and technical amendments will ensure that public authorities can enter into collaboration agreements and benefit from them without any unintended consequences. For example, they would ensure that two public authorities could collaborate with each other, even though the purposes for which they can each acquire communications data are different. They would also ensure that restrictions, such as the requirement for local authorities to seek magistrate approval for their requests for communications data, operate properly under collaboration agreements.
Similarly, the amendments make clear that single points of contact in a public authority can themselves obtain the communications data from communications service providers on behalf of the authorising officer in the collaborating public authority, as well as provide their advisory function. The single point of contact already performs this role in respect of requests authorised within the same public authority, and this amendment was needed to ensure that nothing in the collaboration provisions casts doubt on their ability to perform that role. I hope the House will agree these amendments to improve the regime.
Finally, on Amendment 259, it has always been the case under RIPA that a public authority can request data that may reasonably be obtained by a communications service provider as well as data which it holds. This fact has been reflected in the telecommunication definitions in the Bill, which make clear that communications data includes data which are, are to be or are capable of being held or obtained by a telecommunications operator. This amendment does no more than ensure that the definition of communications data in the postal context is consistent in this respect. I beg to move.
(a) to obtain the data (if not already in possession of it), and(b) to disclose the data (whether already in the operator’s possession or subsequently obtained by the operator)”
“( ) An authorisation may be considered necessary on the grounds falling within subsection (7)(b) or (f) only where there is a reasonable suspicion that a serious criminal offence has been or is likely to be committed and it is reasonably believed that the communications data sought will be relevant to the criminal investigation.”
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, with this amendment I make a further attempt to introduce into the Bill a requirement on the authorities to demonstrate reasonable suspicion of a serious crime and a nexus between the communications data that are sought and the crime suspected before a targeted surveillance warrant can be authorised.
As I pointed out previously when speaking to Amendment 20, one of the greatest problems with the Bill is the lack of a requirement for reasonable suspicion in order for surveillance powers to be authorised for the purpose of preventing and detecting a crime. At the moment, intrusive powers can be authorised to prevent and detect serious crime, but this general purpose is left wide open to very broad interpretation, and therefore to abuse, without requiring the authorising authority to verify the existence of reasonable suspicion of criminality. A requirement of reasonable suspicion when the purpose of preventing and detecting serious crime is invoked would prevent the potential abusive surveillance of law-abiding citizens, which we have seen in the past, without unduly limiting the legitimate use of surveillance powers.
The threshold of reasonable suspicion has long been an important safeguard for both citizens and law enforcers against the risk of the arbitrary use of police powers. The “necessary and proportionate” standard invokes an important assessment of the extent of the intrusion but does not necessitate a threshold of suspicion. Although would one expect that in practice targets of surveillance would meet this very modest burden of proof, in my view it is a great mistake not to include the threshold of reasonable suspicion in the Bill, and it leaves these powers ripe for abuse. Therefore, I make no apology for returning to this issue once again.
The amendment simply requires, first, a threshold of reasonable suspicion that a serious crime has been planned or committed and, secondly, a factual basis for believing that the targeted communications data will contain information relevant to the criminal investigation. This would reassure the public that intrusive targeted surveillance could be used only where there was reasonable suspicion of a serious crime. To that end, I hope the Government will accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
This amendment relates to Clause 58, which some people, although not the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, have referred to in the context of a recent opinion by the ECJ Advocate-General in the case involving Tom Watson MP. We do not support the amendment but I want to make it clear that the fact that we are opposed to it does not mean that we have decided that the clause as it stands meets the opinion of the ECJ Advocate-General in the case now before the European Court of Justice involving Tom Watson MP and relating to retaining and accessing communications data, should that opinion be reflected in the judgment of the court when it is delivered. I want to make that statement as there may be those who, for some reason or another, have come to the conclusion that the fact that we have not tabled any amendments to Clause 58 means that we believe that the clause will cover the position of the Tom Watson case if the judgment of the court proves in line with that of the opinion of the ECJ Advocate-General.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, I applaud any attempt to make the definitions precise but there comes a point when there is a negative consequence. I am slightly worried that the wording of the amendment—certainly as drafted—could inhibit the activities of law enforcement in establishing a pattern in the development of criminal behaviour and activity, particularly in the area of organised crime, if it were to be interpreted as strictly as its wording invites. Although the intention of the amendment is good, I am not yet persuaded that it can safely be included without an undesirable inhibition of a particularly important area of activity at the moment—namely, establishing whether groups with well-suspected criminal intent might be planning something worse.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has set perhaps the hardest task for the Minister today in asking him to comment on what was perhaps not a coded speech but simply one inviting speculation.
Turning to the amendment itself, as on the first day of Report we are sympathetic to where the noble Baroness is coming from. Indeed, I think we had an amendment on “reasonable suspicion” at an earlier stage. However, perhaps again I should phrase what I have to say as a request for confirmation, as my noble friend Lord Paddick did last week. Reasonable suspicion is encompassed by the necessity and proportionality test. The way the noble Baroness has expressed it is that there is a moderate-sized hurdle to be got over and then a higher hurdle to be surmounted, by having “reasonable suspicion” and then the necessity and proportionality test. To keep up the athletic metaphor, you will not get over the higher hurdle even if you get over the lower one, so it seems to us that you might as well just have the higher hurdle. Perhaps we can be given some more assurances about how the different criteria will bite.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I listened carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and I am grateful for the case she has put. However, I cannot agree with it, and I will explain why that is.
As the noble Baroness explained, this amendment seeks to provide that certain communications data authorisations can be approved only where there is a reasonable suspicion that a serious criminal offence has been, or is likely to be, committed. In short, the amendment would undermine the ability of law enforcement and other public authorities to catch criminals and to keep the public safe. I will now set out why I believe that is so.
I shall start with the requirement for reasonable suspicion. As we discussed and agreed in this House last week, the necessity and proportionality test is established and well understood. It is difficult, therefore, to see what benefit would be derived from inserting a different test. Indeed, in order to approve an authorisation for communications data for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime, a sufficiently compelling case will always be required—a speculative authorisation would never be approved. Therefore, I suggest that the amendment responds to a concern that is fundamentally misplaced.
Turning to the serious crime threshold that this amendment would insert, assuming that the noble Baroness intends the threshold to be equal to that currently used to authorise the interception of communications, I believe once again that the amendment is inappropriate and damaging. Taking effective action against serious criminals often requires the investigation of, if I may use the phrase, lower-level individuals for activities that are not considered serious crimes in order to build a case against higher-ranked criminals. It may also include the investigation of minor offences where stopping an offender at this point may prevent an escalation of their criminal activities, such as in stalking and grooming cases.
It might be helpful if I expand on that. Placing this additional restriction on the acquisition of communications data would disrupt police investigations of online grooming and linked crimes, such as the sending of sexual communications to a child. This is because where such activity does not meet the high threshold proposed, which will often be the case if the child is over the age of 13, it may be impossible to identify perpetrators who may go on to be involved in child sexual exploitation. As such activities increasingly take place online, law enforcement agencies will rely heavily on communications data and the new power in relation to internet connection records in order to investigate this.
The amendment would also reduce the ability to investigate online fraud, which affects everyday internet users who shop or bank online, but which could, depending on the value of the fraud, fall below the serious crime threshold proposed here. Equally, the Department for Work and Pensions, for instance, investigates false tax credit claims which can result in the collective overpayment of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money, but these false claims may not individually reach the threshold of serious crime. Communications data are currently used to investigate such activity.
I also believe that these amendments are unnecessary given the strict safeguards that already apply to the use of communications data. Data can be accessed only on a case-by-case basis and only where judged necessary and proportionate by a senior officer of a rank specified by Parliament and who is independent of the investigation. Strong judicial oversight will also be provided by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner.
I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for qualifying his party’s position on this part of the Bill. We maintain that our existing regime and the proposals in the Investigatory Powers Bill are compliant with EU law, but whatever the final judgment, given the importance of communications data to preventing and detecting crime and safeguarding national security, we will ensure that plans are in place so that the police and others can continue to acquire such data in a way that is consistent with our obligation. I hope that that is helpful.
Lord Rosser
The Minister appears to be saying that the Government’s position is the same as ours, and that you cannot express a view on whether the law as it stands, as reflected in the Bill, meets the judgment of the European Court of Justice until we have seen and read what that judgment is.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
I thank all noble Lords who have given me some support: it is something that I feel very strongly about. I thank the noble Earl for his full reply. Needless to say, I am not convinced because all of the issues that he talked about are in fact potentially serious crimes, so the threshold would be satisfied.
If the noble Earl had spoken to some of the people who had been blacklisted, for example, and whose lives were basically destroyed because of illegal surveillance and co-operation by the police with various organisations, it is possible that he would have been influenced in the same way that I have been. However, in view of the noble Earl’s answer, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
“( ) Communications data obtained for any of the purposes listed in subsection (1)(b)(ii) may not be used or disclosed other than for those purposes and must be destroyed as soon as possible after the data has been used for the purposes for which the data has been obtained.”
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I move this amendment in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Paddick. The issue of destruction of material was raised by the Government last week in respect of legal professional privilege. In that case, the Minister proposed and the House agreed that when an item subject to legal privilege is intercepted and obtained, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner can impose conditions as to its disclosure or direct destruction. We proposed a further safeguard about destruction, which the Minister is considering—he said that he would like to return to it at Third Reading—but which he thought was essentially a good idea, and we recognise the Government’s approach as something that we want to build on.
Amendment 100A is in the same area. There are destruction requirements elsewhere in the Bill. Clause 58(1) deals with what is necessary and proportionate for a targeted authorisation for obtaining data. It is necessary in one of the cases set out in subsection (1)(b),
“for the purposes of testing, maintaining or developing equipment systems or other capabilities relating to the availability or obtaining of communications data”.
The amendment would provide that data obtained for any of these purposes may be used only for such purposes. The Minister may say that that must be so and critically that,
“it must be destroyed as soon as possible after the … purposes”,
have been fulfilled. We believe that it must be the case that data obtained for testing systems should be subject to such a safeguard because, by definition, they are not required for a specific investigation and are therefore not necessary in the interests of national security or any of the other purposes set out in Clause 58(7). If data are required for a specific investigation, then those other provisions will kick in.
The destruction requirement that we are seeking is confined to the very narrow situation of the testing of systems. I hope that the Minister will agree to this, but if not that he will at least explain how data obtained in that situation are to be destroyed so that they do not hang around, as it were—which is probably not a technical phrase. I beg to move.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I hope that I can reassure the noble Baroness. Amendment 100A is unnecessary since the use, retention and destruction of all personal data held by public authorities, including communications data, are already regulated by the Data Protection Act 1998. That means that, once communications data have been obtained, there must be a lawful purpose for their use and ongoing retention, and they must be destroyed when they are no longer held for a lawful purpose. I would draw the attention of noble Lords to Chapter 11 of the Communications Data DRAFT Code of Practice, which sets out detailed requirements, consistent with the Data Protection Act, on public authorities about the use, disclosure, protection and destruction of the communications data they hold.
In addition, the amendment would unnecessarily, and in some cases very damagingly, require a public authority to destroy communications data it had obtained once they had been used for the purpose for which they were acquired, but other legitimate and important purposes for holding data may still exist. For example, a public authority is obliged by law to retain material it holds that has been used in evidence to support a conviction in case of appeal or to overturn a potential miscarriage of justice. It is also obliged to retain any material that is potentially exculpatory, even if it considers that it no longer requires the data for the original purpose for which it was acquired. This amendment would cut across those important tenets of our criminal justice system and I cannot imagine that that is what the noble Baroness wants to see.
I hope that, in combination, what I have been able to explain will reassure her sufficiently to enable her to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
I should obviously have included something like the words “except as otherwise required by law”. I am grateful for that explanation and I am sympathetic to the Government trying to get everything into the Bill, but here we find yet another example of another piece of legislation that we need to look at. However, it is helpful to have the explanation, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Rosser
Lord Rosser
My Lords, when the Bill was going through the House of Commons, the Government made a commitment to introduce a clear and appropriate threshold for accessing internet connection records. The concern was that access should not be available in connection with non-serious crime. The threshold for serious crime that the Government came up with in Committee appeared workable and appropriate.
But last April, the then Home Secretary told the then shadow Home Secretary that restricting internet connection records to serious crime would hamper the ability of the police to investigate online stalking and harassment; disrupt police investigations of online grooming or the sending of sexual communications to a child; reduce the ability to investigate online fraud; hinder the ability to identify and disrupt the sale and distribution of illegal material online, including illegal weapons, counterfeit medicines or illegal drugs; and prevent the police progressing investigations where there may be a threat to life but where it is unclear whether a crime is involved—for example, locating a missing or suicidal child—because many of these activities would not meet the serious crime threshold.
While we welcome the fact that specific offences such as stalking and harassment have been addressed and can lead to access to internet connection records, we have continuing concerns around the definition of “other relevant crime”, which is too broad and could still lead to the use of internet connection records in relation to crimes that would not be regarded as serious.
Currently the Bill defines “other relevant crime”, with some caveats, as,
“an offence for which an individual … is capable of being sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 6 months or more”.
The Government have recently stated that this threshold rules out the use of internet connection records for a large number of minor crimes, including those which are not subject to a custodial sentence and those which are subject to only a one-month or a three-month custodial sentence. The Government have also indicated a number of offences in respect of which the use of internet connection records would be excluded if the threshold in respect of “other relevant crime” was increased from six months to a sentence that is capable of attracting a custodial sentence of 12 months or more. Those offences which would then be excluded include motoring offences such as joyriding, driving while disqualified and failure to stop or report an accident; an offence of criminal damage under £5,000; some sections of the Public Order Act which do not amount to violence; and certain immigration offences and some offences relating to the supply of intoxicating substances or controlled drugs.
Our amendment would increase the qualifying term of imprisonment from six months to 12 months or more. This would exclude the kind of offences to which the Government have referred. One accepts that such offences can have significant consequences, but we do not regard them as serious in the context of the purpose for which access to internet connection records is required—and nor do we think that raising the threshold to 12 months’ imprisonment in respect of other relevant offences makes it difficult to pursue matters related to the kind of offences to which the previous Home Secretary drew attention and to which I referred earlier.
I hope that the Government will feel able to give a helpful response to this amendment, which seeks to address concerns that access to internet connection records could be used in inappropriate circumstances for which the Bill is not intended—notwithstanding the fact that any such access to internet connection records must meet the necessity and proportionality requirement, which some might argue should exclude much low-level offending. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee
The noble Lord made a very persuasive case for this amendment and I do not think that he will be surprised to be supported by these Benches, given our concerns about internet connection records—so any further constraint on them is something that we would welcome. But he went into far more detail than that and we support him.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, the Government have consistently recognised that care must be applied to the acquisition of internet connection records and, importantly, that they should not be acquired for trivial purposes. That is why we brought forward amendments in Committee to put in place a number of restrictions to provide reassurance that the powers to acquire internet connection records would only ever be used proportionately. These amendments included a threshold which would mean internet connection records could only be used to investigate certain crimes which could attract a sentence of at least six months’ imprisonment.
This amendment raises the threshold for offences which are sufficiently serious that an offender can be sentenced to at least 12 months’ imprisonment, rather than six. The amendment rightly leaves unchanged the important exceptions in the Bill to the crime threshold. The House has recognised the need to ensure that internet connection records can be obtained for the investigation of certain specified types of crime—for example, those relating to cyberbullying and harassment, and those relating to a breach of a person’s privacy—which, for whatever reason, carry a lower sentencing limit.
We recognise that this amendment will provide further reassurance and ensure public trust in the use of these vital powers, whose value and importance have been widely recognised and acknowledged. In these circumstances, we are therefore content to accept the amendment.
Lord Paddick
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendments 100D and 100E in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee. The effect of these amendments would be to remove the request filter from the Bill. No doubt, the name “request filter” has been chosen for its potential to be beneficial in terms of limiting intrusion into privacy, while at the same time I believe it conceals its true nature and the considerable downsides that such a thing would have. I am struggling to find a word that describes something that does not exist and which the Home Office is unable to describe except in terms of its proposed positive outcomes. When I visited both the law enforcement and security agencies in preparation for the Bill they could throw no more light on the detail of this proposal or give any reassurance as to its security. What we know is that it is something akin to a Google search engine, a system built and possibly operated by the private sector on behalf of the Home Secretary. The request filter will act as the go-between between law enforcement and security agencies and the communications providers.
We have had lots of debates in the course of the Bill on the trustworthiness of the police and the security services. Perhaps it would not be too unkind to say that the security services have come out on top, with law enforcement agencies trailing slightly. When we consider the Government’s failure to implement such measures already in legislation, such as the Privacy and Civil Liberties Board and the Leveson recommendations, one might not be too severely criticised for putting the Government a poor third in this line-up of trustworthiness. The request filter would give the Government, in the guise of the Home Office, unfettered access to communications data, including internet connection records. Of course, having unfettered access would also mean that, if security were to be breached, it would provide criminals and hostile foreign Governments with similar unfettered access to private and confidential information of every subscriber to UK communications and internet services.
At present, as noble Lords will be aware, almost every request for communications data—of course, that does not include internet connection records, because these are not part, yet, of communications data—is made by investigators to a single point of contact in their own organisation. The SPOC, as they are known, assesses the validity of the request and, if satisfied, passes it to the communications provider, which again assesses whether it is a valid claim. There is, in effect, a double lock: an independent and specially trained SPOC and an independent and specially trained person in the communications company, both of whom can block unnecessary and disproportionate requests.
As far as anyone can understand such a vague concept as the request filter, it appears that it would be linked into the communication providers’ databases and be able to search and retrieve data with no independent check. The Government may say that the people operating the request filter will be the independent check, but they will be Home Office officials or staff of a private company working on behalf of the Secretary of State. Not many of us, and certainly very few members of the public, would rest assured that their sensitive personal information was in the hands of politicians or those acting on their behalf.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (LD)
My Lords, I regret that I cannot support my noble friends’ attempts to remove these clauses from the Bill. I say with great respect to them that it is a misconceived attempt and displays a misunderstanding of what the authorities do, have done and can do. In my judgment, for what it is worth, the removal of these clauses would reduce the capacity of the authorities legitimately to interdict what could be extremely serious crime and catch those guilty of it.
We have heard terms such as “limitless”, “monster” and “unfettered”. At the risk of repeating what has been said earlier on Report, it is grossly exaggerated to suggest that unfettered, monstrous or limitless power is being given to the authorities. There can never have been a Bill on subjects such as these that has had so many fetters on the authorities and that has placed so many limits on what they can do. Indeed, if it has created a monster at all, it is a monster of regulation, not of unregulated activity.
I saw a briefing on these amendments earlier today. They are founded on the proposition that the authorities—the police and the security services—have the time to go on fishing expeditions. If that is what is being said, I can think of at least two kinds of fishing expedition. One is the sort of fishing expedition where you stick a worm on the end of a line and dangle it into water not believing that there is anything in there, and the other involves casting a sprat to catch a mackerel. If there is a fishing expedition here, it is the kind in which the authorities would know that there is very likely to be a mackerel beneath the water into which they cast their well-fattened sprat.
These amendments would inhibit current practice in the courts and in investigations. I can think of two murder cases in which I appeared as leading counsel—one as a prosecutor, the other as a defender—in which a conviction resulted from exactly the kind of activity being permitted in the Bill. In each case, it is certainly possible—I do not want to exaggerate—that there would have been no conviction if not for the availability of this kind of activity. At the time of each of those cases, the activity was nothing like as well-controlled or scrutinised as is proposed in the Bill. The sort of activity that I am describing can and has been used to catch murderers, paedophiles and money launderers as well as terrorists. It is a necessary tool of a responsible state.
The issue is whether the Bill allows this information to be obtained in a responsible way by the state. I believe the Government have gone a very long way to ensure that everybody can be confident that in future such material will be obtained by a responsible state and that these clauses are a necessary part of that activity.
Lord Strasburger (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 100C, 100D and 100E which have been very ably explained by my noble friend Lord Paddick.
When vague and non-specific legislation comes before us, it is perhaps because its authors are unable to be more precise because they have not thought it through or because they choose to not share the details with us. Whichever reason applies in the case of the request filter, there is no doubt that Clauses 64, 65 and 66 are notable more for what they do not say than for what they do. Despite the best efforts of both the Joint Committees on which I had the privilege of sitting—the one on this Bill and the one that examined the draft Communications Data Bill in 2012, in which the request filter first appeared—we are none the wiser about the request filter architecture, how it will work, who will develop it and who will operate it.
We have only to look at an obscure section in an elderly piece of legislation—the Telecommunications Act 1984—to see how overbroad drafting can lead to unintended consequences. Years ago, Section 94 of that Act was used by the Home Office secretly to create a brand new, highly intrusive power—namely, bulk acquisition of communications data—which the Government, to their credit, are now bringing in from the cold in this Bill. For a long time, however, the existence and use of this power carried on without the approval, or even the knowledge, of Parliament. Quite by chance, just a few hours ago, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal ruled that this very powerful secret power of bulk acquisition of communications data, which was created out of that vague section in the Telecommunications Act 1984, has been used illegally by the intelligence and security services for 10 years. We must guard against carelessly passing clauses so vague as to be open to misuse.
Viscount Brookeborough (CB)
My Lords, I hesitate to enter the debate on the Bill at this stage because I have not been involved until now, but as I listened, I compared this in my mind with what occurred in Northern Ireland over 40 years of terrorism. I cannot support this amendment for the very reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile.
During the Troubles in Northern Ireland, when nothing was on the internet because it did not exist, every bit of information was in hard copy or personal contact. We in the security forces had the right to look at every single bit of information on a person, in their car or indeed in their home if we entered it for a specific reason. That information was held for a very long time. It is amazing how much of it, how many little bits of information, one day tied up with something else and became of extreme interest. Noble Lords who are aware of what happened in Northern Ireland, especially the noble Lord, Lord King, will support the fact that in many cases people’s lives—including in part, I have to say, my own—were protected by snippets of information that at the time were of no particular value and were simply filed away, because they led to associations between people or to intelligence that people were passing to each other. Anyone who has been near to a bomb in Northern Ireland will understand that it is worth while attempting to save people’s lives by the best method.
I have followed the Bill from the point of view of the restrictions on holding information. I do not support the tightness of that; our problems went on for 40 years but the problems that this country is facing at the moment are relatively short-lived. We must create the right security environment by allowing people to get information, which is no longer held in hard copy, on cigarette packets or bits of paper in their homes but is now on the internet. People involved in terrorism or civil crime, including paedophilia, are going to areas either that we cannot get to or where we are wilfully restricting our access to what amounts to very important intelligence.
I apologise again for entering proceedings at this stage, but I could not support such an amendment that would yet again restrict our Security Service and police from gaining and keeping intelligence that one day might be vital to any one of your Lordships. I know these matters seem a long way away when they are outside, in different cities or different parts of the country. If noble Lords lived in Northern Ireland, they would understand how important it is that some sort of connection is kept with leads about what is going on. That information is not in hard copy but up there in the cloud, and while we stay down here we are not going to get it.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, I oppose the amendment, purely from a position of practicality. I have an interest as chief executive of TalkTalk, one of the communications service providers. If we are to legislate to create a tool to be used, it needs to be effective. My business involves consuming large amounts of data and trying to analyse them, and you cannot do that without a filter. There are other elements of the Bill on which we can debate whether we have the appropriate legal checks and balances, and I defer to the many noble and learned Lords in this House who are debating them, but surely it cannot make sense to withdraw completely the tool that would make those checks and balances effective.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendments 100C, 100D and 100E. I am not at all naive about the threats that are faced by this country and the need to provide the tools to the security forces to deal with them. However, as the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation has made clear, the fact that powers might be useful is not in itself a justification for granting such powers; they must be proportionate, properly scrutinised and properly constrained. I agree with my noble friend Lord Paddick that the phrase “request filter” has a benign ring to it that is perhaps lulling some of us into a false understanding of what it is really about.
As my noble friend recalled, when we discussed this matter previously, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, disputed the idea that the request filter would create a virtual database. He seemed to suggest that it cannot be described as a database simply on the grounds that the data will not be held by the Government. The data accessed by the request filter will be held by commercial entities, not by the Government, that is true, but it will be held on the instruction of the Government in the form that the Government determine, and it will be accessible by agencies of the Government by a means that the Government will determine. I make no claim to be an etymologist, but that seems to me pretty much the definition of a virtual database.
The House may wonder why the Government are going to such an effort to make this distinction between a database and a request filter, when it seems self-evident that they are effectively one and the same. The reason is simple: because they do not want people to realise that they are in the process of legislating into existence the power to create a vast virtual database of information on every person in this country.
As my noble friend mentioned, the Joint Committee on the draft Communications Data Bill stated at paragraph 113 of its report, which dealt with the request filter:
“The difference is that instead of one database there are many and they are privately owned. Although they are privately owned the Government can stipulate what should be held on them, for how long, and in what format it should be supplied. The differences therefore are not as great as the Home Office suggests”.
As my noble friend said, it concluded that,
“the Request Filter can be equated to a federated database”—
a database which will be accessible not only to the security services in the tireless work that they do on our behalf to keep us safe from terrorism, law enforcement authorities in their vital work tackling serious crime, or the police in dealing with crime in general. As my noble friends have said and the Government have confirmed, this vast, federated database will be available to all public authorities to assist in obtaining the communications data that they are permitted to use, subject to individual authorisation.
I do not think that the public have any idea of the sweeping powers that we are contemplating granting to the Secretary of State to establish this vast virtual database. I imagine that they will be horrified when they do, just as they were by proposals of previous Governments to create national databases, before this Government cleverly came up with a new name for it that sounds so eminently and hypnotically reasonable, but is as far from describing what it actually is as it is possible to conceive.
I hope that this House will not allow itself to be misled by the Government’s creative use of the English language, but, rather, aware of the practical reality of what is being proposed, will support the amendments in the names of my noble friends.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, we do not share the major concerns expressed in support of the amendment, in view of the Bill’s provisions. As I understand it, neither did the committees which considered the Bill, including the Joint Scrutiny Committee on the draft Bill. There are also downsides which would arise from the amendment, to which reference has already been made.
In Committee, we asked the Government to clarify that the general provisions in relation to privacy in Clause 2 affected every power in the Bill, in the light of the letter written by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, to me on 14 July stating that the new overarching privacy clause set out the privacy obligations which constrain the use of the powers in the Bill—which therefore must include necessity, proportionality and the protection of privacy. In their response, the Government confirmed that that was the case. For those reasons, we will oppose the amendment.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I feel that I have to begin by saying to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, that he has got this one wrong—indeed, very wrong. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, my noble friend Lady Harding and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for the contributions that they have made.
The amendments seek to remove Clauses 64, 65 and 66 from the Bill, which provide that the Secretary of State may establish, maintain and operate filtering arrangements for communications data—colloquially referred to as the “request filter”—and detail the appropriate safeguards and restrictions around its use. Throughout the passage of the Bill we have repeatedly highlighted the many misconceptions and misrepresentations around the filtering arrangements, and we have demonstrated how the provisions in fact provide an important safeguard in the acquisition of communications data. It is therefore perplexing that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, has given notice that he remains opposed to the clauses providing for the filtering arrangements to stand part of the Bill. It may therefore be helpful if I set out again what the filtering arrangements will actually do and not do.
Public authorities currently need to receive all the communications data disclosed by communications service providers in response to specific requests. In certain circumstances this amounts to more data—sometimes much more data—than are relevant to their investigation, and they will then need to determine which specific pieces of communications data are relevant. Perhaps I could illustrate with an example. The police may need to make a complex query, such as asking multiple communications service providers for data to identify an unknown person who is suspected of having committed a crime, such as armed robbery, at three different places at different times. Currently, public authorities might approach communications service providers for location data to identify all the mobile phones used in those three locations at the relevant times to determine whether a particular phone and a particular individual is linked to the three offences. This means that the public authority may acquire a significant amount of data relating to people who are not of interest but who just happened to be in the location at the time of the robbery.
The significance of the request filter is that, when a police force makes such a request, they will see only the data that they need to. Any irrelevant data about people who are not suspects will be deleted and not made available to the public authority. That is why I maintain that the filter acts as a vital safeguard, protecting privacy by ensuring that the police see only the data they need to. These amendments would remove that important safeguard—so it is perplexing, as I say, that the noble Lord wishes to do this.
To further reassure the House, I remind noble Lords of what the Joint Scrutiny Committee on the draft Bill stated about the filtering arrangements. It stated:
“We welcome the Government’s proposal to build and operate a Request Filter to reduce the amount of potentially intrusive data that is made available to applicants”.
The Joint Committee believed that the requirement upon law enforcement to state the operational purpose of accessing data through the filter and the oversight of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner will ensure the appropriate use of the filter.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said that the Bill provided for unfettered access to private and confidential information. But access is not unfettered—and nor does the Bill permit fishing expeditions, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, rightly emphasised. The filtering arrangements can operate only in response to a specific, necessary and proportionate authorisation for the acquisition of communications data. That request must already have gone through all the existing communications data safeguards, such as authorisation by a designated senior officer of a rank specified by Parliament, who must be independent of the investigation.
I noted with some dismay the aspersions cast by the noble Lord on the likely integrity of those individuals actually retrieving the data—including, to my surprise, the integrity of the police. I am pretty shocked by the language that he used. The noble Lord also described the filter as a “database”. A database has to contain data. The filter will not hold any communications data. Once a request has been processed by the filter, any data—that is to say, all data—will be discarded. I hope that that does clear some of the fog.
The request filter will act as an important safeguard. It will ensure that police officers and others will see only the information they really need to in those cases where it is used. Accordingly, I respectfully request that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, withdraws his amendment.
Lord Paddick
I thank the Minister for his remarks, and other noble Lords who have contributed. I acknowledge the great experience of my noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew both as a lawyer and as a former Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation. However, it is clearly untrue for him to say that, in his judgment, excluding the request filter from the Bill would reduce the capacity of the authorities to investigate cases. The request filter does not exist at the moment, so it cannot possibly reduce the capacity. It may restrict the capacity of the agencies in the future, but it will certainly not reduce it, because the authorities do not have a request filter at the moment. The “monster” that I alluded to is nothing other than the mechanism—the request filter—that these clauses and this amendment are all about.
My noble friend described two murder cases where convictions could not have happened were it not for the sort of data that we are talking about here. Those two convictions were obtained in the absence of a request filter, because the filter does not exist. So it is clearly nonsense for my noble friend to say that excluding the request filter from the Bill was likely to have impacted on convictions that relied on something that does not even exist at the moment.
I acknowledge the experience of the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, in Northern Ireland. As the Minister said, this is not a database. It is not intelligence information that is gathered and stored. It is a mechanism—a piece of kit, if you will—that reaches out into databases held by private companies, such as the internet service provider led by the noble Baroness, Lady Harding of Winscombe, retrieves data and brings it back. As the noble Earl said, it is not about a real database but a virtual or federated one. In other words, the tool will effectively act as a database rather than being an actual one. I am sorry that, in the number of times that I have used this expression—at Second Reading, in Committee and now on Report—I have not been able to get my message across about the difference between a virtual database and a real one. But I think that it is time I stopped flogging that horse.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, is reassured that Clause 2, the overarching privacy clause, applies to every power in the Bill. This is not a power: it is a piece of kit, a search engine. The Government have said nothing in their response to this amendment to reassure us that Clause 2 applies to this, because it is not actually a power. The Minister used the example which I spoke to, almost exactly, when I moved the amendment. To use his word, it is “perplexing” that the noble Earl did not hear my objections to that as a good example.
The unfettered access that I am talking about is not unfettered access to data by the police and the security services, and I never suggested that it was—but there will be unfettered access by those who operate the request filter because the request filter will have direct access to the databases operated by the communications providers. So I am not saying that there would be unfettered access to data by the police and security services; what I am saying is that government officials, or those acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, would have unfettered access to these databases were the request filter to come into existence. So I, too, am perplexed that the Government have not responded positively to this amendment and I wish to test the opinion of the House.
“Department for Communities in Northern Ireland | Deputy Principal | All | (b)” |
“( ) Nothing in this section prevents a person acting as a single point of contact from also applying for, or being granted, an authorisation or, in the case of a designated senior officer, granting an authorisation.”
“( ) this Part has effect as if the designated senior officer of the supplying authority had the power to grant an authorisation to officers of the subscribing authority, and had other functions in relation to the authorisation, which were the same as (and subject to no greater or lesser restrictions than) the power and other functions which the designated senior officer of the subscribing authority who would otherwise have dealt with the authorisation would have had, and( ) section 72(1) applies to the authorisation as if it were granted by a designated senior officer of the subscribing authority.”
“(c) this Part has effect as if the designated senior officer of force 1 had the power to grant an authorisation to officers of the collaborating police force, and had other functions in relation to the authorisation, which were the same as (and subject to no greater or lesser restrictions than) the power and other functions which the designated senior officer of the collaborating police force who would otherwise have dealt with the authorisation would have had.”
Earl Howe
My Lords in moving this amendment I will speak to the other amendment in this group. They provide for the introduction of judicial approval for data retention notices given under Part 4 of the Bill. This is an important new safeguard. It means that such notices given, authorised or varied by the Secretary of State, including those requiring the retention of internet connection records, will in future also require the approval of a judicial commissioner.
The Secretary of State must already consider whether it is necessary and proportionate to issue a data retention notice to a telecommunications operator. This amendment would mean in future that the decision to give a notice would be reviewed by a Judicial Commissioner, in line with the authorisation procedures for other powers in the Bill. I hope that the House will welcome this additional safeguard and, accordingly, I beg to move.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, we take this opportunity to thank the Government for listening to us, to the service providers and, in this case, also to the human rights monitors—everyone is in agreement. We are happy to support the amendments.
(a) ”
(b) the decision to give the notice has been approved by a Judicial Commissioner.”
Baroness Hamwee
“( ) A retention notice may not require a telecommunications operator to retain or disclose third party data unless the operator retains it for its own business purposes.( ) In this section “third party data” means communications data processed by the operator for the purposes of routing communications within an electronic communications network.”
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, Amendment 117B is grouped with government Amendments 118 and 130. It aims at the same thing, but I think that the Government’s aim is better than ours in Amendment 117B. The amendments are about the retention of third-party data, so in order to move the business on we are very happy to support the government amendments in this group. I beg to move.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I do not understand why the noble Baroness wishes to insist on Amendment 117B.
Sorry, I am getting a great deal of advice from around the Chamber, and it is all immensely helpful.
Perhaps I may explain the purpose of government Amendments 118 and 130. As I said in Committee, we have been making good progress on drafting a clause that could put into the Bill the Government’s clear commitment that we will not require a telecommunications operator to retain third-party data.
It is important to be clear exactly what we are referring to as third-party data. Where one telecommunications operator is able to see the communications data in relation to applications or services running over its network but where it does not use or retain that data for any purpose, then it is regarded as third-party data. For example, if you use an internet access provider such as a home broadband provider to use the internet to log into a separate email provider in order to send an email, the broadband service might be able to see your access communications data in relation to the email service. If that information was not used or retained for any purpose by the broadband provider, the data would be considered to be third-party data.
I am pleased to say that we have now produced a clause that prohibits the retention of third-party data. We have tested this drafting with operational partners and with those telecommunications operators likely to be affected by the legislation and we are confident that it delivers the desired effect. That being so, the Bill essentially replicates the current position in RIPA, which is that data that already exist and could save a life or convict a criminal and so on can be accessed, but we are not insisting that data should be retained.
In these circumstances and in light of the opening observations by the noble Baroness, I commend government Amendments 118 and 130 in the event that we proceed.
Baroness Hamwee
I am sorry to have confused the noble and learned Lord. I was simply trying to explain that we are seeking to achieve the same thing, but that the Government have done better than we have. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Keen of Elie
“(3A) A retention notice must not require an operator who controls or provides a telecommunication system (“the system operator”) to retain data which—(a) relates to the use of a telecommunications service provided by another telecommunications operator in relation to that system,(b) is (or is capable of being) processed by the system operator as a result of being comprised in, included as part of, attached to or logically associated with a communication transmitted by means of the system as a result of the use mentioned in paragraph (a),(c) is not needed by the system operator for the functioning of the system in relation to that communication, and(d) is not retained or used by the system operator for any other lawful purpose,and which it is reasonably practicable to separate from other data which is subject to the notice.”
Lord Paddick
Lord Paddick
My Lords, the effect of Amendment 118A, tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee, would be to remove internet connection records from any notice requiring the retention of communications data by telecommunications operators.
It is important to look back over the history of internet connection records. The initial argument put forward by the Government and law enforcement agencies was that, with so many communications now being via the internet rather than via fixed line or cellular communication, it was essential to keep a record of every attempt to access the internet by everyone in the UK in the past 12 months, so that the same data that are currently available from an itemised phone bill—the who called who from where and when—would also be available if someone used the internet to communicate instead. If that is what ICRs were, and if ICRs provided that information, we might be more relaxed about them, but the parallel with itemised phone bills is clearly false. After the Joint Committee’s scrutiny of the Bill, the Government acknowledged that they wanted more than just the itemised phone bill data. They wanted to be able to see, for example, whether a suspected terrorist had accessed a travel agent’s website or a paedophile a particular file-sharing website.
Noble Lords will be relieved to hear that I do not intend to go over every objection to internet connection records—we would be here until the early hours if I did. Let us look just at itemised phone bill data. My internet connection records will show that about 10 different apps on my mobile phone that I can use to communicate with other people, including my Facebook app, my WhatsApp and iMessenger apps—which are end-to-end encrypted messaging apps—my Facebook Messenger app and my Twitter app, are all connected to the internet all the time. There will be no ICR data that tell law enforcement agencies where I was at a particular time, whom I was communicating with or whether I was communicating with anyone at all while these apps were connected to the internet.
If I was communicating with someone, the ICR data would contain no information about when I was communicating. Even if I was a simple soul and communicated using only WhatsApp, law enforcement would not be able to go to WhatsApp and say, “On this day and at this time, he was using WhatsApp. Who was he communicating with?” That is because the app is connected to the internet all the time and they would not be able to narrow it down to a particular date and time from the ICR data. They would have to ask for all my communications data over an extended period—an enormous volume of data that WhatsApp might consider a disproportionate request, save in the most serious cases.
Knowing someone’s internet connection records is just the start of the problems facing law enforcement agencies. I have another app on my phone. It is a virtual private network app. This app allows me to traffic all my connections to the internet through one secure server. If I engage it, my internet connection records will not show anything other than connection to the VPN server. Choose a VPN service provider whose server is in a non-co-operative foreign country and law enforcement will not be able to find out what connections have been made through the VPN server.
My point is that ICRs do not give law enforcement agencies the equivalent of itemised phone bill data. The agencies would have to go to each communications platform operator, most of whom are in the United States of America, and ask them for more information. They might not be inclined to give up those data except in very serious cases. If one simply used a VPN, law enforcement would not know to which operator to go to ask for more data. Even if it did, it would have to ask for vast quantities of data that would be difficult to process—and, in any event, the overseas operator would be likely to say that the request was disproportionate and refuse to hand over the data.
Noble Lords will notice that I keep emphasising law enforcement and serious cases. In cases of serious crime, including child sexual exploitation, GCHQ can assist law enforcement agencies. In a case affecting national security, agents representing MI5 have told me, face to face, that they do not need or want internet connection records; agents representing MI6 have told me face to face that they do not need or want internet connection record; and agents representing GCHQ have told me face to face that they do not need or want internet connection records.
If we strip away criminals who will soon get wise and use VPNs, if we strip away crimes that are not considered by US operators to be serious enough to hand over the data and if we strip away crimes that are so serious that GCHQ’s help can be sought—GCHQ can secure the necessary data without the need to store ICRs—we are left with very little. For that very little gain, everyone in the UK’s web histories will be stored for 12 months at enormous cost, and with enormous potential for intrusion into privacy and enormous risk of vast quantities of sensitive personal information being hacked into by criminals and hostile foreign Governments. The only valid conclusion anyone can come to in such circumstances is that the storage for 12 months of everyone’s ICRs is both unnecessary and disproportionate.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure that the entire House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for giving us a comprehensive list of ways in which we can try to keep our communications secret and away from prying eyes. I am sure that every Member of the House is grateful for that tutorial, but the noble Lord does rather elide the question of those people who perhaps have not had the benefit of his tutorial. I realise that the whole world of terrorism and organised crime is listening with intent to every word that he says on these matters, but there will be such. He gave a specific example, saying that communications data in the past would have demonstrated that X had contact at a travel agent. When I book train tickets, I usually do not use WhatsApp or a VPN—I simply go online and connect to the relevant train company. So if somebody wanted to find out whether I had been booking a train ticket, my internet connection record would provide that information. I therefore do not quite understand the argument that, because there are ways that you can avoid the state knowing what you have done if you are really determined, you should therefore prevent it knowing what you have done if you are not really determined.
My understanding is that not all terrorists and not all organised criminals are terribly good with this stuff—that they make mistakes—so the horrifying consequences that the noble Lord describes therefore might not actually occur, and instead, a lot of very nasty people will be caught, because they do not have the noble Lord’s encyclopaedic grasp of ways of keeping communications secret.
Lord Strasburger
Amendment 118A seeks to prevent the creation and collection of internet connection records. My noble friend Lord Paddick has explained why ICRs are of little security value, and that they would be very difficult and expensive to collect and make use of. The only democracy to try was Denmark, which gave up after years of fruitless effort. It tried again at the beginning of this year with a project almost identical to the one planned by the Home Office, but quickly abandoned it when independent auditors confirmed that it would be prohibitively expensive.
I wish to draw the House’s attention to two other serious drawbacks that would arise from creating and storing internet connection records. The first is the serious impact on the privacy of every user of the internet in this country. We must remember that internet connection records do not currently exist, and until quite recently—say, 25 years ago—all the electronic data that would have to be collected together to create ICRs did not exist, either. In those days, our private interactions with those close to us left no trace. A conversation over lunch, a cash purchase at a shop, a visit to a library to do some research, attendance at a political meeting, a romantic assignation—all left no record of having happened. They were ephemeral. What happened between your four walls was between you and your God.
Fast forward to today, and we find that all the interactions I have just mentioned now leave an electronic trail behind them. A combination of credit card records, location services on our phones, our emails and text messages and records of every website we visit will give the whole game away—including the identity of whom we met at our assignation. If internet connection records are created and kept by our service provider, all these electronic trails will be available to hundreds of public authorities, not just the police and security services, on demand and simply by self-authorisation.
The Government have given this data the name “internet connection records”, which is technically accurate, but what they really are is private activity records: a log of everything we do and when and where we do it. The problem is not that the surveillance can occur at all, but that it happens indiscriminately to all of us, all the time. My second topic is the ironic fact that ICRs will actually reduce our security, rather than improve it, because of the virtual certainty of thefts of some of that private and personal data about every internet user in the country. If you do not believe me, consider just a few of the thousands—and I mean thousands—of recent data thefts from high-security establishments. I mentioned in Committee that SWIFT, the fulcrum of the global financial payments system, has had $81 million stolen from it by hackers. Last week, it emerged that it has been penetrated a second time. A gang of five eastern Europeans is believed to be behind the theft of 3 billion sets of customer data worldwide from many of the world’s leading tech companies, including the data of 500 million Yahoo! customers. As I mentioned earlier, powerful hacking tools belonging to the NSA, the American equivalent of GCHQ, suddenly appeared on the internet in August having been stolen from it, and two Israelis and an American stole 100 million people’s records from 12 US financial institutions. Those are just a few examples—as I say, there are many more—of thefts from sites which, dare I say it, were seemingly far more secure than those of UK service providers.
Internet connection records, or private activity records, will be stolen and the consequences will range from embarrassment to blackmail and fraud for the unfortunate victims. In the case of people in positions of responsibility, including government officials, the consequences could be catastrophic. Far from making us safer, ICRs would compromise our security and, as I have explained, seriously intrude on our citizens’ privacy. We should have nothing to do with them.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe
My Lords, I rise to speak against this amendment. As the chief executive of a telecoms company, I clearly cannot profess a lack of understanding of the technology. I am a little confused by noble Lords’ concern that internet connection records can be got round and are not perfect because telephony is exactly the same. If I make a telephone call and am really smart, I know how to make sure that you do not know what number or where in the world I am calling from. Without needing to be that smart, I can buy a temporary SIM card and throw the phone away as soon as I have made the call. Organised crime and nation states have been able to use plenty of ways to obfuscate the existing ability for us to track telephony. That does not mean we think it a bad idea to be able to track people’s telephone calls.
I argue that exactly the same is true of internet connection records and their use by law enforcement agencies. It would not be perfect; no piece of technology ever is. It needs very careful scrutiny, which the Bill has had in both Houses. But I want to live in not just a civilised physical world but a civilised digital world, and when all our law enforcement agencies say that their ability to hunt down criminals is seriously hampered by the world moving to the digital space, we should take that very seriously and make sure that we arm them with the best possible tools. I believe that access to internet connection records is practically possible and desirable to create a civilised digital world.
Viscount Brookeborough
Briefly, this brings up the principle of what society is prepared to sacrifice—in this case, a little privacy—to get what it needs to fight criminals and terrorism. I am sorry to go back to Northern Ireland but everybody was stopped daily and their lives were infringed on the whole time there. But they were happy enough because the fight, which was against terrorism in our case, was succeeding. By the end, 95% of all incidents planned by the IRA never took place because of intelligence activity. We know that it is intrusive to do this but if we had stopped stopping cars, when 99.9% of those cars held the innocent and the unassociated, it would have enabled those we were up against to operate freely across everything. The very fact that people were prepared to sacrifice some of their freedom meant that it was more difficult for those who wanted to kill, maim and commit crimes. If we do not push them out of normal day-to-day activity into the more complicated part, we will never succeed in fighting them.
Lord Oates
My Lords, I will not detain the House too long and certainly do not want to repeat all the eloquent arguments that my noble friend Lord Paddick has outlined on this matter. I want to say two things about the previous two interventions. The utility issue—the fact that people may be prepared to give up their liberties—does not necessarily come into play here. I do not think that the vast majority of people have any idea whatever of what the Government are planning. I do not think they have any idea that regardless of whether they are regarded as innocent, suspect or anything else, every single person’s website visits will be held on databases on the instruction of the Government. Nobody is aware of that. They are not making a decision about whether they are prepared to accept that infringement, and I think they will be horrified when they understand it.
A number of noble Lords have said that the fact that the law can be evaded is not a reason not to have a law. If a law can easily be evaded and that law requires a massive invasion of the privacy of people throughout this country, that has to be weighed in the balance. It has to be taken very seriously.
We have to be clear about what is proposed. The Government intend to take the power to compel the creation of databases of every single website that every single person in this country visits over a 12-month period. That is a huge amount of data, and it puts a vast amount of power in the hands of the Government. More to the point, it is a vast amount of power in the hands of whoever might manage to hack those databases. This is not some vague threat made up or exaggerated by opponents of these ICR powers to make a point. It is a real and present danger and a massive threat to the privacy and security of every single person in this country. We are all aware of the spate of state-sponsored and other hacking that has been taking place in the United States and elsewhere around the world. Every day, systems come under serious attack and none is entirely immune. If the US Pentagon can be hacked, then who on the Government Front Bench can say hand on heart that this vast new store of information that the Government are demanding be created cannot be hacked?
When I talk to people around the country about the powers that the Government are proposing to take in relation to ICRs they are almost universally shocked. They do not have any faith that such data will be held securely, and they cannot understand why the Government would put at risk their privacy and security unless holding such information was critical to the prosecution of the most serious crimes. As my noble friend Lord Paddick has pointed out, the security and intelligence agencies have consistently been clear that they do not need ICRs. There are very simple ways to evade the collection of ICRs, so those committing serious crimes are unlikely to be troubled. The strongest case cited for these powers is in relation to identifying and prosecuting paedophiles, and there is no doubt we should listen and consider this case very carefully because the protection of children from such people must be regarded as an absolute priority for every one of us. However, as my noble friend Lord Paddick has pointed out, in those serious crimes, including child exploitation, GCHQ can assist law enforcement and there is a joint unit for those purposes. Perhaps more to the point, the sort of people involved in the criminal activities we are discussing would easily be able to avoid their ICRs being captured.
The power the Government are claiming is extraordinary. It is a power that none of the other “Five Eyes” countries has. Indeed, to my knowledge, no even nominally democratic Government in the world have it. It is such an extraordinary power that my noble friend Lord Carlile, who is unfortunately no longer in his place and who is no slouch on counter- terrorism measures, wrote an article in the Mail on Sunday on 26 May 2013:
“I, Lord Reid, Lord West and others of like mind have never favoured the recording of every website visited by every internet user, though we have been accused of that ambition”.
Granting the Government a power to order the retention of the details of every website visited by every person in the country over a 12-month period will give us, at best, only false comfort. It may make some of us feel more secure, but it will not make us more secure. In fact, it will put at risk the security and privacy of every person in this country. I support the amendment in the names of my noble friends.
The Lord Bishop of Chester
My Lords, I was a member of the Joint Committee conducting pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill, along with the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger—I am not sure whether anyone else in the Chamber was. I remember a discussion which was genuinely open and uncertain about the practicality of this above all. The issue of privacy has been raised very powerfully by the noble Lord, Lord Oates, and others from the Liberal Democrat Benches. We thought at the end of the day that the whole Bill was about reaching a balance, with a degree of compromise over issues of privacy alongside the really quite robust safeguards which are in the Bill, such as the role of the judicial commissioners, as all set out in Clause 86. Our real issue was over practicality and cost. When the Minister comes to respond, it would be helpful if we could have a bit more guidance as to what this is going to cost. The cost will not fall on the companies; it will fall upon the Government, who will have to fund it.
However, we were persuaded that under Clause 84, the retention notice may be more specific than has been suggested in the speech from the Liberal Democrat Benches. It is not necessarily every connection to every website: the provision could be targeted to particular websites, for example, which is all set out in Clause 84. We should also emphasise that these records would not be of the content of what was happening: it would be where you had made contact, not the content of the connection as such. That is an important factor which has not been mentioned in the contributions.
That said, a representative from Denmark came and explained to us why the Danes had given up on this, simply on the grounds of cost and practicality. It is the practicalities that I would like to hear about most from the Minister when he speaks, alongside of course acknowledgement of the points that have been made by others in the debate.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
My Lords, I did not intend to speak on this amendment, which I strongly support, so I will be brief. Even I understand the need to balance civil liberties and national security, but comparing this with stopping a few cars simply does not hold water and is not a comparison that we can make—and, personally, I am totally in favour of stopping cars, so that is not an issue.
It is almost as if the Government went to the intelligence and security services and said, “What do you want? What can you imagine wanting to keep us safe?”, and they came up with a huge list. It is like asking children what they want for Christmas: they want a huge list of things and it is not always good to give them everything they want. In this instance, it is certainly not good to give the intelligence services what they want. Indeed, they do not even want some of what the Government are offering them, so the Government have actually gone one step further and offered them more, which to me is totally counterintuitive.
There is also the issue of practicality. When you have this much information coming through, it is incredibly difficult to pick out the vital points and the important things. This could be counterproductive and make us less safe as a nation than we are already. I feel very strongly about this amendment and deeply regret that there is not more support in the House.
Lord Rosser
The effect of this amendment, as has been said, would be to leave out internet connection records from the definition of “relevant communications data” in Clause 84, which covers powers to require the retention of certain data. The Bill has had extensive pre-legislative scrutiny, including by a Joint Committee of both Houses, and we supported it at Third Reading in the Commons subject to, among other things, amendments being made which addressed the issue of access to internet connection records not being used in relation to minor crimes. Our amendment on the definition of “other relevant crime”, which raised the threshold from six months to 12 months, has been accepted by the Government. We will be opposing an amendment that now appears to weaken the effectiveness of the provisions relating to internet connection records, at least under Part 4 of the Bill, specifically Clause 84.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, the amendment would prevent the Government being able to require telecommunications operators to retain internet connection records. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, tabled exactly the same amendment in Committee, and he will not be surprised to know that the Government still cannot support such an amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, observed, these provisions may not give rise to a perfect system of record recovery but it is preferable to a dark hall where criminals move unseen and with impunity.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, talks of observations from the Security Service and the Secret Intelligence Service, but be it noted that it is not for them that these records are so essential; it is for the police forces and the enforcement agencies in respect of crime. I have spoken at length to the National Crime Agency, which has underlined to me the critical nature of these records now that telecommunications data are so often routed through the internet, not by means of normal telephony.
Earlier today this House recognised the importance of the use of internet connection records, subject to strict safeguards, as noted by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. I do not think this House will want to prevent internet connection records being retained with the result that they are not available for any form of criminal investigation. Indeed, we have just discussed the government amendment to require judicial approval before a data retention notice can be given, which, as I said at the time, puts in place a significant new safeguard before a telecommunications operator can be required to retain the data.
There has been considerable debate on this topic, not just today but as the Bill has progressed through Parliament. However, in relation to this amendment, I should perhaps reiterate why internet connection records are so essential for law enforcement. As communications increasingly take place via the internet, information that used to be routinely available to law enforcement from telephone-based communications data is increasingly unavailable—for example, the identity of an individual suspected of sharing indecent images, or people with whom a missing person was last in contact. Internet connection records are essential because they will ensure that the type of communications data that were previously available to law enforcement will remain available in future, not perfectly but generally. It will help to ensure that terrorists and criminals cannot evade detection simply because they choose to communicate online.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, observed that there may be applications or social media apps on a device that maintain a persistent connection to a service. That is true, but even in such cases the relevant ICR will signpost the service access by the device, enabling a public authority to make further inquiries with the service provider, which is identified through the ICR. ICRs will allow law enforcement to approach online service providers to acquire communications data where it is known that a specific device has accessed their service. So it is not the case that simply because you have open or permanent connections, the use of ICRs is rendered useless; that is simply not accepted.
The alternatives available to the security and intelligence services are not available to the police, and certainly cannot be adduced in a court of law. The police can acquire communications data only on a case-by-case basis where necessary and proportionate, and where they have made strong operational cases as to why they need to retain these records. Equally, the intelligence agencies may acquire data only for their own statutory purposes, which are far narrower than the criminal types investigated by the police. It is also the case, as I mentioned before, that intercept material from the agencies may not be used as evidence in court, a position that has been upheld by numerous independent inquiries over the years, most recently by a panel of the Privy Council in 2014.
Giving evidence to the Public Bill Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Reid, and Charles Clarke, previous Home Secretaries, were asked whether ICRs were a key part of updating legislation to the current world, and they both definitely agreed. Indeed, one could go further. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, alluded to the observations of the Joint Committee on the draft Bill. Let us look at its conclusion:
“on balance, there is a case for Internet Connection Records as an important tool for law enforcement”.
The Government recognise the sensitive nature of internet connection records, which is exactly why we had our earlier debate concerning the safeguards that must surround their recovery. The point has already been made that those records will not give access to the content, it is the record of connection that will be recovered.
I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, still has concerns about internet connection records, and I fear that nothing I say will convince him otherwise, but I again reassure him that we have all the right safeguards in place. Data can be retained only when necessary and proportionate and following authorisation and approval by the Secretary of State and a judicial commissioner. We have mechanisms in place to ensure that data are held securely, including audit by the Information Commissioner. Once the data are retained, they can be accessed only on a case-by-case basis, and only when judged necessary and proportionate by a senior officer at a rank specified by Parliament who is independent of any investigation being carried out. Strong judicial oversight will be provided by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and, thanks to the changes made by this House, internet connection records cannot be acquired for minor offences, an amendment we discussed earlier.
In summary, internet connection records are a vital power. As to their cost, I believe that the figure given at a previous stage was £174 million over a period of 10 years. That is a not inconsiderable sum, but a manageable figure in the context of what we face with police powers. Accordingly, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Paddick
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. Leaving his heavy sarcasm to one side, I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, that it is very easy to find out how to evade these measures. A simple Google search will tell a seven year-old all about VPNs; I am not giving away any trade secrets. He talked about terrorists and nasty people. If those nasty people are involved in serious crime or terrorism, the police and the National Crime Agency can enlist the help of GCHQ. Therefore, internet connection records will not be required.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Harding of Winscombe, that, yes, it is not a perfect system, but she is wrong to say that the security agencies say that it is people moving to communication via the internet that is making us less secure. Encryption is the real problem making us less secure. Why, otherwise, would GCHQ and the other security agencies say that they do not need internet connection records?
The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, mentioned the vital question: is it reasonable, is it proportionate and where should the balance lie? However, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester pointed out, there are other real questions which the noble and learned Lord failed to address about whether ICRs would in practice deliver what the law enforcement agencies want. My noble friend Lord Oates re-emphasised that this is a massive intrusion into privacy; that is why we oppose it. As he pointed out, in a child exploitation case, there is a joint operations unit between GCHQ and the National Crime Agency to deal with the issue.
Where I part company with the right reverend Prelate is on the suggestion that ICRs could be more targeted. There is nothing in the Bill to suggest that they will. On the content of websites, if someone accesses a domestic violence, gender reassignment or marriage guidance website, it is immediately apparent what they are looking into and it is a massive intrusion into privacy even if the record is only of the website they are looking at.
The noble and learned Lord has spoken to the National Crime Agency at length. I have been twice to the National Crime Agency, so I have spoken to it at length twice, and I still, as a former senior police officer, failed to be convinced.
I spent 30 years in the Metropolitan Police Service and ended up as a senior officer at Scotland Yard. If I thought that the balance here was right between invasion of privacy and the benefits that accrue to law enforcement, I would not be expressing these views.
I am a lousy politician. I cannot stand here and say things that I do not believe just because they are my party’s policy. I am opposing this because I genuinely oppose the disproportionate invasion of privacy that ICRs represent. That is why I wish to test the opinion of the House.
“Approval of retention notices by Judicial Commissioners
(1) In deciding whether to approve a decision to give a retention notice, a Judicial Commissioner must review the Secretary of State’s conclusions as to whether the requirement to be imposed by the notice to retain relevant communications data is necessary and proportionate for one or more of the purposes falling within paragraphs (a) to (j) of section 58(7).(2) In doing so, the Judicial Commissioner must—(a) apply the same principles as would be applied by a court on an application for judicial review, and(b) consider the matters referred to in subsection (1) with a sufficient degree of care as to ensure that the Judicial Commissioner complies with the duties imposed by section 2 (general duties in relation to privacy).(3) Where a Judicial Commissioner refuses to approve a decision to give a retention notice, the Judicial Commissioner must give the Secretary of State written reasons for the refusal.(4) Where a Judicial Commissioner, other than the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, refuses to approve a decision to give a retention notice, the Secretary of State may ask the Investigatory Powers Commissioner to decide whether to approve the decision to give the notice.”
“(10A) But the Secretary of State may vary the notice, or give a notice under subsection (10)(b) confirming its effect, only if the Secretary of State’s decision to do so has been approved by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner.”
“Approval of retention notices following review under section 86
(1) In deciding whether to approve a decision to vary a retention notice as mentioned in section 86(10)(a), or to give a notice under section 86(10)(b) confirming the effect of a retention notice, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner must review the Secretary of State’s conclusions as to whether the requirement to be imposed by the notice as varied or confirmed to retain relevant communications data is necessary and proportionate for one or more of the purposes falling within paragraphs (a) to (j) of section 58(7).(2) In doing so, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner must—(a) apply the same principles as would be applied by a court on an application for judicial review, and(b) consider the matters referred to in subsection (1) with a sufficient degree of care as to ensure that the Investigatory Powers Commissioner complies with the duties imposed by section 2 (general duties in relation to privacy).(3) Where the Investigatory Powers Commissioner refuses to approve a decision to vary a retention notice as mentioned in section 86(10)(a), or to give a notice under section 86(10)(b) confirming the effect of a retention notice, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner must give the Secretary of State written reasons for the refusal.”
(a) ”
(b) subject to subsection (5A), the decision to vary the notice has been approved by a Judicial Commissioner.”
“(5A) Subsection (4)(b) does not apply to a variation to which section 86(10A) applies.”
“(8A) Section (Approval of retention notices by Judicial Commissioners) applies in relation to a decision to vary to which subsection (4)(b) above applies as it applies in relation to a decision to give a retention notice (and, accordingly, the reference in subsection (1) of that section to the requirement to be imposed by the notice is to be read as a reference to the requirement to be imposed by the variation).”
“(9A) Section (Approval of retention notices following review under section 86) applies in relation to a decision under section 86(10) to vary or confirm a variation as it applies in relation to a decision to vary or confirm a retention notice (and, accordingly, the reference in subsection (1) of that section to the requirement to be imposed by the notice as varied or confirmed is to be read as a reference to the requirement to be imposed by the variation as varied or confirmed).”
“(de) for section 83(3A) there were substituted—“(3A) A retention notice must not require an operator who provides a postal service (“the network operator”) to retain data which—(a) relates to the use of a postal service provided by another postal operator in relation to the postal service of the network operator,(b) is (or is capable of being) processed by the network operator as a result of being comprised in, included as part of, attached to or logically associated with a communication transmitted by means of the postal service of the network operator as a result of the use mentioned in paragraph (a),(c) is not needed by the network operator for the functioning of the network operator’s postal service in relation to that communication, and(d) is not retained or used by the network operator for any other lawful purpose,and which it is reasonably practicable to separate from other data which is subject to the notice.””
Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse
(7 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer given in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary on the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse.
“I know the whole House agrees with me when I say that the work of this inquiry is absolutely vital. Victims and survivors must have justice, and we must learn the lessons of the past.
The inquiry’s remit is to examine whether institutions in England and Wales have failed to protect children from sexual abuse. It is an independent body, established under the Inquiries Act 2005. The Home Office is the sponsor department. I am responsible for the terms of reference, appointing the chair and panel members, and providing funding. Last year the inquiry had a budget of £17.9 million and underspent by more than £3 million. The appointment of staff and the day-to-day running are matters for the chair.
I appointed Professor Alexis Jay as chair of the inquiry on 11 August, following the unexpected resignation of Dame Lowell Goddard on 4 August. I am aware of questions around the reasons for her resignation. Let me spell out the facts. On 29 July, the secretary to the inquiry met my Permanent Secretary and reported concerns about the professionalism and competence of the chair. My Permanent Secretary encouraged the inquiry to raise those matters with the chair. He reported this meeting to me the same day. My Permanent Secretary also met members of the inquiry panel on 4 August. Later that day, Dame Lowell tendered her resignation to me, which I accepted. Less than a week elapsed between concerns being raised with the Home Office and Dame Lowell’s resignation. My Permanent Secretary’s approach was entirely appropriate for an independent body.
The second issue relates to my evidence to the Home Affairs Committee. I was asked why Dame Lowell had gone. Dame Lowell had not spoken to me about her reasons, so I relied on the letter she had sent to the committee. In her letter she said that she was lonely and felt that she could not deliver, and that was why she stepped down. Dame Lowell has strongly refuted the allegations about her. The only way we could understand properly why she had resigned would be to hear from Dame Lowell herself. To echo any further allegations, which are now likely to be the subject of legal dispute, would have been entirely inappropriate.
We now owe it to the victims and survivors to get behind the inquiry in its endeavour. My own commitment to the inquiry’s work is undiminished. I invite the House to offer its support in the same way”.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the response to the Urgent Question, which frankly gives very little further information, apart from telling us that a chair of the inquiry, appointed by the previous Home Secretary, had been the subject of concerns about professionalism and competence, expressed by the secretary to the inquiry to the Home Office Permanent Secretary on 29 July. Does that not raise questions about the judgment of the previous Home Secretary in making the appointment concerned? We are now on the fourth chair and it is two years since the inquiry was established, yet little evidence has been taken and there has been a series of resignations among the senior staff of the inquiry. Why do the Government now think the position will change? Are there to be any changes in the remit, structure, staffing or financing of the inquiry? When is it anticipated it will complete its work? What steps are the Government taking to reassure victims who held high hopes of the inquiry and whose confidence and trust have now been severely shaken by recent events, including the apparent helplessness of the Government to do anything to sort out this highly unsatisfactory situation over the progress of the inquiry?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, the inquiry has made good progress since it was established. It is not appropriate for me or the Home Secretary to be briefed in detail on the activity of an independent inquiry while it is under way. However, the inquiry has indicated that it is making good progress in all 13 investigation strands. Preliminary hearings have taken place, evidence has been called for, and the inquiry has received more than 47,000 documents. A research project has been established to support the inquiry’s existing investigations, assist to scope and define future investigations, publish original research on child sexual abuse and analyse information that the inquiry receives from victims and survivors. In addition, sessions have been arranged for hundreds of victims and survivors to come forward and share their experiences with the inquiry. Noble Lords may have seen a statement made earlier today by the chair on her view of the terms of reference. She says that she believes that the terms of reference for the inquiry are necessary and deliverable. She had previously undertaken that an interim report would be with the inquiry before the end of this financial year.
On financing, as I said, the inquiry had a budget of £17.9 million last year. It underspent on that by some £3 million.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches are concerned that lessons of past child sex abuse cases should be learned and applied as quickly as possible. Can the Minister reassure the House that immediate steps to address obvious weaknesses in the way such cases are dealt with will not be deferred pending the outcome of this inquiry?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I understand that an internal review of the inquiry will take place. The noble Lord talked about consideration of current cases. Sorry, will he repeat the final bit of his question?
Lord Paddick
The concern that we have is that because this inquiry is taking such a long time, there might be some obvious weaknesses in the way that these cases are currently being dealt with that could be addressed but are being put off because the inquiry is still ongoing.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That would be a matter for the inquiry to consider. It is an independent inquiry and it is not for us to try to micromanage or dictate what it does. It is independent. But I take the noble Lord’s point and I am sure the inquiry will be mindful of that.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)
My Lords, on 13 September, in view of the concerns of Judge Goddard, I asked the Minister that the terms of reference be amended. This was refused point blank. The Home Secretary told the Commons committee that the only reason that she knew of for Judge Goddard’s resignation was her loneliness et cetera. Her Permanent Secretary, sitting beside her, and officials, may have had much longer knowledge of concerns about Judge Goddard. Could this be clarified? Would it not be better for there to be a pause for reflection so that all involved, including the victims, could be satisfied that we are now on the right course—including having the right terms of reference?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, the terms of reference were drawn up by the chair in consultation with the Home Secretary. The chair has made a statement today expressing her satisfaction with the terms of reference. As regards Judge Goddard, I understand that no concerns were raised formally and that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary had both a letter from Judge Goddard and what was presented to the Home Affairs Select Committee. Pausing for reflection is a matter for the independent inquiry. It is for the inquiry to decide whether it wishes to do that; it is not for us to tell it what to do.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I suggest to my noble friend that the purpose and scope of the inquiry is hopelessly flawed and that it would be better now to scrap it entirely rather than waste any more money on it. If that is wholly impossible, can we have a much tighter remit as to procedure, purpose and timescale? That needs to be given immediate thought.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, judging by today’s statement by the chair, I do not think that there is any intention of scrapping the inquiry. As I said earlier, an internal review of the inquiry is going on and an interim report is due out before the end of the financial year. I have outlined some of the things that the inquiry has achieved to date. But I must reiterate that it is independent and therefore we cannot dictate what it should do.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
My Lords, while I welcome the Statement, I agree that there is very little in it that clarifies what the inquiry is achieving, especially for the victims of this crime. As Victims’ Commissioner, I am a little concerned about where their voice is. This inquiry was set up to hear their voices, both historic and present. I spoke to some victims recently who were very worried and concerned about when their voices would be listened to, where their voices would be and how they would effect change through this inquiry.
While I welcome Professor Jay’s announcement today that there will be an interim report in November, my concern is about communication with the victims. I have seen huge gaps in the communications sent to them. This does not raise confidence throughout the country to encourage victims to come forward. Indeed, we have heard today that some victims want to sue the inquiry for causing them further trauma because of the up and down rollercoaster that it has started with. As Victims’ Commissioner, I am concerned that their voices are being missed. Will the Minister look at what support is being given? The Statement makes a good point about the underspend of £3 million. As Victims’ Commissioner, I would like that money to be used to support the victims while we get everything sorted, because the bureaucrats will go on but the victims are still suffering as we speak.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My noble friend makes a very valid point about the victims, because they are at the heart of the inquiry. If she wishes to raise any specific concerns with me, I will certainly take them up. If she believes that there are deficiencies in funding for the inquiry and victim support, again, I would like her to raise them with me. But the underspend tells me that funding has not been the issue here, and Alexis Jay herself said that she wants the inquiry to proceed with clarity and pace so that the victims from the past can be heard and we can all learn lessons for the future.
Lord Faulks (Con)
My Lords, of course we all want the victims to be heard and for there to be, as the chair herself said, a thorough examination of these issues—but how is it possible to have a thorough examination that is fair to the victims and to those who may be incriminated by any finding within any reasonable timescale so that lessons can truly be learned before so much time has elapsed that we will simply be left to treat this as a matter of history?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Alexis Jay said today that,
“the concerns that our terms of reference cannot be delivered are founded on an assumption that we must seek to replicate a traditional public inquiry in respect of each of the thousands of institutions that fall within our remit. We will do so for some, but we would never finish if we did it for all”.
I understand from that statement that the inquiry intends to look at some things in more depth than others. I hope that that results in a thorough inquiry, and I am sure that it will.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, I support the point made by my noble friend, which I think the Minister missed—namely, that this inquiry will take a very long time and that some pretty glaring lessons for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service can already be learned. We should not argue that nothing can be done by those bodies because we are waiting for the result of the inquiry.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord is absolutely right. Perhaps I did the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, a disservice by slightly getting the wrong end of the stick as regards his question. Of course those inquiries must go on as the independent inquiry proceeds.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness referred to the meeting on July—
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
I beg the noble Lord’s pardon but I understand that 10 minutes are allowed for questions on an Urgent Question. That time has now elapsed. I apologise to the noble Lord.
Community Pharmacy
(7 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
My Lords, with permission, I will repeat an Answer given by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State to an Urgent Question in the other place on community pharmacy. The Statement is as follows:
“Members of the House will have seen there has been media coverage over the weekend about our consultation on the community pharmacy contractual framework. I will now set out the current position, the process going forward and how the final decision will be announced to the House.
In December 2015, 10 months ago, the Government set out a range of proposals for reforming the community pharmacy sector. Our intent was to promote the movement of the sector towards a future based on value-added services together with much stronger links to the GP sector. We also proposed ways to make a reduction to the £2.8 billion currently paid to the sector. Part of the rationale for this was the increase of 40% in the budget and 18% in the number of establishments over the past decade or so.
Each establishment now receives an average of £220,000 of margin over and above the cost of drugs disbursed. Many of these establishments are in clusters. The 2015 spending review reaffirmed the need for the privately owned community pharmacy sector to make a contribution to the publicly owned NHS efficiency savings which we need to deliver. We are confident that the changes proposed will not jeopardise the quality of services required or patient access to them. Some services will be delivered differently, which is why we have set aside £112 million to recruit a further 1,500 pharmacy professionals to be employed directly by the NHS and GP practices.
The Government have been consulting on these reforms since December 2015. On 13 October this year the PSNC rejected our proposed package and sent a list of remaining concerns. We are now in the process of considering its final response and expect to be in a position to make an announcement to the House shortly”.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Answer to the Urgent Question that was given in the other place earlier today. It is much appreciated by me and other Members. The stated aim of the Government has been to put pharmacies at the heart of the NHS. However, the proposals here will have serious and far-reaching consequences for patients, local communities and the NHS. Can the noble Baroness tell the House when we can expect to see the full impact assessment of these proposed cuts? What steps have been taken to ensure that the pharmacy access scheme is available to all community pharmacies based on the size and need of the population they serve? Does the noble Baroness see the contradiction in claiming to put pharmacies at the heart of the community while implementing arbitrary cuts? Finally, what steps is she taking to prevent the closure or the reduction of opening hours of community pharmacies?
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
I thank the noble Lord for those questions. The decision on the impact assessment has obviously not been made yet because the Government are thinking about the problems that have just arisen due to the PSNC not accepting the decisions that we thought had been made. There is no reason why this package should in any way affect the efficiencies of pharmacies at the moment. It is important to remember that the Government fund community pharmacies to the tune of £2.8 billion, and the average pharmacy receives £220,000 per year in NHS funding. We believe that the sector, which is made up of private companies that are often densely clustered together, can withstand this, and that the quality of services provided to patients will not be affected as a result. We know that 40% of pharmacies are in clusters of three or more, which means that two-fifths of pharmacies are within 10 minutes’ walk of two or more other pharmacies.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware of the report, commissioned for the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee and published last month, which showed that in 2015 community pharmacies provided 75 million minor ailment consultations and 74 million medicine support interventions. Does she not think that reducing the provision of community pharmacies may make it even harder for many people to see their GP and will add to the already considerable problems at many A&E units?
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
The Government are modernising the pharmacy sector and are investing £112 million to deliver a further 1,500 pharmacies in general practice by 2020. We are ensuring that no area is left without access to community pharmacy due to the pharmacy access scheme, and as the Minister for Community Health and Care announced on 13 October we are also introducing the pharmacy urgent care programme, a pilot scheme which will embed pharmacy into the urgent care pathway by expanding the service already provided by community pharmacies in England for those who need urgent repeat prescriptions and treatment for urgent minor ailments and common conditions. The move means that, in pilot areas, patients who need urgent repeat medicines will be referred from NHS 111 directly to community pharmacies. NHS 111 will develop and evaluate a new approach that will ultimately enable the service to refer patients with urgent minor ailments such as earaches to community pharmacies.
Lord Higgins (Con)
Does my noble friend agree that the link between individuals and the pharmacy can be important, particularly for the elderly and those with long-term illnesses? On the whole, this may well be easier to facilitate in the case of small pharmacies rather than large ones in a larger shop that is engaged in other operations, not to in any way denigrate the important role which those shops may play. Does my noble friend agree that it is important that, in the course of this change, the position of the smaller pharmacies should not be undermined?
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
I absolutely agree with my noble friend. There is no reason why that should be the case. At the moment, as I am sure he is aware, there are sometimes up to three or four pharmacies on one high street. It is not necessary to say that with these proposals the pharmacies will close, because the majority of them are privately owned, but it is important to try to modernise the system as it is now. The integrated care fund is very much working towards joined-up thinking on this.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
Will my noble friend take a message back to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to say that if the reports are true that we could end up losing 1,500 or 1,400 small, independent pharmacies, these plans are barking mad and should have no part of Conservative government policy? It is right to save money on drugs, but can we target the big pharmas which rip off the Department of Health and have been doing so for years, and call the dogs off the little, independent pharmacies, which are vital for rural areas and are important small businesses? I do not want to see only Lloyds, Boots and the supermarkets on the high street—we need the little independents as well.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
There is no reason why this should stop that happening. As I mentioned, the pharmacy access scheme absolutely ensures that no area will be left without access to community pharmacy, and that targets the rural areas in particular.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I know that my noble friend will agree that community pharmacy has a tremendous reach in that 1.6 million people every day visit a community pharmacy. It can play a vital part in enhancing care in the community, particularly, as my noble friend said, looking after those who are older and/or with chronic conditions. It tries to ensure that people are diagnosed and looked after, and that their needs are met in the community, not defaulting to costly hospital admissions. In that respect, my noble friend said that value-added services are key to this. They are, and for years we have wanted pharmacies to be able to diversify out of reliance wholly on dispensing fees and the allowable profit margin, to raise resources themselves by services provided to the NHS locally. Can my noble friend say to that extent how far clinical commissioning groups themselves use the opportunity of local pharmacies to offset what would otherwise be the pressures of demand upon NHS services?
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
I thank my noble friend for that question. On the last part, I may have to get back to him, because I do not know the answer to that. It is important to remember that the proposals that the Government have been consulting on are part of a wider package of reforms to ensure that the NHS funds are allocated in the most efficient way possible, while promoting a high-quality community pharmacy service which is fully integrated with primary and urgent care and which makes better use of pharmacies’ valuable skills.
Lord Low of Dalston (CB)
Does the noble Baroness agree that one of the most valuable services provided by pharmacies is the delivery of medicines to people who are elderly and housebound, and that it is vital that the funding proposals that the Government come up with do absolutely nothing to undermine that service?
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
The noble Lord is absolutely right. That service will not be undermined and it is extremely important that it carries on—again, particularly in rural areas.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I echo the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Blencathra. Both of us represented rural constituencies: in my case for 31 years and in his case I think for nearly 30. The truth is that local pharmacies are terribly important in rural areas. I hope that my noble friend will have that in mind when the policies are addressed.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
My noble friend is absolutely right. As I mentioned earlier, that is the point of the pharmacy access scheme, which is intended in particular to ensure that the right number of rural pharmacies are available in those areas.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
I know that my local chemist is very upset about what may happen to him. He talks about areas where money is wasted by the NHS and where efficiencies could be effected. Has the Minister had discussions with the representatives of pharmacists who have opposed this proposal, to see whether they can come up with ideas on how efficiencies can be achieved?
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
Certainly everybody was consulted during the process and that is why we were very disappointed with the attitude that has been taken. We took particular care to endeavour to work collaboratively and we listened to their suggestions and proposals over quite a long period.
I have just been passed something by my inspiration, who is not far from my left-hand side. As I am on my feet, I hope that noble Lords will not mind if I answer the question put by my noble friend Lord Lansley. Roughly 50% of local areas currently commission community pharmacies to provide minor-ailment services. As the Minister announced last week, we are committed to increasing the coverage to all areas by April 2018. This shows how valuable a resource pharmacies are for patient care.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
I apologise to my noble friend but the 10 minutes for questions have now passed.
Investigatory Powers Bill
Monday 17th October 2016
(7 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 62-III Third marshalled list for Report (PDF, 153KB) - (17 Oct 2016)
Lord Paddick
“( ) There shall be a body corporate known as the Investigatory Powers Commission comprising—(a) the Investigatory Powers Commissioner;(b) Judicial Commissioners; and(c) staff to support the Commissioners.”
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, this amendment stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee. It introduces to the Bill a body corporate known as the investigatory powers commission that comprises the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, judicial commissioners and staff to support the commissioners. I am relying heavily on, and am very grateful to, the Interception of Communications Commissioner’s Office in this matter.
At present the Bill creates only a chief judicial commissioner and a small number of judicial commissioners. The commissioners will be responsible for approving approximately only 2% of the applications falling within the remit of the oversight body. Most of the applications made under the Bill are likely to be for communications data, for example, individual applications for which are not subject to prior approval by a judicial commissioner. The remaining 98% will be subject only to post-facto oversight.
The post-facto oversight will be carried out predominantly by specialist inspectors, investigators, analysts and technical staff working to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, and it is important for those individuals to have a delegated power to require information or access to technical systems. According to the Interception of Communications Commissioner’s Office:
“The creation of a Commission is crucial to achieve a modern, inquisitive oversight body that has the expertise to carry out investigations and inquiries to the breadth and depth required and the intellectual curiosity to probe and challenge the conduct of the public authorities”.
I shall expand on what IOCCO means by that.
First, it means that the specialists do not have to wait to be tasked by the commissioner but can use their initiative and expertise to follow the evidence and conduct post-facto scrutiny where they believe it is most needed. Secondly, other commissions, such as the Independent Police Complaints Commission, are bodies corporate whose investigators have all the powers of their commission. This prevents police officers saying, “I’m not talking to you, Mr Investigator. I am only going to talk to a commissioner”. The Government may say that there is no direct parallel here but they would be wrong.
The Intelligence Services Commissioner was asked by the then Home Secretary, Theresa May, to carry out an investigation into what the security services knew about those involved in the murder of Fusilier Lee Rigby. In his supplemental report to his 2015 annual report, Sir Mark Waller, at paragraph 5.3(4), talks about his attempts to have counsel, Mr Sanders, who was carrying out the investigation on the commissioner’s behalf, present during the interviews of some of those involved:
“Prior to these interviews taking place, SIS told me that Desk Officer 1 and Intelligence Officers 1 and 3 objected to Mr Sanders being present and so he did not attend. I have since been told by SIS that this objection in fact came from its senior management. I very much regret that this was not made clear to me at the time as I would have challenged it” "
The fact is that, unless those carrying out post-facto scrutiny are part of a body corporate, as in the case of the IPCC, those whom they are supposed to be scrutinising can refuse to co-operate with them and demand that they deal with the Investigatory Powers Commissioner alone.
The IOCCO says:
“Putting the oversight Commission on a statutory footing will be a huge step towards guaranteeing independence, capability and diversity within the organisation which will inspire public trust and confidence”.
It goes on to say:
“Creating an oversight Commission would also help make a distinction between the approval and post-facto audit elements of the oversight body, addressing a concern raised by a number of witnesses to the Joint Committee that the Judicial Commissioners should not be perceived to be ‘marking their own homework’”.
This of course refers to the fact that in the 2% of cases where a warrant was approved by a judicial commissioner, without the establishment of a commission it could understandably be perceived by the public that the judicial commissioners were post-facto auditing the decisions of other judicial commissioners. Although this may be an accepted practice in the legal profession—in the courts and so forth—it is likely to be lost on the general public. The Interception of Communications Commissioner’s Office concludes:
“We urge the Government to implement this recommendation which was also made by the RUSI Independent Surveillance Review, David Anderson QC and the IP Bill Joint Committee”.
The amendment seeks to implement that recommendation. I beg to move.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, we are satisfied that the speedy and effective establishment of the office of Investigatory Powers Commissioner will provide the staff, expertise and structure to implement the Bill. As the noble Earl will know, we have queried whether the resources will be made available and we will continue to keep an eye on that. However, we see no rationale as to why a body corporate, with all the governance, other requirements and bureaucracy, would be better at achieving the balance that we seek, which is the timely, appropriate and thorough oversight of the powers in this Bill, taking full account of civil liberties and the need to prevent or apprehend crime, and dealing with threats from those who wish us harm.
It is possible that I have misunderstood what the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said, but it seemed that he wanted the staff to have some of the commissioner’s authority. For ourselves, we have relied very much on the judicial commissioners, with the powers given to them under the Bill, and the IPC himself or herself to do this, and we would certainly not want to detract from their authority in any way.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 131A seeks to provide in the Bill for an investigatory powers commission in addition to a commissioner. I listened with care to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and I understand how strongly he feels about this issue. The Government have been clear throughout the passage of the Bill that the Investigatory Powers Commissioner will lead a powerful new body—the noble Lord and I are, I think, in agreement on that principle. However, the Government have been equally clear that there is no need to create that body in statute. Our principal reason for adhering to that view is that doing so would not confer any new powers, duties or responsibilities on those working for the commissioner, nor would it affect their ability to audit, inspect and oversee public authorities.
I am the first to recognise the importance of public perception. However, as to whether it would benefit public perception to create a commission, I cannot see what advantages an anonymous quango holds over a senior, independent judge. The oversight and authorisation of investigatory powers are vital tasks that need to be performed and need to be performed well. Therefore, in my submission, it is right that an identifiable individual is ultimately responsible for them.
It is the difference between having a person with a public face and a body that risks being seen by the public as faceless. Since the oversight powers and duties are ultimately placed on the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, we logically expect that commissioner to be the public face of the body. It is the commissioner who will be called on to lead the public debate on these issues and to give his or her expert and considered legal view on the matters in the Bill. If, for example, someone receives a notification of an error under Clause 209, or if a report is made under Clause 212, it is better that such communications should come from a senior, named judicial figure rather than a faceless organisation.
Of course, it is necessarily the case that the commissioner will rely on the work of an extensive staff of expert inspectors and advisers. Again, though, I argue that that does not necessitate the creation of a commission in statute. When an inspector walks into a public authority, the fact that they are an employee of an investigatory powers commission would not give them any greater powers than if they are a representative of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. I agree with one element of what the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said: it is right that, in such circumstances, those employees should wield appropriate authority. The Government have listened to concerns expressed on this point and tabled amendments, which we will come to later, to make clear that the commissioners can delegate powers under the Bill to their staff. That will make absolutely clear that when the experts and inspectors employed by the commissioner go about their work, they do so with the full force of the commissioner behind them.
Moreover, creating a new body in statute would require the establishment of a board to run that body, complete with at least three non-executive directors. I was grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for her remarks on this point. In the eyes of many, this would muddy the waters of accountability and introduce considerable new bureaucracy into the work of the commissioner. It is much better that the commissioner’s resources and attention should be focused on overseeing the work of public authorities and providing public assurance, rather than on servicing a burgeoning bureaucracy.
Lord Paddick
Can the Minister reassure me that the circumstances that the Intelligence Services Commissioner found himself in—that is, with one of his investigators effectively being excluded when he was involved in investigating what the intelligence services knew prior to the murder of Fusilier Lee Rigby —could not happen in the absence of a body corporate being set up, as this amendment suggests? There are concerns that people in the security services might not acknowledge the authority of the inspectors if it is not the case.
Earl Howe
I fully believe that the amendments we have tabled will give inspectors the authority that is equivalent to that of a judicial commissioner. Although I was not aware of the case that the noble Lord cites, I think the government amendments will put the situation beyond doubt, if ever there was any. I do not believe that the problem the noble Lord refers to has ever impacted more widely on the ability of inspectors to do the job that is required of them; I like to hope that that was a one-off problem. However, with the benefit of the government amendments, it simply should not be an issue.
I hope I have reassured the noble Lord. Certainly, we cannot overlook the point that the creation of a new body would come at significant financial cost that would be of no gain in terms of public reassurance or effective oversight. As I have argued, it might risk making the oversight regime less clear. For a bunch of reasons, I hope the noble Lord will feel comfortable in reconsidering his amendment.
Lord Paddick
I am very grateful to the Minister. I am not sure that he is entirely reassured that the government amendments will deal with this issue, but I accept that that is because he did not have sight of my example prior to the debate. I regret not giving him notice that I would be bringing it up. However, given all the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 132 and the others in the group. The government amendments in this group address the fact that the Northern Ireland Assembly has not provided legislative consent for this Bill. Only a small number of provisions in the Bill engage devolved responsibilities in Northern Ireland. These relate to oversight and to the proposal that the role of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner for Northern Ireland, who is responsible for overseeing the exercise of devolved powers, should be subsumed into the Investigatory Powers Commissioner that we are creating under the Bill.
In the absence of legislative consent, the existing office of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner for Northern Ireland will not be abolished. Consequently, the Bill need no longer provide for the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to be consulted on the appointment of the IPC. Similarly, the Prime Minister will no longer be under a statutory duty to send them a copy of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s annual report.
Additionally, appeals arising from the Investigatory Powers Tribunal under Clause 220 will no longer be heard by the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland. It will be for the Investigatory Powers Tribunal to decide whether the Court of Appeal in England and Wales or the Court of Session in Scotland should hear the appeal instead. Although this is obviously not the most desirable appeal route for individuals from Northern Ireland, our hands are tied by lack of legislative consent from the Northern Ireland Executive.
Included in this group of government amendments are regulation-making powers allowing the Secretary of State, with the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly, to reverse these amendments. Therefore, if legislative consent were given at some point in the future, the IPC could reasonably quickly take on the functions of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner for Northern Ireland and appeals could be allowed to go to the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland. It is our hope that both these powers can be used in the near future. Accordingly, I hope noble Lords will support these amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, I want to make reference to the amendment that we have in this group. Clause 205 provides for the appointment of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and judicial commissioners.
As currently drafted, Clause 205(5) requires the Prime Minister to consult Scottish Ministers and the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland about the appointment of these commissioners. However, there appears to be currently no duty to consult Welsh Ministers about these appointments, with the result that Wales does not feel that it is being treated equally with the other devolved Administrations in this respect.
Under the Wales Bill before the House, Welsh devolution will take a constitutional form that is much closer to that for Scotland and Northern Ireland. The First Minister of Wales considers that the mutual respect between Administrations means that drawing unnecessary distinctions in legislation between devolved Administrations should be avoided unless strictly necessary. He regards the provision in this Bill—the Investigatory Powers Bill—as at the very least constitutionally discourteous to Wales. In speaking to this amendment, I invite the Government to take the necessary steps in relation to consultation under Clause 205 to address the concern raised by the First Minister on which I have just sought to reflect.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, I add my voice to what my noble friend just said. Initially, in the list of government amendments the Minister seemed to be saying that it was no longer a requirement for the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland to be consulted on the appointments of the IPC and the judicial commissioners. That is a retrograde step and I hope that the Government will rethink it. I will explain why in relation to my noble friend’s amendment with regard to the First Minister of Wales.
When the Joint Committee considered this part of the Bill, it added its own recommendations that when the Prime Minister looked at the appointment of the IPC and the judicial commissioners, he or she should consult the First Minister of Scotland and the First and Deputy First Ministers in Northern Ireland. Both jurisdictions of course are different from England, particularly in Scotland, and it seemed the right thing to do. There was unanimity among members of the Joint Committee on making that recommendation.
Since the Joint Committee met, as my noble friend said, a new Bill has been introduced to this House, the Wales Bill, that will considerably alter the constitutional relationship between Wales and the United Kingdom. For example, it will confer reserve powers on the Welsh Assembly, much of criminal law will be devolved, Wales will be a distinct jurisdiction and there is the possibility in years to come that even justice might be devolved to the Welsh Assembly. It is not at the moment, but certainly the Assembly is arguing that there may be a case in the future for that to happen.
This afternoon, I met with the First Minister for Wales on this very issue. As my noble friend said, the Welsh Government and the Welsh Assembly are very concerned that Wales should be part of the consultation process. No one is arguing that the First Minister of Wales, the First and Deputy First Ministers in Northern Ireland or the First Minister of Scotland should make the appointments: it is a question of courteous consultation. I speak as a former Welsh and Northern Ireland Secretary in saying that devolution has matured over the last dozen years. It is important to respect that maturity and respect the constitutional relationships. On a simple matter of consultation, the Government should rethink the position of the First and Deputy First Ministers of Northern Ireland in this respect and should add the Welsh First Minister as a consultee in this important process. I support the amendment spoken to by my noble friend.
Earl Howe
My Lords, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner will be taking on the responsibilities of the three existing statutory commissioners in this area. I contend that Amendment 132A is unnecessary and indeed inappropriate because it would create an inconsistency across the Bill.
The appointment of commissioners to one of those existing bodies—the Office of Surveillance Commissioners —is currently a matter for the Prime Minister, following consultation with Scottish Ministers. Scottish Ministers also have the power to appoint surveillance commissioners for the purpose of overseeing the exercise of powers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Act 2000, or RIPSA.
Under the Bill, the IPC will take on responsibility for overseeing the exercise of powers under RIPSA. As a consequence, the Bill will remove the power of Scottish Ministers to appoint surveillance commissioners. To be consistent with the current position, the Bill therefore requires that Scottish Ministers must be consulted by the Prime Minister prior to the appointment of the IPC or a judicial commissioner. Similarly, the Bill currently requires the Prime Minister to consult the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland on the appointment of a commissioner. This again reflects the fact that Northern Irish Ministers currently have a role in the appointment of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner for Northern Ireland, which the Bill had originally proposed to subsume into the office of the IPC.
In the event, as I have just said, the Bill has not received legislative consent from the Northern Ireland Assembly. Consequently, the amendments that I have already spoken to in this group would remove the requirement for consultation with Northern Irish Ministers. The noble Lord, Lord Murphy, said that that was a retrograde step, but without legislative consent for the Bill from the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Government have no alternative. In contrast, Welsh Ministers currently have no statutory role in the appointment of the existing commissioners. As the Bill will not affect the competence of Welsh Ministers, I do not consider it necessary to introduce a new right of consultation. Indeed, doing so would create an inconsistency between the treatment of Welsh Ministers and their counterparts in Northern Ireland.
The appointment of judicial commissioners is an important matter, which is why the Government have strengthened the Bill by requiring that appointments must be on the recommendation of the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, and that of his devolved counterparts. So Welsh interests will undoubtedly be represented by the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales. Indeed, I note that the current Lord Chief Justice was in fact born in Wales. I do not consider that further changes to this process are necessary, particularly when they would serve to create inconsistencies within the Bill, as I have explained. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will agree not to press his amendment.
Lord Rosser
I thank the Minister for his response. The spirit of the amendment, frankly, is that in the light of the thrust of the Wales Bill the Government ought to be prepared to consider making the change sought in the amendment, which after all is about consultation. However, I note the response that has been received, which clearly indicates that the Government are not prepared to go down that road. I am sure that the First Minister will read the Government’s response carefully even though it will probably be without any enthusiasm.
Lord Keen of Elie
“(8A) Subsection (8) does not apply to the function of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner of making a recommendation under subsection (4)(e) or making an appointment under section (Members of the Panel)(1).(8B) The delegation under subsection (8) to any extent of functions by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner does not prevent the exercise of the functions to that extent by that Commissioner.(8C) Any function exercisable by a Judicial Commissioner or any description of Judicial Commissioners is exercisable by any of the Judicial Commissioners or (as the case may be) any of the Judicial Commissioners of that description.(8D) Subsection (8C) does not apply to—(a) any function conferred on the Investigatory Powers Commissioner by name (except so far as its exercise by any of the Judicial Commissioners or any description of Judicial Commissioners is permitted by a delegation under subsection (8)), or(b) any function conferred on, or delegated under subsection (8) to, any other particular named Judicial Commissioner.”
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, this group contains a variety of government amendments relating to oversight arrangements.
Amendments 133 and 149 clarify the delegation of functions by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner or judicial commissioners. They make clear that certain judicial functions of the IPC or judicial commissioners cannot of course be delegated to staff. The amendments also make clear that, where the Bill requires a judicial commissioner to undertake a task, any of the judicial commissioners can perform that duty. However, the IPC can still delegate a function or functions to an individual judicial commissioner in order to create a de facto deputy, should he wish to do so. Delegation of certain functions is sensible and allows for a flexible and efficient working environment. Of course, it would be inappropriate if the IPC could delegate to a judicial commissioner the ability to recommend individuals to be appointed as judicial commissioners and so this function is reserved to the IPC.
Amendment 149 puts beyond any doubt that the inspectors and expert advisers who work for the Investigatory Powers Commissioner or a judicial commissioner will be working with their full delegated authority. This responds to concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in Committee. We have been clear that the Investigatory Powers Commissioner will lead a powerful new oversight body which will rely on the work of inspectors and technical experts alongside the commissioners themselves. Those working under the authority of the commissioner will have the same right to access and interrogate information that the commissioners themselves would have. This amendment puts that beyond doubt. It makes it clear that commissioners can, formally and in accordance with statute, delegate some of their functions to the staff working for them.
However, it is right that not all functions should be capable of delegation. There are some activities and decisions, such as decisions to approve the use of powers, that should rightly be undertaken by judges. Therefore, this amendment also prevents those types of activities and decisions from being delegated to members of staff. These amendments strike the right balance between allowing members of staff to claim the full authority of the commissioner while reserving key judicial functions to those who are appropriately qualified to undertake them. I hope that that brings some satisfaction to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, who was concerned to anticipate whether these amendments would go as far as he hoped; I believe that they do.
Amendment 135 is intended to provide further clarity about when a commissioner does not need to consider the duties set out in Clause 207(6) and (7). I hope that the House will agree that while the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and the judicial commissioners who will be working for him or her will be performing vital functions, it is important that the actual performance of those functions does not damage the public interest. Subsections (6) and (7) set out a number of duties on the commissioner: for example, that they should not act in a way that in their own opinion is prejudicial to national security, nor should they act in a way that they consider would compromise the safety of those involved in a security operation.
When the Joint Committee on the Draft Investigatory Powers Bill considered the first incarnation of this clause, it expressed concern that the duty placed on the commissioners as set out in these subsections was too broad. The Government then carefully considered this clause and agreed that there should be occasions on which a commissioner was not caught by these additional duties. For example, we put it beyond doubt that a commissioner could refuse to approve the decision to issue a warrant without worrying that they were breaching their duties in relation to national security. This amendment goes further still along that same path. It increases the list of circumstances in which a judicial commissioner will not be subject to the duty contained in subsections (6) and (7). The amendment expands the list to include all circumstances in which a judicial commissioner could be said to be exercising a “judicial function” or taking a judicial decision. I hope that this provides the House with further reassurance that we do not intend subsections (6) and (7) to be unduly limiting upon the important work of the commissioners.
Clause 223 provides for membership of the Technical Advisory Board, a non-departmental public body that advises the Secretary of State on cost and technical grounds if a notice given under Parts 4 or 9 of the Bill is referred by a telecommunications operator for review. Membership of the board must include a balanced representation of those on whom obligations may be imposed by virtue of notices and of those persons entitled to apply for warrants or authorisations under the Bill. At present, subsection (2)(a) of this clause requires that the membership of the board must include persons on whom obligations could be imposed by virtue of a data retention notice or technical capability notice—namely, telecommunications operators. Government Amendment 177 makes a minor change to this provision to add persons on whom obligations could be imposed by a national security notice. The amendment will not change the scope of the persons who must be represented on the board; indeed, a national security notice may only be given to a telecommunications operator. However, this minor change will make the meaning of the provision more clear.
Amendment 136 is a minor amendment to Clause 207, clarifying the policy intention that the Investigatory Powers Commissioner should be able to review the decisions of other judicial commissioners should this be necessary.
Amendments 137, 263 and 274 move the definition of a “statutory function” to Clause 239 alongside other definitions.
I turn now to Amendment 146. In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, sought further clarity as to precisely who is covered by the definition of a “member” of a public authority. Having reflected on the matter, I can see that perhaps this definition is not as clear as it could be. Therefore, the Government have introduced this amendment to be clear that everyone who works for a public authority or who has worked for a public authority in the past will have to provide the IPC with all necessary assistance. I hope that that gives the House reassurance that the IPC will be able to hold those public authorities properly and clearly to account.
Amendment 147 is intended to put beyond doubt the fact that the Investigatory Powers Commissioner will have access to advisers, be they legal, technical or of any other nature, that the commissioner feels is necessary to undertake their statutory functions. This amendment provides that the Secretary of State, after discussion with the IPC, must provide the commissioner with services as well as with staff, accommodation, equipment and facilities. I would like to be clear, though, that the commissioner will be entirely free to choose their own advisers and that the Secretary of State will merely supply the resources to pay for those advisers. This will allow the commissioner flexibility to “buy in” whatever advice they need at whatever time.
Amendments 154 to 156 are technical amendments providing additional certainty around the definition of the chief and other surveillance commissioners who are being abolished by the Bill and replaced by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner.
Clause 221 already makes a number of amendments to Sections 65, 67 and 68 of RIPA in relation to the functions of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. Amendments 163 to 175 are further technical amendments simply updating the relevant provisions of RIPA to ensure that it is clear that the Investigatory Powers Tribunal has the jurisdiction to investigate any claims or complaints relating to the provisions of the Investigatory Powers Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, we welcome the amendments in this group. The provisions on delegation are indeed extremely helpful, as we were concerned about the chain of command and chain of responsibilities. I am glad to see the little amendment about being a “member” of a local authority—or HMRC, which I think was the other example I used. I had thought I was maybe going a bit too far in raising that point, but I am glad that I did. I am also glad to see the insertion of the reference to services for the IPC, which we were also concerned about. Having said that, we are happy with these amendments.
Baroness Hamwee
“( ) The Investigatory Powers Commissioner may publish material expressing views as to or recording legal interpretations of the provisions of this Act.”
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Paddick and I also have Amendments 178A, 178B and 178C in this group.
We mentioned in Committee how inextricably intertwined are technical and legal matters in this area. I doubt that either Minister would disagree with that, having lived with this Bill as they have. Whether and how the Act will apply will be a matter of legal interpretation in the context of the technology that we have at the time. Our Amendment 134A would give the Investigatory Powers Commissioner power to publish material regarding legal interpretations. It is clear that he would keep the interpretations under review, so this amendment is simply a matter of having the power to publish them.
We welcome government Amendment 178 and its consequential amendments providing for a Technology Advisory Panel. We have three minor amendments seeking either clarification or adjustment. Subsection (1)(a) of the new clause provides for the panel to give advice on,
“the impact of changing technology on the exercise of investigatory powers”.
We would insert there a reference to the safeguards on the exercise of powers. That may be implicit, because the exercise of powers is to be subject to safeguards, but we think it should be explicit. After all, safeguards have been very much a feature of debate on the Bill in both Houses, and the Bill has changed quite a lot in spelling out what safeguards there are.
Similarly, Amendment 178B would insert advice on the interpretation of the law in the light of technological advances and necessary amendments to legislation. It is, if you like, a first cousin to Amendment 134A.
On Amendment 178C, given that the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and Ministers will be required to consider the privacy implications when exercising powers relating to new technology, it would be helpful for the Technology Advisory Panel to be required to have regard to those same matters—that is, those matters set out in the privacy clause, Clause 2. That would be not only helpful but appropriate. After all, as an advisory panel, it must have regard to how those exercising the powers would be constrained in exercising them. I beg to move.
Lord Rosser
I appreciate that I may be speaking prematurely since the Government have not moved their amendment on the Technology Advisory Panel. On the basis that they are not about to stand up and withdraw it, I thank the Government for the amendment establishing a Technology Advisory Panel, which reflects the recommendation by David Anderson QC in his report on the bulk powers provisions in the Bill, a report that we had secured during the passage of the Bill in the Commons and a recommendation on which we had an amendment in Committee in this House.
Lord Keen of Elie
I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and will resist the temptation that he laid in my path. As he observed, the government amendments have been tabled to give effect to the recommendation of David Anderson’s bulk powers review.
The review demonstrated that the bulk powers are crucial. Mr Anderson’s report concludes that the powers,
“have a clear operational purpose”,
and,
“play an important part in identifying, understanding and averting threats in Great Britain, Northern Ireland and further afield”,
and that, where alternatives exist to their use,
“they were likely to produce less comprehensive intelligence and were often more dangerous (for example to agents and their handlers), more resource-intensive, more intrusive or – crucially – slower”.
The review also concludes that bulk powers are vital across the full range of security and intelligence agency activity, including counterterrorism, cyberdefence, combating child sexual exploitation and organised crime, and supporting military operations; and that they have been used to disrupt terrorist activity, prevent bomb attacks, facilitate the rescue of hostages, thwart cyberattacks and save lives.
Mr Anderson’s report included a single recommendation, which was:
“The Bill should be amended to provide for a Technology Advisory Panel, appointed by and reporting to the IPC”—
that is, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner—
“to advise the IPC and the Secretary of State on the impact of changing technology on the exercise of investigatory powers and on the availability and development of techniques to use those powers while minimising interference with privacy”.
Following careful consideration of this recommendation, we agree with Mr Anderson’s assessment that those authorising, approving and overseeing the exercise of bulk powers must be alert to the impact of technological change on those powers’ utility and impact. These amendments therefore give effect to Mr Anderson’s recommendation in full.
The amendments provide that a Technology Advisory Panel must be established by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and, in line with Mr Anderson’s recommendation, members of the panel would be appointed by, and clearly accountable to, the commissioner. They also provide that the role of the panel is to advise the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, the Secretary of State and Scottish Ministers on precisely those matters set out in David Anderson’s recommendation —namely, the impact of changing technology on the exercise of investigatory powers, and the availability and development of techniques to use such powers while minimising interference with privacy. The Investigatory Powers Commissioner would have the power to direct the panel to provide advice on any issue relevant to these matters.
While David Anderson’s review was in relation specifically to the bulk powers in the Bill, we agree with his view that there is no reason to restrict the scope of the Technology Advisory Panel just to those powers. Indeed, the panel giving advice in relation to the targeted powers could be just as valuable. As such, the amendments make clear that the panel’s role would extend to providing advice on all investigatory powers whose exercise is subject to review by the commissioner, which of course includes all the investigatory powers under the Bill.
To ensure that the panel would be able to undertake its role effectively, the amendments also make clear that its members would have the same right to access information as judicial commissioners. This means that any relevant person, such as any member of a public authority, must disclose or provide to a member of the panel all such documents and information as that member may require in order to carry out their functions.
We also agree with David Anderson that it should be mandatory for the Technology Advisory Panel to produce an annual report on the exercise of its functions. The amendments would therefore require that the panel make such a report to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner as soon as reasonably practicable at the end of each calendar year. At the same time as providing the report to the commissioner, a copy would also need to be sent to the Secretary of State and to Scottish Ministers where the report related to matters for which Scottish Ministers are responsible. To ensure sufficient transparency about the panel’s work, the amendments would require the Investigatory Powers Commissioner to include information about the work of the panel in their annual report.
I turn to the opposition amendments that have been tabled to the new clause establishing the Technology Advisory Panel. The first of these amendments would expand the role of the panel explicitly to provide advice to the commissioner on safeguards. While I appreciate what is intended by the amendment, I do not think it is necessary. The panel’s role is to advise on the impact of changing technology on the exercise of investigatory powers. Therefore, if technology changes in a way which means that existing safeguards are no longer appropriate or if new safeguards are needed to protect privacy, the panel can provide such advice to the commissioner and the Secretary of State. The panel must provide advice when asked to do so, but may also provide advice as it considers appropriate. While I appreciate the intent behind the amendment, I believe that the clause as drafted already provides for such advice to be given by the panel. Therefore, I do not believe that the noble Baroness’s amendment is necessary.
The second amendment to which she referred would expand the role of the panel to provide advice on an additional matter, namely,
“the impact of changing technology on the interpretation of the law and any amendments to legislation required to ensure the application of the provisions of this Act to changed technology”.
This amendment is neither necessary nor desirable. The role of the panel would, rightly, be squarely to provide advice on the impact of technology on the exercise of investigatory powers. This clearly defined role will ensure that members of the panel will be exactly what we need them to be: technical experts. David Anderson’s recommendation was designed to fill a gap. He was conscious that the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and judicial commissioners will be senior judicial figures. So, while they will be experts in the law and the interpretation of the law, they will not necessarily be experts in technology. What he felt was needed, and what the Government agree is needed, is technical experts to provide technical advice. In seeking to expand the panel’s remit to provide legal advice as well, I strongly fear we would end up with lawyers rather than technical experts. Indeed, David Anderson specifically warned that,
“the technological expertise of the TAP should not be unduly diluted”.
I pause to wonder whether one could ever dilute something with a lawyer, but I continue. That is exactly what this amendment would do, and that is why we firmly believe that it should be resisted.
This brings me to the amendment, which would permit the commissioner to make a report on his or her views about the legal operation of the Bill but would not place a duty on the commissioner to do so. I appreciate the sentiment behind the amendment, but I believe it is unnecessary. Clause 212 already gives the Investigatory Powers Commissioner a very wide remit to report on any matter relating to the functions of the judicial commissioners. That will, of course, permit the IPC, as he or she thinks fit, to report on the legal interpretation of the Bill. However, I hope that the IPC will not feel it necessary to do so, or at least to do so often. That is because the Bill serves to put beyond doubt the powers available to the state and the safeguards that apply to them. In the words of David Anderson, the Bill,
“restores the rule of law and sets an international benchmark for candour”,
but if the commissioner felt the need to report on the legal operation of the Bill, he could already do so.
Finally, Amendment 178C would require the panel to have regard to the same matters which a public authority must have regard to, as set out in Clause 2, which is referred to as the privacy clause. I appreciate the spirit of this amendment, but I believe it is unnecessary. Clause 2 is already clear that whenever exercising certain powers, such as to authorise warrants, all public authorities must have regard to the issues outlined in the privacy clause, but of course the Technology Advisory Panel will not be exercising such powers, so the amendment does not, in that context, make sense. If the intention is that when the panel gives advice it should bear in mind the various privacy considerations contained in Clause 2, then the amendment is also unnecessary, since the requirement, contained in government Amendment 178, that the panel advise on,
“the impact of changing technology on the exercise of investigatory powers”,
already includes advising on the ability to exercise those powers within the statutory framework and subject to all the safeguards contained in the privacy clause. Of course, the whole point of the Technology Advisory Panel, as specified in the government amendment, is to advise on techniques to “minimise interference with privacy”. So I really think that this amendment is unnecessary.
I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I recognise that this is Report stage. I was aware, of course, that the panel will not be a public authority, and that is why I framed Amendment 178C as I did: the Technology Advisory Panel would need to,
“have regard to the matters”,
in Clause 2, rather than be bound by them. I suggested the amendment because subsection (1)(b) of government Amendment 178 talks about, “minimising interference with privacy”, and that seemed to me not nearly as strong as the privacy clause, Clause 2, which we took to bits but welcomed earlier in the passage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 134A.
(a) deciding—(i) whether to serve, vary or cancel a monetary penalty notice under section 7 or paragraph 16 of Schedule 1, a notice of intent under paragraph 4 of that Schedule or an information notice under Part 2 of that Schedule, or(ii) the contents of any such notice,(b) deciding whether to approve the issue, modification or renewal of a warrant,(c) deciding whether to direct the destruction of material or how otherwise to deal with the situation where—(i) a warrant issued, or modification made, for what was considered to be an urgent need is not approved, or(ii) an item subject to legal privilege is retained, following its examination, for purposes other than the destruction of the item,(d) deciding whether to—(i) approve the grant, modification or renewal of an authorisation, or(ii) quash or cancel an authorisation or renewal, (e) deciding whether to approve—(i) the giving or varying of a retention notice under Part 4 or a notice under section 228 or 229, or(ii) the giving of a notice under section 86(10)(b) or 233(9)(b),(f) participating in a review under section 86 or 233,(g) deciding whether to approve an authorisation under section 200(3)(b),(h) deciding whether to give approval under section (Additional safeguards for items subject to legal privilege: examination)(4),(i) deciding whether to approve the giving or varying of a direction under section 203(3),(j) making a decision under section 209(1),(k) deciding whether to order the destruction of records under section 103 of the Police Act 1997, section 37 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 or section 15 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Act 2000,(l) deciding whether to make an order under section 103(6) of the Police Act 1997 (order enabling the taking of action to retrieve anything left on property in pursuance of an authorisation),(m) deciding—(i) an appeal against, or a review of, a decision by another Judicial Commissioner, and(ii) any action to take as a result.”
Lord Paddick
“Notification by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner
(1) The Investigatory Powers Commissioner shall notify the subject of a warrant (“P”) which is—(a) a targeted interception warrant issued under Part 2,(b) a targeted examination warrant issued under Part 2,(c) a targeted equipment interference warrant issued under Part 5, or(d) a targeted examination warrant issued under Part 5,that P has been so subject, in accordance with this section.(2) Notification shall not be given if—(a) P is suspected of being involved in terrorism-related or other criminal activity,(b) it might prejudice any continuing or anticipated investigation concerning P or any other person, or(c) the Investigatory Powers Commissioner determines that it is in the interests of national security or the public interest in preventing or detecting serious crime that it is not given;and in any event notification may be given only if the investigation to which the warrant relates has concluded and there is no suspicion that P is engaged in any unlawful activity.(3) The notification—(a) shall inform P of the provisions for the authorisation or warrant, but(b) shall include no details of the methods used or any other matter which might hinder any future investigation into P or any other person, and(c) shall be given in writing within 90 days after— (i) the conclusion of the investigation (subject to subsection (2));(ii) cancellation of the authorisation or warrant;(iii) a determination that it may be given having regard to the matters referred to in subsection (2)(c).”
Lord Paddick
My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendments 137B to 137F in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee. We return to the issue of informing innocent people when they have been subjected to targeted surveillance by law enforcement or the security and intelligence agencies. The European Court of Human Rights said in 2007:
“As soon as notification of targeted surveillance can be made without jeopardising the purpose of the surveillance after its termination, information should be provided to the persons concerned”.
When we raised the issue in Committee, the Minister raised a series of quite reasonable objections, which we have tried to address in this new amendment.
In Committee, the Minister said:
“It would not be practical, for example, for the commissioner to make everyone whose data were subject to a data retention notice aware of that fact”.
Of course, we agree. We therefore restrict the notification requirement to targeted interception warrants, where a person’s communications are intercepted, and targeted examination warrants, where communications are acquired in bulk and a UK citizen’s communications are among those acquired in bulk and the security and intelligence agencies wish to examine those communications. The provisions would also apply where a targeted equipment interference warrant is used. This would ensure that only when the specific individual’s communications are intercepted or equipment interfered with would notification have to be considered.
In Committee, the Minister said that,
“we would need to notify suspected criminals and terrorists that they have been under investigation just because a specific ongoing investigation had stalled or, indeed, had concluded with evidence of wrongdoing but with insufficient evidence to bring a prosecution”.
We have therefore written into the amendment that notification shall not be given if the person is suspected of being involved in terrorism-related or other criminal activity.
In Committee, the Minister said that,
“suspected criminals and terrorists will often appear on the radar of the police and the security services at different times in the context of different investigations. It would clearly not be appropriate to inform them that investigatory powers had been used against them in a particular case”.
Of course, we agree. The amendment now states that notification shall not be given if it might prejudice any continuing or anticipated investigation concerning the subject of the surveillance or any other person.
The Minister said in Committee that our amendment,
“would put unreasonable burdens on all public authorities covered by this Bill to require them constantly to need to make a case to the commissioner as to whether it would hamper national security or serious crime investigations if subjects were told that investigatory powers had been used against them”.
We do not agree. We hope that the number of occasions when completely innocent people are targeted will be small and the amendment now includes the provision that notice should not be given if the Investigatory Powers Commissioner determines that it is in the interests of national security, or the public interest in preventing or detecting serious crime, that it is not given. In most cases, this will be obvious and require no further justification from the public authorities.
The Minister in Committee further objected that notification would,
“not just run contrary to the long-standing policy of successive Governments of neither confirming nor denying any specific activity by the security and intelligence agencies, but would essentially require the techniques the agencies use in specific cases to be made public”.—[Official Report, 5/9/16; col. 858.]
It has not been the long-standing policy of successive Governments to deny that the security services kept a record of the details of every phone call made in the UK until recently and it is not a reasonable argument simply to say, “That’s what we’ve always done”. However, we have taken on board the Minister’s other criticisms and included in the amendment that notification,
“shall include no details of the methods used or any other matter which might hinder any future investigation”.
Having, I believe, dealt with all the objections the Minister raised in Committee, I hope the Minister responding will reconsider whether post-event notification could, in the circumstances I have described, be allowed, and that the Government will accept the amendment.
Amendments 137B to 137E are related to Amendment 137A, to the extent that they seek to tighten up on error reporting. Amendment 137B deletes the phrase “the Commissioner considers that” from Clause 209(1), so that the commissioner must report a serious error whether or not they consider it so. Whether the error is serious should be an objective test, not a subjective consideration by the commissioner. Amendment 137C deletes the condition that,
“it is in the public interest for the person to be informed”.
Surely, if the error is serious it should be reported—or, to put it another way, surely it must always be in the public interest if the error is serious.
Amendment 137D would delete the provision stating that notification should be given only if the error has caused “significant” prejudice or harm to the person concerned, and adds wording so that the clause would state that they should be notified if the error,
“has caused or may cause prejudice or harm to the person concerned”.
The argument here has echoes of an amendment that the Government rejected earlier on Report—that asking a commissioner to make a decision on whether the prejudice or harm is significant muddies the waters.
Amendment 137E would delete Clause 209(9)(b), which defines a relevant error. There appears to us to be no need to describe in regulations the kind of error to which these provisions relate. We believe that the definition in Clause 209(9)(a) is sufficient.
Amendment 137F relates to the final paragraph of Clause 209, which states that the Investigatory Powers Commissioner should,
“keep under review the definition of ‘relevant error’”.
We have added a requirement that any recommendations should be included in reports made under Clause 212, which covers annual and other reports required from the Investigatory Powers Commissioner.
I beg to move Amendment 137A.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
Can the noble Lord explain proposed new subsection 3(b)? Could the subject of a warrant challenge that subsection using other legislation —on the fact that there are “no details”, for example? Is it open to challenge by that person, using any of the other laws on the statute book?
Lord Paddick
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. I have absolutely no idea whether they could or could not.
Lord Rooker
I submit that they could. The lawyers will find a way to fill the courts with challenges from the crooks and spivs we are trying to protect the British public from. But I will wait for the Minister’s technical answer, rather than the one I gave.
Lord Beith (LD)
To pose a legal challenge which is not based on any instance or evidence of the basis on which such a challenge could be made—I certainly cannot think of a basis on which someone could require the production of knowledge of the means used for interception, based on existing legislation.
Lord Keen of Elie
Amendment 137A seeks to insert a provision into the Bill that would require the Investigatory Powers Commissioner to notify the subject of a targeted interception or equipment interference warrant in certain circumstances. The amendment tries to tightly draw those circumstances, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for recognising in drafting it that a significant number of factors should rightly preclude such notification from taking place. Nevertheless, I still think the amendment could threaten to undermine the capabilities that law enforcement and the security and intelligence agencies rely on to pursue the most serious wrongdoers. The amendment recognises that notifying a person that they have been the subject of surveillance may have an immediate impact on an investigation—or it may have damaging effects on the public interest or national security more broadly.
That being the case, it is extremely difficult to envisage a scenario where notification could responsibly be allowed to occur. Notifying a person that their communications have been intercepted, irrespective of whether that notification included any further details about the methods used, would necessarily risk hindering a future investigation. For example, there will be circumstances where a terrorist or serious criminal who was previously the subject of a warrant will no longer be an active suspect in an investigation. Advising that individual that they have been the subject of interception may help them to evade detection if they were minded to return to or resume criminal activity.
On one reading, then, the amendment would not provide for disclosure other than where a person has been the subject of deliberate wrongdoing or a serious error. If that is the intention behind the amendment—and I fear it is not—it is redundant, because there is already provision in the Bill to notify people who have been the subject of serious errors.
The alternative, of course, is that the amendment should provide for individuals to be notified in a wider range of circumstances. I find that prospect troubling. As I say, it is never possible to know whether an individual will return to criminality in the future. Even if they do not, revealing the fact that they were the subject of a warrant may provide some small insight into the techniques and capabilities used by law enforcement and the security and intelligence agencies. That, in turn, would provide an avenue for the most determined and capable actors to piece together a picture of the agencies and how they work, handing an advantage to those we are working hard to pursue—let alone the prospect that they might seek disclosure by way of a review of the conduct of the authorities in order to determine exactly what methodology had been employed. For all these reasons, I hope the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw this amendment.
I turn to Amendments 137B to 137F, which, as the noble Lord indicated, are in a sense consequential on his primary amendment, and which deal with error reporting as provided for in Clause 209. Clause 209 is of the utmost importance. It provides that if a person has been the subject of a serious error, and it would not be contrary to the public interest, the commissioner must inform that individual of the error and their right to apply to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. The judicial commissioner must provide such details as considered necessary for the person to bring a claim.
Clause 209 seeks to maintain a very delicate balance between two important but competing interests. On one hand, there is the right of the individual who has suffered harm as a result of the error to seek some sort of redress. On the other, there is the long-standing security and intelligence agency principle of neither confirming nor denying that an individual has been the subject of investigatory powers. This principle is vital to the security and intelligence agencies, as it prevents those who would wish to do us harm launching spurious complaints and claims in order further to understand the agencies’ most sensitive capabilities. I hope the noble Lord will agree that, given the fine balance between these two principles, it is right that the decision be taken on a case-by-case basis by the commissioner, a senior member of the judiciary who will have full access to the facts on which to base their decision.
Amendments 137B and 137C would remove the commissioner’s discretion to make that judgment. He would no longer be able to consider how the wider public interest would be best served, and would instead be compelled to tell an individual if they had been the subject of a serious error, regardless of the consequences and the harm that might be caused. I do not think that is right. It is, for example, conceivable that an investigation into a dangerous criminal gang may result in action mistakenly being taken against an innocent associate of one of the gang members. That would be unfortunate, and the commissioner would undoubtedly want to ensure that remedial action was taken at an appropriate time. But before doing so, it is right that the commissioner should consider the public interest in informing the person, balanced against the risk of undermining an ongoing investigation, and that is what the clause as drafted provides for.
Amendment 137D seeks to require notification where the error has not caused serious harm or prejudice but may do so in the future. I do not think it necessary or appropriate, given the difficult balance that has to be struck here, for persons to be informed when there is such an error. This would put the commissioner in the difficult position of speculating on potential future consequences. Additionally, the commissioner does not get only one opportunity to assess the harm that has occurred. We would of course expect the commissioner to keep under review the consequences of an error and, if it resulted in harm at some point in the future, it would be open to the commissioner to inform the individual at that point. This seems a more sensible approach than putting the commissioner in the position of second-guessing what potential future consequences may one day occur or not occur.
Lord Paddick
I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his explanations, which I will take time and care to read particularly in relation to Amendments 137B to 137F, the latter amendments. Regarding Amendment 137A, I am still concerned at what might happen should somebody bring an action before the European Court of Human Rights, bearing in mind what it has said about the importance of informing people who have been the subject of targeted surveillance. However, at this stage I am prepared to leave that to the courts rather than to the House this evening and on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Keen of Elie
“(3A) In addition to consulting the Secretary of State under subsection (3), the Judicial Commissioner must also consult the Scottish Ministers if it appears to the Commissioner that providing the advice or information might be prejudicial to—(a) the prevention or detection of serious crime by a Scottish public authority, or(b) the continued discharge of any devolved functions of a Scottish public authority whose activities include activities that are subject to review by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner.(3B) In subsection (3A)—“devolved function” means a function that does not relate to reserved matters (within the meaning of the Scotland Act 1998), and“Scottish public authority” has the same meaning as in the Scotland Act 1998.”
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 138 and the other amendments in this group, which would ensure that the Scottish Government are provided with appropriate means to engage with and support the work of judicial commissioners relating to devolved powers in Scotland.
Clause 210 allows a judicial commissioner to provide advice and information to any person. It requires the judicial commissioner to consult the Secretary of State first where providing advice and information might be contrary to the public interest. It is clearly appropriate that Scottish Ministers are similarly consulted if the provision of advice and information by the judicial commissioner may be prejudicial specifically to activities that fall under those Ministers’ responsibility. Accordingly, Amendments 138 and 139 would require the judicial commissioner to consult additionally the Scottish Ministers when providing information and advice that may be prejudicial to the prevention or detection of serious crime in Scotland, or the continued discharge of any devolved functions of a Scottish public authority.
Clause 216 sets out the funding arrangements for the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and the judicial commissioners. Amendment 148 would grant the Scottish Ministers the power to make such payments as they consider appropriate to judicial commissioners for work relating to the exercise of devolved functions by public authorities in Scotland. This simply maintains the current position, as the Scottish Government currently have the power to pay surveillance commissioners who carry out their functions wholly or mainly in Scotland such allowances as the Scottish Ministers consider appropriate. The surveillance commissioners will be abolished by the Bill, and their functions taken on by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and the judicial commissioners. Accordingly, I beg to move Amendment 138.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord may have answered one of my questions about Amendment 148. It was about whether this sort of arrangement is in place elsewhere because, on reading it, it seemed that there might be scope for some squabbles as to who should be responsible for paying how much. However, I think he said that this is already working satisfactorily under the current arrangements. My other question is about the term “allowances”, which in normal language means less than paying salaries. It does not address payment for facilities, infrastructure and so on. It seemed a curious term to use but that is probably because I do not understand quite how the system will work. Allowances, to most of us, sounds like more like an ex gratia arrangement.
Lord Keen of Elie
Might I be permitted to respond briefly to the noble Baroness on these points? First, these amendments have been agreed with officials in the Scottish Government and reflect an existing arrangement whereby the allowances of surveillance commissioners are determined by the Scottish Ministers in that context. “Allowances” is used there, as I understand it, because we are not relying upon them for payment of certain standing charges incurred in setting up the commissioners, for example.
“( ) information about the operation of the safeguards conferred by this Act in relation to items subject to legal privilege, confidential journalistic material and sources of journalistic information,”
Lord Janvrin
“( ) information about the following kinds of warrants issued, considered or approved during the year— (i) targeted interception warrants or targeted examination warrants of the kind referred to in section 17(2), (ii) targeted equipment interference warrants relating to matters within paragraph (b), (c), (e), (f), (g) or (h) of section 96(1), and(iii) targeted examination warrants under Part 5 relating to matters within any of paragraphs (b) to (e) of section 96(2),”
Lord Janvrin (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 142 and 145 to Clause 212. These are in my name and I speak as a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee. This clause deals with the annual reports to be made by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner to the Prime Minister on the functions of the judicial commissioners.
The subject of Amendment 142 concerns those targeted warrants which relate to groups of people engaged in a common activity or sharing a purpose, commonly referred to as thematic warrants. The Intelligence and Security Committee has considered that thematic warrants have the theoretical potential to intrude upon the privacy of a great many people and there have been concerns as to the widespread intrusion they might theoretically be used to authorise. In the committee’s report on the draft Bill, we recommended that such warrants should be subject to greater constraints. In seeking to address this in the other place, the chairman of the ISC explored, first, whether the duration of these warrants could be limited or, secondly, whether the grounds on which they could be authorised could be drawn more narrowly.
In response, the Government presented the committee with convincing classified evidence regarding the use of these forms of warrants across a number of real operations, involving serious threats to our security. This evidence was reassuring in demonstrating that these operations, enabled by the so-called thematic warrants, intruded only on small and defined groups of people, not on the hundreds or even thousands of people that some perhaps feared might be the case. Nevertheless, the ISC believes that some form of additional constraint is justified and has therefore been exploring options with the Government over recent months. The conclusion is that we might best achieve this aim by strengthening the scrutiny given to these warrants. This is the aim of Amendment 142 to Clause 212.
The amendment places a specific requirement on the commissioner to report on thematic warrants, thereby exposing them to increased scrutiny by the commissioner, audit by the commissioner’s staff and, through the commissioner’s published reports, debate and scrutiny by Parliament, the media and public. I am most grateful for the Government’s co-operation in finding a solution to this issue relating to thematic warrants, and I hope the Minister will be able to support this amendment.
If that is the case, it would be helpful if it were possible for the Minister to outline in his comments the degree of disclosure about thematic warrants that he might expect to see in those reports. The ISC’s assumption is that it would include the number of thematic warrants applied for and issued, but it hopes that it might also include an indication of the number of people covered by the warrants. It would improve transparency and public reassurance if it can be demonstrated in this manner that these warrants are not as broad as some have feared.
Amendment 145 to Clause 212 relates to the referral of cases to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. This is an issue I raised in Committee. In its report on the draft Bill, the Intelligence and Security Committee recommended that it should be able to refer matters to the IP Commissioner so that the commissioner can undertake detailed investigations or audits about concerns raised by the ISC. This enables the oversight mechanisms to complement one another, with the ISC considering the strategic issues and overall policies and the commissioner focused on specific authorisations and warrants for individual operations. Noble Lords will note that the power of referral from the ISC to the IP Commissioner has already been introduced into the Bill at Clause 214, and we are grateful for the Government’s assistance in its inclusion.
This further, very small, amendment now picks up the point I raised in Committee that any report the commissioner might make to the Prime Minister as a result of a referral from the ISC should also be shared, as appropriate, with the committee. This will strengthen the oversight community as a whole, and I hope the Government will feel able to support the amendment. I beg to move.
Earl Howe
My Lords, as we have discussed in previous debates in this House and in the other place, the use of thematic warrants is crucial to our law enforcement and security and intelligence agencies, but we welcome these amendments, which will provide reassurance that these warrants will be subject to specific scrutiny by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and enhance transparency about their use.
The noble Lord, Lord Janvrin, invited me to comment on the degree of disclosure I would expect to see in the commissioner’s report. In my view—and I hope the noble Lord will understand this—it would not be appropriate for the Bill or indeed government to fetter the independence of the commissioner by specifying the detail of what he may choose to publish in relation to the use of thematic warrants. In due course the commissioner will wish to consider whether his duty to publish information about the use of these warrants is best satisfied by the publication of data such as the number of thematic warrants issued during a limited period or other information relating to the way in which thematic warrants are used in practice. These decisions will rightly rest with the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. However, I welcome the amendment which imposes a very clear duty on the commissioner to ensure that these warrants are subject to particularly robust scrutiny and that information is regularly put in the public domain about their use. Indeed, I would expect the commissioner to ensure that his report serves to illuminate any areas that cause him particular concern.
The process by which the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament can refer issues to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner was previously discussed in this House. It is right that the committee can bring issues that merit further investigation to the attention of the IPC, who may then decide whether to take further action. In addition, it is important that the right balance is struck between the independence of the IPC on the one hand and respecting the remit of the committee on the other hand. By requiring that the Prime Minister provides a copy of any IPC report that follows an investigation, inspection or audit carried out following a committee referral in cases where the report falls within the remit of the committee, this amendment finds that balance. Accordingly, I am happy to accept both these amendments.
Lord Janvrin
I thank the Minister for his helpful response. I take his point about the importance of the independence of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner.
“( ) information about the work of the Technology Advisory Panel,”
Lord Janvrin
“(11) Subsection (12) applies if the Prime Minister receives a report from the Investigatory Powers Commissioner under subsection (1) or (4) which relates to an investigation, inspection or audit carried out by the Commissioner following a decision to do so of which the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament was informed under section 214(2).(12) The Prime Minister must send to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament a copy of the report so far as it relates to—(a) the investigation, inspection or audit concerned, and(b) the functions of the Committee falling within section 2 of the Justice and Security Act 2013.”
“(3) The Scottish Ministers may pay to the Judicial Commissioners such allowances as the Scottish Ministers consider appropriate in respect of the exercise by the Commissioners of functions which relate to the exercise by Scottish public authorities of devolved functions.(4) In subsection (3)—“devolved function” means a function that does not relate to reserved matters (within the meaning of the Scotland Act 1998), and“Scottish public authority” has the same meaning as in the Scotland Act 1998.”
“(5) The Investigatory Powers Commissioner or any other Judicial Commissioner may, to such extent as the Commissioner concerned may decide, delegate the exercise of functions of that Commissioner to any member of staff of the Judicial Commissioners or any other person acting on behalf of the Commissioners.(6) Subsection (5) does not apply to—(a) the function of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner of making a recommendation under section 205(4)(e) or making an appointment under section (Members of the Panel)(1),(b) any function which falls within section 207(8), or(c) any function under section 55(3) or 125(3) of authorising a disclosure,but, subject to this and the terms of the delegation, does include functions which have been delegated to a Judicial Commissioner by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner.(7) The delegation under subsection (5) to any extent of functions by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner or any other Judicial Commissioner does not prevent the exercise of the functions to that extent by the Commissioner concerned.”
“(2A) The Secretary of State may by regulations, with the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly, provide for the abolition of the office of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner for Northern Ireland.(2B) The power to make regulations under subsection (2A) (including that power as extended by section 242(1)(c)) may, in particular, be exercised by modifying any provision made by or under an enactment (including this Act).(2C) Regulations made by virtue of subsection (2B) may, in particular, repeal— (a) section 61 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (the Investigatory Powers Commissioner for Northern Ireland), and(b) the words “or the Investigatory Powers Commissioner for Northern Ireland” in section 207(4)(f) of this Act.”
““the Chief Surveillance Commissioner” means the Chief Commissioner appointed under section 91(1)(a) of the Police Act 1997,”
““the other Surveillance Commissioners” means—the Commissioners appointed under section 91(1)(b) of the Police Act 1997, andthe Assistant Surveillance Commissioners appointed under section 63(1) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000,”
“( ) the Technology Advisory Panel,”
“(1A) A code about the exercise of functions conferred by virtue of Part 2, Part 5 or Chapter 1 or 3 of Part 6 must also contain provision about when circumstances are to be regarded as “exceptional and compelling circumstances” for the purposes of any provision of that Part or Chapter that restricts the exercise of functions in relation to items subject to legal privilege by reference to the existence of such circumstances.(1B) The Investigatory Powers Commissioner must keep under review any provision included in a code by virtue of sub-paragraph (1A).”
Baroness Hamwee
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, Amendment 160 is a probing amendment, and the debate should be short. Schedule 7 provides for codes of practice. Our debates on the previous day of Report on journalistic material, which is referred to in paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 7, made me have a look at the personal records which are also referred to in that paragraph as being “relevant confidential information”. I was concerned about health records, because the information is described as that,
“which is held in confidence by a member of a profession”.
I wanted to check that health records would fall within this. A health authority obviously does not cover all of this. There are health records which are held for entirely proper purposes but not by people that one might describe as being professionals—or certainly not members of a profession. So I decided, even at this late stage, to table this amendment in order that we could understand precisely what is meant by confidential information when it consists of personal records. I beg to move.
Earl Howe
My Lords, Amendment 160 would amend Schedule 7 to the Bill to require that every code of practice made under the Bill must provide guidance in relation to personal records held by a health authority. I hope I can convince the noble Baroness that this amendment is unnecessary. Schedule 7 already requires that the codes of practice must make provision relating to personal records held by a member of a profession, which would include health records held by a medical professional.
The Government do not believe that it is necessary to impose a similar requirement for personal records held by a health authority, as that is a discrete issue which will not be relevant to all of the codes of practice. For example, it will not be relevant to communications data. Of course, that does not mean that the codes cannot include such material should it be necessary to do so. There is already a reference to a health service body in the draft personal datasets code, for example.
The codes of practice have been published in draft to help facilitate parliamentary scrutiny of the Bill, but they will be subject to consultation and separate further scrutiny by Parliament after Royal Assent. That will provide noble Lords and others with the opportunity to consider the detail contained in the codes, including to argue the case for the inclusion of particular issues in particular codes of practice. On that basis, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, that is helpful and it has enabled me to make my point, which may of course be one that we will come back to, depending on how we view the codes when we come to deal with them. I thank the Minister and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“( ) The Secretary of State may by regulations, with the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly, amend subsection (3) so as to add the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland to the list of courts mentioned there.”
“(bb) the issue, modification, renewal or service of a warrant under Part 2 or Chapter 1 of Part 6 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (interception of communications);”
“(czd) conduct of a kind which may be required or permitted by a warrant under Part 5 or Chapter 3 of Part 6 of that Act (equipment interference);(cze) the issue, modification, renewal or service of a warrant under Part 5 or Chapter 3 of Part 6 of that Act;(czf) the issue, modification, renewal or service of a warrant under Part 7 of that Act (bulk personal dataset warrants);(czg) the giving of an authorisation under section 200(3)(b) (authorisation for the retention, or retention and examination, of material following expiry of bulk personal dataset warrant);(czh) the giving or varying of a direction under section 203 of that Act (directions where no bulk personal dataset warrant required);(czi) conduct of a kind which may be required by a notice under section 228 or 229 of that Act (national security or technical capability notices);(czj) the giving or varying of such a notice;(czk) the giving of an authorisation under section 143(5)(c) or 179(5)(c) of that Act (certain authorisations to examine intercepted content or protected material);(czl) any failure to—(i) cancel a warrant under Part 2, 5, 6 or 7 of that Act, or an authorisation under Part 3 of that Act;(ii) cancel a notice under Part 3 of that Act;(iii) revoke a notice under Part 4, or section 228 or 229, of that Act; or(iv) revoke a direction under section 203 of that Act;(czm) any conduct in connection with any conduct falling within paragraph (c), (czb), (czd) or (czi);”
“( ) in subsection (6) (limitation for certain purposes of what is conduct falling within subsection (5))—(i) after “on behalf of” insert “an immigration officer or”, and(ii) after paragraph (d) insert—“(dza) the Competition and Markets Authority;”( ) after subsection (6) insert—“(6A) Subsection (6) does not apply to anything mentioned in paragraph (d) or (f) of subsection (5) which also falls within paragraph (czd) of that subsection.””
“( ) in subsection (7) after “if” insert “it is conduct of a public authority and”,”
“(bb) a direction under section 203 of that Act;(bc) a notice under section 228 or 229 of that Act;”
“(azb) an order quashing or revoking a direction under section 203of that Act;(azc) an order quashing or revoking a notice under section 228 or 229 of that Act;”
“Technology Advisory Panel
(1) The Investigatory Powers Commissioner must ensure that there is a Technology Advisory Panel to provide advice to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, the Secretary of State and the Scottish Ministers about—(a) the impact of changing technology on the exercise of investigatory powers whose exercise is subject to review by the Commissioner, and(b) the availability and development of techniques to use such powers while minimising interference with privacy.(2) The Technology Advisory Panel must provide advice to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner about such matters falling within subsection (1)(a) or (b) as the Commissioner may direct.(3) Subject to this, the Panel may provide advice to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner about such matters falling within subsection (1)(a) or (b) as it considers appropriate (whether or not requested to do so).(4) The Panel may provide advice to the Secretary of State or the Scottish Ministers about such matters falling within subsection (1)(a) or (b) as it considers appropriate (whether or not requested to do so) but such advice to the Scottish Ministers may only relate to matters for which the Scottish Ministers are responsible.(5) The Panel must, as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of each calendar year, make a report to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner about the carrying out of the functions of the Panel. (6) The Panel must, at the same time, send a copy of the report to the Secretary of State and (so far as relating to matters for which the Scottish Ministers are responsible) the Scottish Ministers.”
“Members of the Panel
(1) The Investigatory Powers Commissioner must appoint such number of persons as members of the Technology Advisory Panel as the Commissioner considers necessary for the carrying out of the functions of the Panel.(2) Subject as follows, each member of the Panel holds and vacates office in accordance with the member’s terms and conditions of appointment.(3) A member of the Panel must not act in a way which the member considers to be contrary to the public interest or prejudicial to—(a) national security,(b) the prevention or detection of serious crime, or(c) the economic well-being of the United Kingdom.(4) A member of the Panel must, in particular, ensure that the member does not—(a) jeopardise the success of an intelligence or security operation or a law enforcement operation,(b) compromise the safety or security of those involved, or(c) unduly impede the operational effectiveness of an intelligence service, a police force, a government department or Her Majesty’s forces.(5) Section 213(2) and (7) (information powers) apply to a member of the Panel as they apply to a Judicial Commissioner.”
Disability: Premature Deaths
(7 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hollins
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress has been made in tackling the rate of premature deaths among people with a learning disability.
Baroness Mobarik (Con)
My Lords, this debate will be time limited to 90 minutes instead of 60 minutes. The speaking time for Back-Bench speakers will be eight minutes instead of four.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, this is our first opportunity since his death in August to celebrate the extraordinary contribution of Lord Rix. He was of course a household name in the 1950s and 1960s for what became known as the Whitehall farces, and was then involved in more than 90 television shows. In 1951, his daughter Shelley was born with Down’s syndrome, and Brian and his wife Elspet were shocked when they were told to “put her away in a home and start again”. Brian used his growing popularity to try to make things better for Shelley and for thousands of others and their families.
Brian Rix joined the House of Lords in 1992 as Baron Rix of Whitehall and Hornsea and spoke tirelessly in parliamentary debates, still fighting for the rights of people with a learning disability until December last year, at the age of 91. I will miss my noble friend’s advocacy and friendship, as will so many in this House. I thank the Royal Mencap Society and Professor Pauline Heslop, the programme lead for the learning disabilities mortality review, for providing me with up-to-date information in preparing for today. I also welcome the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Fall.
Since the 1990s, there have been a number of reports and case studies that have consistently highlighted that people with learning disabilities die younger than people without. My own research first highlighted this problem in articles published in the mid-1990s showing that adults with a learning disability were 58 times more likely to die before the age of 50, and were significantly more likely to die of respiratory disease than the rest of the population. Twenty years later, CIPOLD, the Confidential Inquiry into Premature Deaths of People with Learning Disabilities, found that this was still the most common immediate cause of death in 34% of cases. Recent data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink showed that more than three times the number of people with learning disabilities in England die each year than would be expected from general population mortality rates, after allowing for their age and gender profile.
Why is this proving so difficult to change? The practice issues which emerge time and again in studies and inquiries on this issue include worrying findings of professional indifference and discriminatory attitudes, with healthcare professionals still relying inappropriately on their own estimates of a person’s quality of life—attitudes that inspired Brian and Elspet Rix in 1951 and Sally Philips in 2016. A frequent complaint is that health and social care professionals do not listen to those who know the person well when they voice concerns about the person’s health. Cases referred to the ombudsman repeatedly show that professionals do not understand how to apply the Mental Capacity Act. This was echoed by the post-legislative scrutiny committee on the Mental Capacity Act, of which I was a member, which reported in February 2014.
There is also insufficient attention paid to making reasonable adjustments to support the delivery of equal treatment, and a failure to provide the annual health checks that every adult with a learning disability should be offered. In 2013-14, only 44% of eligible people with a learning disability received an annual health check. There are also delays in diagnosis and treatment, and difficulties in accessing assessment and treatment of general health problems. There are also a number of system-level issues, such as a lack of learning from reviews of deaths and a failure to identify that a person has a learning disability in their healthcare record, meaning that the specific health needs of people with learning disabilities are invisible not only to health professionals but to researchers and public health practitioners.
What are the Government doing to improve our knowledge and understanding of the needs of this vulnerable group, for which comprehensive and accurate identification is an essential prerequisite? If we do not know which of our patients has a learning disability, how can we make the reasonable adjustments? I will come back to that. It is important that we keep monitoring these issues for evidence of improvement.
Following the CIPOLD report in 2015, the first three-year National Learning Disabilities Mortality Review programme, LeDeR, was set up at the University of Bristol. Its aim is to drive improvement in the quality of health and social care service delivery for people with learning disabilities, and to reduce premature mortality and health inequalities. It supports local agencies to conduct reviews of the deaths of people with learning disabilities between the ages of four and 74, and to learn from these reviews to improve services.
The programme supports reviews of all deaths, regardless of the cause or place of death—so not just deaths in hospitals but, for example, deaths at home. It is supported by family carers and people with learning disabilities, who all act as advisers. The case reviews are expected to identify and advise on action over the avoidable contributory factors leading to premature deaths in this population.
The establishment of LeDeR is hugely welcome, but a key question is how the NHS and the Government will use the data from the case reviews to implement a national strategy to tackle this continuing scandal. Will the Minister commit that the Government will regularly inform Parliament of progress in achieving improvements in outcomes for people with learning disabilities?
The programme has developed a website, training for reviewers, and illustrated guides and factsheets, and each NHS region is now introducing the review process by training local reviewers, piloting case reviews and offering learning and sharing events. But, unlike the child death review process and many other inquiries, the learning disability deaths programme is not mandatory. Agencies can choose to contribute to reviews of deaths of people with learning disabilities or not and, unlike the child death review, it is time limited, not permanent.
In my opinion, the most important change that is needed is a change in culture within all responsible services at all levels, and this includes making learning disability a sustained priority. But saying that it is a priority is not the same as acting to end the discrimination that we all know exists. Is it not time to mandate reviews into all deaths of people with learning disabilities on an ongoing basis, and for the CQC to scrutinise the implementation of local learning from such reviews at its inspections?
To have any chance of success, the programme requires multiagency sign-up and commitment from all agencies and services that provide support for people with learning disabilities, so that a comprehensive review of the circumstances leading to the death of an individual can be thought about fully. Can the Government give a clear message to local authorities and social care agencies that their staff must be released to contribute to reviews of deaths?
We already know a lot about contributory factors to premature deaths, but we need to move beyond just identifying what has gone wrong into making changes to practice. There is no point in reviewing deaths if subsequent changes to reduce premature deaths are inadequately resourced. What can people with learning disabilities and their families expect from the Government in terms of additional resources to prevent premature deaths, and when can they expect it?
There are some urgent actions that could be implemented immediately. I would like us to empower people with learning disabilities by ensuring that they have a better understanding of the health issues that affect them personally. I spoke about this in the excellent debate secured by the noble Lord, Lord Bird, on the role of libraries and independent bookshops; along with others, I mentioned the importance of reading for health understanding. The difference for people with learning disabilities is the need for accessible information, as set out in the information standard, but also for visual methods of communication to be used as part of enabling the person to demonstrate their understanding, wishes and capacity to consent, and making it easier for health professionals to be able to use the Mental Capacity Act.
Sometimes understanding can lead to better outcomes, just as it can in those people who are literate, through an improvement in quality of life and mood, as found in a recent study at the University of Hertfordshire using a wordless book about epilepsy that is currently in press. Having addressed their own need to understand, these self-advocates can deliver training as experts by experience. Good communication skills and positive non-discriminatory attitudes should be assessed in our universities and trusts because they are the core skills and attitudes needed by all staff—not just doctors and nurses but dentists, opticians and receptionists as well. These skills will be acquired only through direct contact with people with learning disabilities.
The learning disabilities core skills education and training framework, developed by Health Education England and Skills for Care, is hugely welcome, as is the work of the GMC, which has been developing tools for doctors. I have contributed to some of this work personally. Mencap has developed training within the core skills framework, which is co-delivered with people with a learning disability—and the courses are oversubscribed already.
I end my remarks by asking: how will the Government, the Department of Health and Health Education England make sure that training is an absolute priority for trusts and universities?
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, what first led me to put my name down for this debate was the simple fact that when it comes to any minority group that is interacting with a public service, particularly the health service, if there is a communication problem you suddenly see problems in the results. If they cannot access the system, you suddenly find that they are not getting the best out of it.
The fact is that most forms of healthcare are based on a doctor talking to a patient. The noble Baroness stole some of the thunder from my speech by pointing this out, but all the groups that have problems with what we would regard as normal conversational communication suffer in terms of healthcare and when interacting with virtually all other structures of the state, and indeed goods and services. Extracting information from the patient to ensure appropriate treatment is bound to be more difficult. If you know you are going to interact with this group, you have to have some way of correcting that situation otherwise you are guaranteeing a level of failure. There are various bits of legislation coming through at the moment, and if everything was working correctly I am sure the noble Baroness would not have bothered tabling this debate. However, it is quite clear that it is not.
There are contributing factors—for instance, lifestyle. We know it is very difficult to get people with learning disabilities into activities like sport because there is no structure for them, and that leads to other health problems later on. However, if we are talking simply about the interface with a GP or a nurse or receptionist—the noble Baroness was right to mention those who are the gatekeepers to the service—unless there is training in this area, we are going to have problems.
If an employee does not have generalised training, they must at least have some awareness that means they know when they should back off and call in the experts. We need it to be acceptable to say, “I need help and support”, without it going against that employee. Think about it: if you are in a job where you are supposed to deal with a person in this situation, you should be able to think, “Do I have the authority and the right to ask for extra help to deal with the situation?”. In many situations, to do so fundamentally undermines your professional competence. Unless we allow that, we will not get the best outcomes, because people bluff to get through the situation—it is a natural reaction and we have all done it in our own worlds. You want to cover up the fact that you are having problems with something you are expected to be able to do. Unless you can call in expertise, and know that that is okay, you will have problems.
I could go on for a considerable time giving more examples, but at this time of night and with a maiden speech on its way which is probably much more interesting than mine, I will cut my remarks off here. Unless we embrace the idea of preparation to call in expertise and making it acceptable in the work environment so to do, we will continue to have these problems. What we are talking about here is only one manifestation of the problem. It is not just within the health service, it is within all services. It involves continuing conditions and stress, and mental health comes in later. Setting a good example from the Department of Health would be a simple step forward. It would be good to hear tonight an assurance that it is acceptable—indeed, required—to have that flexibility.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, before addressing the Question before us tonight, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and say a few words about our dear colleague who would most certainly have been participating tonight were he still with us. The House is very much poorer for having lost a tireless campaigner, Lord Rix of Whitehall, who, as many will remember, last spoke here in December, during the passage of the then welfare reform Bill, despite his frailty at the time. Tonight it is indeed appropriate to remember the campaigning work of Brian Rix on these issues. His daughter Shelley, who, as we heard, had Down’s syndrome, inspired his life of activism, particularly for the Royal Mencap Society, in which I declare an interest as its vice-president.
As we all know, Brian was a much-loved actor. He used that popularity to raise millions of pounds for the Royal Mencap Society, becoming its general-secretary in 1980 and later its chairman and president. After becoming a member of this House in 1992, he focused attention on the rights of people with learning disabilities and their families, drawing on his experience and that of tens of thousands of people whom he met and helped. He was particularly concerned by the matters covered by this Question for Short Debate.
Lord Rix spoke in parliamentary debates on more than 300 occasions, and his focus was always on giving a voice to those too often ignored. He leaves three much loved children, Louisa, Jamie and Jonathan—his wife Elspet passed away in 2013. Noble Lords may wish to note that there will be a tribute event in the new year celebrating his life and achievements.
I now turn to the important issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, in her excellent opening speech—issues on which I know that Brian would have wanted to speak. The noble Baroness has been a trailblazer over many years on these matters. It is clear that there is still much progress to be made, and I look forward to the Minister providing us with an update on progress made in tackling the premature death of people with a learning disability.
I speak to highlight the importance of training for healthcare professionals to improve outcomes for people with a learning disability. This is also of critical importance to us in Wales, and I have served on investigatory panels on the issue in both Wales and England. Overcoming the national scandal of premature death among people with a learning disability requires a significant improvement in both the quantity and quality of training among doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals. Workforce development, minimum standards for healthcare support and guidance for commissioners are lacking, and the Government must address that.
I am pleased that some progress is being made. In July, Health Education England, Skills for Health and Skills for Care launched a learning disabilities core skills education and training framework—that is quite a mouthful. The framework provides the knowledge and skills needed for those delivering training to health and care professionals. Mencap has adopted the framework to develop training currently being co-delivered by people with a learning disability, which is being piloted with the NHS. This is welcome and underscores both the capability of people with a learning disability and the vital importance of including them in the delivery of services. This training focuses on identifying learning disability, developing communication skills and highlighting the importance of reasonable adjustments, such as longer appointment times and accessible information.
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, on her work chairing a group supported by the General Medical Council, the Nursing Midwifery Council and Health Education England, which is looking at how good practice can be promoted so that all medical students and current staff receive the training they need better to equip them to support people with a learning disability.
I call on the Minister in her response to commit to ensuring that this framework is widely adopted and best practice spread. Without all health professionals receiving appropriate training, people with a learning disability will continue to be let down and premature deaths will continue to occur. This is a very serious matter and requires a serious response.
Baroness Fall (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, growing up in Moscow during the Cold War, this Parliament was a beacon of hope, freedom and democracy in a world struggling against totalitarianism and war. I could never have imagined that I would be part of it one day. It is an honour to address your Lordships for the first time, and I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, on bringing this very important matter to your Lordships’ attention this evening.
Although introduced to your Lordships’ Chamber last year, I was not permitted to speak until now and, while I see the attraction of a fully voting but silent Peer from the Whips’ point of view, I stand before you today with those days firmly behind me. I am deeply indebted to both my sponsors, my noble friends Lady Rawlings and Lord Feldman of Elstree, for their support, wisdom and friendship over many years. I want to pay tribute to my wonderful mentor, my noble friend Lord Sherbourne, and to the officials of this House, as well as to your Lordships on all sides of the Chamber, for the kindness and patience you have shown me over these past months.
My first political memory was of the Falklands War when I was 10 years old. My father was working for the then Foreign Secretary, my noble friend Lord Carrington, a much-loved and respected member of this House. His resignation taught me my first lesson in politics—that political lives, even of the best of us, are precarious things. The resignation of another good man brings me to this Chamber today. I am immensely proud to have served David Cameron for six years when he was Prime Minister and five years as leader of the Opposition, and I pay tribute to all that he achieved for our country: in mending our broken economy; in creating many new good schools; in meeting our commitment of 2% to our NATO allies while not turning our back on the world’s poor; and, most of all, in helping so many back to work in this country on a fair wage.
Being part of the legislature is certainly a whole new thing for me. Now that I am able to see at first hand how your Lordships shape and improve legislation, as well as inform our country’s debate, I am still more honoured, and I very much look forward to playing my part in the future work of this House.
I am a daughter of an American mother and a British diplomat. I admit to being a hereditary Atlanticist, and I dedicated some of my early career to the transatlantic relationship, working as the founding director of the bipartisan think tank, Atlantic Partnership. My father’s generation were the “Cold War warriors”, many of whom sit on all sides of this House today. So my upbringing taught me something else: that we must fight for the values that we hold dear, that they can never be taken for granted, and that it falls to each and every generation to safeguard what is precious to us—otherwise, we will have failed in our duty. For there is nothing that reflects more truly on the values of a society than how we treat our most vulnerable, which is why I am pleased to speak briefly in this debate today.
There are some among us who dedicate their lives to the care of those with learning disabilities, such as my wonderful sister, and so many other mums, dads, siblings and carers, as well as teachers in specialist schools, such as Fairley House, where I was a governor for years. We owe them our respect and gratitude. We take great pride as a nation in our National Health Service, that it is available to all and free for all, and we hope that everyone is treated with kindness and humanity—and treated as equals. Yet the tragedy of the original Mencap study that prompted this debate today is that there is not always equality of care, at least not for the six men and women with learning disabilities whose deaths were judged premature in the original report.
At the crux of the problem, there seems to lie a simple truth. Those with learning disabilities often struggle with the system when they most need it, often because they are afraid or confused, cannot explain what is wrong and have many medical problems in the first place. So there are issues with the diagnosis, then with the treatment—and sometimes, let us face it, the assumptions made about what sort of care they should or should not receive. These problems, taken together, put those with learning disabilities at a serious disadvantage. Sir Jonathan Michael, the chair of the independent inquiry, put it very well when he said:
“I have learned that ‘equal’ does not mean ‘the same’ and that ‘reasonable adjustments’ that are needed to make services equally accessible to people with learning disabilities are not particularly difficult to make”.
Those are simple adjustments to save lives.
I commend the work of all those who seek progress in this area, and ask that we do not take our eye off the ball. We owe it to the vulnerable among us, to their families and friends, and to our society as a whole, to be the best we can.
Baroness Rawlings (Con)
My Lords, the honour and great pleasure of following my noble friend Lady Fall falls to me, on these Benches, to welcome her warmly in the name of the whole House and congratulate her on her remarkable maiden speech. It was outstanding, by any standards—from Moscow to the Lords. This does not come as a surprise to anyone who knows the noble Baroness, as her curriculum vitae hardly begins to do her justice. Early on in her career, after having excelled at Oxford, she steered me through many difficult negotiations after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden into the European Union, extending the Fulbright/Monnet scholarships programme and much more. However, it is not just her dedication which distinguishes her, but also her other special qualities of loyalty, humility, astuteness, style, intelligence and genuine care for others. These qualities were revealed between the lines in her excellent and interesting maiden speech. We all hope that she will play a prominent part now in your Lordships’ House and that we shall hear a great deal more from her in the future on this and many other subjects.
Before making my modest contribution, I too would like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, for introducing this debate. I started my career working for the London County Council in Stepney, Bow and Poplar, for the children’s care committee, then trained as a nurse with the Red Cross—hence my interest in this debate.
As we have heard, people with learning disabilities experience significantly worse results than the rest of the population. Bristol University’s confidential inquiry, which the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, mentioned earlier, into the deaths of 247 people with learning disabilities from 2010 to 2012, discovered that men with learning disabilities died, on average, 13 years sooner than men in the general population, and women with learning disabilities died 20 years sooner. These studies show the urgent need to improve practice within the National Health Service. I therefore welcome all efforts that the NHS is making to tackle premature mortality among people with a learning disability.
I will mention two initiatives from which I hope we can learn lessons about how to improve on these results. The clinical commissioning group improvement and assessment framework was launched in March. It includes two indicators on learning disability: reliance on specialist in-patient care and the proportion of people on GP learning disability registers receiving an annual health check. I hope this will enable us to see clearer how clinical commissioning groups are performing. In March 2015, NHS England commissioned the Learning Disabilities Mortality Review programme. This programme aims to support local and regional areas, conduct reviews of deaths of people with learning disabilities and implement the recommendations and plans of action.
I hope the Minister will be able to address these few points and so contribute to alleviating the unhappiness and stress that this causes families.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, on securing this debate and on being such a tireless champion for the rights of people with learning disabilities to receive the same access to and quality of healthcare that the rest of the population takes for granted. I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Fall, on her excellent maiden speech. I am sure we will be hearing much more from her. I associate myself with the fulsome tributes paid, rightly and movingly, to our late colleague Lord Rix.
As we have already heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, the 2013 Confidential Inquiry into Premature Deaths of People with Learning Disabilities was set up to investigate the avoidable or premature deaths of people with learning disabilities through a series of retrospective reviews. I hope noble Lords will forgive me for repeating several statistics. I know that those in the Chamber tonight will be familiar with them, because they are passionately concerned with this issue, but the statistics bear repetition because, in a way, they say it all. We have already heard, from the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, the shocking statistics that men with learning disabilities die, on average, 13 years sooner than men in the general public and women with learning disabilities die 20 years sooner. Overall, 22% of those people were under 50 when they died. These are not just dry statistics, they are deeply shocking and nothing short of a national disgrace. Perhaps the most shocking statistic of all is the confidential inquiry’s finding that 37% of deaths were potentially avoidable if good quality healthcare had been provided.
As so often happens when you start to delve into statistics, the situation across the country is very variable. An independent review of deaths of people with a learning disability or mental health problem in contact with Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust between 2011 and 2015, commissioned by NHS England, found a number of serious failings. These included the trust having no effective way of reporting, investigating and learning from deaths. It also found that, while 30% of deaths in adult mental health services were investigated, only 1% of those of people with learning disabilities were investigated. What are we to make of the statement made by the former chief executive of Southern Health? She said:
“We believe that Southern Health’s rate of investigations into deaths is in line with that of similar NHS organisations”.
I leave noble Lords to draw their own conclusions from that.
As we have already heard from the confidential inquiry, one of the 18 key recommendations was the establishment of a national learning disability mortality review. A key part of the review programme, commissioned again by NHS England, is to support local areas to review the deaths of people with learning disabilities and take forward the lessons learned to improve services. I am sure we all think that is what should happen. So far, so good. However, as has already been referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, participation in the programme is not mandatory, so, unlike the child death review process, and, indeed, many other inquiries, agencies can choose whether or not to contribute to the review of deaths of people with learning disabilities. In the current financial climate, I guess it is understandable that many organisations choose to do only what they have to. In my view, giving this issue mandatory status would undoubtedly raise the profile of the work and show that the lives and deaths of people with learning disabilities are valued. That is the crux of what we are talking about tonight.
I know there are also serious concerns over the sustainability of local reviews of deaths of people with learning disabilities once the review programme ends. Therefore, in responding, will the Minister update the House on the review’s overall progress? Does she agree that if we really want to stop people with learning disabilities dying prematurely because they are not getting good-quality healthcare, the mortality review should have a mandatory rather than an optional status?
Finally, on a related issue of sustainability, the Public Health England Learning Disabilities Observatory, set up in the wake of the independent inquiry chaired by Sir Jonathan Michael, was established to keep watch over the health of people with learning disabilities and the healthcare they receive. It also provides data, information and advice to commissioners, families and people with learning disabilities about good practice and local performance in achieving improvement. Current funding for the observatory is guaranteed only until March 2017. Therefore, what assurances can the Minister give that funding will continue to be available for the vital work that the observatory is carrying out?
Baroness Redfern (Con)
My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, for introducing this debate on inequalities faced by individuals with learning disabilities and the need to ensure that we continually have one aim—to make sure that disability should not be a barrier to health. An able-bodied person such as myself should ensure that we highlight at every opportunity the necessity for everyone to be able to access the same health benefits.
I congratulate my noble friend Lady Fall on her thoughtful and eloquent maiden speech. I also declare my interests as set out in the register of interests—leader of North Lincolnshire Council and chair of its health and well-being board, vice-chair of the Specialised Healthcare Alliance and a member of the NHS Sustainability Committee.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, spoke about the experience of people with learning disabilities. Sadly, we have read that, overall, 22% of people with a learning disability were under 50 when they died. Therefore, I welcome NHS England’s goal to “close the health gap” of health inequalities as a whole by 2020. A “must” is that we continue to maintain a skilled workforce and welcome back experienced social workers. Training and education are so very important to give staff the competence and confidence to manage complex and challenging behaviour with good partnership working and to reduce admissions to hospitals as they support individuals—not forgetting their families—on the journey from childhood to adulthood and into older age.
I am pleased that the Government have said that they want to build on the achievements and skills of the current public health workforce. So far, we can maintain a well-trained and, as I said, motivated workforce to the highest standard of professional conduct in their work. The saying is, “Make it happen”—stop bad practice and strive for excellent practice. Unfortunately, there are gaps where too many people with learning disabilities can be found in inappropriate patient settings and stay longer than necessary. The Winterbourne View hospital abuse, which we do not wish to read about or witness again, is still in our minds. Possibly we have relied too much on in-patient care. As good and necessary as some in-patient care can be, disabled people, like able-bodied people, want and desire the same thing: they want homes, not hospitals.
The Government’s aim must be for everyone with a learning disability to have an annual health check with a personal plan, but there is still a long way to go. However, I am pleased that now more people are in receipt of a direct payment or personal budget to enable them to have greater choice and control over how they live their lives and to be more creative as individuals: a light touch for support, but equal outcomes. By helping individuals to have access to activities and employment, I am pleased to say that in north Lincolnshire we have seen a 5.3% increase of people with a complex learning disability in paid employment as well as opportunities to engage with a larger circle of friends. We have also seen our new purpose-built housing scheme, partnering with our local housing association and private sector, supporting people who in many cases have lived far from their families to move from a residential setting and live a transformed independent life in a home of their own.
I wish to highlight Mary’s story, Mary has a learning disability, lives with her elderly parents and has a voluntary work placement one afternoon a week. She was unhappy and felt isolated from her community, and wanted to make friends and build her confidence. The service listened to what Mary said she wanted to do and supported her goals. Mary had never applied for any benefits, and with supported help worked to apply for them. She attended a healthy cook and eat session at one of our local health and well-being hubs and attended a music group within her area. Mary is now going to local activities independently and, more importantly, is making friends.
I am pleased that my council, with other local authorities, has joined the Changing Places national campaign to improve access to public toilet facilities for people of all ages with a profound disability, as access to toilet facilities for disabled people is a key barrier to their participation in community life.
We are building the right support to make sure that young people and adults with learning disabilities and autism have the same opportunities as everyone else to live satisfying and valued lives and are treated with dignity and respect. All of us, as well as the Government, have acknowledged that we have more to do to raise the bar. I therefore welcome the Government’s increased support to achieve those better outcomes and look forward to further updates from my noble friend Lady Chisholm.
Lord Adebowale (CB)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, for introducing the debate and I pay tribute to the inspirational late Lord Rix. I will share some observations on the healthcare experience of the people we support at Turning Point. I declare my interest as chief executive of that learning disabilities service provider, which for over 25 years has supported over 450 people with learning disabilities across England. Our experience is that the healthcare and well-being experience of the people we support varies greatly around the country. The following are anecdotal but representative examples from our services, which show that while some progress has been made, more still needs to be done—a kind of reality check, I guess.
The people we support with a learning disability rarely see a learning disability nurse during a hospital visit. We find that we still have to question “do not attempt resuscitation” orders for some people we support. The people we support find that community healthcare provision varies greatly across the country and that there are gaps in specialist support for more complex and behavioural needs. The people we support struggle to gain reasonable adjustments, such as fixed-time GP or clinical appointments, which are particularly important for anxious people with autism or behavioural challenges. With regard to integrated health and social care, the people we support find their well-being needs filtered by assessors using expressions such as “health wants” and “health needs” in their assessments and reviews. At the end of their life, the people we support experience delays in being assessed for additional support as their palliative needs change.
We were very pleased to join Warwickshire County Council in launching a well-being service for people with learning disabilities that will give information and advice around health and well-being and help to improve access to health and well-being services. But, to our knowledge, a provision like this is fairly unique.
We are also noticing the impact of funding cuts for social care. These have been compounded by increased costs of delivery due to the national living wage, although we support that. Commissioners continue to be forced to retrench budgets almost annually and, as a result, face difficult decisions about services for those whom we are here to support. While the funding debate continues, people requiring support continue to be those who bear the brunt. In modern-day Britain, the increasing reality for many people with a disability is that they will be provided for to be deemed safe, fed and hydrated—that is deemed enough in many areas.
People with learning disabilities must receive the same standards of care as everyone else, and they must also receive the same level of determination from the Government to lead the improvements that are needed. The recent experiences of the people we support show that change needs to happen faster to improve healthcare for people with learning disabilities everywhere. More funding for social care is needed to ensure that disability services are able to offer more than the bare minimum. I thank the House for allowing me to speak in the gap.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, all of us on these Benches very much miss the late Lord Rix. We miss his expertise on subjects such as the one we are talking about tonight; we miss the inspiration that he gave all of us because of that work; and we miss his wonderful sense of humour. Therefore, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, for what she said about him. Of course, we all agree with her.
I also wish to thank the noble Baroness for initiating this debate. She has been consistent in her scrutiny of this issue, having raised the matter every year since the Confidential Inquiry into Premature Deaths of People with Learning Disabilities reported in 2013. That this is necessary demonstrates the enormity of the challenge of ensuring that people with a learning disability have equal access to healthcare that caters to their particular needs and ensures that the reasonable adjustments that should be made for them are made.
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Fall, on her excellent maiden speech and particularly on her use of the word “equality”. As she rightly said, “equal” does not mean the same. Equality of opportunity to enjoy good health and good treatment is what we should aim for. Progress has been too slow, and steady headway is now required from the Minister and her Government.
I would like to raise, in particular, the need to reverse the trend of falling numbers of learning disability nurses. The Royal College of Nursing’s Connect for Change report claims that the total number of learning disability nurses in the NHS has fallen by nearly a third since 2010—a reduction of 1,726. An equally worrying trend is that more senior nurses have been lost in this discipline than any other, with a 40% reduction. We need nurses in all disciplines to be seasoned and expert, particularly in this discipline. The current Government have presided over a reduction in both expertise and quantity. Can the Minister say how her department is planning to correct that?
Learning disability nurses provide much-needed advocacy and support and are a key tie-in to social care. They speak out in the interests of people with a learning disability, provide assistance to carers and family members, and give much-needed advice and support to doctors. The case studies in the report, which I found extremely moving, show clearly what happens when this help is not available.
It cannot be right that with 1.4 million people with a learning disability, more of whom are now diagnosed earlier in life, live longer and possess complex needs, support available only five or six years ago is now no longer available. This fall in the number of professionals also means that people with a learning disability face a lottery as to hospital coverage.
In 2014, the Royal Mencap Society found that few hospitals have full-time cover and some none at all. This sometimes means that people with learning disabilities are unable to make their pain known to those who are treating them. They may not have a traffic light card or a hospital passport-type document, which have proved so useful to many—there are several examples of that in the CIPOLD report—they often become confused in a strange environment and among people who are not known to them; their care home may not be able to send somebody with them because of pressures faced. That is why we need the specialist nurses.
Although learning disability nurses are important, so too, as several noble Lords have mentioned, is the training of other health and care staff. We cannot and should not leave everything up to learning disability nurses, not least because of their dwindling numbers. All doctors, nurses and other care professionals need an understanding of learning disability and conditions such as autism and mental health problems, which might also be a barrier to communication. Understanding how to communicate in both directions is vital to ensuring that patients understand procedures, diagnosis and, importantly, what to do following operations and consultations about their own care and medicines. I am heartened to hear about the good work going on at St George’s, and look forward to hearing how the Government and NHS England will spread and promote that good practice.
People with a learning disability need more support and a proactive policy to ensure that they lead healthy lives. Annual health checks can uncover underlying conditions, yet, as we have heard, less than half of people with a learning disability receive them. Accessible information can empower people with a learning disability to take control of their health; we need that, sometimes with pictures, to help the understanding. The NHS accessible information standard launched this summer could not be timelier, and I wish it well.
Urgent action is needed to ensure that no more people with a learning disability die due to avoidable circumstances. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, has been a champion in standing up for people with a learning disability and for access to healthcare. I hope to hear much better news the next time that she raises this issue.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I warmly welcome this debate and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, for her excellent introduction. I also very much congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Fall, on her maiden speech. I hope that she will make up for her earlier enforced silence by speaking more often in your Lordships’ House. Perhaps she will also look a little more kindly on noble Lords in her current position than she did in her previous post.
What can one say about the late Lord Rix? What an extraordinary man and humanitarian he was. Above all, his passionate advocacy on behalf of people with learning disabilities is surely a beacon to us all. I hope that tonight constitutes a small tribute to him for all that he did for so many.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, was very telling when she talked about too many people in health and social care not listening to people with learning disabilities or those who know about people with learning disabilities. When one looks at the issues that have been raised—the statistics mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, or the issue of the Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler—what is most striking is the failure of so many health and social care bodies to treat people with learning disabilities with a sense of equality and respect.
The Mazars report is shocking in relation to the Southern Health Foundation Trust. It identified the lack of leadership, focus and sufficient time in the trust spent on carefully reporting and investigating unexpected deaths. That was followed up by the Care Quality Commission, which found that the trust failed to mitigate the significant risks posed by some of the physical environments in which it delivered mental health and learning disability services. It did not operate effective governance arrangements to ensure robust investigation of incidents, including deaths.
Following those two reports, we had the saga of the former chief executive being offered an opportunity to stay on the staff, on the same salary. She has now left. I cannot help wondering whether underlying this was a board that did not accept those reports. I do not know whether the Minister is able to say a little more about that, but it seemed to me that it encapsulated the problem that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, suggested. Although I am sure that many parts of health and social care do their very best by people with learning disabilities, the cold statistics would suggest that we have an awful long way to go before we can be satisfied that attitudes, policies and procedures are right for these vulnerable people.
In the time available, I do not want to say very much more, but I want to ask the Minister three questions. The first relates to the 18 key recommendations from the CIPOLD review of deaths. Of course she cannot go through all 18 recommendations tonight, but can the Minister write to noble Lords who have spoken in this debate to set out how the Government consider that the health and social care system—and the Government —are responding to those 18 recommendations? In particular, will she pick up the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, about whether the local action that NHS England has instituted, which is not mandatory, can be seen to be a response to the recommendation of a national learning disability mortality review body? I do not think that it can be unless there is a proper mandating of the NHS to take part in it.
The second question comes back to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, about a national strategy. Do we have a national strategy? If not, will the Minister say how the Government intend that there should be a proper national strategy, nationally led, that will ensure that the kind of changes that need to happen will take place?
Finally, I do not think that funding is the only problem: attitudes are much more important. But no one can deny the funding challenges in health and social care at the moment—nor that, despite the Government’s intention that more money should be spent on mental health, it is quite clear that clinical commissioning groups will not do that because they are under intense pressure to balance the books. It has become clear that balancing the books is trumping any other policy. So my final question for the Minister is, essentially, what will happen to protect the funding of those services, which impact directly on people with learning disabilities?
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, on securing this debate on an issue of great importance that is rightly of concern to your Lordships and indeed to the Government. I begin by paying tribute to the noble Baroness for her unfailing commitment to highlighting the inequalities, experiences and poor outcomes that people with learning disabilities and their families have faced for many years. I echo her and other noble Lords’ tributes to Lord Rix, who we are certainly going to miss enormously.
I also take this opportunity to congratulate my noble friend Lady Fall on an excellent maiden speech. My noble friend will be a great addition to this House and I greatly look forward to her contributions in the future. Also, let me thank all noble Lords for their contributions this evening.
We know that there are people young and old who die from what are often referred to as avoidable and premature deaths—which, I think we would all agree, need not happen if care, safety and the way in which people are treated were consistently good across the whole of the healthcare system. The Government are clear that the lives of people of all ages with learning disabilities matter. We are working with partner organisations, professionals and people with learning disabilities and their families to respond to issues that are important to, and have a big impact on, people’s lives.
As my noble friend Lady Rawlings mentioned in her speech, we know that people with learning disabilities experience significantly worse outcomes than the rest of the population. Our activity therefore extends beyond health and care and must also encompass the education of healthcare professionals, employment and housing. To this end, NHS England has a wide-ranging programme of work on learning disability designed to transform care and improve outcomes, driving up the quality of clinical and nursing care and reducing health inequalities. The NHS Five Year Forward View highlighted the need to improve learning disability services, with the NHS driving improvements in culture and behaviours towards people with learning disabilities.
The NHS published shared planning guidance in September with the aim of improving learning disability services, including reducing premature mortality, one of only nine “must dos” in the guidance. As my noble friend Lady Rawlings also mentioned in her speech, the clinical commissioning group improvement and assessment framework was launched in March. This Ofsted-style assessment will allow us to see how clinical commissioning groups are performing in key areas. It includes two indicators on learning disability: reliance on specialist in-patient care and the proportion of people on GP learning disability registers receiving an annual health check.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, both spoke about NHS foundation trusts, and my goodness there are lessons to be learned. The Government have asked whether the issues raised in the Mazars report might be found in other providers across the country. The Care Quality Commission’s review into the investigation of deaths includes a sample of all types of NHS trusts in different parts of the country and will assess whether opportunities for the prevention of death have been missed—for example, by late diagnosis or physical healthcare problems. We expect the Care Quality Commission to publish its findings in December.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Hollins and Lady Tyler, asked what the Government were doing to provide full information on an ongoing basis on trends in the age of and causes of death of those with learning disabilities, and how those trends can be monitored. In answer, I can say that the Department of Health is working with Public Health England and NHS Digital to address the lack of reliable data, which are so important to ensuring that the right decisions can be made by healthcare professionals. A number of approaches are being considered, but the lack of progress has been frustrating. Noble Lords will be aware, however, of the wider issues surrounding the safe and secure use of health and care information, and here I cite the work undertaken by the National Data Guardian for Health and Care, Dame Fiona Caldicott, to ensure that the public can make informed choices about how their data are used. The Department of Health ran a public consultation on those proposals and is currently analysing the responses received. In addition, the department sponsored a study in this area undertaken by Public Health England, and the findings were published by the Journal of Intellectual Disability Research in July. They indicate the extent of premature mortality and its major causes.
As noble Lords have mentioned, people with learning disabilities have a life expectancy on average approximately 20 years less than other people. Public Health England also publishes a digest of the most up-to-date mortality statistics in People with Learning Disabilities in England. The 2016 edition of this will appear later this year.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Hollins and Lady Rawlings, asked whether it was time to mandate reviews into the deaths of all people with learning disabilities. Several other noble Lords mentioned this, too. In March 2015, NHS England commissioned the learning disability mortality review programme, which aims to support local and regional areas conduct reviews of deaths of people with learning disabilities and implement any recommendations and plans of action. Every NHS region is testing the review process and by March 2019 we expect every area to have established a mortality review process.
On the important matter of drugs, excessive use of psychotropic medication is known to be a specific factor in the premature death of people with a learning disability. Several royal colleges have signed a pledge to stop overmedication and have developed plans to deliver on the pledge, including issuing guidance for pre-registration nurses and psychiatrists; producing accessible information on medication for people and their families; and publishing guidance for prescribers. NHS England will also look regularly at primary-care prescribing of psychotropic drugs to monitor progress nationally.
As I mentioned earlier, the NHS mandate includes a requirement to reduce health inequalities for people with a learning disability. The noble Baronesses, Lady Redfern and Lady Hollins, mentioned annual health checks, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. A key objective of this work is to increase the number of people on primary care registers and to ensure that as many of those people as possible get an annual health check. The ambition is for 75% of people on GP registers to receive an annual health check by 2020. Specific work under way includes: standardised letters to improve advice and guidance on health checks; pre-health check questionnaires; health check templates linked to people’s care records; and health action planning, including a focus on key issues that need to be followed up.
NHS England is working to improve how people with a learning disability access health services. This includes: developing care pathways for health conditions affecting people with a learning disability such as diabetes, epilepsy, heart disease and dysphagia; improving patient experience and outcomes; and sharing good practice to reduce variation in quality and make reasonable adjustments to services.
Education is hugely important and was mentioned by virtually every noble Lord. We have recognised that there needs to be a significant improvement in education of healthcare professionals. Health Education England, together with Skills for Health and Skills for Care, launched in July 2016 the learning disabilities core skills education and training framework, which was mentioned by several noble Lords. The framework provides the knowledge and skills needed for those delivering training to health and care professionals.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, mentioned the difficulties in communicating. Some universities such as St George’s, with the help of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, lead the way. Here, students receive training from training advisers who themselves have learning disabilities.
We are also taking steps to help people understand and access the right care and support, including by trialling the idea of “named social workers”, and, as part of the transforming care programme, establishing the role of “care and support navigators”. These will also support the aims of integrated and personalised care.
The provision of accessible information and people’s ability to communicate with staff have a key impact on their care, experiences and outcomes. In July 2015, NHS England published the accessible information standard for the NHS and social care services to help organisations identify and meet an individual’s communication and support needs.
As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fall, mentioned—the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, mentioned it in the debate last Thursday on libraries and again tonight—the provision of books beyond words for those who have visual learning but difficulty with words can make a real difference. It is important that every possible healthcare professional has this at their side whenever they are dealing with people with learning disabilities.
I want to make sure that I cover all the questions, because, as always, I am running out of time.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, asked what the Government are doing to improve our knowledge and understanding of the needs of this vulnerable group. GPs, under the quality and outcomes framework, have to maintain a register of their patients who have learning disabilities. The new Care Quality Commission arrangements for inspections for acute hospitals explicitly examine how patients with particular needs, such as learning disabilities or dementia, are identified. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, also mentioned, the Government will regularly inform Parliament of the progress that has been made. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, also mentioned this. Public Health England’s Learning Disabilities Observatory team review each year and are covered in local and health authority joint strategic needs assessments. This team will continue, funding will continue for this team and the Secretary of State for Health reports annually to Parliament his assessment of NHS England’s progress.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Tyler and Lady Hollins, also wanted to know whether the Government can give a clear message to local authorities and special care agencies about their expectations that staff will be released to contribute to lead reviews of deaths. We agree that there should be the local capacity to undertake high-quality reviews which will yield the best possible learning. However, we have no plans to legislate to make such participation a statutory duty. There is already a strong expectation in the CQC guidelines that providers will participate in relevant clinical audits. Additionally, there is participation in the NHS England-commissioned audit and outcome review programme, which the Learning Disabilities Mortality Review programme is carrying on.
I will have to write to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on the 18 recommendations, if that is all right, and on the funding attitudes.
There is work in progress which will, in time, have a positive impact on the safety and quality of care.
Baroness Walmsley
I am sorry to interrupt, but when she is writing her letters will the Minister please also reply to my questions about learning disability nurses?
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
Yes. I am so sorry—I had the answer and I will make sure that I get it to you.
We give thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and people like her who keep pushing the barriers facing this vulnerable group. The Government are focused on making changes happen, stopping variation in care and championing those with learning disabilities being able to live full and happy lives, knowing that support is there when needed. Once again, I thank all noble Lords for taking part tonight. I am sorry that I have not had time to answer all the questions, but I will make sure that the letters get to noble Lords.