House of Commons
(7 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(7 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(7 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Sajid Javid)
The Government have guaranteed support for projects that have signed agreements for EU funding. This guarantee applies even when those projects continue beyond EU exit. We are considering future arrangements regarding domestic support for local growth.
Thangam Debbonaire
A key aim of European funding for community groups is to promote skills and employment. Last week’s autumn statement appeared to have no long-term strategy for investment in skills and employment. Given how important this is for the UK to compete globally post-Brexit, does the Secretary of State agree that this shows yet again that the Government simply have no plan for Brexit?
Sajid Javid
I completely disagree. I have noted that the hon. Lady’s constituency has seen a 49% fall in unemployment since 2010, and I hope that she would welcome that. What we saw in the autumn statement were further measures to keep the strength in our economy, including the announcement of regional allocations of a local growth fund—it will apply to the hon. Lady’s area—that will go on to generate both growth and jobs.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend confirm that for every £2 we give to the European Union we get only £1 back? Under our own scheme, we could potentially be more generous than the EU is at the moment and we could give to community groups in line with national priorities rather than EU priorities?
Sajid Javid
As usual, my hon. Friend makes a very good point. Once we have left the EU, we will be able to design schemes for local growth and offer support through funding that will meet all our national priorities, provide value for money for British taxpayers and lead to more jobs and growth.
Stuart Blair Donaldson (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (SNP)
On 25 February, the Government announced that they would make an application to the EU solidarity fund to provide extra support to flood-hit communities across the UK, including a number in my own constituency. Given that we have now voted to leave the EU, can the Minister give us an update on the progress of this application, so that communities that are still dealing with the consequences of flooding can be reassured that they will receive this money?
Sajid Javid
I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that we have made an application and that it is now being considered by the European Commission. We hope to update Members as soon as we can.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is no such thing as EU money—it is taxpayers’ money—and that when business rates are kept locally by local authorities, thanks to this Government, local community groups will be able to benefit from that funding?
Sajid Javid
That is a very important reminder from my hon. Friend that it is all our money at the end of the day. He reminds us that, when we leave the EU, we can use that money locally as we wish. The connection that my hon. Friend has made to business rates is the right one.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Sajid Javid)
Some 100,900 planning permissions were granted in the quarter April to June 2016. This is a 6% increase on the same quarter in 2015. However, people cannot live or work in planning permissions, so developers need to move ahead to build.
Jason McCartney
What measures can be brought forward to get developers who are sitting on land with planning permission to get building? When I say “get building”, I do not mean four or five-bedroom detached properties, but two and three-bedroom properties that are affordable to my constituents?
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend raises an important point. We are clear that sites with planning permission should move ahead without delay, and we are taking steps to speed up development through our Neighbourhood Planning Bill and the new £3 billion home building fund. In addition, the national planning policy framework expects councils to plan for a mix of housing to meet local needs.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Planning permissions mean absolutely nothing if homes are not actually built. Can the Secretary of State confirm the figures that were released last week, which show that just over 141,000 homes were built in the year to September 2016—20% lower than the 176,000 that were built at the peak under Labour in 2007?
Sajid Javid
It is true that under the previous Labour Government, housing starts fell to their lowest level since the 1920s, and I can also confirm that the housing supply numbers for the latest year available are up by 9%.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State understand the anger and disappointment felt throughout Sutton Coldfield at his decision last week to back Labour’s wholly unnecessary plans to build on Sutton Coldfield’s green belt? Does he realise that this is a breach of the Conservative party’s election manifesto and his own words from just a few weeks ago? Does he now understand that we will seek to oppose his decision by all legal means and amend future legislation to give the protection that he has shown himself unable to provide?
Sajid Javid
My right hon. Friend has been a passionate and committed campaigner on this issue, and I respect that tremendously. The Government placed a hold on the Birmingham local plan precisely because they value the green belt: it is very, very special. However, when a local community has come forward with a robust plan, has looked at all the alternatives, has considered its housing needs and has prioritised brownfield sites, and when the independent planning inspectorate has said that the plan conforms to all the rules and regulations, the Government have no valid reason to stand in the way.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
Where on earth does the Secretary of State get his figures from? According to his Department’s own official figures—I have them here—there were 140,000 fewer permissions last year than in the peak year under Labour. More important is the fact that, as he says, people cannot live in planning permissions; what they really need are decent, affordable homes. Will he tell us how many new affordable homes were built in this country last year?
Sajid Javid
Unlike the right hon. Gentleman, I get my figures from the Office for National Statistics. According to the ONS, housing supply amounted to 189,650 additional homes in 2015-16, which is an increase of 11%, and the level is the highest for eight years. I believe that when the right hon. Gentleman was the Housing Minister, housing starts fell to their lowest level since the 1920s.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about affordable homes. We have provided more money for affordable homes than any previous Parliament, and there has been an increase of 304,000 since 2010.
John Healey
Those figures are just not accurate. Even if we include the money that has been announced, the Government’s investment in new affordable homes over the current Parliament is still only half the level of Labour’s investment in its last year in office. The number of new affordable homes built last year was the lowest for 24 years, notwithstanding 750 separate announcements on affordable housing since 2010. This is a disaster for families who are struggling to cope with housing costs. When will we—after six years of failure—see a serious plan to help people on ordinary incomes with housing to rent and buy, and when will we see a proper Government plan to fix the housing crisis?
Sajid Javid
What was a disaster was a decline of 410,000 in the number of social housing units during the 13 years of the Labour Government. Since then, the number has risen by more than 60,000. If the right hon. Gentleman does not agree with me, perhaps he will agree with his former colleague, now the Mayor of London, who said of the money allocated to affordable housing in last week’s autumn statement:
“This is the largest sum of money ever secured by City Hall for affordable housing.”
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) must know something about these matters. He is an estate agent. Let us hear from him.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I tend to spend more time here these days, Mr Speaker.
Does the Secretary of State agree that if we are to create more opportunities for small and medium-sized house builders, we need to allocate more small sites in local plans?
Sajid Javid
Yes, I do agree with my hon. Friend. He will be pleased to know that the new accelerated construction fund will ensure that allocations of that kind are more forthcoming, and that the £3 billion home building fund will provide more support for small and medium-sized builders.
Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Sajid Javid)
The Government are committed to neighbourhood planning, which enables communities to shape the development and growth of their local areas in a positive manner. The Neighbourhood Planning Bill will further strengthen and future-proof the process, while ensuring that communities have the support that they need.
Mims Davies
Well-supported neighbourhood plans and agreed local plans are critical to good local planning and housing. How does the Secretary of State aim to hold to account councils that fail to deliver agreed and well-supported local plans by early 2017, and those that fail to support and encourage neighbourhood plans and hence the right mix of local housing?
Sajid Javid
We expect all authorities to have a plan in place and to keep their plan up to date. We have put that requirement beyond doubt by legislating for it in the Neighbourhood Planning Bill. My hon. Friend’s local council, Eastleigh Borough Council, has not taken the issue seriously and has let down local residents. She is right to stand up for her constituents. Her council should follow her example.
Dame Rosie Winterton (Doncaster Central) (Lab)
Is the Secretary of State aware that, as part of the neighbourhood plan for Hexthorpe in my constituency, a selective licensing system was introduced for private landlords, which reduced all types of antisocial behaviour by between 20% and 45%? Will he look at how those schemes can be extended? Will he also look at how the planning process can be modified to allow councils to make quicker decisions about houses in multiple occupation, which can often be linked to antisocial behaviour?
Sajid Javid
The right hon. Lady makes a good point. We should always be looking at what more can be done to combat antisocial behaviour. She has raised an excellent example. I was not aware of it but, now that she has raised it, I will take a closer look to see whether we can extend it.
Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Percy)
The Government are committed to supporting high streets. We are cutting business rates for many retailers and developing digital high street pilots in Gloucestershire. In the run-up to Christmas—my hon. Friend’s background is in retail—I hope that we can all take the opportunity to support our local high streets, shop local and support Small Business Saturday this weekend.
Andrew Percy
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Last week, I chaired my first future high streets forum, where we heard about the excellent work undertaken in the digital pilots across Gloucester, Cheltenham and Stroud. That is an important tool through which we can attract people back to our high streets. We will be doing further work through the forum on these digital roll-outs.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
In my constituency, many small towns, such as Flint, Mold and Holywell, have to impose car parking charges because of the financial situation that they are in, yet large, out-of-town retail developments such as Cheshire Oaks, which is just over the border in England, have free parking. Has the Minister had a chance to look at how we can help to support small businesses on the issue of town centre parking?
Andrew Percy
I would be more than happy to welcome the right hon. Gentleman to North Lincolnshire Council, where, when we took control from the Labour party, we scrapped parking charges, introduced two hours of free parking and all-day free parking on Saturdays and Sundays. It had a wonderful effect: it brought people back to the high street. I would be delighted to see him in Brigg and Goole any time soon to discuss the matter further.
Peter Heaton-Jones (North Devon) (Con)
When it comes to supporting our high streets, will the Minister join me in welcoming Small Business Saturday this weekend, because it plays such an important part in helping our smaller, independent retailers on our high streets? Will he join me in congratulating North Devon Council, which has just announced an hour’s free parking in Barnstaple in the run-up to Christmas?
Andrew Percy
I am more than happy to congratulate North Devon Council on its announcement on free parking. As I have said, free parking has made a huge difference in my area in bringing people back to our town centres. I reiterate that I hope that Members will get out and support Small Business Saturday throughout the country.
Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
At the recent world town centres summit in Edinburgh, many things were on display, including apps that allow people to put entire towns, including high streets and small traders, online. What plans do the UK Government have in that regard?
Andrew Percy
We are working through the future high streets forum on the issue of connecting people better to their high streets through digital media, including social media. I point to the example of Bishy Road, York, which last year won the Great British High Street award and used its winnings to develop an app with Newcastle University to do just that. A lot of work is going on in that regard.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
Fixed odds betting terminals, the crack cocaine of gambling, have led to an explosion in the number of betting shops on our high streets. What are the Government going to do about it? Aside from my amendment, what is in the Neighbourhood Planning Bill to tackle the explosion in betting shops, which no one wants?
Andrew Percy
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s comments. It is important that we have a mix of different outlets on our high streets and I know that there are concerns about this in many town centres. It is of course for local councils to make appropriate use of the powers available to them, but I am happy to look into the issue further and discuss this with the hon. Gentleman if required.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
The Minister has just referred to alternative uses in our town centres, and one of them can be tourism. Does he agree that a great example is provided by Rugby Borough Council in its development with World Rugby in creating the Hall of Fame, opened earlier this month, in the most appropriate place: the birthplace of the game of rugby?
Andrew Percy
There can be no better place for such a venue and I congratulate Rugby on that development and my hon. Friend on his support for it. It is true that we need our town centre spaces to include a mix of different uses to attract people back into our towns, to support the retail offer there too.
Mr Speaker
It is obviously a very remarkable facility if it is situated in the high street; it certainly has to be acknowledged.
Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Sajid Javid)
The Government are investing over £25 billion over this spending review period. Our home building fund will help small builders, our accelerated construction programme will see more homes built faster, and we announced a further £1.4 billion for our affordable homes programme in last week’s autumn statement.
Michael Gove
I thank the Secretary of State for his response. He will be aware that communities welcome development all the more if the architecture is sympathetic to the local vernacular, artisan builders are involved in the development, and the environment is respected. In achieving all of those ends, what role do garden villages have to play?
Sajid Javid
We will be supporting a number of garden villages—those that are committed to being well-designed communities and that will stand out as exemplars of good development for years to come. We will ensure that there are real and important benefits that are rightly secured from the outset: quality, design, cutting-edge technology, local employment opportunities, accessible green space, and fantastic access to public transport.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State give a bit more information about last week’s statement? Will the extra money for additional affordable homes be for affordable homes to rent, which have so far been lacking from the Government programme? Will the relaxation of restrictions on Government grant to allow a wider range of housing types mean that the whole of the Homes and Communities Agency’s £8 billion fund can be bid for with packages involving affordable homes for rent? At the same time will the Secretary of State say that, on section 106 agreements, priority will continue to be given to affordable homes for rent?
Sajid Javid
The Chairman of the Select Committee asks a number of questions. [Interruption.] I will answer most of his questions, but we have a number of opportunities to speak and perhaps I can give more detail then. The high priority the Government place on affordable homes was made clear by the Chancellor last week, and I can confirm that the £1.4 billion he announced is additional money. We estimate that it will lead to about 40,000 additional units. We have given housing associations the flexibility to decide on the types of unit—whether they are to rent or otherwise—which is precisely what they have asked for.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
Under Labour, when more homes were built there was not the investment in infrastructure in constituencies such as mine. That has changed under this Government, particularly with last week’s announcement of £2.3 billion in the housing infrastructure fund. Can the Secretary of State confirm to my constituents that they will also see the sort of investment we need to see in roads and rail, particularly on the Wessex route, which is now chronically overcrowded?
Sajid Javid
My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point about the importance of infrastructure if we are to unlock our housing sites. She rightly referred to the £2.3 billion of additional funding announced last week. There is over £1 billion of new money for transport projects as well, which will also go towards releasing homes and easing congestion, which she can also make use of locally.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The Secretary of State was a bit vague in his answer to the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), the Chair of the Select Committee, on the Government’s intention to build and develop homes for social rent, which ought to be a significant part of their intentions to help people who do not want to, or cannot afford to, buy their home. When will he bring forward a plan—such as the Scottish Government plan to build 35,000 social rented houses—for England.
Sajid Javid
I have referred to this at the Dispatch Box a number of times. We have seen a massive increase in affordable homes in England, involving more than £8 billion during this Parliament and an additional £1.4 billion announced last week. This is leading to thousands of new affordable homes, which is something that Scotland could learn from.
Alison Thewliss
Shelter has said that starter homes “will be a non-starter” for those who are just about managing. People on low incomes simply cannot afford the deposit for those houses. Would the Secretary of State not do better to look at how Scotland is investing in social rented housing and affordable housing for people who are just about managing?
Sajid Javid
The hon. Lady might be interested to know that Shelter’s chief executive welcomed the autumn statement for increasing the number of affordable homes and for providing some of the flexibility that had been asked for. Shelter is an organisation that we work with and listen to, and we will continue to do so.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
Given that half the new homes will be leasehold, and that part of the problem stems from the present and potential abuse of the system, will my right hon. Friend please get together with representatives of The Sunday Times and The Guardian, and others who are covering these abuses, to ensure that ordinary people buying their first home do not find that it is unsaleable and of no value when they decide to leave it?
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We must ensure that the kind of abuse he mentions is stamped out. We work with a number of stakeholders, and we will certainly see how we can do more.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Gavin Barwell)
We have recently consulted on increasing planning fees, and we will be setting out our response in the forthcoming White Paper.
Steve McCabe
As the Minister might know, I have been pursuing the issue of protecting family homes. I am not against permitted development, but I am against rogue developers who are able to cause untold misery to ordinary homeowners through ruthless exploitation and breaches of permitted development because they are better resourced than local authorities to deal with enforcement. Will the Minister agree to look again at the issue of enforcement in that area?
Gavin Barwell
I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern that local authorities should use their enforcement powers. The Housing and Planning Act 2016 has given local authorities substantial additional powers to tackle rogue landlords through the creation of a database, the use of banning orders, the extension of rent repayment orders and an increase in civil penalties. The powers are there, and I would be happy to meet him to discuss how they should be used.
Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)
One of the best ways to ensure that local planning departments have sufficient resources to carry out their duties is to allow local authorities to charge the full cost of planning applications. This is something that the Government promised to introduce a long time ago, and I very much hope that this Minister will bring it in.
Gavin Barwell
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. As I have said, we are consulting on the issue of greater resourcing for local authority planning departments, and virtually everyone I have met in the four months since I became Housing Minister has said that there is an issue that needs to be addressed. If my hon. Friend bears with us, he will see a solution in the housing White Paper.
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
The Minister will know that, due to Government cuts, spending on planning in local authorities has fallen by a massive £1 billion since 2010. We have heard warm words from the Government this afternoon about plugging the huge funding gap, particularly in relation to allowing fees to rise, but will he tell us what more he plans to do to resource planning departments properly, so that they can produce local plans and make plans for the new settlements, new towns and garden cities that we so desperately need if we are to solve our housing crisis?
Gavin Barwell
The hon. Lady is quite right to say that local authority planning departments have a crucial role to play in tackling the housing problems that this country faces, but she undersells their record of achievement under this Government. She talked about local plans. When Labour left office, 17% of councils had a local plan; today, the figure is 72%.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
Will the Minister also bear in mind that there is great support for local flexibility on planning fees and that many respectable developers and builders would value that flexibility, provided that it was ring-fenced and reinvested in local planning authorities? That is particularly important in areas such as London, where the cost pressures are especially great.
Gavin Barwell
My hon. Friend makes an important point. If we increase the resources raised through planning fees, it is essential that that money is spent on extra resourcing in planning departments. He is quite right to say that both local authorities and developers are pressing the case to solve the issue.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Gavin Barwell)
Our guidance is clear that decisions on planning applications, whether by local authorities or by planning inspectors, must be taken in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
Steve Double
I thank the Minister for that answer. Housing developer Wainhomes recently submitted a planning application for 300 homes on a site in St Austell that was not allocated for development in the town framework. The local council consulted widely when producing the framework and found that 95% of local residents who responded did not want the site to be developed. I know that the Minister cannot comment on specific applications, but does he agree that if permissions are granted on sites that are not allocated for development, that does little to promote the public’s confidence in the planning system?
Gavin Barwell
I share my hon. Friend’s determination that we have a plan-led system. It is vital that local authorities get plans in place, so I was delighted that Cornwall voted to adopt its local plan on 22 November.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that the Secretary of State’s actions last week completely undermined the neighbourhood plan of Newick in my constituency with the overturning of the decision on the Mitchelswood Farm site? Some 89% of people in Newick voted for their neighbourhood plan, which excluded that site. Does that not suggest that neighbourhood plans are not worth the paper they are written on?
Gavin Barwell
Neighbourhood plans are a vital part of an area’s development plan. Where a local authority does not have a five-year land supply in place, my hon. Friend is quite right that that is an alternative consideration. With the White Paper, we want to consider how we can change policy so that the people who work hard to produce such plans have more confidence that they will have an effect on all applications.
Mr Speaker
I gently remind right hon. and hon. Members that they should not leave the Chamber until all the exchanges on the question to which they have contributed have been concluded. One fellow has just beetled out of the Chamber having popped his question, taking precisely zilch interest in anybody else’s. I am sure that the discourtesy was inadvertent, but it is in breach of a long-standing convention of this House, of which all Members ought to be aware. Modesty and kindness forbid me to mention the name of the offending individual on this occasion.
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Percy)
I note my hon. Friend’s interest as chairman of the all-party beer group. I am happy to work with local authorities to develop community pubs. Listing a pub as an asset of community value gives communities time to bid to buy it should the owner decide to sell. We have supported community buying through the £3.6 million “More than a Pub” programme.
Graham Evans
Many pubs will have welcomed the news about rural rate relief in the autumn statement, but they still face an immense challenge on business rates. What further steps could the Minister take with local authorities to help ease the burden of business rates on pubs?
Andrew Percy
We are permanently doubling the level of small business rate relief from next year, meaning that 600,000 small businesses will pay no business rates at all. In addition, 17,000 pubs may be eligible for small business rate relief from 1 April next year, depending on their rateable value. Around 13,000 are potentially eligible for 100% relief, compared with some 4,000 now.
Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)
Andrew Percy
Before the review, we agreed a methodology with the industry through which the revaluations would take place, so that is why that mechanism is used.
Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
Andrew Percy
This is an independent process and it would not be appropriate for Ministers to intervene in it. We have, of course, provided £3.6 billion of transitional relief for those businesses affected by the revaluation, but I refer back to the statistics I gave in an answer a moment ago about the number of businesses that could now qualify for 100% relief.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Gavin Barwell)
We want to see all areas with an up-to-date plan in place that meets housing need. We are doubling annual capital spending on housing over the course of this Parliament, and we will be announcing further measures, some specific to rural areas, in the forthcoming White Paper.
Huw Merriman
I thank the Minister for his response, and I am keen to see more local housing. With 75% of my constituency designated as areas of outstanding natural beauty, my district councils are in the midst of delivering a much-needed five-year land supply. Will he assure me that the Government will implement robust measures to prevent opportunist developers from applying to build anywhere in our AONB in the meantime?
Gavin Barwell
I am delighted to hear that my hon. Friend’s local councils are getting their five-year land supply in place, as that is crucial. In the meantime, I can reassure him that the national planning policy framework says that great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in AONBs, so the protection is there in national policy.
Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
What will the Minister be doing to ensure that British-made ceramics—tiles and bricks—will be used for rural housing and, for that matter, for all housing?
Gavin Barwell
That is a good question and I am happy to meet the hon. Lady to explore what opportunities exist, as she is a doughty champion for her area and for her industry.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend confirm that under the national planning policy framework, unmet housing need does not constitute an exceptional circumstance necessary to warrant building in the green belt?
Gavin Barwell
That is a timely question. The answer is that the NPPF does not define what the exceptional circumstances are that should justify changing green belt boundaries. That is rightly a matter for local communities to decide on.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Percy)
Any individual or organisation can make representations on planning applications for infrastructure projects, and it is of course for the decision maker to decide what weight, if any, should be given to those representations.
Charlie Elphicke
For more than a year, my constituents have been battling to get rid of a 40 mph speed limit on the main motorway to the port of Dover—a road of national strategic importance—yet the infrastructure for this to happen is being held up by the AONB. What measures can be taken by the Department or through legislation to make sure that a better balance is struck?
Andrew Percy
I am aware of this issue and my hon. Friend’s advocacy on behalf of his constituency. Clearly, legislation does require Highways England to have regard to the AONB’s purpose to conserve and enhance that natural beauty. I am more than happy to meet him or to pass his concerns on to the appropriate Department.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
The Minister’s colleague has just confirmed that the NPPF makes it clear that AONBs should have the highest status of protection, yet the Chilterns Conservation Board, the public body set up to protect the Chilterns AONB, had its proposal for a fully bored tunnel under the Chilterns rejected. When it comes to projects such as HS2, it appears that there is one rule for some AONBs and another for the Chilterns AONB. What is the Minister going to do to try, still, to persuade the promoters to have a fully bored tunnel under the Chilterns and to live up to his promise to protect our AONBs?
Andrew Percy
It is absolutely appropriate that AONBs receive the protection they do in the planning process. I am more than happy to pass on my right hon. Friend’s question and concerns about the tunnel and the Chilterns to the Secretary of State for Transport.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)
Between 2012 and 2015, nearly 120,000 families on the troubled families programme saw their lives improve. In October, we published a report on the programme’s costs and potential fiscal benefits based on local authority data. A first assessment on the cost-effectiveness of the new programme will be available next year.
Bridget Phillipson
I am grateful to the Minister, but I am not sure whether he has had a chance to thoroughly read the report commissioned by his own Department on the scheme; it found no evidence of a significant or systematic impact on the key objectives of the programme. Will Ministers set out why the decision was taken to spend hundreds of millions of pounds expanding the programme before they could even know whether that was money well spent?
Mr Jones
This party is absolutely focused on outcomes, not process. Nearly 120,000 families have had their lives improved, and I for one am proud that there are more children back at school, that youth crime is down and that more than 18,000 adults involved with the programme are back in work.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Does the Minister accept that the report shows that although this was purportedly designed around the payment by results model, it was no such thing? Local authorities simply delivered the number of families for which there was funding. What do the Government intend to learn from the failure to design an effective contract? How will they ensure that in future taxpayers’ money is well spent?
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)
I fully recognise the pressures on adult social care, which provides a vital service to millions of people across the country. That is why the Government have provided extra funding for adult social care, with up to £3.5 billion available during this Parliament.
Lilian Greenwood
Yesterday, the former Health Secretary, Stephen Dorrell, commented on the Chancellor’s autumn statement, saying that it was “a mistake” not to provide extra investment in the social care system, which was “inadequately funded”. Last week, directors of social services said social care was “in real jeopardy”, and the Conservative leader of Warwickshire County Council said that
“it is no exaggeration to say that our care and support system is in crisis.”
The Minister says that he is providing extra money, but when are the Government going to wake up and provide the funds needed to prevent the whole system from collapsing?
Mr Jones
During the spending review last year, we consulted the sector carefully. We spoke with the Local Government Association, and looked at length at what it said. It said that we should have £2.9 billion of extra funding available for adult social care across this spending period, but we have provided up to £3.5 billion.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Social care should not be a party political matter, and there are concerns on both sides of the House. Would it not be a good idea if the Government worked with the Opposition to see whether we could agree on a way forward so that social care progresses satisfactorily? Perhaps an independent body responsible for social care could be created, rather than the issue being left to local government and the national health service.
Mr Jones
My hon. Friend makes a sensible point. These issues are often important, and we need to speak to a wide group of people to make the right decisions. We are certainly interested in speaking to anyone who wants to come up with sensible and practicable solutions in relation to this vital issue.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
Mr Jones
This is not repackaged money: this is new money for adult social care—up to £3.5 billion across the spending review period. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the report by the LGA, which is absolutely right that the key is better integration of health and social care. The £1.5 billion that we are providing through the better care fund is the best way to continue to promote that.
Mr Speaker
I am loth to come between sisters, especially twins, but I call Angela Eagle.
Ms Angela Eagle
Thank you, Mr Speaker; you may have caused me some trouble later this evening. In the past six years, the Government have cut social care funding by nearly £5 billion. In my authority of Wirral, there is a £3.5 million hole in the budget only halfway through the year. The system is on its knees, and there has been an 18% increase in emergency admissions to hospital as a result. The Prime Minister did not have an answer to this last Wednesday. When is the Minister responsible going to have an answer?
Mr Jones
We have enabled councils to raise additional funding through the adult social care precept, but this is all about priorities and the way in which local government allocates its finance. The hon. Lady might want to have a word with her local council leader and group, as they have sought to spend £270,000 on a propaganda newspaper. Is that good value for money when they say that they need more for social care?
Maria Eagle
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am grateful to follow my sister—as I always have.
Liverpool City Council, which covers most of my constituency, raises £146 million in council tax every year from its council tax base. This year it has spent £151 million on adult social care, yet since 2010, this Government and their predecessor have cut 58% of the budget that the council has to fulfil its statutory obligations. Is the Minister really saying that Liverpool City Council is in a position to spend any more on adult social care, which it needs to do, without more money coming from central Government?
Mr Jones
I refer the hon. Lady to the indicative allocations that have been made through the better care fund, which takes into account councils’ ability to raise council tax. In terms of its average spending power per dwelling, Liverpool gets £100 more than the national average. She might want to discuss with her council leader how the council can improve its collection of council tax, which in Liverpool is well below the national average.
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)
It has been interesting to listen to the Minister’s responses, which demonstrate that the Government do not accept that there is a crisis in adult social care. That denial leads me to worry about the 1.2 million people who cannot even access a service. Local authorities have had to cut between 40% and 50% of their budget. Blackburn Council raises £900,000 with a 2% precept, but to stand still it needs £1.2 million per year and it already has a £5.8 million black hole. Are we seriously saying that we will wait to have conversations to see how we can take things forward? There is a crisis happening now—we are heading for winter and we are putting old people in danger. Will the Secretary of State find the £2.6 billion that is needed now?
Mr Jones
I am not sure that the Secretary of State has that money down the back of the sofa or of the green Benches. We recognise that this is an extremely important issue, and that is why we are giving additional precepting powers, which will have a cumulative effect over time. I note that the hon. Lady is looking for an extra £2.6 billion off the cuff. That is interesting, given the fact that at the last general election, the then shadow Chancellor said that if the Labour party were in power, local government would be subject to cuts.
Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Gavin Barwell)
My right hon. Friend is right to raise concerns about the quality of service provided by some managing agents. That is why we are introduced legislation to ensure that property management agents belong to an approved redress scheme.
Alistair Burt
I am working with constituents who, despite a number of complaints about management services on a relatively newly built estate, find that the management agents are not prepared to meet them as a group. They find that their local parish council has discontinued contact with the management agents, and the management agents have not held an annual general meeting, as they promised in their agreement. If this is in any way familiar to my hon. Friend, will he tell me what more my constituents can do to redress the balance of power between themselves and the people who seem to have them over a barrel?
Gavin Barwell
Sadly, the situation that my right hon. Friend describes is familiar, and something that he has raised before. The Government are looking to address it. Although there are existing legal powers, we are exploring whether further changes are required to address this problem.
Mr Speaker
To speak with exemplary brevity, I feel sure, I call Mr Andrew Slaughter.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
Thank you for squeezing me in, Mr Speaker.
Speaking of regulation, the Housing Minister thought two months ago that Labour’s ban on letting fees was a bad idea. Does he agree that, if we want security and affordability in the housing market, he should, in addition to signing up to that ban, sign up to Labour’s other manifesto promises—three-year tenancies and control of inflationary rent increases in the private sector?
Gavin Barwell
It certainly would be good to see longer tenancies in the private rented sector, but in terms of regulating to force all private landlords to let for longer periods and to introduce rent controls, we have only to look at the record in our own country and around the world to see what the result of such policies would be: a smaller private rented sector, which would make our housing problems worse.
Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Sajid Javid)
I am sure that the whole House will welcome the latest official house building numbers showing housing starts at an eight-year high, but there is still a lot more we need to do. That was why last week’s autumn statement contained billions of pounds of funding to get Britain building, and it is why our White Paper, which is due to be published in January, will set out a range of radical plans to boost the housing supply. I can also confirm that we will start announcing local growth fund allocations later this week, and I hope to have all the deals announced before Christmas.
Mims Davies
Further to my recent question to the Leader of the House and a written parliamentary question, I would like to raise once again the importance of protecting ancient woodland from hostile development. In terms of delivering much-needed appropriate housing, do Ministers agree that once we bulldoze ancient woodland, it can never come back, and that options B and C in Eastleigh Borough Council’s emerging local plan are completely inappropriate and will destroy a valued local community landscape?
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend is right: ancient woodland is an irreplaceable habitat. The national planning policy framework is clear that
“planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland”,
unless there are very exceptional circumstances. However, without a local plan, local people do not have the certainty they need. Once again, my hon. Friend has demonstrated that Eastleigh Borough Council is letting its residents down.
Teresa Pearce (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
Changes to the local government pension scheme that recently came into effect were debated in a statutory instrument Committee last week. During the debate, the Minister indicated that EU directive 41/2003 does not apply to the LGPS, yet a letter I have here from his own Department says that it does. Will he confirm that the directive does apply and that it has been applied?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)
I can assure the hon. Lady that the directive, we firmly believe, does not apply. If she would like to meet me to discuss the issue further, I would be more than happy to do so.
Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)
Mr Jones
My hon. Friend raises an important question. When a council’s income is impacted by a successful business rates appeal or other losses in business rates income, there is a safety net, as I am sure he will be aware. However, he will be reassured by the fact that, during the design of the new 100% business rates retention scheme, we are looking at how risks around business rates income will be managed in the future.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Percy)
We have provided a long-term funding settlement to North East Lincolnshire Council, which will have £592 million to spend over this Parliament. In addition, the two local enterprise partnerships serving the hon. Lady’s area—the Humber LEP and the Greater Lincolnshire LEP—have received £114 million and £126 million respectively, and we will be making further announcements shortly.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
Sajid Javid
I could not agree more. Definitive action is what is required, and that is exactly what the Government are providing. The autumn statement detailed £7.2 billion of investment in housing, which is the biggest dedicated investment in housing in a generation. The Government expect to double in real terms annual capital spending for housing over the course of this Parliament. That is great news for Essex and great news for the country.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Through no fault of its own, Hull has struggled to be part of any devolution deal in Yorkshire and the Humber, despite accepting the elected mayor model and recognising the importance of devolution to economic regeneration for the city. Will the northern powerhouse Minister agree to meet local MPs, councillors and others to discuss what has worked elsewhere in the country and how we can take Hull forward?
Andrew Percy
I would be delighted to do so. The situation is deeply disappointing. I met Councillor Steve Brady, the Labour leader of Hull City Council, only on Friday, when we discussed devolution. The hon. Lady can of course turn up at this afternoon’s meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire, where she will see a devolution double whammy with the Secretary of State and me talking about Yorkshire devolution.
Ben Howlett (Bath) (Con)
Andrew Percy
I absolutely congratulate local leaders in the west of England on their grown-up approach, and my hon. Friend on his work on this deal, which will bring an additional £1 billion of investment in infrastructure, as well as devolving powers from this place to the local community on transport, adult skills, and housing and planning.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
Did the Minister see last week’s shocking report from the Alzheimer’s Society showing that only 2% of people affected by dementia feel that their home carers have adequate training in dementia, that only 38% of home care workers have any dementia training at all, and that 71% did not have accredited training, with dreadful consequences for dementia sufferers and their families and carers? Does he accept that until social care is properly funded, this situation will just get worse?
Mr Marcus Jones
The right hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. By 2020, we expect all social care providers to provide appropriate training on dementia to all relevant staff. Over 100,000 care workers have already received such training. As I said with regard to the funding of adult social care, we have provided a package that will provide up to £3.5 billion of extra funding during this spending review period.
Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Gavin Barwell)
My hon. Friend is right to underline the importance of local authorities having a five-year land supply and an up-to-date local plan, because that ensures that local communities can decide where development should go, what kinds of development should happen, and which sites should be protected. I am looking forward to visiting his constituency shortly, and I hope we can discuss these issues in more detail then.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
The amount of money that has been cut from social care since 2010 dwarfs what the Secretary of State’s Department is going to be putting in over the next five years. He might wish to deny it, but there is a crisis in our health and social care services, with too many people stuck in our hospitals because there is no care available to enable them to come out. Why did the Secretary of State fail to make adequate representations to the Chancellor to ensure that funding was allocated in last week’s autumn statement?
Sajid Javid
The hon. Lady rightly points to a very challenging situation. I am sure she will welcome the additional £3.5 billion of funding that is being provided during this Parliament. The other thing that I know she will welcome—she pointed to it in her question—is the need for more integration between the NHS and adult social care, which we are seeing in parts of the country such as Manchester. We want that to continue and to ensure there is a plan in place in every local region by 2020.
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
Andrew Percy
We have only announced regional allocations, so it is not correct to say at this point that the South East LEP will receive £55 million. The final figures will be announced in the coming weeks, and the initial funding allocations given to LEPs for discussion may change somewhat.
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
In Kirklees, the amount spent on social care has gone down in real terms by 15.7% since 2010, despite demand increasing with a rapidly ageing society. What steps are the Government taking to help local councils with the £1.9 billion funding gap in adult social care this year?
Mr Marcus Jones
I welcome the hon. Lady to her place. We are taking the situation extremely seriously. We have enabled councils to raise additional funding through the adult social care precept—up to 2% on top of the council tax—and in a few weeks’ time, she will be able to see the allocation for the better care fund, which will come into effect in April 2017 for the next financial year.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Gavin Barwell
That was a great question from my hon. Friend. The Greater London Authority will be launching its affordable housing programme tomorrow. It is worth reiterating what the Mayor has said, which the Secretary of State quoted:
“This is the largest sum of money ever secured by City Hall to deliver affordable housing.”
That is just the beginning, because last week the Chancellor announced another £1.4 billion, and London will get a share of that budget. That is a clear sign of the Government’s commitment to tackling our housing problems.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
People who live close to recreational airfields such as Hibaldstow do not have the same protection from noise and nuisance as people who live near to similar recreational activities that involve staying on the ground. Will the Secretary of State have a look into this and see what can be done about it?
Gavin Barwell
The Minister for Housing and Planning is very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss those issues.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
Gavin Barwell
Provided that local plans have a five-year land supply, the expectation should be that planning applications are decided in accordance with those local plans, unless clear material considerations suggest otherwise. My message to my hon. Friend is to make sure that his local authority has a local plan in place with a five-year land supply.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
The housing waiting lists that apply to my constituency have been growing for a long time. Can the Secretary of State answer earlier questions and tell us what proportion of the much-vaunted new houses will be rented, and what proportion will be for social rent?
Gavin Barwell
What we have done with the affordable housing programme is to give complete flexibility, so I cannot give a specific answer, because it will depend on the bids that housing associations make from the programme. There is complete flexibility in relation to tenure. The Government have had a policy of focusing on affordable rent rather than social rent, because that allows us to deliver far more homes for a given level of public subsidy.
Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)
Sajid Javid
I know that my hon. Friend is a big fan of this deal. Devolution will support jobs in the west of England and many other parts of England. The next step for that deal is for the Government to seek the consent of all three councils involved for the parliamentary order, and we are well down the course with that. I congratulate my hon. Friend on supporting this transformative deal.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Will the new White Paper address the fact that under the Government’s flawed right-to-buy proposals, more socially rented houses are currently being sold than are being replaced?
Gavin Barwell
We are very proud of the right-to-buy policy, which gives ordinary working people the chance to buy their homes. Where I agree with the hon. Gentleman is that it is absolutely essential that we replace the affordable rented accommodation that is sold, and the Secretary of State and I are absolutely determined to make sure that that happens.
Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)
Will the Minister meet me and representatives from the Royal Marsden hospital, the Institute of Cancer Research at my local Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust and Sutton Council to see what more can be done to bring publicly owned land at the Sutton hospital site back into use to deliver a world-class London cancer hub providing 13,000 highly skilled jobs?
Sajid Javid
I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend. I know he supports our accelerated construction programme on public land, which seeks to do just that.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
The increase in family homelessness has meant that more and more children are in unsuitable temporary accommodation in bed and breakfasts. When did any Minister in the Department last discuss with Education Ministers the impact of homelessness on children’s achievements, and what are they planning to do about it?
Mr Marcus Jones
I can reassure the right hon. Lady by telling her that we have a ministerial working group that covers a multitude of different issues in relation to homelessness, and one of the Ministers around the table is from the Department for Education. I can also tell her that we are looking to change the way in which the temporary accommodation management fee works, which should lead to a far better situation in which local authorities can plan with regard to temporary accommodation to make sure that people are not in such accommodation for so long.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
Over the years, planning has not taken enough notice of local and regional designs, so will Ministers get planning authorities to concentrate on that? A great garden village is being promoted at Cullompton—it has a water park and everything—which will be a very good design.
Gavin Barwell
My hon. Friend makes the very important point that getting good-quality design is key to the acceptability of building more housing. I had the great privilege recently of meeting him and some of his constituents to talk about the contribution that neighbourhood planning can make towards achieving that goal.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Our countryside is not littered with advertising hoardings, unlike in other countries in Europe, because of the action taken by a Labour Government through the Town and Country Planning Act 1947. However, lots of farmers and other landowners are now circumventing the rules by parking great big lorries with hoardings by roads. What are the Government going to do to stop this?
Gavin Barwell
We have made sure that local authorities have the powers to take enforcement action in such places. As I said in response to an earlier question, we are determined to ensure that local authorities are properly resourced to take that enforcement action.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
Further to the excellent question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), the right to manage is a safety valve for leaseholders, but this complex legal issue often thwarts residents, so what more can the Minister do to share best practice and to advise frustrated residents?
Gavin Barwell
Some excellent organisations already exist to provide advice to people dealing with these problems. I can, however, tell my hon. Friend that there is a clear sense on both sides of the House that this issue needs addressing. The Government intend to take action, and I am keen to discuss that with him.
Petition
(7 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Finedon. I attended a public meeting about the boundary proposals for Wellingborough. Unbelievably, the borough of Wellingborough will be represented by four MPs if the boundary proposals go through. I went to a public meeting in Finedon, attended by hundreds of people on a horrible night in November. They were very animated about the issue. The three lead signatories are Ray Ogle, Councillor Malcolm Ward and Councillor Barbara Bailey. The petition is addressed to the honourable Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
The petition states:
The Humble Petition of residents of Finedon, Northamptonshire and the surrounding areas,
Sheweth,
That the Petitioners believe that the boundaries of the Wellingborough Parliamentary Constituency should continue to include the village of Finedon due to the geographical, local government and historical ties that exist in the area.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House urges the Cabinet Office to encourage the Boundary Commission for England to retain Finedon as part of the Wellingborough Constituency in its upcoming review.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.
[P001983]
Aleppo
(7 years, 5 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
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Aleppo.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)
We are appalled by the entirely preventable humanitarian catastrophe now taking place in eastern Aleppo and across other besieged areas in Syria. The UN Under-Secretary General, Stephen O’Brien, has described what is happening in Aleppo as an “annihilation”. Over the weekend, Syrian regime forces captured several opposition-held districts of Aleppo, potentially bisecting the besieged eastern part of the city, and there are reports of further advances today.
The regime’s two-week assault on Aleppo has been backed predominantly by Iranian and Shia militias. There have been unconfirmed reports of Russian airstrikes, but our understanding is that since airstrikes resumed a fortnight ago, the vast majority have been by the regime. During that time, hundreds have been killed and thousands more have been forced to flee. The last functioning hospital was put out of action on 19 November. Humanitarian access has been deliberately blocked by the regime and its allies for over four months now, leading to the 275,000 civilians in eastern Aleppo facing imminent starvation. Across the rest of Syria, there has been almost no progress in delivering the UN humanitarian plan for November. The latest UN plan to deliver humanitarian aid was agreed by armed opposition groups last week, but the regime is still blocking it. This is just the latest of many failed efforts.
I make it clear to Russia that using food as a weapon of war is a war crime. So, too, is attacking civilian infrastructure, such as hospitals and schools—another favoured tool of the regime and its backers. We call upon those with influence on the regime, especially Russia and Iran, to use that influence to end the devastating assault on eastern Aleppo and to ensure that the UN’s humanitarian plan can be implemented in full. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said this morning, that requires an immediate ceasefire and access for impartial humanitarian actors to ensure the protection of vulnerable citizens fleeing the fighting. All those involved in the siege and assault on Aleppo have a responsibility to change course to protect civilians.
Addressing the dire situation in eastern Aleppo and the wider Syrian conflict is a priority for this Government. I spoke to Britain’s ambassador to the UN this morning to discuss what more we can do in the Security Council to bring diplomatic pressure to bear on the conflict. There can be no military solution to this conflict. What is needed is for the regime and its backers to return to diplomacy and negotiations on a political settlement, based on transition away from President Assad.
The Government stand ready to engage fully in discussions and offer whatever support we can in the quest for a political settlement, working in partnership with the international community, including Russia. We need to maintain international pressure to that end. That is why we are strong supporters of the recent EU effort to extend 28 new sanctions designations against the regime in October and November. In the meantime, we continue to work with our key partners to look at every option to alleviate the suffering of millions of Syrians, especially those in Aleppo.
For as long as the regime and its backers deny humanitarian access, whether by land or air, such options, I am afraid, are difficult to come by. By the same token, the real solution is straightforward: the Syrian regime must simply agree to allow UN aid agencies to access those in need. All that is needed is the decision from Damascus, nothing more.
Alison McGovern
Last week, I and the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) welcomed the head of the Syria Civil Defence force, the White Helmets, to Parliament. Raed Saleh told us of the terrible situation in Aleppo: the lack of food, the lack of medical supplies, and the constant bombing by Assad and the Russians. Since then, the situation has worsened. A renewed assault by Assad has recaptured a large part of the city, as the Minister described, forcing thousands to flee with just the clothes on their backs.
This morning, I was sent a statement from the White Helmets, which read:
“Dear Friends in Britain,
Aleppo is in a state of emergency. 279,000 people have been under siege for 94 days. In the last 13 days the Syrian Regime and Russia have launched more than 2,000 airstrikes and unleashed a variety of banned weapons…
We are calling on you, as the friends of the Syrian people to act. The Syrian Regime and Russia are refusing to let aid into the city so we are calling on you to airdrop aid to provide urgent relief to the starving civilians trapped…
We can not believe that one of the world’s most powerful countries, in the full glare of the media, will allow 279,000 people to be starved and bombed to death.”
My question is this: is the counsel of despair that we heard this morning from the Defence Secretary on the radio really all we have left? There is something we can do. We can airdrop aid into the besieged areas, as the White Helmets are calling for and as a cross-party letter signed by 126 Members of this House has demanded. I ask the Minister to respond to that letter to the Prime Minister here. We can renew the push in the UN for the creation of a humanitarian corridor to get help to civilians. Will the Minister confirm that he raised that in his conversations with our ambassador?
The Government have always said that airdrops are a last resort and I understand that, but Gareth Bayley, the UK special representative for Syria, has tweeted about Aleppo today, saying:
“Situation in #Aleppo could not be more dire: every hospital out of service; official food stocks run out; nowhere for civilians to run”.
He called Aleppo “a coffin”. Does the Minister agree that the Government need an urgent strategy to protect civilians? When hundreds of thousands of civilians are being starved and bombed into submission, we must consider airdrops. It is time for the last resort.
What Britain stands for on the world stage is being challenged. This is a test. There is no risk-free course of action left, but I believe there is a right course of action. Let us not stand and watch as one of the great cities of the world is destroyed. Let us not allow 100,000 children to starve in eastern Aleppo.
When Kosovo was under attack, Britain led the response. When people in Sierra Leone cried out for our help, Britain led the way. The people of Syria need us to show that leadership. Jo Cox said that our response to Syria would be “emblematic” of our generation, and “how history judges us”. Her words are ever more true today, so let us not fail.
Mr Ellwood
First, may I say how grateful I am to the hon. Lady for her work in raising this matter in the House through urgent questions and by working with other colleagues as well?
I had the opportunity to meet the head of the White Helmets at the same time as the hon. Lady. He stressed his frustration that the west—indeed, the world—was not doing enough as we saw the annihilation of an historic city. It is a city that goes back to the sixth millennium. It is the financial centre of Syria, its largest city, and now condemned, almost, to ruin.
The hon. Lady touches on the letter, now with 126 signatories. I made it clear in my statement that we are looking at all options, but she must understand that, as has been repeated in this House, unilateral or even multilateral aid drops would place us in harm’s way, in what is already a complicated air environment. The question therefore has to be asked whether that is the best and safest way of getting aid to where we need it to go. We are not ruling out options, but we have to ask ourselves whether introducing British aircraft into that air environment would compound or improve matters, and whether there are other, safer ways of getting the aid in.
The hon. Lady also raises a larger point, namely what Britain and the international community are doing. She also mentioned the work of Jo Cox. We all agree in this House that Britain has the ability and the aspiration to play a significant role on the world stage. In August 2013 we had that opportunity and we blinked. We had an opportunity to hold Assad to account. As a result we have ended up with a situation where both Russia and Daesh have now come in. The question I pose to this House—
Mr Ellwood
The question I pose to this House, and to the right hon. Lady who is screaming from her seat, is that, unless this Parliament gives the Executive the support we need, our hands are tied in terms of what we can do. I therefore turn to the Labour Front-Bench team, who I think are of a different opinion to some behind them, and say that Britain wants to engage on this, but five resolutions have been vetoed at the UN Security Council by Russia, so we need to look at other opportunities. We can do that only if we have the full support of this Parliament. I hope we will get that so the Executive can lean into this challenge in the way Jo Cox would expect.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
The whole House will welcome the Minister’s unequivocal statement on behalf of the Government that Russia is committing war crimes in Aleppo and in Syria. The position in Aleppo is unclear today, but there are two things we can surely say. Will the Government put in their undoubted diplomatic efforts and bend every sinew to secure unfettered access for UN and humanitarian support? Secondly, will they also bend every sinew to secure a ceasefire, so that negotiations under UN auspices, through Staffan de Mistura, can begin?
Mr Ellwood
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for engaging with this and doing his best to make sure that Parliament is up to date and involved in what is happening in Aleppo. He touches on the issue of war crimes. It is important to understand that it is unlikely that we will be able to hold the perpetrators to account today or tomorrow, but we will hold them to account in the months and years to come. We are keeping lists so as to understand who the military leaders are who are conducting the air attacks, no matter what country they come from, and all those participating in these crimes and supporting the Syrian regime must remember that their day in the international courts will come. We are collecting that evidence to make sure we can hold them to account.
On the important question of airdrops, the UN has tens of thousands of pieces of kit and material that it wishes to get into these areas, but it is being denied access by the Syrian regime. We cannot enter the regime’s airspace, or use its roads, without its permission. If we sought to do so without its permission, we would end up with exactly the situation we had on 19 September, when a UN-led convoy moved into Aleppo and was destroyed from the air by Russian aeroplanes.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting the urgent question from my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern). As she made clear, there is no more urgent situation in the world right now than the humanitarian crisis in east Aleppo. With no functioning hospitals to handle the mounting civilian casualties, food supplies exhausted and tens of thousands of people already facing starvation, we truly have reached the point of last resort, and the Government have previously made it clear what that should mean. The former Foreign Secretary said in June:
“While air drops are complex, costly and risky, they are…the last resort to relieve human suffering across many besieged areas.”
To be clear, nobody in the House underestimates the complexity and risks involved, but with no alternatives and thousands facing death if they do not get immediate supplies of food and medical equipment, these are risks that we must be prepared to take. Will the Minister take the urgent steps required today to agree a plan for airdrops by British planes with the UN and our international partners, as has been called for by the White Helmets, whose representatives I too met last week? The UN’s humanitarian adviser, Jan Egeland, was asked at the weekend what plan B was if Russia and Assad kept up their criminal assault on east Aleppo and continued to block supplies of aid by road. He said:
“Plan B is that people starve. And can we allow that to happen? No, we cannot”.
He is quite right, and I hope that the Minister will agree.
Mr Ellwood
Britain’s humanitarian effort should be praised by everyone in the House. We are providing £2.3 billion—that makes us the second-largest donor— £23 million of which is going directly to UN organisations geared to making sure that the aid gets to where it is most urgently required. We are now debating the tactics of how to get the equipment into place, and the hon. Lady is advocating that British aeroplanes—Hercules aircraft or otherwise—go into Syrian airspace and make those drops.
Mr Ellwood
They would be shot down, as my right hon. Friend says. I am not even aware that the UN has requested airdrops. I am not saying that they will be ruled out or who should do them. It may be that we can co-ordinate and make them happen. They are not being dismissed; I am simply telling the House that it is hugely complicated. I have been in the armed forces and involved in several airdrops, so I know that very often, when the drop zone is particularly small, the kit lands in the wrong place and goes to the very people we do not want to receive it. As I touched on before, the scale of the aid required means that an enormous number of sorties would have to be conducted; but with transport trucks, we could get the aid to the exact locations, if they are given the permissions. I am sorry to labour the point, but were we to conduct airstrikes, it would require Syrian support. If we can get that support, it is better that it be for the trucks, which could get through to the exact people requiring the aid.
Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)
I think my hon. Friend meant airdrops rather than airstrikes, but he is right that we can be proud of what we have done as a country for those who are in the camps surrounding Syria. Today’s urgent question is about those who are trapped in the most hideous situation in Aleppo.
What I believe Members are trying to convey to the Minister is that we regard this as possibly one of the most urgent issues in global politics today. We think this is an opportunity for the British Government to show leadership, to convene likely partners, to kick-start the peace process and the peace talks, while at the same time coming to the House with some concrete ideas about how we can alleviate the appalling, biblical suffering of the men, women and children in what remains of one of the great cities of Syria.
Mr Ellwood
My right hon. Friend gives me licence to pay tribute to the neighbouring countries of Syria for the work they have done in taking on board literally millions of refugees—Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan in particular. One reason why we organised the Syrian support conference this year was to make sure that there were funds available so that those countries can look after those refugees, ensure that they are educated and have the health services they need and make sure that they can eventually move back to Syria once the guns fall silent.
My right hon. Friend talks about Britain wanting to do more. I hope that what I said earlier is not being misconstrued. My request is that I want and would like to, but we are at the will of Parliament when it comes to ensuring that it happens. [Interruption.] Opposition Members are shouting, but the Leader of the Opposition had five opportunities to vote on Syria, but we ended up not having the opportunity to check Daesh before it had been created and to hold Assad to account. We cannot afford to go down that road again. If there is appetite in this House, I absolutely welcome it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I entirely understand that passions are running high. It might help the House to know that I intend to call everyone, so there is no need for any hon. Member to speak from her seat, when she will have the opportunity to speak on her feet in due course.
Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) on securing this urgent question and, indeed, on the work she has done to get cross-party support for calling on the UK Government to authorise the airdropping of aid. A quarter of a million people, including 100,000 children, have been trapped in deteriorating conditions in Aleppo’s eastern district since the summer. There are no functioning hospitals; there is no more food. Independent observers have estimated that yesterday alone, at least 219 civilians were killed.
I understand that finding a practical and political solution to this horrific, almost unimaginable situation is complex and challenging. I say to the Minister, however, that no practical challenge should be too tough and no political obstacles too insurmountable to do the right thing by these people whose suffering is growing day by day. Who could fail to be moved by the seven-year-old Bana al-Abed who was tweeting live from Aleppo, asking for help when bombs were falling on her. That is a serious call for help, and we must act. What discussions have taken place with Russia to demand that it sign up now to the agreement brokered by the UN to provide aid? What practical assistance has been offered by UK forces to support the delivery of aid?
Mr Ellwood
On that last point, as I say, we are doing all our work through the UN agencies, which are best placed and neutral. There is an important difference in that if we start to act as a unilateral operator in this very difficult, complex and multi-sided environment, we could be seen and labelled as some form of antagonist by the Russians and, indeed, the Syrians. That is the main complication. Alternatively, we can do things neutrally through the United Nations and on a humanitarian ticket, which is why we are pushing forward our efforts and our funds to support the work of the UN.
The hon. Lady’s other point has been raised before, and I view it as well summarised by two pictures that I have used before in this House. The first is of Omran Daqneesh, the boy photographed after being bombed. He was alive and hon. Members may recall he was thrown in the back of an ambulance. The other stark image that reminds us of the hell of Syria is that of Alan Kurdi, the poor boy who was washed up on the Turkish beach. Is that the choice that we are leaving the people of Syria? I do not want that. I very much want us to do more, and I hope that—together—we will be able to achieve that.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I have organised airdrops in a benign environment. That is the ideal situation, because airdrops are not high but low, and aircraft carrying them out are very vulnerable. If the House wants airdrops to be carried out in a non-benign environment, it must expect our aircraft to be brought down. If that is the risk that this Parliament wishes to take, let it please, in future, vote for it—and everyone in the House should take responsibility for that vote when an RAF aircraft containing seven or eight people is brought to the ground and everyone is killed: that is the responsibility that the House will have to bear.
Mr Ellwood
My hon. Friend, with the experience that he brings to the House, articulates the challenges that we face. We must work with the United Nations, and receive its advice on how best to get the aid in. I do not rule out the use of airdrops, but it must be a last resort when we are unable to get the trucks in by gaining permissions on the ground.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
I think that, in truth, all of us in the House, and in the world, feel ashamed by the fact that we are unable to bring food and medical supplies to the 250,000 people who are trapped in eastern Aleppo, including, as we have heard, 100,000 children. They are in harm’s way today. I understand—we all understand—the difficulties involved in airdrops, such as the one raised by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), but back in the summer—as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry)—the then Foreign Secretary told the House that agreement had been reached for airdrops to be used if necessary. I simply say to the Minister that if this is not the last resort, given what is being reported every day, what on earth is?
Mr Ellwood
I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman and the work that he has done in this regard, and I have listened carefully to what he has said. I spent some time discussing what we could do with Matthew Rycroft, head of the United Kingdom Mission to the United Nations in New York. Unless we have permission for aircraft to enter that space—not necessarily British aircraft; any aircraft—the dangers that those aircraft are likely to face will be considerable. We need to weigh up the options to ensure that we are content for those risks to be taken.
Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
I have immense sympathy for my hon. Friend. The people of Syria could have had no better friend than him and the Government over the past few years, and I fully appreciate the difficulty in which he finds himself. Whatever we may have asked of the Prime Minister—I signed the letter as well—it is important for us to remember that the United Kingdom is not the perpetrator here and that we are seeking to do something good in very difficult circumstances.
May I follow up the question asked by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn)? In May, the International Syria Support Group, which includes the United States and Russia, agreed that if by 1 June the United Nations had been denied humanitarian access to any of the designated besieged areas, it would call on the World Food Programme to immediately carry out a programme for air bridges and airdrops. If it was possible at that time, in those circumstances, for people to secure the agreement that my hon. Friend is seeking for airdrops, is it not possible—bearing in mind that we are at the last resort—to redouble those efforts to receive the permission that he, and those whom we would be asking to drop the food, require to proceed?
Mr Ellwood
The work of the International Syria Support Group has been difficult, and has been tested. The most recent meeting took place at the United Nations General Assembly, and I attended that meeting with the Foreign Secretary. It was clear that Russia was starting to split away from its intent to provide support and to seek a political settlement, which had been the purpose of bringing the group together. Again, we are left with the problem of gaining the necessary permission for the aircraft. However, I will certainly consider what my right hon. Friend has said, and I will write to him with more details.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
I have a lot of time for this Minister, but he should not rewrite the history of what happened in 2013. As one of the Labour MPs who did support action against Assad back then, may I gently point out to him that two of his colleagues who were recently Foreign Office Ministers, a former Secretary of State on his own Benches, the Labour Front-Bench team and Labour Back Benchers are all calling for the Government to bring something back to the House on airdrops, so why does he not just do it?
Mr Ellwood
I will answer that in two parts. First, why do we not just do it? Because of the very challenging issues that we face. We do not have permission to send in aircraft. We saw what happened to the Russian aircraft that wandered into Turkish space. It is a volatile environment and we would need to gain the permissions at this point to make that happen. On the other part, I do not wish to antagonise the House and try to rewrite the history. It is as much the Government’s fault for failing to win across all parliamentarians. For me, that is the biggest error from our Government—we did not take with us Parliament itself. We collectively need to work together to ensure we are all up to date and, in that way, the Executive can be empowered to do such things, whether no-fly zones or airdrops. However, only with the will and support of Parliament can we make that move forward.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Has any estimate been made of the willingness of refugees to return to Syria if the regime prevails?
Mr Ellwood
Yes. My understanding is that the absolute majority wish to return to Syria. That is their homeland, where they grew up and where they want to return to. That is one of the reasons why—this is debated regularly in the House—the amount of money that we spend in taking on refugees in this country, compared with the amount of money we pour into looking after refugees in the region, is not the same—we cannot offer the same support—but the same amount of money goes 20 times further per number of individuals. That is why we invest so much in supporting Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey. Those people want to stay in the region, where the language is similar and from where they can return as quickly as possible once the fighting stops.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister knows that I respect him and I know that he wants to do more, but I have to say that for a Minister of the Crown to stand at the Dispatch Box and effectively read from a Kremlin press release in saying that any aid mission will be shot down is a poisonous and sickening counsel of despair. He has said that he wants parliamentary backing for us to do more—for a unilateral or multilateral mission. He has that, so why do the Government not have the courage of their convictions and make sure that this can be another Kosovo, rather than another Rwanda?
Mr Ellwood
First, in Kosovo, we had troops on the ground. It was a very different situation there. We had control of the airspace—the environment was very different. I will check what I said in Hansard, but there is the possibility that a British aircraft could be shot down. [Interruption.] If I said anything near that, I correct myself and use this opportunity to say that we would be putting British air personnel in harm’s way. I hope that that is something with which the hon. Gentleman would concur. Therefore, it is a point that colleagues such as my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces must consider when they make a recommendation to the Foreign Office on whether or not this is practical.
Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)
The Minister’s frustration is both palpable and entirely understandable. It goes back to the August 2013 vote. Times are somewhat changed. The parliamentary Labour party is perhaps of a different complexion and others have come into this Parliament since then. Would he think it sensible for the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Defence and 10 Downing Street perhaps to go away and come back in 10 to 14 days with a proposal to put before the House, so that this matter can be fully considered and debated—all the concerns that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces may have and the concerns that other people with military and other experience may have, which have been spoken about this afternoon—so that we can reach a single answer to what is a hugely complex problem?
Mr Ellwood
I concur with my right hon. and learned Friend. It is important that we are able to move forward on this and be aware of the consequences of our doing nothing. I sit here with the briefings I receive and the responsibility I have as Minister for the middle east, and I am very conscious of the comments, the concerns and the anger expressed here today. We have to work with what is the art of the possible and what is the art of the legal as well, but the Foreign Office is looking at various options, and I hope we will be able to advance this, better understand it ourselves, and—dare I say it?—better understand and better educate the British public, so we take them with us, which was a concern back in 2013 as well. We were all haunted by what happened in Afghanistan and Iraq: was this another situation we were going to get sucked into? Things are different now, as my right hon. and learned Friend says, so, absolutely, we should move forward on that note.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Since the critical final phase of the assault on Aleppo started, with which foreign Governments has the Minister discussed the feasibility of airdrops?
Mr Ellwood
The question of airdrops has been debated with our allies, the Americans, and is raised at the International Syria Support Group, and I raised it this morning with Matthew Rycroft, our UN head of mission, who is discussing it as our representative in New York.
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
My constituency predecessor, Stephen O’Brien, is head of the Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs and has been working hard to call out these war crimes for what they are. Can the Minister reassure me that British air assets—in particular, eye-in-the-sky assets—are being used to gather evidence that can then be available for the international war crimes tribunal, to make sure that, when these people are held to account, we have the evidence to prove it?
Mr Ellwood
My hon. Friend raises an important point. If she will allow me, I will not—especially with the Minister for the Armed Forces sitting next to me—go into the detail of how we are collecting that evidence, as that would probably be operationally unhelpful, but I will say that that is exactly what we are doing. But this may take some time; we are identifying those who are responsible, who are those in leadership positions who are giving the orders for these strikes to take place and for the siege of Aleppo to occur. We will hold these people to account.
I pay tribute to Stephen O’Brien, a former colleague in this House, who is doing a commendable job. We can all be very proud of the work he is doing to highlight the humanitarian plight in what is going on.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
I was distressed by the implication in the Minister’s remarks that those of us who voted against airstrikes in Syria were somehow responsible for his decision not to put forward airdrops for aid. Frankly, at that point, we were not convinced that the balance of harms was being sorted in the right way. I think if he was today to call for a vote of this House, those who, like me, opposed military strikes on Syria would strongly support any action that can get humanitarian aid to those starving communities. I know that he is talking about this, but what is he actually going to do to get this aid to the people who are starving?
Mr Ellwood
All actions should be taken through the UN, as it is the conduit that can be deemed as neutral by the Syrian regime and, indeed, by Russia. I hope the right hon. Lady will understand how our turning up and starting to do these airdrops ourselves would change the dynamics of our involvement in the air in a difficult terrain. That is not to say we do not rule it out; I am just saying that it is a more complicated scenario.
The UN does conduct its own airdrops—it has that capability; it has a facility to do so—but it only does that where it has the permission of the Syrian regime for those flights to take place. That is the important point.
On the right hon. Lady’s latter point, I am sorry that this Government did not do more to win people like her across. That was our failure as much as anybody else’s, and that, more than anything, is what we need to learn from what happened in August 2013.
Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)
As one of the Members of Parliament who has visited RAF Akrotiri and looked into the eyes of the C-130 crews who would be asked to carry out these missions, I think we should be careful to avoid making a “something must be done” response to a situation that shames humanity and that is on a par with Rwanda, Srebrenica and other events us that have shamed us collectively in the west. Learning from those events, could other actions be taken not only to hold Russia to account but to look at what really hurts that evil regime? London is full of people with connections to that regime who are doing business and educating their children in this country. They need to understand that they cannot behave with impunity and seek to enjoy the benefits that we all take for granted in this country.
Mr Ellwood
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s military experience. The role of the C-130 in conducting these airdrops would be exceedingly difficult. As I have said, we do not rule this out, but it would be a huge challenge. He asks what more can be done. At the heart of this is the role of Russia, which is pivotal in being able to exercise influence over Assad, to introduce a ceasefire and to allow access to humanitarian aid. Unfortunately, Russia has vetoed five United Nations Security Council resolutions, thereby preventing even the most basic humanitarian aid from getting through. The Canadians are now seeking to pursue a General Assembly vote, which, if not in an emergency session, would require half the votes. This would be tricky, however, because Russia would use its influence to prevent it from succeeding. We are collectively looking to see what could happen in this dire situation that is reminiscent of Rwanda and Srebrenica. If the UN machine is not working, we have to find ways of circumnavigating it.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
Can the Minister confirm that the action taken in Kosovo did not have a UN Security Council resolution? Many of us called on William Hague, when he was Foreign Secretary in 2011 and 2012, to support no-fly zones similar to the ones John Major had established to protect the Kurds in Iraq. Is it not time for us all to recognise that we have allowed Russia to get into this position because we failed to act, not in 2013, but in 2011 and 2012, when Assad started murdering peaceful protesters? Is it not time to recognise that the UN Security Council is hamstrung and that we need to act, even without a Security Council resolution, to save hundreds of thousands of lives?
Mr Ellwood
Following Rwanda, a new international initiative establishing a duty of care was agreed, under which the international community would not stand by when a leader chose to kill his own people. That agreement was introduced so that comments about acts of genocide and other phrases that came out at the time could no longer be used to justify the hesitancy of the international community to step forward. The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we bypass certain legal processes to move forward. In Kosovo, we had troops on the ground and we had collective international, regional and local support. In Kurdistan, a UN resolution backed the action taken there. He has raised a profound question. Should we go into a situation to do the right thing, even though we do not have international legal cover because such cover has been vetoed by a P5 member at every opportunity?
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I am sure that the Minister is right—for the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart)—to rule out unilateral action, but what did he mean by his attacks on the Labour Front Bench and on people like me who refused to support military action in Syria? What could possibly be achieved by more bombs falling on that benighted country? Surely, our priority should be peace. We should condemn violence wherever it comes from, including the terrible violence inflicted by the Assad regime and the attack on a school in western Aleppo, which has not been widely reported. I hope that the Minister will condemn that attack. If our priority is to strive for peace and end violence, we have to accept—whether we like it or not—that the appalling Assad and his Russian backers are going to stay. We must therefore drop our demand for them to go. We have to engage with everyone—Assad, the Russians, the Sunni rebels—to try to get peace, because that is what the people want.
Mr Ellwood
My hon. Friend is familiar with the complex make-up of Syria today given all its history. Once we move forward from this situation, it is likely that there will be a federal model that recognises the country’s differences and groupings. We face a situation today in which Russia is backing and placing all its money on the existing regime. It has a connection and relationship that goes back to 1946, which needs to be honoured and reflected. I say to the Russians—to Bogdanov, to Lavrov and to Putin—that they should have that relationship with the people of Syria, not the Syrian regime. They should have a conversation with Dr Riyad Hijab, the co-ordinator of the free Syrian opposition, and then move forward from there, so that Russia can continue to have a sphere of influence without attaching itself to the tyrant that is President Assad.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
Next week, Monzer Aqbiq of the Syria’s Tomorrow Movement should be in London. If the Minister has not already done so, will he undertake to meet him to discuss Syria’s future?
Mr Ellwood
I would be more than happy to look at that if there is an opportunity to meet. I do make an effort to meet any representatives who come through Syria, including when I am in the region—for example, in Istanbul in Turkey, where the free Syrian opposition is based—to try to engage. I would be delighted to speak to the hon. Lady afterwards to discuss things further.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
I, too, signed the letter in support of airdrops. As a former RAF serviceman, I fully appreciate the concern for our aircrews from not only the Minister, but my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). Will the Minister tell us whether the Prime Minister had the opportunity to raise airdrops with Jens Stoltenberg, the Secretary-General of NATO, when he was at 10 Downing Street last week?
Mr Ellwood
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who I think was involved in the air campaign in Kurdistan. He brings a huge amount of expertise to the Chamber. I am unaware of the details, but I know that Syria came up. I will write to him with more details of the conversation.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
In the letter of the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), whom I congratulate on her work on this issue, she points out that the Government said back in May:
“preparations for airdrops will now take place and go forward rapidly because there isn’t a moment to lose”.
The situation has worsened significantly since May, so I do not understand what has happened to that enthusiasm. More importantly, my constituents, and those of other Members, are appalled by what they see on the news and do not understand why there is not the same enthusiasm for airdrops as there was for bombing this time last year.
Mr Ellwood
I do not want to get drawn into discussing the hon. Lady’s latter point, which is an unhelpful comparison. The will of the House has been made clear and the Executive are looking seriously at what we can do to support the concept of airdrops, but they involve all the dangers and caveats that have been discussed. We take the lead from the United Nations personnel who are on the ground. If we are to do this in a neutral manner, it must be done through the UN. If we step in and start doing things ourselves, our involvement in the Syria campaign will take on a very different perspective, for which we would need the permission and support of this House.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
I share the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) and point out that the airdrops that are being pushed by many in this House come with huge risks. Does the Minister, who is in a difficult situation, agree that if they are to be done unilaterally we would inevitably need aircraft to deliver, fighter cover above, and helicopters and special forces to pick crews up if they get downed and wounded? We risk the awful prospect of seeing our service personnel being dragged through the streets or killed in some horrific manner by people down there who are behaving like barbarians. Does the Minister agree that there is a lot of concern?
Mr Ellwood
My hon. Friend and Dorset neighbour spells out some of the intricacies involved in airdrops. It is not simply about the Hercules transport or C-17 aircraft that would provide that; it is about the air cover required, the emergency operations in case the pilots have to bail out and the rescue missions that may have to take place. We are also left facing the stark challenge of hostages being taken. All those factors need to be taken into consideration, from an operational perspective, in deciding on the best method of getting our aid to where we want it to go. As I say, the UN conducts airdrops, but only when it has clear permission from the Syrian regime.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Putin’s standard modus operandi is the excessive use of force, as we saw in the Beslan massacre, in the siege of the Moscow theatre, in Chechnya, in Georgia and in Crimea, and as we now see in the complete obliteration of Aleppo. Is not the really worrying thing for the future, even beyond the situation in Syria, that the robust facing up to Putin, in so far as it has existed at all, is now fracturing? How are the Government going to make sure we maintain a steady, robust course?
Mr Ellwood
The hon. Gentleman, who has huge experience and knowledge of Russia, spells out the challenge we face in getting the Russians to come to the table, recognising not only the leverage they can provide, but that there is not a threat in respect of Russia’s continued involvement and influence. He touches on some of the previous events that have taken place, but we could also look at what has happened in the Balkans and the Baltics, and prior to the iron curtain. The sphere of influence that Russia had was enormous. Every time one of these countries then moved forward and swung to the west, Russia lost that sphere of influence, and I believe at the heart of this issue is the fact that the Russians do not want to lose a maritime Mediterranean influence which is so critical to them.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I am sure the Minister will agree that the scenes in Aleppo of civilians being targeted and the use of starvation as a weapon of war bring echoes of some dark periods, particularly in the 1930s, which international law was supposed to try to stop. What lessons for the system of enforcement of international law can be taken from this dreadful situation?
Mr Ellwood
We are looking very carefully at where international law is left after this experience in Aleppo and indeed across Syria. The UN in New York, the international body that builds alliances and that is designed to bring together states—192 of them—to solve the world’s problems, is now kyboshed because a single permanent member is able to veto absolutely everything. How we can circumnavigate that is a huge question for us to answer.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
All of Aleppo’s hospitals are out of action, meaning that medics are having to amputate children’s limbs without anaesthetic and to deal with the victims of chemical attacks with just water and oxygen. The Minister asks whether there is a safer way to deliver aid, yet he knows that the Syrian regime has bombed the latest humanitarian convoy which went to the city in September. He knows that there will be no political solution while Assad and Putin think they can win the upper hand through military activity. The residents of Aleppo do not want to die and it is in our power to help them—if not now, when?
Mr Ellwood
The hon. Lady, who has shadowed the Department for International Development portfolio and knows these issues well, mentions the 19 September convoy, and I have taken some notes on that. The convoy was approved by the Syrian Foreign Ministry and comprised trucks loaded by the Red Crescent, with enough equipment for 78,000 people. However, it came to a checkpoint, and the UN was told to leave the vehicles and Aleppo residents were told to jump in them. Russian drones were overhead following the convoy all the way until it got into Aleppo territory and then the aeroplanes came in and bombed every single truck. That happened with Syrian permission—it was with approval and they knew exactly what they were doing. I am afraid that this is the regime we are working on, which is why the challenge of looking after those people who are in harm’s way is so difficult indeed.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
On a way forward in Syria and Aleppo, our key ally is the United States and its President-elect has said that Syria represents influence for Russia. If that view remains, and in line with our consistent view in challenging the Russian aggression, will we chart our own foreign policy position on Syria and the region?
Mr Ellwood
As we come to the end of the current Administration, may I pay tribute to the work of John Kerry in trying to bring the various stakeholders and parties together? He has worked tirelessly to make that happen, and I am sorry that there has not been greater progress with the international Syria support group. We wait to see the strategy and approach of the new Administration. I simply say that we need to work closely with our international partners, not least America, to make sure that we can exert greater pressure and influence on Russia.
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)
My hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh) alluded to the words of seven-year-old Bana al-Abed, who said on Twitter last Sunday that her home in Aleppo had been bombed. She went on to say:
“Under heavy bombardments now—in between life and death. Please keep praying for us.”
The Minister will know that there are no fully functioning hospitals left in Aleppo and that food ran out in early November. What recent discussions has the Foreign Office had with the United Nations, the EU and other nations of good will about urgent humanitarian relief? Does the RAF not have a crucial and immediate role to play in easing this humanitarian disaster, albeit with the risks that that entails? Our prayers are not enough: it is time to act, and if the Minister did so, a large swathe of the House would be behind him.
Mr Ellwood
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I do not know whether he is speaking on behalf of all Scottish National party Members in his final phrase, but that would be very welcome indeed. The Prime Minister raised the issue of Syria at the last European Council, and our ambassador in New York is also engaged. Britain wants to make sure that it can keep up the pressure in trying to effect an avenue for the aid to get in. If that is not forthcoming, yes, we will have to look at other options.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
People in Kettering, horrified by the news that 250,000 people in Aleppo effectively have no access to hospital care and face imminent famine, are conscious that that population is equivalent to two and half times the number of people in the borough of Kettering. To get a sense of the scale of humanitarian effort required, would the Minister tell the House how many Hercules aircraft, or how many trucks on the ground, would be required to supply the requisite needs of a population of 250,000?
Mr Ellwood
That question is probably more for my counterpart in the Department for International Development, who can supply the details. It is an interesting comparison that needs to be made, but we anticipate that dozens of trucks need to go through daily to keep the people of Aleppo alive and supported.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I have a great deal of respect for the Minister, but I am disappointed that there was no statement from the Government today. Does he not believe that it would strengthen the Government’s hand on the world stage in negotiating on airdrops to have the will of Parliament, which should express its view on a Government motion?
Mr Ellwood
If we are to move forward we need to work together. We need to take the British nation with us, and we need to work as a Parliament. I hear what the hon. Lady says. We need to make sure that we debate these matters more regularly so that people are prepared to recognise the danger in which we may be putting our service personnel, as well as the options available for us to lean further forward and get the result that we want.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
The Minister has been candid in his reflections on the vote in the House in August 2013. What direct impact has that parliamentary vote had on policy thinking? If one of our planes is shot out of the sky, we have to be prepared to retaliate.
Mr Ellwood
Without revisiting the question too much, I believe that collectively our inability to secure that vote before Russia moved into this sphere, before we even knew what the word “Daesh” meant, was a missed opportunity to hold Assad to account. For different reasons, we blinked, and Government need to learn what more we can do collectively to work together to make sure that we do not repeat that mistake.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
In his initial answer to the urgent question, the Minister rightly labelled the bombing of hospitals and other acts as war crimes by the Syrian Government forces and Russia. With that in mind, what specific measures can the UK Government take with international partners to hold those responsible to account?
Mr Ellwood
A motion was put forward with British support, if not with Britain leading on it, at the United Nations Security Council to slide the matter across to the International Criminal Court, and guess what? It was vetoed by Russia. We are collecting the necessary evidence to make it possible in due course—it may take some time, as I mentioned earlier—to hold to account in the longer term those who are perpetrating the damage and causing the atrocities.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
The Minister set out in some detail the difficulties that he and his colleagues face in dealing with this very difficult situation, and I appreciate that. He said, however, that the Government were considering a number of options. Given that 100,000 children are on the point of starving and 250,000 people in total are enduring the conditions in Aleppo, will he undertake to come back to the House with a statement next week about the options that the Government are considering and set out what the Government propose to do? The situation is incredibly urgent.
Mr Ellwood
I agree with what the hon. Lady says. It is important that we keep the House updated. I, the Foreign Secretary or the Secretary of State for International Development will endeavour to do that on a regular basis.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
I thank the Minister for his statement. According to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, at least 225 civilians have been killed, including 27 children, since the latest assault started on 15 November. The Government must do all they can to assist those in Syria now. However, they must also do more to help those who have managed to flee the conflict. Will the Minister please commit to pushing his Cabinet colleagues to accept more refugees from that war-torn country?
Mr Ellwood
I touched on that earlier. There is a choice: whether we look after refugees in this country—as we have done for the thousands that are coming this way—or we provide support in the region. The price of looking after one refugee in the UK equates to looking after around 20 refugees in the region. Different standards, absolutely, but I hope the hon. Lady recognises that with £2.3 billion-worth of support, we are playing our part in the region.
Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)
Like many colleagues, I pay tribute to all our armed forces in service around the world, and I know that no one in this House would ever put them in harm’s way unless there was no alternative. What alternatives is the Minister considering, such as drones or unmanned aircraft, to carry out airdrops? I can think of few other clear-cut humanitarian crises in my lifetime that deserve intervention by the British armed forces in order to save the lives of innocent children at risk from barrel bombs, chemical warfare and starvation.
Mr Ellwood
We want to use our influence with our allies and others to work across not just the military aspect, if our military were used, to provide the necessary humanitarian relief, but in the diplomatic corridors to get a political solution. We are not looking at one particular area, but trying to work across the piece.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
If my postbag and those of colleagues are anything to go by, there is huge public support for scaled-up humanitarian intervention, so what contingency plans are in place so that when or if permission for aid drops comes, they can begin immediately?
Mr Ellwood
I hope the hon. Gentleman recognises that I will not be able to answer that. It is an operational decision as to how any form of airdrops might be conducted and it must be part of a wider package of humanitarian support for those people requiring aid. It is extremely complicated, so I hope the hon. Gentleman will understand that I am not able to give a direct answer to his question.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I voted against airstrikes in 2013, and I agree with the Minister about the need to deliver aid on the ground, not least because some of the aid that is needed is medical care—physical and mental—which can be delivered only in person. However, I signed the letter that was published this morning, because the people of Aleppo are suffering in the most acute circumstances, and it is no longer acceptable to me or my constituents to stand by. I echo the calls of my right hon. and hon. Friends for the Minister and his colleagues to bring a fully worked plan to the House at the earliest possible opportunity, explaining fully the risks so that hon. Members can take a fully informed decision about the issues we face. I am confident that that decision, reflecting the wishes of our constituents, will be to find a way to alleviate the terrible suffering in Aleppo at the earliest possible opportunity.
Mr Ellwood
When we had a meeting, co-hosted by John Kerry and the Foreign Secretary, only a couple of weeks ago, John Kerry gave a press statement saying that he felt there was no appetite to do more, in a general capacity, in dealing with the situation in Aleppo. That was his observation, having not just visited the country but spoken with leaders across Europe. It is important that the debate that we are having here is also held in other capital cities, because that collective effort is what we need to effect change in what is going on in the country of Syria.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Everyone is rightly concentrating on the worst foreign aggressor, which is Russia, but the Minister’s opening remarks also mentioned Iranian influence. Given that the Iranian nuclear deal was all about bringing Iran back into the international fold, what are the UK Government doing to stop Iran’s influence in this humanitarian disaster?
Mr Ellwood
There was a coincidence in the sense that the opening of our embassy—for different reasons, our embassy was closed— tied in with the signing of the joint comprehensive plan of action. There is much greater dialogue with Iran, so we are able to discuss these issues. Indeed, I spoke to the Iranian ambassador on Friday, covering a wide variety of issues. It is important that Iran is aware that, if it wants to take on a more responsible role in the international community—it has proxy relationships or interests in the region itself—it must advance the way it does business. This situation provides a great example: Iran could show the leadership which, at the moment, we are missing from Russia.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
What conversations have the UK Government had with the US President-elect, who has a desired policy of rapprochement with Russia and the Assad regime? What consequences will it have for British policy if we have to act more unilaterally given the US President-elect’s current policy?
Mr Ellwood
We are looking forward to the confirmation of the President-elect’s nomination for Secretary of State. When that appointment is made, I am sure we will be engaging to encourage America to be as involved in, and committed to, not just this issue in Syria but other challenges we face in the middle east.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The Minister has mentioned some of the difficulties in dealing with Russia and has pleaded with it from the Dispatch Box about the actions he would like it to take, but he has not answered the question my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh) posed earlier, so will he tell us what discussions have taken place with Russia to demand that it sign up to the agreement brokered by the UN to provide aid? What more can be done to get the talks back on track?
Mr Ellwood
This is raised on a regular basis. It was raised by the Foreign Secretary with Foreign Minister Lavrov only last week. Russia has a pivotal role in turning the situation round and allowing access for humanitarian aid, allowing a cessation of hostilities—at least a 10-day ceasefire—and allowing political discussions to recommence.
Point of Order
(7 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You may be aware that over the weekend it was revealed that thousands of families with disabled children, including some in my constituency, have lost out by up £4,400 a year in tax credits after an administrative error by the Department for Work and Pensions as a result of the Department failing to inform Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs about families’ eligibility for the award over a three-year period. That has resulted in an estimated 28,000 families in which children qualified for disability living allowance during 2011 to 2014 missing out on an additional tax credit premium of between £60 and £84 a week. At last week’s autumn statement, the Government set aside £360 million over six years to ensure that families who were eligible for child disability tax credits could be awarded this money. However, the payments will be backdated only to April 2016, meaning that individual families may have lost out on an entitlement totalling up to £25,000 over the past five years.
Have you, Mr Speaker, had any indication from the Work and Pensions Secretary, or any other Minister, that they will come to this House and make a statement so that we can clarify the impact on our constituents? If not, could you give us any other guidance about how we might raise this issue in this House and scrutinise Ministers on it at the earliest opportunity?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order and for her courtesy in offering me some advance notice of it. The short answer to the inquiry towards the end of her point of order as to whether I have received any indication of a likely ministerial statement on the matter is no. However, she has sought my advice more widely, and I am very happy to try to oblige. There is, I believe, a range of options open to her. Tomorrow we have oral Treasury questions when hon. Members may, if they wish, raise this matter with the Minister responsible for HMRC. I anticipate that a plentiful supply of colleagues will be in their places looking to do precisely that, doubtless including no less august a figure than the hon. Lady herself. Proceedings Time for conclusion of proceedings New Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 3 and safety responsibilities of internet websites; amendments to Part 3; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 2; amendments to Part 2; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 1; amendments to Part 1. Two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this order. New Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 6; amendments to Part 6; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 4; amendments to Part 4; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 5; amendments to Part 5; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 7; amendments to Part 7; remaining proceedings on Consideration. One hour before the moment of interruption.
It is a little while until the next Work and Pensions questions—that is regrettable but it is a fact. However, there will be opportunities to seek debates in Westminster Hall on the matter, or alternatively end-of-day Adjournment debates in the Chamber—a matter in which, as the hon. Lady knows, I take a keen and ongoing interest—in December. Alternatively, she may wish to gather support for a bid to the Backbench Business Committee, with whose Chair she will be well familiar. I have no doubt that the hon. Lady will pursue one, or perhaps more than one, of those options with her usual persistence and vigour. I hope that this reply is helpful not only to her but to other Members in various parts of the House who feel very strongly about this matter.
Digital Economy Bill (Programme) (No. 3)
Ordered,
That the Order of 13 September (Digital Economy Bill (Programme)) be varied as follows.
1. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Order shall be omitted.
2. Proceedings on Consideration shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the following Table and (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table:
3. Any proceedings in Legislative Grand Committee and Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption.—(Matt Hancock.)
Digital Economy Bill
Monday 28th November 2016
(7 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Digital Economy Act 2017 View all Digital Economy Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 28 November 2016 - (28 Nov 2016)
18:47 - The House divided: - Ayes: 181 / Noes: 278 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:02 - The House divided: - Ayes: 221 / Noes: 277 - Question accordingly negatived.
21:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 220 / Noes: 267 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Minister for Digital and Culture (Matt Hancock)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 29—On-demand programme services: specially restricted material.
New clause 1—Power to require the blocking of access to pornographic material by internet service providers—
“(1) Where the age-verification regulator determines that a person has made pornographic material available on a commercial basis on the internet to persons in the United Kingdom—
(a) in contravention of section 15(1), and
(b) the person has been the subject of a financial penalty or enforcement notice under section 20 and the contravention has not ceased,
the age-verification regulator may issue a notice to internet service providers requiring them to prevent access to the pornographic material that is provided by the non-complying person.
(2) A notice under subsection (1) must—
(a) identify the non-complying person in such manner as the age verification regulator considers appropriate;
(b) provide such further particulars as the age-verification regulator considers appropriate.
(3) When the age-verification regulator gives notice under this section, it must inform the non-complying person, by notice, that it has done so.
(4) An internet service provider who fails to comply with a requirement imposed by subsection (1) commits an offence, subject to subsection (5).
(5) No offence is committed under subsection (4) if the internet service provider took all reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence to ensure that the requirement would be complied with.
(6) An internet service provider guilty of an offence under subsection (4) is liable, on summary conviction, to a fine.
(7) In this section “internet service provider” has the same meaning as in section 124N of the Communications Act 2003 (interpretation).”
This new clause gives a power to the age-verification regulator to require internet service providers to block pornography websites that do not offer age-verification.
New clause 3—Safety responsibilities of social media sites—
“(1) This section applies to a person who operates an internet site for commercial purposes which requires a user to create a personal account to fully access the internet site.
(2) A person under subsection (1) must—
(a) undertake and publish an online safety impact assessment in respect of their account holders,
(b) inform the police if they become aware of any threat on its internet site to physically harm an individual,
(c) remove any posts made on its internet site that are deemed to be violent or that could incite violence.”
New clause 10—Internet pornography: requirement to teach age requirement and risks as part of sex education—
“After section 403(1A)(b) of the Education Act 1996, add—
“(c) they learn about the risks and dangers of internet pornography, and the legal age requirement to access internet pornography under Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act 2017.””
This new clause would mean that the Secretary of State would have to include in guidance to maintained schools that pupils learn as part of sex education the risks and dangers of internet pornography and the legal age requirement to access it, as provided for under Part 3.
New clause 13—Code of practice for commercial social media platform providers on online abuse—
“(1) The relevant Minister must issue a code of practice about the responsibilities of commercial social media platform providers in dealing with online abuse.
(2) The code of practice must include guidance on—
(a) how a commercial social media platform providers shall respond to cases of a person being victim of online abuse on its internet site;
(b) quality service standards expected of the commercial social media platform providers in determining, assessing, and responding to cases of online abuse; and
(c) the setting and enforcement of privacy settings of persons aged 17 or under, where deemed appropriate.
(3) A commercial social media platform providers must comply with the code of practice.
(4) The relevant Minister may from time to time revise and re-issue the code of practice.
(5) As soon as is reasonably practicable after issuing or reissuing the code of practice the relevant Minister must lay, or arrange for the laying of, a copy of it before—
(a) Parliament,
(b) the Scottish Parliament,
(c) the National Assembly for Wales, and
(d) the Northern Ireland Assembly.
(6) In this section “commercial social media platform providers” means a person who operates an internet site on a commercial basis on which people can interact.”
New clause 32—Approval of Age-verification providers—
“(1) Age-verification providers must be approved by the age-verification regulator.
(2) In this section an “age-verification provider” means a person who appears to the age-verification regulator to provide, in the course of a business, a service used by a person to ensure that pornographic material is not normally accessible by persons under the age of 18.
(3) The age-verification regulator must publish a code of practice to be approved by the Secretary of State and laid before Parliament.
(4) The code will include provisions to ensure that age-verification providers—
(a) perform a Data Protection Impact Assessment and make this publicly available,
(b) take full and appropriate measures to ensure the accuracy, security and confidentiality of the data of their users,
(c) minimise the processing of personal information to that which is necessary for the purposes of age-verification,
(d) do not disclose the identity of individuals verifying their age to persons making pornography available on the internet,
(e) take full and appropriate measures to ensure that their services do not enable persons making pornography available on the internet to identify users of their sites or services across differing sites or services,
(f) do not create security risks for third parties or adversely impact security systems or cyber security,
(g) comply with a set standard of accuracy in verifying the age of users.
(5) Age-verification Providers must comply with the code of practice.
(6) To the extent that a term of a contract purports to prevent or restrict the doing of any act required to comply with the Code, that term is unenforceable.”
Amendment 27, in clause 15, page 18, line 7, after “material” insert “or adult material”.
This amendment and amendments 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34 would require all providers of internet content which is not suitable for children to put in place a robust age-verification system. In the offline world, children are not allowed to view material which the BBFC has classified to be only suitable for adults. This amendment ensures that these restrictions apply equally to the online world.
Amendment 28, page 18, line 11, after “material” insert “or adult material”.
See explanatory statement for amendment 27.
Amendment 29, page 18, line 18, after “material” insert “or adult material”.
See explanatory statement for amendment 27.
Amendment 30, page 18, line 24, after “material” insert “or adult material”.
See explanatory statement for amendment 27.
Amendment 2, page 18, line 36, at end insert—
“(7) The Secretary of State must make regulations to ensure that the definition of specially restricted material in section 368E(5) of the Communications Act 2003 is amended to reflect the definitions in this Part.”
The amendment requires the making of regulations to ensure that there is a parity of protection for children using different online media. The regulations would amend the definition of specially restricted material for UK based video on demand programming and extend it to 18 material as well as R18 material.
Amendment 31, in clause 16, page 19, line 17, at end insert—
“16 (1A) In this Part “adult material” means any of the following—
(a) a video work in respect of which the video works authority has issued an 18 certificate;
(b) any other material if it is reasonable to assume from its nature that any classification certificate issued for a video work including it would be an 18 certificate; and
(c) any other material if it is reasonable to assume that the video works authority would determine that a video work including it was not suitable for a classification certificate to be issued in respect of it.”
See explanatory statement for amendment 27.
Government amendments 35 and 36.
Amendment 32, in clause 19, page 21, line 9, after “material” insert “or adult material”.
See explanatory statement for amendment 27.
Amendment 1, in clause 20, page 22, line 26, at end insert—
“(13) Where a person is—
(a) based in a country outside the United Kingdom, and
(b) refusing to comply with the requirements of the age-verification regulator, the age-verification regulator shall notify Ofcom that the relevant person is refusing to comply with its requirements.
(14) Following a notification made under subsection (13), Ofcom shall direct internet service providers in the United Kingdom to block public access to the material made available by the person on the internet.
(15) An internet service provider that fails to comply with subsection (14) within a reasonable period would be subject to financial penalties imposed by the age-verification regulator under section 21.”
Amendment 33, in clause 22, page 24, line 33, after first “material” insert “, adult material,”.
See explanatory statement for amendment 27.
Government amendment 37.
Amendment 34, in clause 23, page 25, line 5, after first “material” insert “, adult material,”.
See explanatory statement for amendment 27.
Government amendments 38 to 42.
New clause 7—Bill limits for all mobile phone contracts—
“(1) A telecommunications service provider supplying a contract relating to a hand-held mobile telephone must, at the time of entering into such a contract, allow the end-user the opportunity to place a financial cap on the monthly bill under that contract.
(2) A telecommunications service provider under subsection (1) must not begin to supply a contracted service to an end-user unless the end-user has either—
(a) requested the monthly cap be put in place and agreed the amount of that cap, or
(b) decided, on a durable medium, not to put a monthly cap in place.
(3) The end-user should bear no cost for the supply of any service above the cap if the provider has—
(a) failed to impose a cap agreed under subsection (2)(a);
(b) introduce, or amend, a cap following the end-user’s instructions under subsection (2)(b); or
(c) removed the cap without the end-user’s instructions or has removed it without obtaining the consumer’s express consent on a durable medium under subsection (2).”
New clause 14—Impact assessment of macro not-spot roaming—
“(1) Within three months of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State must commission an impact assessment of enabling a system of macro not-spot roaming in the UK, and shall lay the report of the impact assessment before each House of Parliament.
(2) In this section “macro not-spot roaming” means the ability for hand-held mobile telephone users based in relatively large areas of non or partial broadband coverage to access coverage from networks other than their own.”
This new clause calls for an impact assessment of macro not-spot roaming in the UK, in line with the recommendations of the British Infrastructure Group report on mobile coverage.
New clause 20—Ability of end-user to cancel telephone contract in event of lack of signal at residence—
“A telecommunications service provider must allow an end-user to cancel a contract relating to a hand-held mobile telephone if, at any point during the contract term, the mobile telephones is consistently unable to obtain a signal when located at the end-user’s main residence.”
New clause 21—Use of emergency serve network wireless telegraphy infrastructure by multiple network providers—
“After section 8(4) of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006, insert—
“(4A) A licence issued in respect of a wireless telegraphy station or apparatus that is used for the purposes of emergency service network shall stipulate that more than one network provider can use the station or apparatus.””
New clause 22—OFCOM power to enforce structural separation of BT Openreach—
“After section 49C of the Communications Act 2003 insert—
“(49D) OFCOM has the power to enforce the structural separation of BT Openreach, should OFCOM consider this necessary.””
New clause 25—Ability of end-user to cancel mobile telephone contract in event of lack of signal at residence and place of employment—
“A telecommunications service provider must allow an end-user to cancel a contract relating to a hand-held mobile device if, at any point during the contract term, the mobile device is consistently unable to obtain a signal when located at the end user’s main residence or main place of employment.”
New clause 26—Wireless telegraphy licences and medical or hearing technology—
“After section 14(4) of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006, insert—
“(4A) Before granting a wireless telegraphy licence, Ofcom shall carry out tests to identify the risk of any interference with any medical or hearing technology and publish its findings.
(4B) Ofcom shall not grant a licence if tests carried out under section 14(4A) have found there is a risk of interference with medical or hearing technology unless—
(a) action is taken to eliminate the risk; or
(b) a fund is set up to meet the costs of replacing all medical or hearing technology affected by the interference.
(4C) Where a fund is set up under section 14(4B), Ofcom shall require that any person who is granted a licence takes action to inform its customers of the risk that its devices may lead to interference with medical or hearing technology.””
This new clause would place a duty on Ofcom to carry out tests in advance of the sale of radio frequencies to ensure that any interference identified with medical or hearing devices is made public. Where a risk of interference is identified, Ofcom shall not grant a wireless telegraphy licence unless action is taken to remove the risk of interference or a fund established to cover the cost of replacing medical or hearing technology affected. This new clause is supported by the National Deaf Children’s Society.
New clause 27—Introduction of broadband connection voucher scheme as alternative to universal service order provision—
“The Secretary of State shall introduce a broadband connection voucher scheme to allow an end-user to access broadband other than that supplied by the provider of the universal service order, under Part 2 of the Communications Act 2003.”
Although most individuals are likely to choose the standard universal service order offering, this new clause would provide individuals with the option of a voucher scheme that empowers them to take up an alternative solution.
Government amendments 23 and 24.
Matt Hancock
The Digital Economy Bill will help to connect modern Britain, support the digital economy and keep people safe online. The measures in this group are about strengthening the enforcement of protections for children, improving access to online media, and addressing consumer protection in telecoms. I will take in turn those three sub-groups of your excellent grouping, Mr Speaker.
Turning first to child protection, I am delighted by the cross-party support for delivering the Conservative manifesto commitment to require age verification to access online pornography. During the Bill’s passage through the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), who is in the Chamber, ably supported by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), has led debate about this by powerfully expressing the view that the enforcement proposed in the Bill is not strong enough—she is right. We have listened to the case that she and others have made. They have advanced the argument that some companies, especially those based overseas, simply will not abide by the law that is enacted by this House, so it is clear that there is a case to direct a UK internet service provider to prevent access.
We all want the internet to be free, but freedom operates within a framework of social responsibility, norms and the law. The approach set out in Government new clause 28 will protect the freedom of adults to watch pornography online, but provide adequate protections by giving children the same sorts of safeguards online as they have offline. We have worked closely with the industry and I am confident that it will take a responsible position. I therefore envisage the regulator needing to use this power only sparingly, because the vast majority of companies will want to obey the law. We will work through the technical detail with the regulator—it is expected to be the British Board of Film Classification—and others to understand the broader implications and make the new system work as we take the proposals through the other place.
We have been persuaded of another argument that was made powerfully on Second Reading. The provisions we have discussed today will see children protected by one of the most robust and sophisticated regimes globally but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce)—I see her in her place—has said, supported by my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) and the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson), the protections have resulted in a disparity between UK-based on-demand services on the one hand, and overseas-based on-demand services and online commercial providers of pornography on the other. We have carefully considered that and concluded that we do not want disparate regimes. Government new clause 29 will ensure that children are protected from pornographic content from wherever it is derived. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton for making her case; I believe that we will have a stronger system as a result.
New clause 3 proposes a legal requirement to undertake an online safety impact assessment. I understand the intent behind the new clause, but I think that the measure is unnecessary, because leading social media companies already report on their online safety practices voluntarily as part of the safety framework of the ICT Coalition. We work closely with social media companies to ensure that they take down content that is violent or that incites violence, and to flag terrorist-related content. The system is important and is working well. Since 2010, we have secured the voluntary removal of more than 220,000 pieces of content. A requirement for a safety assessment is likely to be difficult to apply in practice because of the extraterritorial organisations that are involved in this space, and it would be almost impossible to target individuals who run small online websites for commercial purposes.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for agreeing to amend the Bill in this important area. As he is addressing the responsibility of social media sites, what action is he thinking of taking to prevent what happened recently, when Facebook refused to give the police information that it had relating to a missing child?
Matt Hancock
It is incredibly important to get the framework that operates in that sort of space right, as is the case for terrorist material and child protection online. The system that we have in place—it is essentially non-statutory, although it is underpinned by online and offline offences—is working well. Social media organisations’ collaboration with the police and others is incredibly important, and I urge them to collaborate with the police whenever they are asked to do so. We have taken the view that the effective and rigorous enforcement of rules relating to age verification is an important step to get that system up and running. The system is working well, with 220,000 take-downs since 2010, so we want to leave it in place. In all such instances, there might be difficult individual cases, but overall the system is, on the whole, working effectively. That is why we have taken different approaches for the two different areas.
New clause 10 would introduce some very specific requirements around online education. I maintain that the measure is not necessary, because e-safety is already covered at all stages in the new computing curriculum that was introduced in September 2014. From primary school, children are taught how to use technology safely, respectfully and responsibly, how to keep personal information private, how to recognise acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, and how to report a range of concerns. As hon. Members will see, we care deeply about protecting children online both through direct rules for the internet and through education. The new clause is not necessary, and I worry that putting in place a more static system would risk making the task at hand harder.
When it comes to broader protection, we expect social media and interactive services to have in place robust processes that can quickly address inappropriate content and abusive behaviour on their sites. It would be difficult to make the sort of statutory code of practice proposed in new clause 13 work, as there is not a one-size-fits-all solution. The way in which to deal properly with inappropriate content and abuse will vary by service and by incident. Technological considerations might differ by platform as innovation changes the way in which the internet operates. Legislating in this area is difficult because of the pace of change, and users will benefit most if companies develop a bespoke approach for reporting tools and in-house processes. Existing arrangements and the action taken by social media companies provide the best approach to tackling this problem.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
Will the Minister tell us which companies and sectors already have a code of practice in place? How he is monitoring whether such codes of practice are being brought up to date?
Matt Hancock
We are working on codes of practice in a series of different areas. About 10 days ago, as my right hon. Friend will have seen, Twitter—one of the main players in this space—brought forward work towards a code of practice on online abuse. There is more to do in this area, but it is better that we have codes of practice that the organisations themselves can buy into and that can change with the times as the usage of social media changes. My goodness, we all know how social media changes over time—not always in a good way—so we need to make sure that we keep pace with that. I worry that putting something static into legislation would get into the way of such efforts. However, I agree with my right hon. Friend that it is incumbent on social media companies to play their part in establishing and rigorously enforcing norms and social responsibility in this area if we decide not to go down, or not yet to go down, the legislative route.
Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)
I quite understand that the Minister wants buy-in from the commercial social media platform providers. In response to the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), he sketched out a position that appears to be that there is no actual code of practice, but that codes are being developed. Perhaps I misunderstood the Minister because I thought he had said before the right hon. Lady’s intervention that codes of practice are in place and working well.
I will quickly mention the changing circumstances. The Minister is quite right that this is a fast-changing world. Subsection (4) of new clause 13 states:
“The relevant Minister may from time to time revise and re-issue the code of practice”,
so the very flexibility that he is praying in aid would be delivered by the new clause.
Matt Hancock
Let me be clear: when I said that there are codes of practice, I was talking about taking down online terrorist and child abuse material, on which there have been clear codes of practice for a number of years. Regarding social abuse online, we are working with the companies involved to make further progress.
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
The Minister is being very generous in giving way. He mentioned the computing curriculum, which I assume relates only to England. What discussions has he had with the devolved nations about these issues?
Matt Hancock
The Government have had significant discussions with the devolved nations on these questions. They, of course, treat these questions differently—there is a different system in Scotland and Wales, and in Northern Ireland in fact—and it is a matter for them. The hon. Gentleman is quite right that the response I gave about the computing curriculum is a matter for England, although most of the Bill involves UK matters. I am very happy to clear up that point.
The Public Bill Committee considered the subject matter of new clause 32, which calls for the regulator to approve age-verification providers and to publish a code of practice with which the providers must comply. As I said in Committee, such a measure is not necessary because clause 15 requires the regulator to publish guidance about the types of arrangements it will treat as being in compliance. That may include the characteristics of age-verification controls that would be considered acceptable. I have been made aware of a number of proposed technical solutions for age-verification controls during the passage of the Bill. Clause 15 already takes into account the need for guidance in that area.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Minister will be aware that such age verification will inevitably require the companies concerned to hold a lot of data. What assurances can he give the House that those data will not be liable to being hacked, as happened in the Ashley Madison case?
Matt Hancock
That is incredibly important. We will come on to the data protection provisions later, but this whole area operates within the scope of the Data Protection Act 1998, which provides for very strong safeguards that are set to get stronger. The Government have said that we will opt in to the forthcoming general data protection regulation, which includes stronger enforcement measures than the current Data Protection Act. All the data measures in the Bill, and all the consequences of the age-verification process, will be covered by the Data Protection Act, which has a very broad consensus of support behind it and has operated effectively over a number of years. That means that companies are responsible for the security of their data, including their cyber-security.
Mr Carmichael
Will the data therefore be held in an anonymised form that will not allow the people who have provided them to be identified, should the data be stolen? The best security in the world can still be breached?
Matt Hancock
It will be a requirement that the data are held in such a way that they are secure and not made available. It is a common principle across swathes of life that data must be held safely. The Data Protection Act is in place to make sure that that happens.
Returning to new clause 32, it is likely that a requirement on the regulator to approve providers would be unnecessarily restrictive. However, I understand of course the need to ensure that the age-verification process is of high quality.
As I have stressed, these measures are part of a broader effort to protect children online. For instance, parental control filters are an important tool to protect children from harmful online material. They were introduced by industry after the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes in the previous Parliament. In Committee, we discussed the concern that EU net neutrality regulations will render such controls, which have worked well, illegal. I am clear that our interpretation of the EU regulations is that filters are allowed when they can be turned off, as they are therefore a matter of user choice. I know that there is still uncertainty about this matter, as well as concerns that filters could be challenged. I am happy to confirm to the House that, to put this issue beyond doubt, we will table an amendment in the other place to the effect that providers may offer such filters.
Amendments 27 to 34 have been tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), the former Secretary of State. The introduction of a new law requiring appropriate age-verification measures for online pornography is a bold step involving many challenges. It represents the first stage in ensuring that commercial providers of pornographic material are rightly held responsible for what they provide and profit from. While the internet brings incredible and unlimited opportunities, it has the potential to change the way in which younger generations grow up to understand and experience healthy relationships.
Delivering on our manifesto commitment to stop children and young people from accessing online pornographic sites remains our priority, and we want to get that right. I believe that the provisions in the Bill will enable us to do that. Our measures will protect children from exposure to material that is clearly inappropriate for them and that would be harmful to their development. Of course, pornography is not the only online content that may be harmful to children, but AV controls are part, not all, of the approach to protect children from possibly harmful content online.
The inclusion of other adult material within the scope of the Bill, as proposed in amendment 27, might not be the most effective way to address these issues. Most importantly, we must be careful to take a proportionate approach to ensure the success of our proposals. I assure my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke that we will continue to work to make sure that we take all action necessary on all fronts where children are at risk of harm. I look forward to continuing discussions with her and others. I believe our approach is a targeted and effective way of protecting children from accessing or stumbling across the pornographic material that is most readily available and potentially harmful, and that the Bill fulfils our manifesto commitment.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will be aware that one means by which young people are, more and more, accessing pornography is social media and sites such as Twitter. How will his age verification requirements apply to Twitter?
Matt Hancock
The age verification requirements apply to the commercial provision of pornography. That is not only the paid-for but that which is provided for a commercial return. There is a difference between websites that provide commercial pornography and platforms on which others can upload images. Getting this right with regard to that second group is much harder than it is with regard to the first. We are therefore proposing to put forward the measures in the Bill to deal with the larger swathe or mainstay of the problem, get them working properly and then see how they are working.
I appreciate that there is a big challenge in stopping those who really want to access porn online, but all the evidence suggests that children’s first interaction is often by accident. We are legislating to prevent as much as possible of that inadvertent viewing by those who are not desperately actively seeking to do so. I appreciate that the Bill is not a utopia, but it is a very important step forward. I hope my right hon. Friend will accept that.
Mrs Miller
The Minister is being very generous with his time. Is it not fair to say that four years ago providers such as Twitter told us it was impossible to take down visual images of children being sexually abused, but now, as he says, there is quite rightly a code of practice in place? Surely where there is a will there is a way. He has already proved that he can make significant progress, so should he not put more pressure on organisations like Twitter?
Matt Hancock
Yes is the short answer. The Bill does so, and we will best achieve that pressure by delivering on its proposals and then working with the platforms on the issue of platform-based pornography, because that is a much more difficult technical nut to crack.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
The Minister has spent more time in the past few weeks thinking about children and pornography than I am sure he wanted to. The Bill deals with the publication of pornography, but we also need to help children to be more resilient and understand that those images are not normal sexual behaviour and are the kind of violence that should not be part of relationships, because research by the NSPCC and others tells us that children, and boys in particular, think it is normal. What discussions has he had with the Department for Education to try to build greater resilience among children to some of the images that, despite the efforts in the Bill, they will see?
Matt Hancock
I agree with every word of the right hon. Lady’s intervention—both the first part and the second. Yes, working with the DFE is incredibly important in building resilience and actively ensuring that people’s health through relationships is taught effectively. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and I have both been in discussions with the DFE on that point. That said, the right hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) makes an important point about the broader circumstances that should be taken into consideration, as well as the clarity in the amendment, which I hope she welcomes.
Turning to mobile phone contracts—a bit of a shift—new clause 7 seeks to place a mandatory obligation on mobile phone service providers to agree with the customer at the time of their entering into a contract a financial cap on their monthly bill. Since the new clause was first tabled in Committee, we have had further contact with mobile network operators, and providers already offer consumers ways to manage their usage: apps that allow customers to turn financial caps on and off, warning text messages when customers are approaching their allowance limits, dedicated phone numbers that tell the customer their usage, and online tools that explain how much data is needed to carry out different online activities. I expect providers to continue to take steps to minimise bill shock and ensure that their customers are sufficiently equipped to manage their usage, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) will agree that legislation is not currently necessary, although the movement in this direction is.
On new clause 14, I understand the frustrations of people whose mobile experience does not live up to their expectations, but while roaming appears to offer a quick fix, it risks doing more harm than good, because it could undermine the incentive for operators to invest in new infrastructure. This is particularly damaging in areas with no coverage from any provider at all. There is no incentive to invest capital in a new mast if operators can by law simply piggyback off others’ investment. The Government considered roaming in 2014, but for the above reasons it was rejected in favour of licence conditions to drive increased coverage by all mobile operators.
That agreement locked in £5 billion of investment to deliver improved coverage across the UK, and we now have 4G coverage to 97.8% of UK premises. I can confirm that this is happening: a mast was turned on just last weekend in my own constituency, and coverage on the road to Newmarket from my house is now better than it ever has been—so I have seen it for myself. The House will also have seen the recent announcements from mobile providers that they are expanding coverage to meet their 90% landmass requirements, which they must now meet under the contracts in their licence agreements. The Bill strengthens the fines they face if they miss those agreements. Of course, however, we want further improvements. Last week, new planning laws came into force to allow taller masts, and we are reforming the electronic communications code in the Bill to help operators to extend their networks, making mast-sharing easier and infrastructure deployment cheaper. These reforms have been widely welcomed by industry, and Ofcom will hold providers to account for the delivery of wider geographic coverage.
New clauses 20 and 25 seek to place mandatory obligations on mobile phone service providers to allow an end user to terminate their contract upon their being unable to obtain a mobile signal at their main residence or main place of employment. Existing consumer protections are already in place, while the automatic compensation measures in clause 3 strengthen Ofcom’s powers to require automatic compensation when there is a complete failure to provide a contracted service. I think that the ability to break a contract when one’s signal is not good enough at home is already dealt with, as contracts purchased at distance can be cancelled under the statutory 14-day cooling-off period, while for “in shop” purchases there is often a “check your coverage” cooling-off period for the first two weeks after sign up. Some providers also offer extended periods to ensure that the service meets needs, with the option of cancellation without penalty.
Grant Shapps (Welwyn Hatfield) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend accept that this must be the only product that someone can buy and end up not being able to use? People do not just move house during the first 14 days of a contract; it can happen at any time during the two years of a contract. Will he look again at this?
Matt Hancock
I want to tackle this problem primarily by achieving universal mobile phone coverage for UK properties, and we are on track to hit 98%. By comparison, the universal broadcasting service requires 98.5%. We are getting to the point where we have near-universal service, but that is not necessarily good enough. With the forthcoming Green Paper on consumers and markets in mind, I propose to work with my right hon. Friend to make sure that it addresses the issues of concern, so that we ensure that consumers get a good deal from their mobile phone contracts and that those contracts will work.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I hear all these statistics about the level of coverage there is meant to be here, there and everywhere, but they never seem to match the reality on the ground or in the living room or in the shop. I live in the town of Porth in the Rhondda, and through the main street almost right through the town there is absolutely no mobile coverage from any of the companies, so it does not matter whether one of them is providing a good enough service—none of them are.
Matt Hancock
No doubt the hon. Gentleman will share my deep frustration over the fact that when mobile phone 3G licences were auctioned in the early 2000s, in order to get a big return to the Treasury they were auctioned without geographic coverage requirements. I think that was a serious mistake for this country. We have since engineered into the licence agreements mobile phone geographical coverage of 90%. The geography that is being covered is rising rapidly at the moment. For instance, one provider had 50% coverage last year; it is 75% now, and it has to get up to 90%. That shows how it is increasing. It is pity that from the period of the 3G licence in the early 2000s up to 2014, there were no requirements for geographic coverage, which meant that we fell behind. Thankfully, we are now catching up. As the head of Ofcom has confirmed to the Select Committee, we are in discussions with the mobile operators about getting to a universal 100% geographical coverage in the next licence period.
Chris Bryant
I am not trying to make a partisan point, but I think the Minister was trying to there. All I am saying is that even with the changes to the electronic communication codes that are in the Bill, I do not think we will be able to achieve that 98% or 100% coverage, because it is still too easy for an individual landholder to make it difficult for significant improvements to be made to the infrastructure in the area. Surely we should now be seeing access to mobile telephony as the same as access to water.
Matt Hancock
I am not making a partisan point at all. In fact, after cheering on Ed Balls on Saturday night, I am feeling about as unpartisan as I ever have! I send him my condolences.
I am speaking out of a deep frustration over the lack of geographic coverage by mobile phones in the UK. If I may say so, my constituency is significantly more rural than the hon. Gentleman’s, and this is a real problem in constituencies up and down the country. I look forward to my campaigning visit to the shortly marginal seat of Rhondda.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Damian Collins
I, too, was pleased to hear Ofcom say in front of the Select Committee that it and the Government were looking at a universal service obligation for 3G and 4G phone signals. Does the Minister agree that there is sometimes a real frustration in communities where the statistics suggest that they have been covered, but local topography means that the mast signal does not reach homes? If the Minister visited Elham Valley in my constituency, he would meet people who suffer in that way.
Matt Hancock
Well, I have news for my hon. Friend. Next month, Ofcom will publish data for both fixed-line broadband and mobile phone coverage at the premise level for each individual premise. If the supposed coverage is different from what Ofcom says, there will be a mechanism to feed that back so that we get a proper map of coverage in both those respects. I look forward enormously to that happening, and I am sure that the Select Committee will investigate that data with great aplomb.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
I ask the Minister to ensure that proper discussion takes place with the Department for Communities and Local Government so that the most sensible, but liberal, planning regime for new mobile telephone masts is in place in order to provide what amounts to a basic technological requirement.
Matt Hancock
Yes, and the new rules came into place last week. Nobody prayed against the statutory instruments in either House, so there was unanimous support for a more liberal planning regime. If my hon. Friend would like to work with me on what steps might be needed to improve the planning regime further, I am all his.
Rob Marris
The Minister is being very generous, but may I caution him and press him a little on the methodology of the “premises by premises” survey? I live in a dense urban area. The coverage is nominally 4G, but I check my phone periodically, and I see that sometimes I get 3G and sometimes I get 4G. What will the premises survey say about properties like mine? I am paying for 4G, and it is the future, but I am not getting it all the time.
Matt Hancock
I would say that 5G is the future. As for the hon. Gentleman’s substantive point, I do not want the debate to turn into a seminar on mobile connectivity, but those in the industry have a wonderful phrase for the phenomenon that occurs as more people use data over a particular mast: they say that the coverage “breathes”. In other words, it comes in and goes out as other people use the data. Of course, at any one point in time the coverage may be different. The very best people to conduct the analysis are those at Ofcom, and they are conducting it, so I think it best for us to engage in this particular debate once they have published the “premises by premises” data.
Grant Shapps
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his offer to incorporate some of the issues raised by the new clauses in the Green Paper. He says that those at Ofcom are the best people to make the decisions. No one in the House, indeed no one in the country, will believe Ofcom’s claim that nearly 98% of UK premises are covered. It does not stack up with reality, and it does not stack up with what the British Infrastructure Group of Members of Parliament found either. I appeal to the Minister to ensure that he does not himself start to believe this nonsense.
Matt Hancock
I am looking forward to seeing the data for exactly that reason. In my rural constituency, I can drive for 10 minutes without getting a signal at all—that includes driving past houses—and the same probably applies to many other people. The lived experience is critical to judging whether the figures are broadly correct. I am entirely with my right hon. Friend on that. My job, and our job in the House, is to hold the mobile network operators to account and ensure that they deliver high-quality geographic coverage, whether it is in Rhondda, Welwyn, in Suffolk or, indeed, in Buckinghamshire, Mr Speaker.
Calum Kerr (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (SNP)
Will the Minister give way?
Calum Kerr
May I make what I hope is a quick, constructive point? May I urge all Members to encourage their constituents to download the Ofcom android app, which is specifically designed to gather data so that we can be better informed, and to publicise it in their constituencies?
Matt Hancock
Quite so. As you may say yourself, Mr Speaker, I am not sure that that is entirely a matter for the Bill, but the hon. Gentleman has made his point.
New clauses 21, 22 and 27, tabled by Plaid Cymru and Scottish National party Members, are not necessary, because they call for what is already the position. New clause 21 is not necessary because it is already a requirement that when emergency services network sites are used to provide coverage for the public, they must be made available to all mobile network operators. New clause 22 is not necessary because Ofcom already has the power to impose structural separation on BT Openreach if it considers that that is required. New clause 27 is not necessary because there is already a universal service obligation in the Bill to take high-speed broadband to all premises. I hope that we can use that as the means to deliver the goals that we no doubt share.
As for new clause 26, the Government take the issue of interference with assistive listening devices very seriously, and we will work with Ofcom to take appropriate action when harmful interference with such devices has been identified. I have met representatives of the National Deaf Children’s Society, and I can tell the House that further testing will begin next month and Ofcom will publish its findings by April 2017. I hope that we are making some progress on that important matter.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
I am very encouraged by what the Minister has said about gathering further information. There is a particular issue for deaf children because of the way in which they learn. Interference from the spectrum can have a deleterious effect on their education. Will the Minister pay particular attention to the impact on children in schools?
Matt Hancock
Of course I will. I have discussed that precise issue with the National Deaf Children’s Society, and I will continue to work on it.
Government amendments 23 and 24 are detailed technical amendments concerning the installation of electronic communications apparatus on tidal land owned by the Crown.
I hope that, following my explanations and the commitments I have given, Members will withdraw their amendments and new clauses.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I rise to speak to new clauses 10, 32 and 7, which stand in my name and those of my hon. Friends, the Government new clauses, which the Minister has outlined, and new clause 1, tabled by the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), whom the Minister mentioned. I will also refer to some of the other amendments in the group.
In Committee, Labour Members, and indeed the hon. Lady, made it clear that we could not see how age verification could operate without a backstop power to block sites that failed to comply. In Committee, the Minister resisted that strongly. He said:
“The powers are not a silver bullet; sites that were actively trying to avoid the Bill’s other enforcement measures would also be able to actively avoid these measures. It is questionable how much additional enforcement power they would bring, given those downsides.”
He went on to say:
“I think the Bill has ended up with the correct balance.” —[Official Report, Digital Economy Public Bill Committee, 20 October 2016; c. 209.]
Clearly, the Secretary of State disagreed with him on that. She has now overruled her junior Minister by tabling new clauses 28 and 29 in her name, as we can see on the amendment paper. The new clauses tabled by the Secretary of State, who unfortunately is no longer in her place, represent significant changes at quite a late stage in the passage of the Bill in the Commons, confirming our contention that the Bill as published was not ready to leave home when it was allowed to do so.
Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)
As the hon. Gentleman knows from his ministerial experience, it is the job of junior, middle-ranking Ministers to do all the work and Secretaries of State to take all the credit. In this case, I assure him that the ears of all the Government Front Benchers were open to the changes that he and I wanted to make.
Kevin Brennan
I am grateful for that intervention. All I can say is that I have just given the Secretary of State credit for the change, as the hon. Lady suggests I should.
The new clauses introduce significant changes at this late stage in the consideration of the Bill. We support blocking, but concerns have been raised in the press that the new clauses go beyond a backstop power to block sites to under-18s and could be used in practice to extend internet censorship to adults. The Government need to be clear whether that is the intention of the new clauses.
Matt Hancock
I have also seen those reports. I think that they misread the Bill. That is neither our intention, nor our understanding of the working of the new clauses.
Kevin Brennan
It is helpful to have that on the record. No doubt, the new clauses will be pored over in a lot more detail after they arrive in the other place. Given our time constraints today, I want to put on the record our concern that we did not have an opportunity in Committee to pore over such proposals; had the Bill been ready, perhaps we would have had. Notwithstanding our support for blocking, we think a lot more scrutiny will be required when there is more time available in the other place to discuss these Government new clauses, on the assumption that the House passes them tonight.
We have argued repeatedly that the Bill should have prepared the UK for the challenges faced by the digital economy and, crucially, should have featured digital resilience as a key part of the provisions. The opportunities of the digital economy cannot be exploited unless we feel safe and secure online, and that is nowhere more important and clear than with our children.
Children are growing up in the midst of an information revolution that, even a decade ago, was unimaginable, with instant access to an astonishing range of content and information. Today’s children are taking in an astonishing five times more information than the generation that grew up in the not so distant 1990s. So, far from tabloid stories about a distracted generation, those growing up today are in some ways on course to be the most informed generation in history. But of course knowledge is not understanding, and wisdom comes in part from experience.
Mrs Miller
I am attracted to the shadow Minister’s proposal because I, too, feel more needs to be done to educate children in this area, but I am concerned that it is talking about internet pornography in isolation and potentially will not address the problems he is trying to address in his remarks, which go far broader than simply internet pornography.
Kevin Brennan
I would certainly welcome the right hon. Lady’s support for a wider amendment and for a wider change in Government policy in this area, because a problem does exist. Our proposals have had to be drawn up to be within the scope of the Digital Economy Bill. In Committee, we were unable to table an amendment that was in scope, so I am incredibly grateful that we have been able to get one in scope and within the confines of the Bill today.
Rob Marris
I entirely support my hon. Friend. I suspect that his experience of going round schools—particularly secondary schools—will be similar to mine. Among the things that bedevil teachers are mobile phones, online bullying and sexting, but the teachers—God bless ’em—often do not have the training to deal with those issues. Although they have the best intentions, they sometimes fumble in their attempts to help. Having these measures structured into the curriculum would help just about every secondary schoolteacher, even if they did not have to teach these things.
Kevin Brennan
My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. I am a former teacher—from the analogue age, I hasten to add—and I have no doubt that many teachers who started their careers around the same time as I did would fall into that category.
Statutory online education could work in tandem, as I have said, but protecting our children is a major challenge and it cannot happen without education. That is why I was disappointed that the Minister chose not to support our proposal. I believe that it represents the other side of the coin to what the Government are trying to achieve through age verification. We contend that our measures are necessary, and we will therefore divide the House on this matter if we have to.
Our new clause 32 would oblige the age verification regulator to ensure that all age verification providers—the companies that put the tools on websites to ensure compliance—were approved by the regulator. It would also oblige those providers to perform a data protection impact assessment and to make it publicly available, as well as to perform an array of other duties. The new clause is designed to address concerns about the practicality of age verification checks. It would ensure that only minimal data were required, that those data were kept secure and that individuals’ liberty and privacy were protected.
We have not been reassured by the Minister’s comments, either in Committee or today, that the fact that age verification software is improving is enough. We should be able to guarantee the privacy of an individual before the verification tool comes into force. We are not asking anything unreasonable of the regulator or of the age verification providers. The principles of privacy, anonymity and proportionality should underpin the age verification tool, but as far as I am aware, they have not as yet featured in any draft guidance, codes of practice or documents accompanying the Bill.
If anyone thinks I am being partisan, I can tell them that the Information Commissioner agrees with me on this. In its response to the Department’s consultation on age verification for pornography, the Information Commissioner’s Office stated:
“The Commissioner’s concern is that any solution implemented must be compliant with the requirements of the DPA and PECR.”
That refers to the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 that sit alongside it.
Kevin Brennan
I will finish the quote, then I will give way. The Information Commissioner’s response went on:
“The concept of ‘privacy by design’ would seem particularly relevant in the context of age verification—that is, designing a system that appropriately respects individuals’ privacy whilst achieving the stated aim. In practical terms, this would mean only collecting and recording the minimum data required in the circumstances, having assessed what that minimum was. It would also mean ensuring that the purposes for which any data is used are carefully and restrictively defined, and that any activities keep to those restricted purposes. In the context of preventing children from accessing online commercial pornography, there is a clear attribute which needs to be proven in each case—that is, whether an individual’s age is above the required threshold. Any solution considered needs to be focussed on proving the existence or absence of that attribute, to the exclusion of other more detailed information”—
[Interruption.] I will go on for a lot longer if the Minister keeps making gestures at me. The quote concludes:
“Any solution considered needs to be focussed on proving the existence or absence of that attribute, to the exclusion of other more detailed information (such as actual date of birth).”
Matt Hancock
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way; I just want to clear up this point. When this question was asked while I was on my feet, I responded by saying that the Data Protection Act, as cited by the ICO, is the legal framework for delivering this. The further quotes that the hon. Gentleman read out outline how the Act would operate in this case. In a sense, therefore, those quotes prove the point that the required legislation for ensuring protection of data already exists in the Data Protection Act and other measures.
Kevin Brennan
We will see whether the Information Commissioner agrees. She made it clear that she would have
“significant concerns about any method of age verification that requires the collection and retention of documents such as a copy of passports, driving licences or other documents (of those above the age threshold) which are vulnerable to misuse and/or attractive to disreputable third parties.”
The Minister gave no real reason in his intervention about why he does not support new clause 32, which would provide that reassurance.
The risks of creating databases that potentially contain people’s names, locations, credit card details—you name it—alongside their pornographic preferences are clear. Our priority here is the protection of children and that is agreed across the House, but one consequence of the recent hack that was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) was the number of suicides. We should take things seriously and proceed with caution before creating anything that would result in the storing of data that could be leaked, hacked or commercialised that would otherwise be completely private and legitimate. That is the reasoning behind our reasonable, straightforward new clause, which the Minister rejects. It would place a series of duties on the age verification regulator to ensure that adequate privacy standards were applied, that any data obtained or stored were not for commercial use and that security was given due and proper consideration.
New clause 7 would mean that mobile phone service providers give all consumers the opportunity to place a financial cap on their monthly bill and that a mobile phone service cannot be provided until the service provider has put in place a cap of the agreed amount if the consumer has made an express request. Again, the Minister’s arguments, both in Committee and today, were nowhere near sufficient. The new clause would be welcomed by the many who have found that when they receive an email or check their bank balance at the end of the month, their mobile phone bill has come in much higher than expected. Mobile tariffs are complex, particularly on data, and few of us actually understand how much data we need for an average month. Consumers of all kinds can find that they use much more data than they expected.
Citizens Advice provided an example that reveals the problems. One of its clients changed his shift pattern and started using his mobile phone to watch films. He then received a text message saying that he had gone over his monthly allowance. He did not think too much about it until he received a bill for more than £2,000 at the end of the month. Unsurprisingly, his service was subsequently cut off. Research suggests that as many as one in five consumers find it difficult to keep track of how much they spend on data. The average unexpectedly high bill is often double the cost of the original monthly fee.
Helen Goodman
Another problem with the unpredictability is that people under some contracts pay for what they receive—what other people send in texts, emails and so on—but that is not under their control.
Kevin Brennan
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why new clause 7 is so helpful. Consumers could prevent that from happening by voluntarily asking for a cap. Citizens Advice received more than 60,000 inquiries about telephone and broadband debt, with its in-debt specialists dealing with nearly 27,000 individual mobile phone debt cases. Consumers support the measure, with more than 77% of them welcoming the idea.
This is not the first time such a proposal has been considered: in 2012, Ofcom considered introducing regulations but could not overcome the objections of providers, who argued it would be too costly. In fact, the lack of regulation is what has proved too costly—too costly for struggling consumers. Two providers now do what is suggested in our new clause. The Government say they want to help the JAMs—those who are just about managing—so if they fail to support the new clause, it will show they are not serious when they say that.
Ian C. Lucas
I strongly support this proposal and the new clause. Constituents have contacted me specifically about this point, because the complexity of the tariffs and the lack of knowledge about what makes up the information and the cost is huge for consumers, and this proposal would be a major step forward for them.
Kevin Brennan
I welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention in support of our proposal for caps on mobile phone bills, and so that I do not exceed mine at this point, I will hang up, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mrs Miller
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), and I share his regret that it is not possible to address online abuse in this Bill. I hope that the Minister will show the Government’s determination on this issue, as Ministers have done regularly in response to questions on a number of other measures. I particularly noted his response to my intervention about codes of practices. He is right to say that the industry has been able to move swiftly and effectively to deal with issues relating to terrorism and child abuse, but I think issues relating to online abuse more broadly are just as worthy of their attention. I hope that he is clear about the Government’s priorities in this area, to make sure that the industry really does act.
It is an art form to draw the scope of a Bill, and the Minister should get a grade-A medal for drafting the scope of this Bill extremely tightly to make sure that a number of issues that many of us would have liked to have drawn to the attention of the House are not covered by this Bill. That does not, however, mean that they are any the less important.
I really welcome Government new clauses 28 and 29 on the powers to block access to material where age verification is not sufficiently robust. That shows the Government’s intention. They have done well to reflect the intentions of my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) in her new clause 1 and of my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce). It shows action and energy from Government to try to clean up the internet so that it is safer for children to use. My amendments 27 to 34 raise the question of whether the Government could have gone further in that, although I acknowledge that they are very much adhering to the manifesto commitments we made at the general election.
We have heard from the Minister at length, and I listened carefully, particularly to his response to my amendments. With his usual elegance and wit, he attempted to explain how this Bill can be at odds with Government policy but people can be very happy with it—I may be being a little unkind. He often tells us at the Dispatch Box that what is illegal offline is illegal online too, but it is illegal for children under the age of 18 to view adult material—I refer not just to pornography; as he knows, “adult material” is drawn more broadly than pornography alone. It therefore seems a little arbitrary for us to introduce a new law that makes such a distinction. I do not understand why one needs to be made.
Mr Whittingdale
My right hon. Friend says it is illegal for children to view adult material, but she will be aware that vast amounts of adult material are broadcast by our national broadcasters after the watershed at 10 o’clock, and it is not illegal for children to watch that, although it may be undesirable. How does she propose to deal with BBC iPlayer, ITV Play and 4oD, which broadcast 18 material?
Mrs Miller
My right hon. Friend, the former Secretary of State, makes an extremely important point. I suppose that the advantage broadcasters have over the online world is that they can use a notional watershed, although, as he rightly says, that is clearly not the case when it comes to iPlayer. I shall come on to technology that is on our side. Technology has moved on and given us opportunities, which my right hon. Friend would welcome, to make sure that children do not view things that we have said in Parliament are inappropriate.
I gently urge the Minister to consider how he might embrace my amendments in future. The law makes it clear that adult material does not just mean pornography. In response to my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State, that is the point that I am making. Whether it is extreme violence, beheadings, sadomasochism or other such behaviour or material, it is deemed as adult-related. However, for reasons that are unclear, that is excluded from the Bill. Perhaps the Minister can give me a little more information about why he decided to do that, and assure me that in future that will be dealt with.
I took the time to talk to some primary schoolchildren in my constituency about the sort of things that they came across on the internet. A group of them talked about viewing age-appropriate material—I think it was pictures of small kittens—but at the end material popped up that frightened them to their core. They were young children, and they were not out and out looking for such material—it just popped up. Restrictions and parental controls could be put in place to catch that, but the Minister has an opportunity to make sure that organisations such as YouTube are more careful about advertisements linked to child-related material. That is an important point for him to consider further in relation to my amendments.
Ofcom has done a great deal of work in this area, and the Minister will be well and truly aware of that. It says that this is a significant problem, and that this year, one in 10 under-11s has seen something online that is “worrying, nasty or offensive”. Two thirds of young people think that sites should do more to protect them from that type of adult content. One of the guiding principles of the new regulator, the British Board of Film Classification, is to protect children from harmful media content. We protect them on television, albeit with the problems that my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State has mentioned, and we protect them in the cinema. In one of the most uncontrolled environments —online—we allow them freely to view things that are far more difficult for us as parents to control. My amendments would help to draw those restrictions and website blocking more broadly if proper age verification procedures are not put in place, and it is worth the Government considering that further.
Ofcom was charged with looking at common media standards four or five years ago, so perhaps the Minister can update the House on the progress that has been made in that area. Can he explain how the new regulator will balance its narrow responsibilities to look solely at pornography with the organisation’s broader remit offline with regard to adult-related material? Organisations such as Childline have to deal daily with the aftermath when young people look at more broadly defined adult material online, as I have said before, in videos of extreme torture, violence, and—this is particularly upsetting—beheadings. My amendments, which have the full support of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children seek to put safeguards that we take for granted offline into the online world. Content that would require an 18 certificate in a film or video game would be subject to an age-verification system.
The technology exists to do that. We have an incredible IT sector in this country, and it has invented ways to verify age in an anonymised way online, particularly with the use of passport data and biometrics. Companies such as Yoti have developed facial recognition apps linked to passports so that they can make sure, using anonymous data, that individuals are the age that they say they are. These things exist; Parliament does not need to invent them.
Accepting that adult over-18 material should not be viewed by children does not undermine freedom of speech, because we insist on it offline. It does add to costs for businesses, but we accept that cost for offline businesses, and I believe we should accept it for online businesses too. Fundamental rights and freedoms have always been subject to limits within the law, and the amendments simply call for the law relating to adult material in general to apply online, and for children to be protected. People who choose to flout the law should be subject to the same action by the regulator as people who distribute pornography.
I should like briefly to touch on a couple of other amendments in this group. New clause 3, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), talks about the creation of personal accounts and removing anonymity on the internet. I sympathise with the measures that it proposes, but it is as important for non-commercial sites as commercial sites to adopt such a measure, and I do not think that the Bill is the appropriate vehicle for such a change.
New clause 10 was discussed at length by the hon. Member for Cardiff West. As I said in an intervention, I sympathise with the point that he made, because the guidance on sex and relationships education is 16 years out of date. It does not quite pre-date the internet, but it is close to doing so, and it does not address issues such as pornography and the way in which it drives young people’s understanding of relationships—something that no one in the Chamber feels very comfortable with. I do not believe, however, that the Bill is the proper vehicle for him to achieve the objectives that he has set out, as he may well end up distorting the issue, because people might think that we have addressed it with his provision. However, we would not have done so, because the measure deals only with online pornography. He will agree, especially if he has read my Select Committee report on sexual harassment in schools, that any measure to address SRE and its improvement in schools should be drawn much more widely than the internet alone. I hope he will forgive me for not supporting that narrowly drawn provision, although I accept that he probably did not have any choice, given the scope of the Bill—he is absolutely right about that.
I urge the Minister to consider stronger undertakings than those he gave me in his opening statement, given the importance of prohibiting children from viewing adult material in the broader sense, rather than the narrow sense on which the Government have chosen to focus. He has a personal responsibility to children who use the internet day in, day out. We need to make sure that it is a safe place. He has done more than any other Minister today in making the internet a safer place for children such as mine and his, but he needs to do more, so will he give me that undertaking today?
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
A large number of hon. and right hon. Members want to catch my eye. This debate finishes at 6.47pm, so I urge speakers to keep their remarks brief so that everyone can speak. I call George Howarth.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I shall try to comply with your instructions. It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), who made a powerful case for her amendments. She certainly has my support.
I shall try to be brief as I talk to a narrow and esoteric part of the Bill. Virgin Media has a workplace in my constituency that employs 250 people. The company has a particular concern which I shall take the liberty of connecting to new clause 27, because it is about the position before that measure could take effect. I am not arguing against new clause 27, which would provide individuals with the option of a voucher scheme that would empower them to take up an alternative solution. It has been tabled on the presumption that most individuals would be likely to choose the standard universal service order offering.
My argument is that in order for that proposal to be successful, there needs to be coverage in the first place to enable people to choose one option or the other. There are a number of obstacles in the way of that happening, and the Bill does not resolve the problem. Virgin Media argues that communications providers should, in effect, be treated the same as utility companies when it comes to being granted access rights or wayleaves from landowners to deploy their infrastructure on their land. The Government talk of broadband as a fourth utility, which generally is the case, but the code reform in the Bill is, in the words of Virgin Media, “a halfway house”.
Under the reforms as currently envisaged, broadband companies would face three drawbacks that water companies do not face and, as a result, higher deployment costs, which I shall say more about in a moment. The first drawback is that communications operators have to pay a rent for accessing land, whereas water companies do not. Instead, they have only to compensate landowners for any loss of value. Secondly, water companies have a right to net off any compensation that they pay with any increase in the value of the land resulting from the fact that sewerage is in place. Communications operators do not have that right, although in some cases they might seem to be carrying sewage of a different kind. Thirdly, water companies notify landowners of their intention to deploy by giving 42 days’ notice, whereas communications operators have to negotiate access with landowners who often have no particular incentive to grant it, which can cause huge delays.
Rob Marris
I have great sympathy with what my right hon. Friend is saying. We talk glibly about access to telephony being almost a human right in our country. Obviously we need water to live, and having telephony is not a physiological necessity, but in modern life telephony is a necessity. Some 40% of the Bill is contained in schedule 1, which runs to 60 pages and deals with issues relating to that raised by my right hon. Friend. Does he agree that there is a missed opportunity in schedule 1 of dealing with the particular issue that he raises?
Mr Howarth
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out. Earlier today I waded through schedule 1, after which I was no wiser about its relevance to my argument. He, as a Member with a reputation for having an eye for the fine detail of legislation, will have spotted that in rather less time than it took me.
According to Virgin Media, it costs a communications service provider—Virgin Media or any other—150% more to put in infrastructure than it costs a water company, and 66% more than it costs an electricity company. I do not want to steal the thunder of the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Calum Kerr), although I condemn him roundly for not using new clause 27 as an opportunity to resolve the problem—that is not a criticism, really—but I ask the Minister to consider this problem before the Bill gets to the House of Lords. I have a handy amendment available if he wants one, but if he does not, I shall try to persuade somebody in another place to table it so that the issue can be more thoroughly debated there.
Claire Perry
As the House knows, I welcomed part 3 of the Bill on Second Reading, but I did raise, as did many other right hon. and hon. Members, the question of enforcement. We considered the possibility of internet service providers being asked to block sites that disregarded the Government’s requirement for age verification, and I tabled a series of amendments on that point in Committee. I disagree with the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) because I think that Ministers absolutely were in listening mode about a manifesto commitment that they were clearly keen to deliver. Against that backdrop, I am delighted to speak on Report by welcoming new clause 28 and Government amendments 35 to 42, which address this critical concern.
The Government had argued for rather a long time that it was disproportionate to make provision for statutory IP blocking because that had been dealt with on a voluntary basis for child pornography—we are all aware of the wonderful work done by the Internet Watch Foundation—and with reference to terrorist material. There was perhaps a hope that internet service providers would voluntarily get involved in blocking sites in the absence of age verification. Many right hon. and hon. Members campaigned for years for the voluntary introduction of family-friendly filters by internet service providers. We have led the world by working across industry and across the Government to produce a sensible set of provisions. We now have online filters that are introduced—in some cases automatically—by ISPs and others on a voluntary basis, and they seem to be working well.
There were, however, significant problems in assuming that ISPs would operate voluntarily. It was not just me and other colleagues in the House who were concerned. Bodies such as Christian Action Research and Education, the Children’s Charities Coalition for Internet Safety, the NSPCC, the British Board of Film Classification, which is now the regulator, and the Digital Policy Alliance were concerned that this sensible provision for age verification would not stick unless there was a more robust enforcement regime.
I am delighted that new clause 1, which I tabled, has been co-signed by 34 colleagues from seven political parties. That demonstrates that although we might like to stand up and shout at each other, our best work is done when we work together on such vital issues. It is a testament to the power of this place that we can work together so effectively to get this done. I know that this is a difficult argument; we have only to look at some of our Twitter feeds to see that. I am no longer on Twitter, but we know from other parts of the internet how difficult these conversations are because they go right to the heart of issues surrounding the regulation of the internet, which grew up, very properly, in a regulation-free environment, and in many respects that environment contributed to its growth and its glory.
Are we asking Governments and companies to restrict legal material for adults? I would argue strongly that the new clause is not about censorship or the restriction of legal access for adults; it is about proving that those who are consuming the material are indeed over 18. The new clause simply puts in place the sort of Government regulation and advice, and corporate socially responsible behaviour, that has been seen in many other industries. Example of that include the watershed in broadcasting, the fact that adult content often sits behind PINs on online media, and restrictions on what children can buy on the high street.
There is also a sense that the argument in relation to child sex abuse images and terrorist material is really not relevant. There is a strong global consensus that images or movie materials relating to neither of those things should be tolerated, so there is no need for statutory compulsion. However, the sites we are talking about, which offer material defined as pornographic, are quite different, because they provide a product that it is generally entirely legal for adults to access, and in many cases entirely reasonable, as there is no sense in which this is a kind of anti-pornography crusade. In that context, it is completely unsurprising that the ISPs made it clear they would not block pornographic sites without statutorily defined age-verification checks. Indeed, in evidence given on 25 October to the Communications Committee in the other place, the director of policy at Sky said of IP blocking under part 3 of the Bill:
“If there is a desire for ISPs to be blocking access to those sites, then legislation is required…If you want ISPs to block, I think they will struggle to do so, unless they are compelled to, and not because they do not want to but because they would probably be breaking the law.”
Indeed, Ofcom gave the Committee a similar message a week later, saying:
“If ISPs were to take any action blocking non-compliant sites, they would do so on a voluntary basis…I think you…have heard from ISPs about the legal difficulties they…would face if they were to undertake voluntary blocking…it would raise issues in relation to net neutrality.”
The second point, which has been widely raised among colleagues, is that there is overwhelming support among the majority of the British public for introducing these age-verification measures robustly. Eight out of 10 people absolutely support this very good manifesto commitment and want it to work. Indeed, the BBFC, which the Minister has chosen to be the regulator—I think all of us absolutely support it as a trusted brand in the space; it is not me or anyone else deciding what is over-18 material, because that will be based on the BBFC’s tried and tested guidelines—said itself that it felt that the regulator needed this power if it was effectively to carry out its work.
Mrs Miller
My hon. Friend says that this power is consistent with the guidelines that the regulator uses already, but my point was that it is not. Its powers are far more broadly drawn with regards to adult material over and above simply pornography.
Claire Perry
I do have great sympathy with the provisions my right hon. Friend has tabled; she is absolutely right to keep pushing on the issue. We defined the manifesto commitment and the Bill very tightly in terms of the online pornography space, and I wanted to achieve that first before we moved to broader definitions which, as she will be aware, quickly throw up many more questions about the scope of regulation. As she and I both know, there is a great desire in this space to make the perfect the enemy of the good, and with almost every advance we have made, we have been told, “Back off,” because something is not absolutely perfect. She, I and many other Members think that this is a process of iterative steps forward, and the Government are doing a great job in that respect.
The final argument for putting such blocking on a statutory basis is the precedent for IP blocking in the case of copyright infringement under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. It would seem perverse for the House to argue that it was legal to instruct people to block sites that infringe copyright, but not those that infringe a legal requirement for age verification. It would be quite wrong for us to suggest that child protection is less important than protecting the interests of often very large commercial businesses.
I have two other quick points to make about why the case for change is so compelling. The first is that the BBFC has said that it will focus primarily on offshore sites, which are the main source of much of this material. Of course, as we know, it will be very difficult to enforce fines outside the UK jurisdiction. Secondly, we know that many sites are not reliant purely on financial transactions coming through the sorts of sites discussed in the Bill, given that there are systems such as Bitcoin and other forms of revenue generation.
I am absolutely delighted that the Government have tabled new proposals. I will not press my new clause and I will support their measures wholeheartedly. However, I want to probe the Minister—perhaps he will answer this question in a moment—about who will actually enforce the Bill. My understanding is that the BBFC does not currently have the enforcement powers required by new clause 28, which was why many of us assumed that Ofcom would be the enforcer of choice, as was set out very explicitly by my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse). We would therefore be keen to hear who will actually enforce the Bill, because we know that, without robust enforcement, there will be little incentive for websites to implement age verification, despite these new powers, and I think almost the whole House will support me in saying that we want this to be a great success.
Calum Kerr
I stand to speak to new clauses 22 and 27, neither of which I think the Minister referred to—unless I slept through that bit. I hang on his every word normally, so I am sure that was not the case.
Before I do that, I would like to touch on a couple of other new clauses. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry). She and her many colleagues in the House have campaigned hard on this issue, and the Government’s move in new clause 28 is welcome. However, I would just quickly recount a story. When I was on the Bill Committee, I phoned home one night. Of course my wife said, “What have you been up to today?” I explained about access to under-age pornography, and she said, “Well, funnily enough, I came home today from work and found Robert”—he is seven years old—“looking at inappropriate content.” My heart sank. She said, “He was watching the third presidential debate,” and I can see where she was coming from. She said to him, “Robert, do you know what you are watching here?” He said, “Yes, I do.” She said, “Well, why are you watching that?” He said, “Because it’s important, and I have a friend at school called Donald.”
That brings me on to the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), which we share. As we proceed down this route, it is important that these powers are a last resort, that they do not stop access to sites they were not intended to affect and that, as a result, we proceed with care. We should take sufficient time to look at the implications, and we should seek to avoid unintended consequences for ISPs and websites, while still developing a robust set of measures that stop young Robert accessing the content we really want him to avoid.
Earlier, we had mention of the importance of the method of verification and of the tool Yoti. I always pronounce it “yachty”, because I like yachty a loty, given that it means that databases are not built of what people are accessing, and individuals are protected. I commend those on the Labour Front Bench for some of their efforts to push these things further.
Let me quickly touch on two issues before going on to my own new clauses. On new clause 7, I am surprised by the Minister’s approach to mobile phone contracts. If he consulted Ofcom, it would tell him that it was highly supportive of measures such as a maximum bill level. It seems eminently sensible that when people sign up for a contract, they are asked, “Would you like to set a maximum amount?” I really cannot fathom why the Government would block that. I fully expect to revisit that sometime soon.
I would also ask the Minister to check some of the wording in terms of the ESN sites, which he said would be available to all providers. That is not my understanding. The ESN is provided by EE, but also by extended area network sites, and those are the sites that will be multi-platform, but they are only part of how the service will be provided, so perhaps the Minister will revisit and consider what he said there.
My hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), whose constituency name is as long as mine, is worried he may not get to speak, so I will mention his new clause 20, which is very similar to new clause 25, and provides for a constituent to cancel a contract if they do not have service.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
In some circumstances, a consumer is unable to get what they have paid for. For example, I had consumers in Fort Augustus who had to wait over four months to be reconnected to their mobile signal and were threatened with a £200 cancellation fee. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is flatly unacceptable and they should have an option to get out of these contracts?
Calum Kerr
I wholeheartedly agree with that excellent point. This is another common-sense measure that should be taken. I also welcome some of the other comments about linking it to auto-compensation so that it should be a case of either cancelling a contract or potentially—
Drew Hendry
I wonder whether my hon. Friend is surprised, as I am, although perhaps I should not be, that the Minister has refused to accept this, given that last year his predecessor said to me:
“The suggestion you make—that mobile customers ought to be able to leave their contracts if the service is unacceptable is a good one. Mobile customers should not be trapped in contracts if they have no effective signal and an unusable service.”
Calum Kerr
I thank my hon. Friend for that extra clarification. This is why we entered the Bill Committee in a spirit of naive optimism that our sensible new clauses could yet be accepted.
Calum Kerr
How we learned, indeed.
I now move on to my two new clauses. New clause 22 proposes that there should be an explicit power for structural separation of BT Openreach were that deemed necessary. We in this place know how critically important connectivity is, and I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members welcomed, as I did, Ofcom’s digital communications review. I support its taking a fairly strong line on the measures that BT should take on access to ducts and poles, and on making a planning tool and other things more readily available, while retaining the option of structural separation. Indeed, the Secretary of State confirmed this on Second Reading. If structural separation is truly to be an option on the table, it is essential that Ofcom is confident that it can enforce it if it concludes that it is necessary.
The current situation is that Ofcom considers that it has the power under the EU framework directive to impose structural separation. Clearly, though, taking such a case to the EU Commission at a time when Brexit means Brexit is fraught with difficulty, especially considering that it is highly likely that BT would appeal any such move. It is also worth noting that BT has stated publicly that it believes there is no mechanism for structural separations of a telecoms company, and has even threatened 10 years of litigation and arguments. This Bill offers a simple way to remove any ambiguity around the issue, and that is what the new clause aims to do.
Unfortunately, owing to the processes of the House, I can press only one new clause in this group to a vote, so I will not press this one, much as I would like to. However, I encourage the Minister to revisit this measure and add it in, even though I still believe that the Ofcom strategy is right and that separation is the correct route only if combined with something else, such as a significant investment plan in Openreach from other providers who are currently making a lot of noise.
New clause 27 is about introducing a broadband voucher scheme as an alternative to the standard USO provision. Let me first say that I welcome, as I am sure we all do, anything that improves connectivity, but I have huge reservations about the approach being taken. I appreciate that, as the Government outlined in supplementary papers during the Bill’s progress, there is a flexible element to their design of the USO in terms of download speed, upload speed, latency and other aspects, but much is undecided. Although I disagree fundamentally with the 10-meg starting point, what really concerns me is the use of a universal service obligation. Pursuing this route pushes the Government into having to follow a very prescriptive process that will lead to a provider, or perhaps of couple of providers, being selected. It looks highly likely, as I think we all know, that it is likely to be BT. Sharon White confirmed before the DCMS Committee that BT is in pole position on this.
Drew Hendry
My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. Does he agree that the people who need the service should be able to choose the best option for them, and that in rural areas one size does not fit all?
Calum Kerr
I absolutely do agree. I will come on to that point later.
I would contrast the USO measure with last week’s announcements. We have heard the Government say that fibre is the future, but our record in this country on fibre-to-the-home, or fibre-to-the-premises, is pretty woeful. The broadband investment fund announced in a previous Budget had some money put into it, and hundreds of millions of pounds were committed to 5G trials and fibre backbone. All that is welcome, if slightly unambitious, but we have not seen anything specifically for rural areas. We are talking about a fibre and gigabit future in urban areas while telling rural areas that they should settle for 10 megs and a USO. That is not closing the digital divide—it is turning it into a gaping chasm of inequality. A badly implemented USO will not fix the issue but might, through legislation, cement this digital divide.
My new clause aims to address this issue. From the start, as I have looked at potential solutions, the one that I kept coming back to was a voucher alternative. At the Broadband World Forum, a representative from the Independent Networks Cooperative Association said that if we introduce a voucher scheme, we turn a universal service obligation into a universal service opportunity. In our constituencies we have highly motivated groups of people who will, yes, okay, maybe on day one, be happy with 10 megs because if they have been living with 1 meg it will be transformational, but quickly see that they are being left behind and be very unhappy about it. Although the Bill includes provision to revisit this, it does not specify when, and these people will be left further and further behind. The idea of a voucher scheme was endorsed by INCA chairman David Cullen, who said:
“The principle of a Universal Service Obligation is an outdated concept in a sector focused on significant growth and could well translate into a ‘ceiling’…a voucher scheme for premises could be far more effective.”
The Minister did not deal with this new clause in his opening remarks. I urge the Government to embrace the option of a voucher alternative to empower our rural communities, who, as I know from my own community, want to go further. They understand technology. They will put in fibre-to-the-home, providing a much faster solution. This is not a one-size-fits-all—
Matt Hancock
I did address this point. I said that the USO contained in the Bill will get high-speed broadband everywhere. Furthermore, a broadband voucher scheme does not require legislation. In fact, we have had one in the past without legislation. This new clause is therefore unnecessary.
Calum Kerr
I thank the Minister for that intervention. He makes a point that I forgot to make, which is that there is previous history in this area. Broadband Delivery UK managed a voucher scheme that was phenomenally successful. Perhaps I have become a cynic far too quickly in this place, but if the Government do not put this in the Bill, I do not believe it will happen. I will therefore press the new clause to a vote. We should ensure that as the Government say that fibre—
Matt Hancock
As an example of the fact that we can do this through non-legislative means, not only did we have such a scheme in the past, but at the autumn statement last week we announced that we are to consult on a new one. I think that that takes care of the concerns behind the new clause.
Calum Kerr
I thank the Minister for that positive news, but it does not take care of those concerns. I am seeking a specific alternative to the USO, so that my communities who want fibre to their home can have this foundational voucher that sets them on a path to something far more ambitious than what the Government propose. The Government say that fibre is the future. Guess what? My constituents want to be part of that future, too.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Order. We have about 15 minutes and quite a few Members wish to speak, so brevity would be fantastic.
Mr Whittingdale
I start by making it clear that I fully support the provisions in the Bill to require age verification to access pornographic sites. As I observed on Second Reading, it is just as well, since my name is on the front of the Bill.
I would like to introduce an element of caution. Unlike a lot of other material online that has been discussed—child pornography, racist material, hate speech, extremist encouragement and copyright breaches—we are talking here about legal content. Like it or not, the sites we are discussing are visited by millions and millions of people every day. They are some of the most popular sites on the entire internet.
As I have said, I support the idea of age verification to ensure that only those who can appropriately view this material do so, although there are concerns. I have yet to see exactly how age verification is going to work. We have seen examples of existing content access control systems through things such as credit cards, or mobile phones that have been verified as belonging to an adult. It is, in my view, asking a lot to ask people who want to access legal content to hand over their credit card numbers to pornographic website operators. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) was absolutely right to flag up the data protection concerns about that. I hope that Ofcom will look very carefully at how the CAC systems work.
As I mentioned earlier, one of the main ways in which young people are now exposed to pornography is through social media such as Twitter, and I do not really see that the Bill will do anything to stop that happening. That is not to say that we should not take action against pornographic sites. The original Bill contained a number of quite significant enforcement measures, such as requiring payment providers, website hosting companies and advertisers to stop dealing with websites that had been identified as not complying with the law under the Bill. There are already signs that a number of the big providers are going to comply. MindGeek, which is probably the biggest operator, has said that it will introduce age verification systems, although it wanted others to do so as well. I hope that it will happen.
Mr Whittingdale
If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I am very conscious of the Deputy Speaker’s strictures.
I was not persuaded of the necessity of introducing ISP blocking. It represents a considerable infringement of the civil liberties of individuals who want to access material that, as everybody has recognised in this debate, they are perfectly entitled to access. At a time when we are very concerned about the growth of censorship online, and when certain countries would like to take this as a precedent for saying, “It is fine to block content that we do not particularly like,” I think that it is a dangerous road to go down. I hope that the measures originally in the Bill will prove sufficient, that operators will introduce age verification and that we will pause before taking the next step and introducing ISP blocking. To that extent, I rather hope that this Digital Economy Bill is like the Digital Economy Bill that we debated in 2010. That Bill provided for the Government to intervene and require ISP blocking, but the measure was never introduced.
Helen Goodman
I am pleased to take part in this debate, and I was pleased to put my name to new clause 1. I am extremely pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), and I am glad to see the new regime on the Government Front Bench, who have basically accepted new clause 1. The right hon. Gentleman’s argument that because something is legal and enjoyed by grown-ups, we should not have restrictions for children, is patently absurd.
Mr Whittingdale
I support age verification completely. I have said that I support age verification.
Helen Goodman
The right hon. Gentleman said that, but he also said that he thought that this was a difficult area, and one of the reasons why he thought so was that people enjoyed doing it. Grown-ups enjoy having sex and grown-ups enjoy drinking alcohol, but that does not mean that those things are okay for children.
My real purpose this evening is to speak to new clause 26, which I had considerable help from the National Deaf Children’s Society in preparing. The new clause is designed to protect from frequency interference those with hearing loss who have hearing aids, radio aids, cochlear implants and other hearing technologies. Ofcom is about to sell spectrum, and there is a concern that the part of the spectrum that it is going to sell is so close to the wavelength used by such technologies that interference will be caused.
The new clause would place a duty on Ofcom to carry out tests in advance of the sale of the radio frequencies to ensure that any interference is identified and made public and to take appropriate action. That action could take two forms: either Ofcom should not grant a wireless telegraphy licence unless action is taken to remove the risk of interference; or a fund should be established to cover the cost of replacing medical and hearing technology affected by interference. That is important for the 10 million people who suffer from hearing loss and the 45,000 deaf children in this country, and it will enable Ofcom to fulfil its duties under the Equality Act 2010.
The Minister has said that tests have been done and more tests will be done and that we will know what those tests come up with in April 2017, so everything is fine. That is not the view of the National Deaf Children’s Society, which is not confident about the way in which the tests will be carried out. It has undertaken considerable correspondence with the regulator, and there is still dispute about how the tests should be done and how the results should be interpreted. Even if the tests are done and the results published on this occasion, as the Minister suggested, what happens then? What if there is interference? Will the spectrum then not be auctioned off as the Government intend? Will there be some funding for people who have to have new hearing aids as a result? The Minister’s response, I am sorry to say, is not adequate.
Interference will be a problem for children who use radio aids in the classroom to help them to hear what their teachers are saying. Unlike grown-ups, they cannot easily guess what a person is saying, because they are hearing things for the first time. The tests done in 2014 found that someone with a mobile phone using the relevant frequency could interfere with a hearing aid 4 metres away. I know quite a lot about hearing aids, because my husband has terrible hearing and he has two hearing aids. If he goes to a party, he can hardly hear what other people are saying anyway, and if his hearing aids were interfered with by other people standing in the room, it would be a nightmare. I urge the Minister to be flexible and to look at the matter again.
Grant Shapps
I rise to support my new clause 25, on the ability of end-users to cancel mobile contracts. It is very similar to new clauses tabled by other hon. Members—indeed, on the last count, by hon. Members from four different parties. I am grateful to the Minister for saying that this will now be considered in the Green Paper that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy will bring out next year. However, I want to point out that the idea that a 14-day cooling-off period after purchasing a phone is somehow sufficient for a contract lasting for two years is, frankly, completely inadequate. Some 60% of people now have contracts for two years, and there has been a 19% increase in the number of people with lengthy contracts during the past five or six years.
It in no way negates the problem to say that, if someone realises during the first 14 days they cannot get a signal, they can exchange their contract. What happens if they move or if their place of work moves and they are stuck with such a contract? This problem can actually be solved quite easily. All we need to do is to split out the cost of the device—on average, about £800—from the cost of the mobile contract for the phone and data elements. If we did that, the person could stay within the contract to buy the device, while being able to move to another operator that can provide a contract with the ability to access a signal for phone and data use.
My point is very simple. I think that the briefing on this is extremely misleading. I do not believe that Ofcom is likely to do anything about this in the next year or two. I thank the Minister for his advice that this will be considered in the Green Paper next year, because unless we get a bit more radical, people will be forced to pay hundreds of pounds for a service they quite simply never receive.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
I would have liked to speak to new clauses 3, 14 and 21, but I will restrict myself to new clause 13. New clause 13 would introduce a statutory code of practice to improve the performance of social media platforms when dealing with incidents of online abuse that cross the criminal threshold. It would place an obligation on the Minister to issue a code of practice, which would cover the processes and quality of the services provided. Such matters are commonplace in complaints procedures that already exist throughout the public utilities sector.
The code of practice would also cover an industry-specific requirement to set and enforce appropriate privacy settings for minors. This would be drafted after consultation with the industry, the criminal justice system, charities and other key stakeholders. An extensive consultation with a number of a significant bodies would guarantee a comprehensive set of guidelines.
Technology is ever adapting, which is why subsection (4) of new clause 13 states:
“The relevant Minister may from time to time revise and re-issue the code of practice.”
As technology is ever adapting, it is right and proper that legislation protecting vulnerable people from predatory and unacceptable behaviour online should be updated to reflect the dynamic nature of the online world. The new clause would have allowed that. I would have talked about this matter extensively had there been the time, but I hope that the points I would have made will be taken up in another place.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I am pleased to say that I will not press my amendment 2, but that I will support new clause 29. The new clause addresses the loophole that my amendment sought to address, and about which I spoke on Second Reading. I thank the Minister for listening and for acting by tabling the new clause.
The loophole is that, as established under the Communications Act 2003, the current law covering pornographic content online in the form of video on-demand only requires age verification for R18, not 18-rated, material when streamed from sites based within the UK. Without the new clause, the Bill would only deal with the provision of age verification for 18 and R18 video on-demand pornography streamed into this country from abroad.
New clause 29 will deal with the issue. The House has determined that it is not appropriate for under-18s to purchase videos that are 18-rated from a shop, and rightly so, so where the technology is available to apply similar protections online, it would be quite wrong not to use it. I am grateful to the Minister for tabling the new clause. Public opinion is very much with us on this issue. ComRes polling of 2,000 adults in Great Britain in July last year showed that 73% of people support age verification of any 18-rated DVDs shown online and that just 13% disagreed.
Mr Alistair Carmichael
I rise to echo some of the concerns that have already been expressed by the right hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) about new clause 28. I should say at the outset that, as the parent of two teenagers, I completely understand the motivation of those who have raised these concerns with the Government. I commend them for the way in which they have done so, and, indeed, I commend the Government for responding in the way they have. However, I fear that this is another occasion on which the Government are responding because, as we say, something must be done. I fear that we are in fact going down a road that will leave us exposed to the law of unintended consequences.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman will not get his one minute of speaking time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: “personal data section 1(1)” “personal data breach section 24A(1)”
New clause 8—Responsibility for policy and funding of TV licence fee concessions—
“After section 365(5) of the Communications Act 2003 insert—
“(5A) It shall be the responsibility of the Secretary of State to—
(a) specify the conditions under which concessions are entitled, and
(b) provide the BBC with necessary funding to cover the cost of concessions,
and this responsibility shall not be delegated to any other body.”
This new clause seeks to enshrine in statute that it should be the responsibility of the Government to set the entitlement for any concessions and to cover the cost of such concession. This new clause will ensure the entitlement and cost of over-75s TV licences remain with the Government. It would need to be agreed with Clause 76 not standing part of the Bill.
New clause 17—PSB prominence—
“(1) The Communications Act 2003 is amended as follows.
(2) At the end of section 310(1) add “that satisfy the qualification criteria to be set by OFCOM in the code.”
(3) In section 310(2) leave out “OFCOM consider appropriate” and insert “required by OFCOM”.
(4) In section 310(4)(a) after “programmes” insert “, including on-demand programme services,”.
(5) In section 310(5)(a) after “service” insert “, including on-demand programme service,”.
(6) In section 310(8)(a) after “services” insert “, including on-demand programme services,”.
(7) In section 310(8)(b) after “services” insert “, including on-demand programme services.”
This new clause would modernise the PSB prominence regime, as recommended by Ofcom in its 2015 PSB Review. This proposal would extend the provisions in the Communications Act 2003 which currently only apply to traditional public service television channels and menus to on-demand services.
New clause 18—Listed events qualifying criteria—
“(1) The Broadcasting Act 1996 is amended as follows.
(2) Omit section 98(2)(b) and insert—
“(b) that the service has been watched by at least 90 per cent. of citizens in the United Kingdom in the course of the preceding calendar year.”
(3) After section 98(2) insert—
“(2A) The Secretary of State may by Order amend section (2)(b) by substituting a different percentage for any percentage for the time being specified there.
(2B) No Order under subsection (2A) shall be made unless a draft of the Order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.””
This new clause seeks to future-proof the listed events regime. This replaces the criterion on the capability of ‘receive’ a channel with an alternative based on its actual usage over the period of a year, lowers the threshold from 95% to 90%, and proposes delegating powers to the SoS to amend the 90% threshold.
New clause 24—Review of sale of counterfeit electrical appliances on the internet—
‘(1) Within six months of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State shall commission a review of the sale on the internet of counterfeit electrical appliances and shall lay the report of the review before each House of Parliament.
(2) The review under subsection (1) shall consider whether operators of trading websites that allow individual sellers to use those websites to sell electrical items should be obliged to report to the police and trading standards any instances of the selling of counterfeit electrical appliances during the course of their business of trading.”
New clause 33—Report of cost to UK economy of counterfeit electrical goods on the internet—
‘(1) Within six months of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State shall prepare and publish a report on the cost to the UK economy of counterfeit electrical goods on the internet and shall lay a copy of the report before Parliament.
(2) The report under subsection (1) shall include an assessment of—
(a) the amount of counterfeit electrical goods being imported into the United Kingdom,
(b) the efficacy of the 1994 Plugs and Sockets regulations, and
(c) the amounts of counterfeit electrical good being sold on trading websites on the internet.”
New clause 34—Review of impact of digital platforms on media advertising—
‘(1) Within 12 months of this Act coming into force, Ofcom shall conduct a review of the impact of digital platforms on media advertising and the sustainability of the UK media.
(2) Ofcom shall conduct another review on the matters under subsection (1) within five years of the publication of the first review, and within every five years thereafter.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the report of any review in this section before Parliament.”
Government amendments 20 to 22.
New clause 15—Power to provide for a code of practice related to copyright infringement—
“(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for a search engine to be required to adopt a code of practice concerning copyright infringement that complies with criteria specified in the regulations.
(2) The regulations may provide that if a search engine fails to adopt such a code of practice, any code of practice that is approved for the purposes of that search engine by the Secretary of State, or by a person designated by the Secretary of State, has effect as a code of practice adopted by the search engine.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision—
(a) for the investigation and determination of disputes about a search engine’s compliance with its code of practice,
(b) for the appointment of a regulator to review and report to the Secretary of State on—
(i) the codes of practice adopted by search engines, and
(ii) compliance with the codes of practice;
(c) for the consequences of a failure by a specified search engine to adopt or comply with a code of practice including financial penalties or other sanctions.
(4) Regulations made under this section—
(a) may make provision that applies only in respect of search engines of a particular description, or only in respect of activities of a particular description;
(b) may make incidental, supplementary or consequential provision;
(c) shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”
This new clause would amend the Bill to present an opportunity for the Government to fulfil its manifesto commitment to reduce copyright infringement and ensure search engines do not link to the worst-offending sites. There is an absence of a specific provision in the Bill to achieve this.
New clause 16—E-book lending—
“In section 43(2) of the Digital Economy Act 2010, leave out from “limited time” to “and loan.”
This new clause aims to extend public lending rights to remote offsite e-book lending.
New clause 30—Devices or services that infringe copyright—
“(1) The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 107(1)(d)(ii) after “offers” insert “, advertises”.
(3) After section 107(1)(d)(iv) insert—
(v) installs, maintains or replaces, or
(ii) otherwise promotes by means of commercial communications, or”
(4) In section 107(1)(e) after “article” insert “, device, product or component”.
(5) In section 107(1)(e) after “work” insert “or which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe is, primarily designed, produced, adapted or otherwise used in a manner described in this section whether alone or in conjunction with another article, device, product, component, or service supplied by or with the knowledge of the same person for the purpose of enabling or facilitating the infringement of copyright”.”
This new clause allows the Government to fulfil its commitment in the IPO’s Enforcement Strategy to ensure that UK business and rights holders have the necessary legal means to protect their IP. It brings in language to cover the supply of IPTV boxes clearly being marketed or sold for the purpose of enabling or facilitating copyright infringement, recognising that many devices may not, themselves, infringe copyright, but are supplied in conjunction with information which enables users to infringe copyright.
New clause 31—Offence to use digital ticket purchasing software to purchase excessive number of tickets—
“(1) A person commits an offence if he or she utilises digital ticket purchasing software to purchase tickets over and above the number permitted in the condition of sale.
(2) A person commits an offence if he or she knowingly resells or offers to resell, or allows to be resold or offered for resale on a secondary ticketing facility, a ticket that the person knows, or could reasonably suspect, was obtained using digital ticket purchasing software and was acting in the course of a business.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2) a person shall be treated as acting in the course of a business if he or she does anything as a result of which he makes a profit or aims to make a profit.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to—
(a) imprisonment for a period not exceeding 51 weeks,
(b) a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or
(c) both.
(5) In this section—
(a) “digital ticket purchasing software” means any machine, device, computer programme or computer software that, on its own or with human assistance, bypasses security measures or access control systems on a retail ticket purchasing platform that assist in implementing a limit on the number of tickets that can be purchased, to purchase tickets.
(b) “retail ticket purchasing platform” shall mean a retail ticket purchasing website, application, phone system, or other technology platform used to sell tickets.
(6) Subsections (1) and (2) shall apply in respect of anything done whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere.”
This new clause creates an offence to use digital ticket purchasing software to purchase tickets for an event over and above the number permitted in the condition of sale. It also creates an offence to knowingly resell tickets using such software.
New clause 5—Personal data breaches—
“(1) The Data Protection Act 1998 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 24 insert—
“24A Personal data breaches: notification to the Commissioner
(1) In this section, section 24B and section 24C “personal data breach” means unauthorised or unlawful processing of personal data or accidental loss or destruction of, or damage to, personal data.
(2) Subject to subsections (3), (4)(c) and (4)(d), if a personal data breach occurs, the data controller in respect of the personal data concerned in that breach shall, without undue delay, notify the breach to the Commissioner.
(3) The notification referred to in subsection (2) is not required to the extent that the personal data concerned in the personal data breach are exempt from the seventh data protection principle.
(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations—
(a) prescribe matters which a notification under subsection (2) must contain;
(b) prescribe the period within which, following detection of a personal data breach, a notification under subsection (2) must be given;
(c) provide that subsection (2) shall not apply to certain data controllers;
(d) provide that subsection (2) shall not apply to personal data breaches of a particular description or descriptions.
24B Personal data breaches: notification to the data subject
(1) Subject to subsections (2), (3), (4), (6)(b) and (6)(c), if a personal data breach is likely to adversely affect the personal data or privacy of a data subject, the data controller in respect of the personal data concerned in that breach shall also, without undue delay, notify the breach to the data subject concerned, insofar as it is reasonably practicable to do so.
(2) The notification referred to in subsection (1) is not required to the extent that the personal data concerned in the personal data breach are exempt from the seventh data protection principle.
(3) The notification referred to in subsection (1) is not required to the extent that the personal data concerned in the personal data breach are exempt from section 7(1).
(4) The notification referred to in subsection (1) is not required if the data controller has demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the Commissioner—
(a) that the data controller has implemented appropriate measures which render the data unintelligible to any person who is not authorised to access it; and
(b) that those measures were applied to the data concerned in that personal data breach.
(5) If the data controller has not notified the data subject in compliance with subsection (1), the Commissioner may, having considered the likely adverse effects of the personal data breach, require the data controller to do so.
(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations—
(a) prescribe matters which a notification under subsection (1) must contain;
(b) provide that subsection (1) shall not apply to certain data controllers;
(c) provide that subsection (1) shall not apply to personal data breaches of a particular description or descriptions.
24C Personal data breaches: audit
(1) Data controllers shall maintain an inventory of personal data breaches comprising—
(a) the facts surrounding the breach;
(b) the effects of that breach; and
(c) remedial action taken
which shall be sufficient to enable the Commissioner to verify compliance with the provisions of sections 24A and 24B. The inventory shall only include information necessary for this purpose.
(2) The Commissioner may audit the compliance of data controllers with the provisions of sections 24A, 24B and 24C(1).
(3) In section 40 (Enforcement notices)—
(a) in subsection (1)—
(i) after “data protection principles,” insert “or section 24A, 24B or 24C”;
(ii) for “principle or principles” substitute “principle, principles, section or sections”;
(b) in subsection 6(a) after “principles” insert “or the section or sections”.
(4) In section 41 (Cancellation of enforcement notice”)—
(a) in subsection (1) after “principles” insert “or the section or sections”;
(b) in subsection (2) after “principles” insert “or the section or sections”.
(5) In section 41A (Assessment notices)—
(a) in subsection (1) after “data protection principles” insert “or section 24A, 24B or 24C”;
(b) in subsection (10)(b) after “data protection principles” insert “or section 24A, 24B or 24C”.
(6) In section 41C (Code of practice about assessment notices)—
(a) in subsection (4)(a) after “principles” insert “and sections 24A, 24B and 24C”;
(b) in subsection (4)(b) after “principles” insert “or sections”.
(7) In section 43 (Information notices)—
(a) in subsection 43(1)—
(i) after “data protection principles” insert “or section 24A, 24B or 24C”;
(ii) after “the principles” insert “or those sections”;
(b) in subsection 43(2)(b) after “principles” insert “or section 24A, 24B or 24C”.
(8) In section 55A (Power of Commissioner to impose monetary penalty)—
(a) after subsection (1) insert—
(1A) The Commissioner may also serve a data controller with a monetary penalty notice if the Commissioner is satisfied that there has been a serious contravention of section 24A, 24B or 24C by the data controller.”;
(b) in subsection (3A) after “subsection (1)” insert “or (1A)”;
(c) in subsection (4) omit “determined by the Commissioner and”;
(d) in subsection (5)—
(i) after “The amount” insert “specified in a monetary penalty notice served under subsection (1) shall be”;
(ii) after “Commissioner” insert “and”;
(e) after subsection (5) insert—
(5A) The amount specified in a monetary penalty notice served under subsection (1A) shall be £1,000.
(5B) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend subsection (5A) to change the amount specified therein.”
(9) In section 55B (Monetary penalty notices: procedural rights)—
(a) in subsection (3)(a) omit “and”;
(b) after subsection (3)(a) insert—
“(aa) specify the provision of this Act of which the Commissioner is satisfied there has been a serious contravention, and”;
(c) after subsection (3) insert—
(3A) A data controller may discharge liability for a monetary penalty in respect of a contravention of section 24A, 24B or 24C if he pays to the Commissioner the amount of £800 before the time within which the data controller may make representations to the Commissioner has expired.
(3B) A notice of intent served in respect of a contravention of section 24A, 24B or 24C must include a statement informing the data controller of the opportunity to discharge liability for the monetary penalty.
(3C) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend subsection (3A) to change the amount specified therein, save that the amount specified in subsection (3A) must be less than the amount specified in section 55A(5A).”;
(d) in subsection (5) after “served” insert “under section 55A(1)”;
(e) after subsection (5) insert—
(5A) A person on whom a monetary penalty notice is served under section 55A(1A) may appeal to the Tribunal against the issue of the monetary penalty notice.”
(10) In section 55C(2)(b) (Guidance about monetary penalty notices) at the end insert “specified in a monetary penalty notice served under section 55A(1)”.
(11) In section 67 (Orders, regulations and rules)—
(a) in subsection (4)—
(i) after “order” insert “or regulations”;
(ii) after “section 22(1),” insert “section 24A(4)(c) or (d), 24B(6)(b) or (c),”;
(b) in subsection (5)—
(i) after subsection (c) insert “(ca) regulations under section 24A(4)(a) or (b) or section 24B(6)(a),”;
(ii) for “(ca) regulations under section 55A(5) or (7) or 55B(3)(b),” substitute “(cb) regulations under section 55A(5), (5B) or (7) or 55B(3)(b) or (3C),”.
(12) In section 71 (Index of defined expressions) after
insert—
(13) In paragraph 1 of Schedule 9—
(a) after paragraph 1(1)(a) insert—
“(aa) that a data controller has contravened or is contravening any provision of section 24A, 24B or 24C, or”;
(b) in paragraph 1(1B) after “principles” insert “or section 24A, 24B or 24C”;
(c) in paragraph (3)(d)(ii) after “principles” insert “or section 24A, 24B or 24C”;
(d) in paragraph (3)(f) after “principles” insert “or section 24A, 24B or 24C.””
This new clause seeks to create a general obligation on data controllers to notify the Information Commissioner and data subjects in the event of a breach of personal data security. The proposed obligation is similar to that imposed on electronic communication service providers by the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003.
New clause 11—Public register of information disclosures—
“(1) No disclosure of information by a public authority under Part 5 shall be lawful unless detailed by an entry in a public register.
(2) Any entry made in a public register under subsection (1) shall be disclosed to another person only for the purposes set out in this Part.
(3) Each entry in the register must contain, or include information on—
(a) the uniform resource locator of the entry,
(b) the purpose of the disclosure,
(c) the specific information to be disclosed,
(d) the data controllers and data processors involved in the sharing of the information,
(e) any exchange of letters between the data controllers on the disclosure,
(f) any other information deemed relevant.
(4) In this section, “uniform resource locator” means a standardised naming convention for entries made in a public register.”
New clause 12—Review of the collection and use of data by government and commercial bodies—
“(1) Within six months of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State shall commission an independent review of the collection and use of data by government and commercial bodies and shall lay the report of the review before each House of Parliament.
(2) The review under subsection (1) shall consider—
(a) the increasing use of big data analytics and the privacy risks associated with big data;
(b) the adequacy of current rules and regulations on data ownership;
(c) the collection and use of administrative data; and
(d) any other matters the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(3) In conducting the review, the designated independent reviewer must consult—
(a) specialists in big data, data ownership and administrative data,
(b) those who campaign for citizens’ rights in relation to privacy, personal information and data protection,
(c) any other persons and organisations the reviewer considers appropriate.
(4) In this section “big data analytics” means the process of examining large datasets to uncover hidden patterns, unknown correlations, market trends, customer preferences and other useful business information.”
New clause 19—Disclosure of information by local authorities in relation to free school meals—
“(1) A “specified objective” under section 29(6) also refers to the disclosure of information held by a local authority to a relevant school to enable them to carry out the duty in Section 512 of the Education Act 1996 to provide free school meals to eligible children.
(2) For the purposes of this section, “information” refers to the disclosure of information to a relevant school on the names of—
(a) pupils who live within a household that claims council tax benefit;
(b) pupils who live within a household that claims housing benefit;
(c) pupils who live within a household that claims any other benefits administered by the local authority.
(3) The objective under section (1) may be specified by regulations only if it complies with the conditions under subsection (4).
(4) That condition is that the disclosure is for the purposes of assisting children eligible for free school meals to have access to the entitlement under section 512 of the Education Act 1996.
(5) Under subsection (1) local education authority must provide a relevant school with sufficient information collected to enable them to carry out the duty in subsection 3.
(6) For the purposes of this Act, a school is “relevant” to a local education authority if that school has on its pupil roll a qualifying child resident within that local education authority’s area.
(7) For the purposes of this Act, a “school” is any local authority maintained school, free school or academy, or voluntary-sector alternative provision working with the local authority.
(8) Local education authorities must provide the means for a parent or guardian of a qualifying child to—
(a) opt out of the arrangements envisaged in sections 1 to 4.
(b) consider opting in to free school meals at the beginning of each academic year, having previously chosen to opt out.
(9) Local education authorities and schools must take all reasonable steps to preserve the confidentiality and right to privacy of qualifying children and their parents or guardians in respect of the information, information-sharing and administrative arrangements provided.”
New clause 23—Provision of information on Government website in Welsh language—
“(1) Subject to subsection (2), services provided on the internet by the Government must be provided in the Welsh language in addition to English.
(2) Subsection (2) only applies to services provided on the internet by the Government relating to subjects not listed under Part 1 of Schedule 7 to the Government of Wales Act 2006.
(3) In this section “services provided on the internet by the Government” means—
(a) information on the www.gov.uk website, or
(b) interactive services on the www.gov.uk website.”
Amendment 3, in clause 32, page 31, line 30, at end insert—
“(8A) In its application to a public authority with functions relating to the provision of health services, section 29 does not authorise the disclosure of identifiable health information held by the authority in connection with such functions.”
This amendment is to ensure that there are adequate protections for the confidential health information of patients and to prevent the disclosure of identifiable health information.
Government amendments 4 to 11.
Amendment 25, in clause 49, page 48, line 6, at end insert—
“(g) for the purposes of journalistic publication or broadcast transmission in the public interest.”
Amendment 26, in clause 50, page 49, at end insert—
“(j) for the purposes of journalistic publication or broadcast transmission in the public interest.”
Government amendments 12 to 19.
Kevin Brennan
We have 12 new clauses and amendments—and one that we withdrew so that the Select Committee could table it—in this group. New clause 6 stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) and for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh). As the Minister has done many times, I pay tribute to the latter, who unfortunately is not here because she is part of a pre-planned parliamentary delegation. She did a tremendous job in Committee and has been praised universally on both sides of the House for her efforts.
On new clause 6, although subtitling is at or near 100% across public service broadcasters, three quarters of the UK’s 90 on-demand providers still offer no subtitling at all, despite the fact that according to Ofcom nearly one in five of the UK population use them. The principle behind the Communications Act 2003 recognised that those with sensory loss should not be denied access to the information services that many of us take for granted, but those with sensory loss cannot keep up with changing technology. In July 2013, the then Minister for the Digital Economy, the right hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), acknowledged this, arguing in the Department’s 2013 document, “Connectivity, Content and Consumers”, that if
“progress isn’t being made in three years’ time…we will consider legislation.”
Well, here we are, three years later, with an appropriate legislative vehicle right here in front of us, and the Government are failing to act.
We wonder why. There were strong rumblings that the Government were planning to act, and we were checking the amendment paper every day, anticipating that they would, so it is a bit odd that we, the Opposition, have to bring forward this new clause, which takes on the Government’s concerns, when it is supposed to be the other way around—the Government taking on the concerns of others in the House during consideration of a Bill. The new clause would update the existing regulatory regime and apply it to on-demand providers. It is clearly time the Government acted to reflect the digital world in which we live and allow those with sensory loss to play a full and active part in it. The Government should accept the new clause, and I look forward to the Minister telling us that he will.
Rob Marris
Does my hon. Friend find it shocking that just one of the 21 on-demand services offered through Virgin TiVo—we discussed Virgin’s telephony and telecommunications services under new clause 27—is subtitled? That is less than 5%. Is that not a prime example of why we need new clause 6?
Kevin Brennan
It is a prime example. I might even have had it in my notes, before I truncated them considerably in order to make some progress. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point it out.
New clause 8 opposes the way the Government are dealing with the free television licences for over-75s. The continuation of free licences for over-75s was a promise made in the Conservative party’s manifesto, which many over-75s voted for in good faith, but now, just 16 months later, the Government are legislating to do away with that pledge in all but name, on the pretence that it should now be for the BBC to decide who gets a free television licence. I am afraid that the promise in the manifesto was unequivocal. It said:
“We will maintain all the current pensioner benefits including Winter Fuel Payments, free bus passes, free prescriptions and TV licences”.
Notice the list of Labour achievements in that quote, Madam Deputy Speaker! It said “maintain” not “play pass the policy parcel”, which is what the Government are doing. They are legislating to hand over responsibility to a body that cannot afford to maintain the entitlement.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend accept that this is a political decision and that it is wrong to compromise the BBC in this way by drawing it into politics?
Kevin Brennan
Far be it for me to accuse the Government of taking political decisions—this is the House of Commons after all—but it is nevertheless a broken promise, masquerading as an administrative change. I think that is the point my hon. Friend is making. If he were trying to imply that this were a craven approach, he would be absolutely right about that, too.
I am sure that the Minister will argue that, in fact, the BBC has somehow been rewarded handsomely in the charter renewal process, and that the BBC will decide its funding policy for over-75s set within that context. He will claim support from the BBC for what the Government are doing, because the BBC has said that it is in favour of it. It is the kind of support given when someone has a loaded gun placed against their head and is asked for that support. There is a reason why the BBC has agreed to take over control of setting entitlement for over-75 licences: it knows it cannot afford it at its current rate. The BBC should never have been given the responsibility for delivering on a Conservative party manifesto pledge.
Kelvin Hopkins
I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend’s flow once again, but the BBC was given this short straw at the same time as its future was being renegotiated. The BBC was under duress and surely had to accept this move.
Kevin Brennan
Indeed. That was my reason for using the metaphor of holding a loaded gun to the BBC’s head. Opposition Members do not consider that the deal was negotiated in good faith. As my hon. Friend’s point suggests, it amounted to little other than blackmail.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I apologise for being controversial—the hon. Gentleman will not agree with me—but this is rather like the triple lock. The fact is that many pensioners over the age of 75 are perfectly capable of paying a licence fee, so perhaps we should concentrate resources on people who really cannot afford to pay, rather than piling up more and more benefits to pensioners. I know that is controversial, but it is a point that needs to be made.
Kevin Brennan
It is an entirely legitimate point of view, but that is not what is under discussion. We are discussing who should take that decision. We say that the decision should be taken by this House and that the Government should be brave enough to face the electorate and say that they have decided that the policy is not, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, a priority. Instead of that, however, the Government are pretending that they are somehow keeping their pledge while transferring responsibility to an unaccountable body. The hon. Gentleman has been a powerful advocate in his long career on behalf of democracy and this House and against that kind of transfer of responsibility from this House and the duly elected Government to unelected quangos or other bodies. That is why we tabled the new clause, which I hope the hon. Gentleman will support for that reason.
It is a point of principle for us. We cannot accept a policy that takes responsibility for even a small part of our social security system and gives it to an organisation with no direct accountability to the electorate. If the new clause fails, Labour will do everything in its power to make it clear to those millions of over-75s exactly what is going on. It is not the BBC that will be reducing or taking away their entitlement to TV licences; it is the Government who have knowingly engineered the change. If we look at the Red Book for Budget 2016, we see that it is absolutely clear how much money the Government intend to save from this measure: in 2018-19, £185 million; in 2019-20, £425 million; and in 2020-21, £725 million.
Our new clause 17 aims to modernise the public service broadcaster regime, as recommended by Ofcom. Existing law would be extended to include on-demand channels and menus. The broadcasting landscape has changed significantly due to the emergence of new technologies such as the BBC iPlayer, the iPad and digital TV switchover, so although the Communications Act 2003 ensured PSB prominence on broadcast TV, it does not apply to connected TV sets or to catch-up services.
Connected TVs, such as Sky Q box, move the TV guide, where PSBs occupy the most prominent positions, so that it is increasingly hard to find. Seven out of 10 of the public say that they want the BBC channels at the top of the channel listings and that they want BBC iPlayer and the on-demand service there too. Among connected TV users, people are 10 times more likely to prefer to see the TV guide than the platform operators’ recommendations first. This holds true in focus groups, where consumers gave feedback on the obscuring of the TV guide. One said:
“I absolutely love Sky Q, but if there were one thing I would change, it would be where the TV guide is…it’s almost tucked away somewhere on my screen. You expect technological advances to make life easier, but this is making it harder…it’s an extra step.”
Essentially, the public are paying towards PSB content that is becoming increasingly hard to find.
The Minister argued in Committee that Ofcom should adapt the code in line with technological developments, but Ofcom itself has called for a legislative change. The point was made that the TV guide was of declining importance due to the increasing integration of TV and internet services. However, nine out of those who watch live or on-demand use the electronic programme guide to access TV programmes. Our new clause builds on the current system, with a strong duty placed on Ofcom to provide clearer guidelines than at present. The industry should then apply these as appropriate to their platforms. If the Government really believe in public service broadcasting—and they say they do—they should support our new clause 17.
New clause 18 deals with the listed sporting events regime, which ensures that events such as the Olympics are freely and widely available. Unfortunately, that is at risk, so our new clause would help to safeguard listed events into the future. Some 45 million people in the UK watched the Rio 2016 Olympics, while millions watched the Euros—including Wales’s stunning run to the semi-final this summer. Listed events are responsible for 5% of sports output but 60% of sports viewing in this country. The current law specifies that 95% of the population must be reached by a channel for it to acquire listed events rights. Due to the proliferation of alternative media devices, PSBs believe that by the end of this Parliament no TV channel will, in fact, meet that 95% reach criterion.
New clause 18 offers a solution. There is a crucial legal difference between receiving a channel and watching it. Replacing the criterion on the capability to “receive” a channel with the alternative that it “has been watched”, based on its actual uses over the past year, would capture factors such as continuous free-to-air availability, popularity and audience awareness. The new clause would lower the threshold from 95% to 90%, and give the Secretary of State powers to amend it so that the law is flexible enough to reflect consumption trends and change in new and unpredictable ways.
Let me deal now with new clause 15. Over the past few years, there has been a series of round-table discussions with search engines, including Google, Bing and Yahoo, and rights holders including the British Phonographic Industry, the Music Publishers Association and the Alliance for Intellectual Property. The various parties have been trying to negotiate a code of practice to tackle copyright infringement whereby search engines would do more to demote sites that carry pirate content. These discussions are dragging on and, years later, the search engines and rights holders are yet to come to an agreement. Our new clause would provide the Secretary of State with the powers to legislate for a code of practice to be agreed if the next rounds of talks fail to come to a conclusion.
Piracy continues to weaken the UK recorded music industry. For example, academic evidence based on average retail prices and Ofcom’s tracker survey indicate a loss of between £150 million and £300 million a year. Our new clause would give the Secretary of State a backstop power to legislate that a code of practice be agreed. I think the Government should accept that now is the time for action in this sphere.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend agree that, given that this issue featured in the Conservative manifesto, it would be fantastic if the Government came forward to support the new clause, so that they could implement a promise they made at the last general election?
Kevin Brennan
My hon. Friend anticipates something that I was intending to say, but did not say. She is absolutely correct to point that out. The figures clearly show that this measure is not being implemented, even though the Minister claimed in Committee that it was.
New clause 16 is about public lending right. Hon. Members might be surprised to know that it does not extend to e-books where they are borrowed remotely, which by their very nature, of course, they are. It is ludicrous that 2.3 million remote loans were made in the last year, none of which were counted for public lending right. The method by which a book is borrowed should not determine whether authors and illustrators receive fair payment for their work. That predicament has been significantly worsened by the closure of public libraries that has occurred on the Government’s watch as a result of its failed—as we now know—austerity policies. The new clause would close the loophole, and it is supported by the Society of Authors, the Association of Illustrators, and the Authors’ Licensing and Collecting Society.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that true fans do not stand a chance nowadays, because touts have evolved from blokes in sheepskin jackets lurking outside stadiums trying to sell spare tickets, to IT crooks who harvest thousands of tickets just seconds after they go on sale?
Kevin Brennan
I do agree with that. In Committee, the Minister told us a tear-jerking story about his efforts to buy tickets to a Paul Simon concert at the Royal Albert Hall. We look forward to a review when he rises to speak. At the moment he is chewing, so it is “The Sound of Silence”.
Luciana Berger
I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) expand on this point in more detail. Is it not time for us finally to do something about ticket-touting, on behalf of all the fans in the country who just want to enjoy music? I have not been a Member of Parliament for all that long, but we have been talking about this issue for the past six years. I see that tickets for tomorrow’s Justin Bieber concert are on sale for more than £1,000. Can we not do something about that, and ensure that everyone in the country can enjoy music?
Kevin Brennan
My hon. Friend makes her point passionately. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West, and I hope that we can play a part in a good result for her today when the Minister gives way on this point and accepts the cross-party new clause tabled by the Select Committee. My hon. Friend drew attention, in correspondence with us, to an analogy that was sent to her by someone who pointed out that the ticket-tout approach was nothing more or less than a protection racket. The bad guys create a problem, and then go around charging everyone else for solving it. The new clause would acknowledge ticket touting for what it really is: criminal exploitation. I hope that the Government will listen to Members on both sides of the House and do everything in their power to prevent and prosecute such behaviour.
Rob Marris
The Bill might not be the vehicle with which to do it, but another thing that needs to be tackled is the absolute scandal of administration fees, or booking fees. When one tries to buy a ticket, one pays 50 quid for the ticket and another 20 quid for the booking; the price should be £70 upfront.
Kevin Brennan
I entirely understand my hon. Friend’s point, but I shall stick strictly to the new clauses that we have tabled.
New clause 5 would establish a duty for companies to report any breach of cyber-security and to inform customers when possible. Just 28% of such attacks are reported to the police. We have welcomed the Minister’s announcement that he will implement the general data protection regulation in full, but even the GDPR provides extensive caveats, and it falls a long way short of the comprehensive regulatory system that the United Kingdom needs. Our new clause would impose a general obligation on data controllers to notify the Information Commissioner and data subjects in the event of a breach of personal data security.
New clause 11 provides for a public register of shared data. It would require all disclosures of data between data controllers to be logged in a public register giving, at the very least, a title, a description and a web page so that people can find out more. If there is transparency through a register, there can be an informed conversation about whether a particular data disclosure will solve the problem that it claims to solve. There has been data-sharing to “prevent fraud” for decades, and there has been a complete absence of audited and accurate results from that work. With additional powers come additional responsibilities. The argument that because current data-sharing has not prevented fraud there should be more data-sharing could be described as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. While part 5 of the Bill will remain a concern—I am sure that our colleagues in the other place will examine it—we believe that the Government should accept new clause 11 and demonstrate that they understand the importance of transparency in data-sharing.
Let me now deal with new clause 12, which concerns a review of data collection. Data are the currency of the digital economy but, in yet another missed opportunity, the Bill does absolutely nothing to address people’s rights over their data, which are increasingly a cause for concern. It is time that the Government acted, because consumer mistrust in the digital economy and in the use of our data is becoming corrosive. That is why we are calling for a royal commission to examine the use of our personal data in the commercial sector, to establish the extent of that practice, and to draw up a series of rights on which consumers and customers can rely in the digital age. The new clause would require the Government to commission an independent review of information and big data, and data administration, which would seek to establish the direction in which the stated policy intent of Government and big business—for individuals to have control over their own data—is heading.
Many providers are in the market for data, and there are many ways beyond our imagination in which our data can be modified. However, it will only take one exposé on “Dispatches” or a Mail on Sunday scandal to force the Government to react, and it is likely to overreact, as all Governments do. The Bill provides an excellent opportunity for the issues to be viewed in the cold light of day rather than in the heat of reaction, and I strongly urge the Ministers to support new clause 12.
New clause 19 is about free school meals. Many families who are eligible currently do not claim them. The new clause would explicitly provide for councils to share benefit data with schools, thus allowing eligible children to be automatically enrolled to receive free school meals rather than having to apply.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
The issue of free school meals was raised in Committee. Does my hon. Friend agree that two-tier authorities consisting of a shire and a district should be able to share data seamlessly and automatically, as unitary authorities do in metropolitan areas?
Kevin Brennan
I do agree. My hon. Friend made that point brilliantly in Committee, and I recommend that people read his lengthier remarks if they want to find out more about that issue.
Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
I am grateful for the new clause because it follows a private Member’s Bill that I introduced. Following Liverpool’s example, Wirral carried out automatic registration for free school dinners and the school premium, and that resulted in £750,000 more coming into the area to target those poorest families.
Kevin Brennan
My right hon. Friend is correct. I was about to say that I wanted to praise him and, again, my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West for their work on that matter. We hope that the Government will support this sensible new clause.
I turn to amendment 3—our final amendment, you will be glad to know, Madam Deputy Speaker, in the group. In the aftermath of the care.data scandal, it is vital that patients are able to have trust in the confidential nature of the health service and to feel confident in sharing sensitive information with health care professionals. Part 5 of the Bill—clause 29 in particular—appears to permit an unprecedented sharing of confidential information. We are extremely concerned that if the information-sharing powers cover information held by bodies providing healthcare services, patient confidentiality could be undermined.
Amendment 3 would ensure that identifiable information held by healthcare bodies in connection with their functions would be exempt from the information-sharing powers in clause 29, thereby upholding current protections for confidentiality. We believe that the Bill should be amended to ensure that patient confidentiality is protected by clarifying that the Bill does not give power to public authorities to disclose any identifiable healthcare information. That would bring clause 29 into line with clause 56, which addresses information sharing specifically for research purposes. That was amended by the Government in Committee to prevent any erosion of the status quo for sharing healthcare data for research purposes. We believe, as does the British Medical Association, that similar protections should be extended to cover part 5. I look forward to the Minister accepting that amendment, along with all the other measures in the group.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
This may have come up in Committee, and it might come up later on Report: the concern of the National Union of Journalists about journalists not being mentioned on private data being shared. Is that coming up now, or does it come up later?
Kevin Brennan
The hon. Gentleman might have missed it, but we have already had Second Reading and Committee stage, and we are now on Report, so that matter is likely to come up in the House of Lords.
Kevin Brennan
Sorry, I forgot that my hon. Friend’s amendment is in this group.
Having spoken on the amendments that we have tabled, rather than anyone else’s, I will sit down.
Mr Whittingdale
I will resist the temptation to be drawn by the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) into discussing his new clause 8 covering the funding of free television licences. We have already debated the issue at some length. Instead, in the spirit of consensus, I would like to concentrate on some of his other amendments, with which I have greater sympathy.
The first is new clause 15. On Second Reading, we discussed complaints by the creative industries that, when content is sought, the majority of sites produced by search engines such as Google and others are illegal. That has been the subject of discussion among the search companies, the rights owners and the Government for a long time, and progress has been glacial.
Since that discussion on Second Reading, I have had the advantage of talking to Google. I suspect the hon. Gentleman will have had that advantage, too. Google makes the point that if we put into its search engine the name of the artist and the name of the track, the overwhelming majority are legal results. That is progress. There is no doubt that it is better than it used to be. That deals with the problem of people who do not necessarily want to break the law but just find themselves directed to illegal sites, even when they are not looking for them. That is a step forward, but it does not deal with the problem of people who do not want to pay for music. If we put an additional few terms into the search box, such as “MP3 free download”, the position is completely different and the overwhelming majority of results from that search are illegal. That remains a big problem.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
The right hon. Gentleman knows—he has probably seen the results from the Intellectual Property Office—that 78 million tracks were illegally accessed between March and May this year. It is still a huge problem. Twenty per cent. of all access to the internet for music is for illegal downloads. The Conservative party manifesto promised to deal with that. Does he believe that now is the time for action? We must act now.
Mr Whittingdale
I do think that more needs to be done. The counter to the statistic that the hon. Gentleman has just quoted is the number of pages being taken down. The BPI alone is notifying half a million infringing pages and they are promptly removed, but this is a Hydra—as soon as one comes down, another three go up.
The need to achieve greater agreement between the search companies and the rights owners remains as great as ever. Therefore, the idea that the Government should spur them on to get that agreement by saying that, unless it can be obtained, the Government may have to impose the code of practice, is now something that we need at least to consider. I do not necessarily say that I support the new clause of the hon. Member for Cardiff West, but I have considerable sympathy with it because we still have a long way to go to solve the problem, and at the moment progress is almost impossible to detect.
The second new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Cardiff West that I wanted to refer to, which I have even greater sympathy with, is new clause 30. My right hon. Friend the Minister is a champion of the creative industries because he knows, as I do, that our economy benefits enormously from the strength of the UK creative industries. Their success rests upon IP rights. They have to be confident that their investment, their creation and their skills will receive proper reward from consumers who pay for that content. It is not just the film, television and music industries and the sports companies; it is also our broadcasters, who are spending billions of pounds in some cases to acquire rights. They are entitled to expect that the people who access them do so legitimately and pay for that, and do not do so through illegal streams from offshore.
The latest development in the technology, which the hon. Gentleman rightly identified, is IPTV set-top boxes. These are being marketed in vast numbers. They arrive fully loaded with the codes and the access to go straight to the sites that are providing illegal content. An empty set-top box may not in itself be illegal but, clearly, when it is being marketed on the basis that it is all too simple to fill it with the apps and the codes that will access illegal sites, that is a problem that we need to address.
I give the Minister just one example that was quoted to me today. It is an advertisement for the Amazon “Black Friday” sale, so we are talking about no more than a couple of days ago. It read:
“Come with the newest KODI 16.1. Cut your monthly TV subscription and enjoy FREE Movies, shows and live entertainment from all over the world including sports. No restrictions! Forget the limitations and necessary payments by using Apple TV or ROKU! Android on your TV. Install your favorite apps from the Google Play Store.”
This is being marketed on Amazon and those boxes are being shipped in their millions from China in the main, but from elsewhere, too. They are clearly being used to make it easy for consumers to access content for free and illegally. That is doing real damage to our creative industries. The hon. Gentleman’s new clause is not perhaps the right way to proceed. I am sure that it is deficient and that the Government will find failings in it, but the problem it identifies is a real one, so I hope that the Government will look to see what additional measures we can take to ensure that our IP law remains up to date with the technological developments that are again threatening our creative industries.
Finally, I want to talk to new clause 31. When I had the privilege of chairing the Select Committee, we spent a lot of time discussing ticket touting, and at that stage we were unconvinced that it was right either to ban the secondary market, for which there is a legitimate role, or to impose a flat rate top-up limit as to how much extra could be charged on a ticket; those were two possible solutions advanced at that time. We felt to some extent that this was more an issue for the industry and the market to address, and indeed the industry has worked hard to introduce technological requirements designed to stop people selling on tickets.
However, I was interested to hear from the hon. Member for Cardiff West about my right hon. Friend the Minister’s Paul Simon experience. I have to say that I do not necessarily share his enthusiasm for Paul Simon, but when I sought to buy tickets for the V festival I was unable to get on the website for the first 10 minutes and then in the 12th minute was informed it was sold out, and in the 13th minute I discovered those same tickets on Seatwave for about four times their face value, so I have some sympathy.
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
My right hon. Friend mentioned earlier that there are possible industry-based solutions. I am reminded of the way the Government handled the 2012 Olympics, when it was not possible to get tickets without providing photo ID, and it was an end-user sale in the first place, which effectively meant the bots could not buy large numbers of tickets in the way he has just described for the V Festival, or indeed for a Paul Simon concert. Does he believe that the solution therefore lies with the sporting and entertainment industries, and that they could have done this several years ago, and it is peculiar that they have elected to come to this place asking for a legislation-based solution when there is a software answer out there right now?
Mr Whittingdale
I have a lot of sympathy with my hon. Friend on that. I was fortunate enough to attend one of the greatest concerts of all time—the Led Zeppelin reunion at the O2—where exactly that system was introduced. People had to produce the credit card used to purchase the ticket in order to get the ticket; they did not get the ticket until they arrived at the venue. There are ways around this problem, but that imposes quite a considerable additional burden on the ticket purchaser, either to supply a photograph or to take a credit card. Of course, it does not then assist when there is a legitimate reason why somebody might want to transfer their ticket to another person because for some reason they are not able to attend. We do not want to stop the secondary market working in a way that is wholly legitimate, which is the case in such circumstances.
Damian Collins
Does my right hon. Friend agree that since the Select Committee looked at this matter under his chairmanship one of the big changes is that it is less about the regulation of the secondary market than the fact that the technology has effectively destroyed the primary market, because most people have no chance of accessing the primary market to buy the tickets they want?
Mr Whittingdale
I agree, and that was my experience, and indeed my right hon. Friend the Minister’s, despite our different musical tastes, when we sought to purchase tickets. For that reason, I am interested in the suggestion in new clause 31 to target specifically the bot problem, or the electronic purchasing in a short period of almost the entire ticket allocation—hundreds of tickets in a matter of seconds bought up by these bots—which prevents ordinary fans from accessing the tickets. I cannot believe that that is what the promoters want, so looking specifically at this problem as the new clause does is an interesting approach, and certainly one worth exploring further.
Helen Goodman
I am pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale). I was a little unkind to him earlier this evening, so I would like to make amends by saying that he spoke a lot of good sense on illegal downloads.
I would like to speak to amendments 25 and 26. I am chair of the all-party group on the National Union of Journalists, and the arrangements for the payment of the secretariat appear under my name in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The NUJ was extremely helpful in drawing this problem to my attention and drafting the amendments.
Part 5 of the Bill appears to put freedom of expression and journalistic rights under serious threat by criminalising onward unauthorised disclosure of information. Specifically, clauses 49 and 50 completely fail to recognise the role of journalists in providing information that is in the public interest; I think that is the point the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) was trying to make.
Sir Peter Bottomley
I think that clause 32, which comes earlier, should be mentioned, too, and I hope the Government will respond on them all—not just the two amendments, but all the way through that part.
Helen Goodman
The hon. Gentleman is right.
Under the Bill, publications made in the media that are in the public interest are not on the list of exceptional circumstances in which information to combat fraud against the public sector and related personal information can be disclosed. For example, if a whistleblower were to leak the records of a private company to a journalist without authorisation and the journalist ran a story based on this, both parties could receive criminal sentences. This is particularly pertinent to clause 50, which states that a person who discloses personal information not in one of the stipulated excluded situations will be committing an offence.
This is quite technical and complex, so if the Minister cannot respond in this debate today, I would like him to write to me about the definition of the information covered and of the public sector here. Let me give an example to explain why. I was given information that Coutts—which is currently owned by the taxpayer; it is a subsidiarity of one of the banks we bought in 2008—was selling tax avoidance schemes in Switzerland. I spoke about that in the House, but if I had instead given the information to a journalist and it had been printed in a newspaper, it would appear that under these provisions the journalist or newspaper would be criminalised.
This cannot be the Government’s intention. I am sure the Government do not like leaks about Concentrix or about sustainability and transformation plans in the NHS, but I am equally sure the Government are not trying to clamp down on the effectiveness of the media in our country to such an extent that we cannot use these leaks about these sources.
Matt Hancock
I can confirm that it is neither the intent, nor our understanding of the Bill, to do those things, but it is our intent to protect personal information.
Helen Goodman
I am glad that is not the Minister’s intent—I did not think that it was—but the Media Lawyers Association highlighted in its written evidence that it thought there was a problem. So if the Minister wants to avoid his colleagues in another place having to have this debate again in two months’ time, perhaps he could write to me with a full explanation of what he thinks is going on, because I think that there might be a problem with the Bill in this respect.
Sir Peter Bottomley
In very simple terms, the question is: where is the public interest defence for a journalist?
Helen Goodman
The hon. Gentleman puts it very well.
I point out that we have the Official Secrets Act and the libel laws and lots of protections; we do not need any tighter legal criminalisation on the statute book.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. We have one hour and one minute left in this debate and many Members want to speak—and I suspect they will also wish to have answers from the Minister and would not like to truncate his contribution to the debate. I cannot impose a time limit; I can only ask for courtesy from one Member to another and short speeches. I am not suggesting speeches so far have been too long, but I ask Members to speak as quickly as they possibly can.
Damian Collins
I will try to adhere to your guidelines, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I would like to speak to new clause 31, but first I want to congratulate the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) on her campaigning over many years to deal with the abuses in the secondary ticketing market. I also want to congratulate my Select Committee colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams), who took up this issue strongly in the Bill Committee. In fact, the new clause that we are discussing tonight is exactly the same as the one he tabled for discussion in Committee. Such was the power of his argument that he persuaded the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) to pursue this matter on Report, and I am grateful to the shadow Minister for agreeing that the Select Committee could table this new clause for discussion on Report.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee for giving way. I just want to place on record the fact that I was pleased to be able to attend and witness his Select Committee hearing. It showed the House and its Select Committee work at their best. I witnessed some of the excellent questioning of representatives of the secondary market on the policing of their sites, and the hon. Gentleman did sterling work. I want to commend him for that, here on the Floor of the House.
Damian Collins
On behalf of the Select Committee, I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her words. I was certainly shocked by some of the things I heard in that Committee hearing.
John Penrose
I want to ask the Chair of the Select Committee whether, in among the penetrating questioning that we have heard about, anyone on the Select Committee asked the people they were interviewing why they were not installing any of the safeguards that are already available. They are already being successfully used in sporting and entertainment events. If those safeguards already exist, why should we be expected to introduce a red tape-heavy legislative solution to a problem that the industry could solve for itself? Indeed, it could have solved it several years ago had it cared to do so.
Damian Collins
Those issues were covered in the Select Committee hearing; they are there in the transcript for all to see. Some venues have introduced direct selling technology, and it can work. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon said, it would be unacceptable to many consumers if our blanket response to this crisis in the ticketing industry was to say to the industry, “Solve it yourself.” That would place large costs and burdens on the venues, and it would be particularly unfair on the smaller ones. This problem affects not only the blockbuster events at the O2 or the Royal Albert Hall but events at small venues all around the country. I even saw tickets for a comedy event next year at the Winter Gardens in Margate being sold at three or four times their face value on the secondary market. This is affecting all sorts of venues.
More seriously, however, it is not in the interests of some of the primary ticketing sites to report the problem, because they own the secondary sites that are making the massive profits. The profit growth in the secondary market stands at between 30% and 40% a year. It is true that at the moment more tickets are sold through the primary market—through companies such as Ticketmaster —but very large profits are being made in the secondary market.
John Penrose
I completely agree with my hon. Friend on the diagnosis of the problem. I think everyone here shares the sense of injustice and iniquity that he is describing. My concern, however, is that it is not just the punters who go to see these events who are being affected. The talent—the musicians, the actors and the sportsmen and women—are also losing out because they are getting less money from the initial ticket sale when the ticket is sold on at an inflated price. They and the punters could all win if more of that value could be captured for the talent and if the punters were able to pay less. Both sides therefore have a huge interest in cutting out the middle man, and I do not understand why they are not doing it.
Damian Collins
My hon. Friend is right to say that it is in the interests of many different stakeholders in the industry to do that, but at the moment it is not happening across the board. Some of the bigger artists and events have been able to introduce these measures, but it has been difficult to do it uniformly.
We must ask ourselves why the primary ticketing sites do not report the mass use of bots to the authorities. Why did they not report it as suspicious behaviour? It would be easy for them to do so. We heard in evidence to the Committee that it is so easy to do that the primary sites’ biggest customers often have favourable terms of trade. Their own secondary ticketing sites certainly have favourable terms of trade with people who are bulk selling vast numbers of tickets. It is easy to identify who they are, and it would be easy for a primary site to report them if it became suspicious because they were selling thousands of tickets only minutes after they had gone on sale on the primary ticketing site. If they are able to do that so quickly, they must be using bot technology to pervert the market. It does not get reported, however, and we must ask ourselves why that is. Is it because they are making too much money?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The hon. Gentleman mentions smaller venues, and I want to put on record something that happens in Northern Ireland. People often queue on phone lines or try to buy tickets online only to find that they have already all been sold. Does he agree that the industry needs to be regulated and that this is the place to do it? If it cannot regulate itself, let us do it here.
Damian Collins
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments; he is right.
We are proposing a way to control the bots. The Government are in discussions with the industry, and they might find a better solution to achieve the same end, but I certainly think it is incumbent on us in this place to try to find a solution, not only because this affects the ticketing market but because it rips off the consumer. What kind of people seek to make money selling tickets in this way? We asked that question in the Select Committee and we were told that criminal gangs—some linked to paramilitary organisations in Ireland—were making money as industrial touts selling tickets on the secondary market. It is important that we regulate this industry, not only to protect the consumer but to clamp down on some serious criminal elements who are seeking to make money through this technology. If we can stop that, we will be doing this country a service.
Calum Kerr
I shall try to be brief because I am aware that a number of Members want to speak. I commend the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) for his excellent run-through of some excellent ideas. If only the Government were more often in listening mode than in broadcast mode. I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Gentleman’s remarks about new clause 8. It was a political decision to introduce free television licences for the over-75s. We have an ageing population and a rising number of cases of loneliness among the elderly, and this is a welfare policy. Why would the Government outsource a welfare policy to an external body such as the BBC? Their answer was that the BBC wanted it as part of its financial settlement, but that does not make it right. The reality is that this is an abdication of responsibility and an outsourcing of bad news.
Kelvin Hopkins
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The BBC did not really want the responsibility. Did the BBC not just say that it did so because it wanted a good deal on the charter?
Calum Kerr
I wholeheartedly agree. I think people at the BBC were saying, “They’ve got us so worried about what the settlement could be. Let’s just accept the offer that’s on the table for heaven help us what might happen.” There is cross-party support for this new clause.
Calum Kerr
Six-party support; I thank the hon. Gentleman for his clarification. He is well deserving of his TV licence—when he gets old enough. I truly support new clause 8 and also back the other measures relating to the BBC in new clauses 17 and 18. If we believe in public service broadcasting, the way to protect it is to cherish it, to look after it and to ensure its listings appear as technology evolves, not to give it a huge liability and line it up for a potentially deeply unpopular future decision.
Turning to new clause 15, it was interesting to hear and largely concur with the comments of the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale). I support the idea of pushing for something further on search engines, but I am conscious that there is a dialogue between parties that both have a stake in something. It is interesting that the right hon. Gentleman is now coming around to the idea of some legislative intervention, but we look to the new Front-Bench team for answers to what that might be and when. What movement do they expect to see before they would legislate? The Minister touched on that in Committee, but what would be the trigger for intervention if the industry was not going far enough?
Digital ticketing has been well discussed already. If someone behaves illegally by going into a shop and buying all the produce and then selling it in a way that was not intended, the answer is not necessarily better security; the answer is making it illegal. I get the point of the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), but let us make it illegal and drive out this morally unacceptable behaviour. If I may paraphrase the US moral philosopher Eric Holler, as I did in Committee, every great idea begins as a movement, becomes a business and eventually degenerates into a racket. That is what we have here. Fan-to-fan ticket exchanges have led to rampant touting.
Finally, I commend the Labour Front-Bench team for their valiant efforts to rescue part 5 of the Bill through measures such as new clause 5. We had two days of evidence in Committee, during which witnesses were fairly damning of the approach being taken on data sharing or data access. As we have gone along, the Government have tried to give us a little more information and have applied sticking plasters here and there, but nothing has convinced me that they have learned from things such as the Concentrix episode. Somebody tried to buy bulk data and apply it to people receiving tax credits, leading to some of the most vulnerable in our society having their money stopped, being forced into debt or other far more severe consequences.
I remain unconvinced that the Government are heading in the right direction. There is an inherent paternalism. They say, “Don’t you worry. We’ll be fine. Trust us,” and give us a pat on the head, but when it comes to protecting people’s data we should be looking at the Estonian model, which puts the citizen at the centre. We should be open. I should be notified every time my data are shared if it is for my benefit. We should not hide that. Right from the start of the evidence-taking, people were saying that data-sharing is a good thing, but we must earn and retain public trust. I see little evidence that the Government understand that and are willing to do anything other than learn the hard way by making mistakes. I look forward with trepidation to the many debates in this place as various data breaches emerge. I urge the Government to consider removing this whole part of the Bill and to revisit it once they have actually done a proper job.
Matt Hancock
I rise to answer the points made so far, but I hope there will be time afterwards for others who still want to speak. We have had a broad debate on the amendments relating to copyright, broadcasting, ticketing, data and intellectual property, and I will speak as quickly as I can and take as many interventions as I can. There are a total of 36 proposed new clauses and amendments, and I propose to address each in turn in broadly the same order.
On copyright, new clause 15 proposes that the Government take a power to have a code of conduct on search engines to dictate how they should work to prevent copyright infringement. This new clause was also proposed in Committee, and I would like to update the House on the progress. Since then, the Intellectual Property Minister, Baroness Neville-Rolfe, has chaired a further round-table among search engine and creative industries representatives. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) said, that group is now making some progress towards agreeing an outline code of practice, but much more needs to be done. Following the round-table, a revised draft code will be prepared by the IPO for consideration by the group before its next meeting on 10 January. Our position on online platforms is that they must act responsibly and work with rights holders to help enforce IP rights. We are clear on the importance of getting things right and do not rule out legislation, but given the progress being made it is not necessarily the right time for legislative intervention.
We also discussed new clause 30 in Committee, where I set out the range of criminal provisions that apply to the sale and use of devices that infringe copyright. This matter relates to the IPTV devices that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon, the former Secretary of State, spoke about so powerfully. Following a number of investigations across the country, there are pending prosecutions relying on a number of offences. I am sympathetic to the intent behind the new clause, but it does not in and of itself offer any greater legislative protection to rights owners than the existing offences that target this type of behaviour. If the existing legal provisions are shown to be deficient when the pending prosecutions have concluded, we will bring forward proposals for legislation.
New clause 16 is another of the helpful proposals from the shadow Front-Bench team to deliver on a Conservative party manifesto commitment—this time on e-book lending. I am grateful for the degree of support that our manifesto has received from all parts of the House during the Bill’s passage.
Matt Hancock
Just you wait. We of course agree that authors should be recognised for e-lending by ensuring appropriate compensation for them in an enhanced public lending right. I need to correct an omission. I belatedly declare a potential interest which I should have mentioned in Committee—at least, I hope that I can declare an interest, as I have a book that is available for borrowing in this way, although I have no idea whether it has ever been borrowed. As I said in Committee, we have been carefully considering the options for delivering the manifesto commitment. We had to wait for the conclusion of a court case, which ended earlier this month, before setting out the proposals, but I can confirm today that we intend to legislate to extend the public lending right to include the remote lending of e-books. It is important that we get that right and ensure that any changes are compatible with the copyright directive. We will therefore bring forward legislation as soon as possible.
Turning to broadcasting and subtitling for video on demand, new clause 6 was also considered in Committee. As I said then, we are keen to address this shortcoming and want to ensure that the requirements that are placed on on-demand programme service providers are appropriate and proportionate. Since then, we have discussed how best to increase the use of subtitles in video on demand with charities, broadcasters, Ofcom and others and have worked further on the best way to address the concerns that the new clause intends to address. Through working collaboratively with all interested parties, I hope to reach a resolution in the other place that results in an increase in the provision of access services for video on-demand services.
Let me turn to new clause 8, on TV licence fee concessions, a subject we discussed at length in Committee. Government Members are clear that we support the free TV licence for the over-75s, we committed in our manifesto to keeping it and we are glad that it is protected as part of the BBC charter and licence fee settlement, which has been debated extensively in this House and is delivering on our manifesto commitment. The new clause attempts to unpick that settlement and, in so doing, undermine the stability of the BBC. This funding settlement, which the new clause would undermine, was described by the director general of the BBC as a “strong deal” for the BBC and one that “gives us financial stability”.
Kelvin Hopkins
I have already covered that point, but surely asking the other BBC licence fee payers, staff and programmers inside the BBC to pay for what is a welfare benefit is nonsense.
Matt Hancock
The point is that it is not a welfare benefit; it is about funding policy, and the BBC asked for this policy to be determined by the BBC. Indeed, the shadow Secretary of State said that
“the charter provides the BBC with the funding and security it needs”—[Official Report, 18 October 2016; Vol. 615, c. 699.]
As part of that “security it needs”, we kept, in this Parliament, the free TV licence. The BBC itself has asked for this and only this morning the BBC said that
“the overall funding settlement reached with the government provides the financial stability for a strong creative BBC. The BBC is concerned that”—
this amendment—
could reopen the whole deal and make the BBC worse off.”
So we have here an 11-year charter renewal, a strong and stable financial settlement praised by the Labour party and a clause that has been requested by the BBC, whereas the new clause could, in the BBC’s words, make the BBC worse off. Supporting new clause 8 would undermine the BBC and undermine its finances. This measure is expressly against the wishes of the BBC, and I urge anyone still considering supporting it to ask themselves how they will explain this attempt to undermine the BBC—Government Members will not do that.
New clause 17 deals with the issue of public sector broadcaster prominence, an important matter on which we consulted in the spring. In Committee, the point we reached was that a detailed, over-prescriptive regulation of the detail of the PSB prominence rules would be a mistake, and having not seen compelling evidence of harm to PSBs to date, we have decided not to extend the electronic programme guide—EPG—prominence regime for PSBs to on-demand. When PSBs make excellent content, audiences generally follow.
Finally on broadcasting, new clause 18, on listed events, was also discussed in Committee, and I have seen no evidence to change our view that the current listed events regime is not under threat—we will not let it be under threat. The range of our most loved and important sporting events will remain on free-to-air channels. Even if there were a problem, it would be undesirable to fix it in the way the new clause suggests, as it would lock in the incumbents’ positions, as the requirement to be watched by 90% of the population would narrow considerably the number of channels that could qualify. So I suggest that the problem does not arise; that were it to arise, we would legislate; and that if we were to legislate, this would not be the way we would do it.
In this Bill, we have shown that we are open to being persuaded by good argument, and we have tabled amendments 20, 21 and 22 to ensure that Ofcom is able effectively to enforce requests for information from third parties in relation to its new functions as regulator of the BBC. I hope that these provisions have broad support.
I now turn to the much discussed issue of ticketing. New clause 31 seeks to deal with bots that harvest tickets for resale in the secondary market. We have heard very powerful explanations of the scale of the problem and its breadth, and I can confirm that I had great difficulty in buying Paul Simon tickets. Initially, I failed to buy them despite having my finger hovering on my mouse the moment they went on sale, and so I had to buy them at a much greater price in the secondary market. They were worth every penny, but that in a way makes the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) makes: the gap exploited is between the level at which the artists wants to sell their tickets and the amount that they represent in true value to the customer. I was still happy to pay hundreds of pounds for my Paul Simon tickets, but the point is that they were meant to be on sale for £75 so that everybody could get them. I am persuaded by the arguments and we shall be holding a roundtables meeting on Wednesday to discuss the best way to tackle the problem.
The Government will give full consideration to what is said at these roundtables, in Parliament and in the Waterson report on the issue of ticketing bots and the harvesting market. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams), who has made a huge amount of the running on this issue. He has made the argument powerfully and, as has been said, the Olympics showed that this can be done.
John Penrose
I am not normally reassured by the advent of a roundtable, but I am enormously reassured in this case because the Minister is a very persuasive man and I am sure that he will have around that table representatives from the sportsmen’s agents groups, from Equity, the actors’ union, and from all sorts of UK music organisations and various others. I am talking about the people who represent the talent, who are currently being ripped off because they are getting only the face value when these things go on sale, when they are bought by the bots, and not the eventual secondary market value. They are the people with a huge interest in getting this done so that they get a larger proportion of the eventual value and customers are not getting ripped off, too.
Matt Hancock
Yes, we have representatives of all sides coming to the roundtable, including my hon. Friend the Member for Selby and Ainsty—I am not sure that that will reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare. Although we would not want to close down the secondary market for tickets altogether, clearly the automatic harvesting of tickets sold below market price—so that fans can afford them—for resale at a higher value is wrong. I want to build a bridge over troubled waters, listen to the points made at the round table and bring forward legislation in this Bill if this is found to be necessary.
On digital government, amendment 3 and new clause 19 concern data-sharing powers in education and health. They address the same issue from the opposite end, and it is a bit of a surprise to find that they have been submitted by the same people. Not only can people’s health and education data be incredibly powerful in improving lives, but they are very sensitive and need to be carefully handled. These two proposals from the Opposition represent amendments both to open up data sharing and to close it down. This is a slightly confused approach, but neither of the proposals is necessary, because the concerns expressed at the root of each are already addressed in the Bill. New clause 19 would open up more data sharing in education, and it is good to see this direction of travel supported by the Opposition Front-Bench team, because data sharing can improve people’s lives, for instance by making sure that we better identify eligibility for free school meals. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) has made this argument strongly. This is a laudable aim, but it is already provided for in the Department for Education’s electronic eligibility checking system. Indeed, the Bill sets out how aspects of data sharing can be expanded through secondary legislation in due course.
Frank Field
I am grateful to the Minister for his comments, but would he tell us what is in the Bill to make local authorities that seem to have no interest in sharing data obtain the numbers of children eligible for free school dinners, and thus increase the pupil premium to act in the interests of those children?
Matt Hancock
The proposals in the Bill are permissive, rather than requiring action. I would be concerned if we required the sharing of data, because of their sensitivity, especially when they are not anonymised, which they would not be if the aim was to find children who are eligible for free school meals. We want to make sure that the person receiving the data has the necessary assistance to handle them, and it is incredibly important that the law should make it clear that that data sharing is permitted, as that removes a reason not to share data.
Frank Field
May I ask the Minister to keep a close eye on this, because in Wirral the number of families who have the right to opt out could be counted on the fingers on one hand, so there is a willingness for data to be shared so that schools and children can benefit?
Matt Hancock
I am glad that there is a willingness for that data to be shared, because I share the right hon. Gentleman’s passion to improve the use of data to improve people’s lives in Wirral and elsewhere. Given that passion, I hope that the clarity that we will achieve, not least as a result of this debate, will ensure that the data are indeed shared.
Clarity is supported by the Data Protection Act 1998, because all the data shared under powers in the Bill will continue to be protected under the firm boundaries of that Act, which rightly enjoys a broad consensus of support. We are strengthening in the Bill the sanction on the purposeful reidentification of data to make that a criminal sanction. The hon. Member for Cardiff West expressed concerns about the details, but the protections are important and strike the right balance. New clause 19 seeks to strengthen data sharing, but amendment 3 seeks to weaken it and put barriers in place. The amendment is not needed, as health bodies in England are not within the scope of the public service delivery power. For the rest of the UK, health is devolved. The Labour Administration in Wales and the Scottish National party Government in Scotland have signalled that they will seek the consent of their legislatures on the grounds that the amendment is not in place. The Labour party in Wales and the SNP in Scotland support this sort of data sharing for the precise reasons set out by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead, so I hope to persuade hon. Members not to divide the House on these matters. They should be reassured that we value data sharing as well as its protection and safekeeping. I therefore urge Members on both sides of the House to resist the amendments.
New clause 5 would impose obligations on organisations to report data breaches, as has been said. That is covered in the general data protection regulation, which will come into force in May 2018, so it is not necessary to legislate here. New clause 11 deals with data-sharing registers. Part 5 includes a number of commitments to transparency and proportionality in the disclosure of information by public authorities. We are committed to the transparency of information shared under part 5, and I think that the new clause is aimed at testing that. However, there are a number of problems with it, not least the fact that setting the requirement in primary legislation reduces the flexibility to learn from and adapt to the consequences of publishing a register.
New clause 12 requires that the Government commission an independent review of the collection and use of data by Government and commercial organisations. The Royal Society and the British Academy are currently undertaking such a review to consider the ethical and legal frameworks that are needed in the UK as data technologies advance. I agree with the hon. Member for Cardiff West that it is important that we develop those ethical and legal frameworks to make sure that they are ahead of the use of data and data science, not behind, so that we can take the public with us. We will consider the findings of the review when it is published.
New clause 23 was tabled by Plaid Cymru. We are firmly committed to ensuring that the needs of Welsh language speakers are recognised and met. For example, gov.uk now publishes its frequently used web content in Welsh. The Government Digital Service has helped to produce exemplar Welsh language versions of new digital services such as the register to vote service. The GDS and the Wales Office have discussed with the Welsh language commissioner how they can help Departments meet their requirements under their Welsh language schemes. Dwyn cefnogwyr brwd o S4C—I support strongly the Welsh language is, I think, a rough translation.
Government amendments 4 to 19 apply the duty to review set out in clauses 45 to 53 of the fraud and debt chapters, which require the relevant Minister after three years to review the operation of the powers. The amendments are consistent with the devolution settlements and ensure that appropriate consent for any proposed changes is sought from the affected territories.
On the illicit online trade and internet sales of counterfeit electrical appliances, we take this very seriously. The Intellectual Property Office has recently published its IP enforcement strategy for the next four years, which I think takes into account the concerns raised.
Helen Goodman
Before the Minister sits down, will he commit to write to me about the amendments that I tabled?
Matt Hancock
Yes, of course. I will happily write to the hon. Lady about the detail of the concerns—I think they are unfounded, but we want to ensure that they are indeed unfounded—that journalists might be caught by increasing the criminal penalty for the intentional disclosure of information under the data-sharing powers, which are intended for the protection of data, especially in the bulk transfer of data around the system, rather than to militate against whistleblowing of the type that the hon. Lady described.
I appreciate the intention behind new clause 34, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman). Here and around the world, the media landscape is changing rapidly and the emergence of new digital platforms has impacted on a wide variety of sectors, including news. Ensuring that citizens have access to a full variety of news sources is essential, and it is vital that our media are vibrant and sustainable. There is a huge challenge in maintaining high-quality journalism when advertising revenues increasingly go to the platform, but the costs fall on the content provider or the newspaper. The Government are actively engaged in examining this, and I am meeting the News Media Association later this week to discuss this very issue.
Ofcom publishes an annual report on news consumption across the UK. It includes the sources and platforms used in news consumption and the role of intermediaries, such as Facebook and Google. Ofcom undertakes ad hoc reviews where appropriate and we will explore whether this is an area where such a review is needed. Although I acknowledge the importance of the issue, I urge my hon. Friend, who has a lot of experience in this area, to work with us under existing powers to seek a solution.
I ask that hon. Members do not press their amendments and new clauses to a Division, but support the Government amendments.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. We have 22 minutes left in this debate and 10 Members who wish to speak—that is two minutes each.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I want to address briefly the Minister’s comments on new clause 6. I welcomed his saying that he hoped progress would be made when the Bill proceeds to the House of Lords. Will he encourage his colleagues in the other place to take a positive and inclusive approach to ensuring accessibility of on-demand services? The new clause drafted by my hon. Friends suggests in subsection (4) a number of considerations which might be taken into account. I hope these will be interpreted in the most generous and ambitious way if they inform the Government’s thinking.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
Like my hon. Friend, I welcome the Minister’s commitment to return to the matter in the other place. Does she agree that it might be helpful if the Minister were willing to meet the all-party parliamentary group on deafness, which has made the subtitling campaign one of its top priorities for this year?
Kate Green
Indeed. My hon. Friend makes my second point. The Minister indicated that discussions had taken place with disability organisations. It is vital that the approach to developing on-demand accessible services is undertaken as a co-production, that disabled people and disability groups are right at the heart of the design of these services, and that the Government make progress on this matter.
Finally, I encourage the Minister and his colleagues to think big about whether this is an opportunity to take forward the use of British sign language in broadcast and online on-demand services. There is the opportunity to offer signed services on these channels too, and I hope the Minister might be willing to investigate how far that could be taken in this context.
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)
I would like to talk to new clause 31, which is incredibly important, and I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) for the incredible amount of work she has done on the issue. I would also like to thank the hon. Members for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) and for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) for allowing the Select Committee to table the new clause.
I would also like to thank the Minister, whose words a few moments ago—that the Government are prepared to take action to outlaw bots, if necessary following the meeting later this week—are incredibly encouraging. I shall be at that meeting, and I am grateful for the invitation—hopefully, I will be allowed my two penn’orth. It is incredibly important that we get all the players involved.
We have heard countless examples of where this racket is going on. In the music business, there is Iron Maiden, The 1975 and Black Sabbath. We have heard about Phil Collins and KT Tunstall. My own example—of trying to buy tickets for Green Day—even made it to Prime Minister’s questions. I am not sure whether the Prime Minister is a fan of Green Day, but I am sure that, if she did go to a concert, she would have the time of her life.
However, the problem also affects all sorts of other marketplaces, including the theatre. Today, my colleagues and I met Sonia Friedman, the producer of “Harry Potter and the Cursed Child”, who told me that 60,000 tickets were released last week, and thousands of those tickets ended up on the secondary market at hugely inflated prices because of bots. That is clearly unacceptable.
To conclude, I hope we can get somewhere following the meeting on Wednesday. We are also keen to see the Government’s response to the Waterson report, and I am sure that their response will follow that meeting. It was interesting to note that, at our Select Committee inquiry, Professor Waterson agreed that action to outlaw ticket bots could be a solution, which is very encouraging.
I thank the Minister and the Secretary of State for arranging the meeting. [Interruption.] It seems that I am being wound up, so hopefully everybody else will get a chance to chip in.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
I rise to speak on new clause 24, which stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends and other hon. Members.
The charity Electrical Safety First is calling on the Government to legally require online retailers to report to trading standards and/or the police people consistently selling fake electrical products. This is a growing problem, and it is estimated that 64% of fake electrical goods are now being sold online. Much of the current legislation around the sale of counterfeit goods is over 20 years old, and we need to be mindful of the fact that, in this digital age, parts of it simply may not be fit for purpose.
Sales of dodgy electrical goods are rising rather rapidly. Research found that around 2.5 million adults have purchased a counterfeit electrical product in the last 12 months—double the number who reported purchasing a fake in the previous year.
Not all counterfeit electricals may be substandard, but many carry a substantial risk. People may view these fakes as harmless—perhaps in the same way they might consider a counterfeit pair of sunglasses to be—but the fact is that they can prove deadly. These products have the potential to deliver a fatal electric shock.
As well as the safety implications, we need to be mindful of the revenue that sales of these goods generate, which is thought to be worth more than £1.3 billion per year in the UK. A large portion of this—an estimated £900 million—is thought to help to fund organised crime.
Many people who buy fake electrical goods do so without realising it. Unwittingly, they are placing their families, friends and neighbours at risk. Vendors often sell through reputable online marketplaces, so they enjoy an almost implied credibility, further giving customers confidence in their purchases.
I would like to finish by asking the Government to take those points into account so that we can begin addressing this problem and perhaps placing some of the responsibility on the websites that enable this black market trade.
Sir Peter Bottomley
I support the Minister’s response to new clause 6, which will be useful.
New clause 8 refers to clause 76 on page 76—one of the 18 times in the Bill where the clause number is the same as the page number. Perhaps that could be a Christmas quiz for the Clerks, if they are paying attention.
The point about this is that neither the BBC nor the Government consulted Back Benchers. It was Parliament that, in 2001, agreed the concession for the over-75s. The cost of £750 million can be compared with the cost of local radio at £115 million, Radio 4 at £90 million, BBC 4 at £49 million, and CBBC and CBeebies at £97 million—a total of about £340 million. We could double that and still not have got to the cost of this so-called concession.
Matt Hancock
I can confirm that any public prosecution has to be in the public interest. The public interest is not covered in this Bill, but that is because the nature of a public prosecution is that it has to be in the public interest. I hope that deals with my hon. Friend’s concern.
Sir Peter Bottomley
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. That may be the test of whether the prosecution is brought, but if it is brought because the prosecution is thought to be in the public interest, and the journalists want to say that the public interest defence is why it has been done, then the Government ought to think again. If I may, I ask them to do so.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I rise to speak to new clause 23, which would ensure that all services provided by the UK Government respect the right of the UK’s 700,000 Welsh speakers to receive those services in our language. “Digital by default” must translate as “‘digidol yn ddiofyn”—not something to request but something that is clearly available and welcoming to use. Digital language use increasingly touches every area of communications, from social media to digital government. If a language is not on the web, it can be said, in a sense, no longer to exist for 21st-century communications. The Welsh Language Commissioner has voiced criticism of the UK Government for weakening the Welsh language services on their gov.uk website since its 2012 launch, saying:
“Over the past year I have seen agencies of the Westminster government approaching us complaining about the Cabinet Office and gov.uk and saying that it is now hampering their work and they are concerned that the strong bilingual services that they have put in place have been hampered by gov.uk.”
Given the issues arising from legacy IT systems and designing bilingual platforms, I urge the Minister to consider our new clause and commit to ensuring interactive and user-friendly Government digital services for Welsh speakers on the same basis as that for English speakers.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
I rise to speak to new clause 34. I should start by saying that it is not an attack on Facebook or Google, but it does ask Ofcom to examine whether the digital advertising world has made our media impossible to sustain. By that, I mean, “Today our local papers, tomorrow our national papers, and perhaps in due course our TV networks.” I do not ask for a review because I think there is a single answer, or even because I necessarily think that this is simply a moment in history where our media must reinvent itself for a new age that may yet be brighter than the last. The fact remains, though, that local papers and even national papers are closing, and it cannot be right for the Government to stand idly by in the knowledge that these undesirable events are happening.
Via this new clause, I seek to plant in the vast expanse of the Minister’s mind the idea that the Government should seek to reassure themselves and our constituents that if our media falls into a state of disrepair, we will have explored every possible option—whether considering copyright laws, or looking at who owns the lucrative conversation around a story to ensure that a publisher and a platform benefit equally—to find the media a role. I hope that we will ensure that we do not lose the press that have kept us all on our toes for many years, simply for want of looking for a solution.
Mrs Hodgson
I want to speak for my two or three minutes in support of new clause 19 and new clause 31. I welcome these two new clauses after my many years of campaigning to put fans first and to improve access to free school meals.
Hungry children struggle to learn in school, and they fall behind their peers. That is why it is important that we improve the provision that is on offer and the access to it, and new clause 19 will do just that. This policy proposal was first introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) as a ten-minute rule Bill earlier this year. I have fully supported this policy change, and I congratulate my hon. Friends on the Front Bench on bringing it forward. It is estimated that having a child on free school meals can save a family up to £400 a year. A school will net £1,320 a year for each child who is currently on free school meals or who has been in receipt of free school meals in the previous five years. The proposed changes are simple and have been tried and tested by Calderdale Council and Greenwich Council, which have both used data sharing to improve the take-up of free school meals and, in turn, pupil premium in their boroughs.
I want to speak briefly to new clause 31. I thoroughly welcome this new clause, which has been introduced by the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) on behalf of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee after its excellent short inquiry into bots and ticket touting a few weeks ago—I had the pleasure, as I said earlier, of witnessing it at first hand—following the amendment originally tabled by the hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams) and supported by the Labour Front-Bench team and me. The new clause would take us one step closer to sorting the market out, but it is not a silver bullet; far from it. Alongside the new clause, we need the enforcement of existing legislation, such as the Consumer Rights Act 2015, and the implementation of the Waterson review recommendations on the secondary ticketing market.
Over the years, like the Minister and the hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty, I have heard about examples—I have experienced it myself—of people trying to buy tickets but finding that they were already sold out, and within minutes finding those tickets up on the secondary market. I never relented; I refused to buy any tickets from touts, but one can only deduce that there is a serious issue about how the tickets get on to the secondary market so quickly. One way in which they do so is definitely through the use of bots. Fans are not getting a fair crack at getting tickets, just as the Minister and other Members have not had a fair crack at getting them.
In the past 18 months, there has been a massive escalation in the number of tickets harvested by the aggressive software used by touts, with these attacks becoming more and more sophisticated. Attacks appear to emanate from all over the world, but the majority of attacks on ticketing systems are orchestrated by UK-based and UK-resident touts. Some 30% to 50% of tickets for high-demand events are harvested by aggressive software and immediately placed for resale on viagogo, GetMeIn!, StubHub and Seatwave, despite the best efforts of the industry, which has tried to police itself and to bring in technical solutions. The industry has tried to sell tickets through fan clubs, but even those are attacked. Where tickets are sold by ballot, there are ballot bots. Where fan club registration is required, there are email-generating bots that flood systems with thousands of false identities. There is not one single way to offer tickets for sale to the public for which there is not already a bot out there that will attack the system.
The situation is deteriorating. Primary ticket sites have to detect an attack, examine the data, identify the software used, reverse engineer it and develop measures to prevent a further attack. That process can take months. In the meantime, a tout can simply pay a coder overseas a few hundred pounds to develop a new bot to circumvent the new security features. Bots can be coded to attack a specific ticketing system in as little as a day.
Although legislation is in place in the form of the Computer Misuse Act 1990, which has broad applications that could be used to address bots, it is 25 years old and it is yet to be tested in this regard. This is an arms race that the primary ticket sellers simply cannot win. The secondary market has already shown its blatant disregard of civil remedy legislation, such as the amendment to the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which is flouted daily. The only effective deterrent is a very clear criminal offence, with appropriate punishment on conviction, and that would be provided by new clause 31.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
I thank the hon. Members who spoke for only two minutes. Their courtesy has been noticed and they will get brownie points. There is now plenty of time left for Mr Pete Wishart.
Pete Wishart
Thank you ever so much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in relation to my recorded work.
I would say that this has been a good evening. The concessions we have heard from the Minister are most definitely to be welcomed. I am a veteran of the former Digital Economy Bill. Looking around the Chamber, I can see a few people who still bear the scars of that experience. I must say—this is my first contribution on this Digital Economy Bill—that this one seems to be being given a much more convivial and consensual outing. I am looking at the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), and I just hope we do not get a version of “Smoke on the Water” from the right hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), as we did when we went out to celebrate the passage of the Digital Economy Bill last time. The hon. Gentleman does a fantastic impersonation of the right hon. Gentleman singing that, which I hope we will never hear in this House.
We have made real and substantial progress, and I welcome the Minister’s words on new clause 15. That was the provision I wanted to address most firmly. When we consider search engines, we must remember that these are the pipes or the infrastructure, and they create no content of their own. Our creative industries are very important to this country. They are driving the economy now—they are growing at a faster rate than the rest of the economy—and we are firing economic growth on the imagination of the people of this country. What a way to grow our economy. It is therefore absolutely right that we should make substantial progress on this, and the Minister’s words are welcome.
I would only say to the Minister that we are listening very carefully, and if the companies do not come up with the voluntary code, we will need him to act. We need him to ensure that our artists, creators and inventors —those who produce in this country the wonderful content that is known right around the world—are properly rewarded for their works. We are all looking forward to seeing what plans will be introduced.
On new clause 16, I have the pleasure and privilege of chairing the all-party writers group, and we welcome the Government’s clear commitment to deal with the very real measures on e-learning. All writers and authors, all those involved in publishing and all those across the country who support literature and books have been asking for this for a long time. Again, we welcome the solid progress that will be made.
Lastly, we welcome the progress that the Government have committed to make on ticket touts and the whole issue of bots. I have been in the House for 15 years, and one of the first debates I was involved in in the House was about ticket touting. Many Members have stood up in the House and demanded solid action from Governments when it comes to this really pernicious industry, which corrodes our live music scene. Live music is one of the major features and one of the growing parts of music across this country. Artists continually go on about this issue, and, at last, it looks as though it will be addressed. I pay tribute, obviously, to the hon. Members for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams) and for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), but also to people such as John Robertson, the chair the all-party group on music before the hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty, who stood up in the House to try to get something done about ticket touts. Again, we have made solid progress.
As we wind up these proceedings on the Bill, we have heard the Minister make these commitments—he has said that he is prepared to make progress—and it is now incumbent on us all to ensure that these commitments are brought into legislation. We have made very good progress on the Bill this evening. We have a range of provisions that mean my hon. Friends and I will be able to support the Bill. We look forward to the Government honouring their commitments, and we look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on Third Reading.
Matt Hancock
Since the Secretary of State will open the Third Reading debate, may I take this opportunity to thank the House for all the comments we have heard, especially those from Opposition Front Benchers? It has been a very collaborative effort, especially on this group of provisions, but also more broadly. I hope that the Bill leaves the House in better shape than it entered it, as it goes off to be considered in the other place. I thank everybody involved, from the officials in the Box to all the stakeholders more broadly. I ask the House to support the Government’s proposals.
Question put and negatived.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I will now suspend the House for no more than five minutes to make a decision about certification. The Division bells will be rung two minutes before the House resumes following certification. The Government will table the appropriate consent motion, copies of which will be available shortly in the Vote Office and will be distributed by the Doorkeepers.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I can now inform the House of my decision about certification. For the purposes of Standing Order No. 83L(2) and on behalf of Mr Speaker, I have certified clause 85 of the Digital Economy Bill as relating exclusively to England and within devolved legislative competence. Copies of the certificate are available in the Vote Office. Under Standing Order No. 83M, a consent motion is therefore required for the Bill to proceed. Does the Minister intend to move the consent motion?
Matt Hancock
indicated assent.
The House forthwith resolved itself into the Legislative Grand Committee (England) (Standing Order No. 83M).
[Mr Lindsay Hoyle in the Chair]
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Committee consents to the following certified clause of the Digital Economy Bill:
Clauses and schedules certified under Standing Order No. 83L(2) as relating exclusively to England and being within devolved legislative competence
Clause 85 of the Bill (Bill 87).—(Matt Hancock.)
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
The debate will take place now. Come on in, Mr Wishart.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I am very grateful to you, Mr Hoyle, and I promise to be brief when it comes to this substantial and significant—[Interruption.]
Pete Wishart
We are discussing substantial and significant clauses that relate exclusively to England. We are here, in what is the de facto English Parliament, to debate important measures. The relationship between tuition fees and qualifications is very important to England, and I am surprised that we are not hearing more contributions from English Members. They have a fantastic opportunity to speak at length about England-only clauses, an opportunity that was demanded at the time of the last general election. So many Members, particularly Conservative Members, said then that the system was required, but none of them is here to participate in tonight’s debate.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
The former Prime Minister, David Cameron, stood on the steps of No. 10 Downing Street on 19 September 2014 and said that millions of English voices must be heard. This is the procedure that was to allow those millions of English voices to be heard. However, the Constitution Unit produced a report just this afternoon which showed that there had been a maximum of about 40 minutes of debate in all the Legislative Grand Committee procedures. Does that not show that “English votes for English laws” is not meeting the purpose for which it was set up?
Pete Wishart
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. I have a copy of the report produced by the Constitution Unit, which goes into great detail and depth about the functioning of EVEL.
Clause 85 is critically important to the Bill. It concerns the payment of tuition fees for qualifications in England. It is important that it be debated fully, and it is important for English Members to have their say. That is what “English votes for English laws” is all about. English Members have an opportunity to express their concern about parts of Bills that relate exclusively to England, and we now invite them to contribute to the debate.
According to the Constitution Unit, a maximum of two minutes has been taken every time the House has resolved itself into an English Legislative Grand Committee. We must ensure that we use this time properly and appropriately, because clause 85 is an important measure. It is the only part of the Bill that relates exclusively to England, and I think it deserves all the debate that can possibly be mustered. I am very surprised that not even the Minister is using his opportunity.
We cannot say that this is a waste of the House’s time, because it obviously is not. It is important that the House breaks up its usual routine examination of legislation and forms a English Legislative Grand Committee to consider significant measures such as clause 85. It is important that the bell rings and the House is suspended for two minutes before the certification can take place, and that Members have an opportunity to examine such measures in detail. I hope that I shall not be the only Member to contribute, given that this was considered to be so important that the Standing Orders had to be changed.
I know that other Members wish to speak—[Laughter.] Perhaps they do not, but they have an opportunity to debate this important clause, and I am very surprised that there are to be no more contributions tonight. That demonstrates the absolute and utter absurdity of the EVEL proposals and the Standing Order changes. We are sitting here, and not one Member representing an English constituency is prepared to—
The Chairman
Order. I may be able to help. I think that there will be a speech to follow that of the hon. Gentleman, so he should not worry. Has he finished his speech?
Matt Hancock
I shall not detain the House for long. All I can say is that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) had an opportunity to talk about clause 85 on Second Reading. Did he do so? No, he did not. There was spare time during the Committee stage. The hon. Gentleman could have joined the Committee, enjoyed our company, and talked about clause 85. Did he do so? No, he did not. On Report, he could have tabled any sort of amendment to clause 85, or, indeed, tried to vote against it, but he chose not to. I think we can see through all his bluster.
Question put and agreed to.
The occupant of the Chair left the Chair to report the decision of the Committee (Standing Order No. 83M(6)).
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair; decision reported.
Third Reading
Queen’s and Prince of Wales’s consent signified.
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Karen Bradley)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill will cement the UK’s status as a world-leading digital economy. It will help people to connect to high-speed broadband, expanding their personal opportunities and stimulating economic activity. It will improve public services, thanks to better information management, and it will protect the vulnerable from some of the hazards of the digital world. It is an important measure in building a country that works for everyone.
I am very grateful to the House for the way it has engaged with the Bill. I put on record my thanks to the Minister for Digital and Culture; the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the Minister with responsibility for the constitution; the Culture, Media and Sport Committee; the Public Bill Committee; the Whips; and the Clerks, who have all been particularly helpful. I also want to thank the Front-Bench teams of the Opposition and the SNP for their constructive approach.
We are increasing connectivity by moving forward with a new broadband universal service obligation. There are reforms to the electronic communications code and we have greater protections for intellectual property and consumers. We have strengthened protections for children too, and I extend special thanks to my hon. Friends the Members for Devizes (Claire Perry) and for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse).
As well as helping to bring the country online, the Bill enables Government to share information between public bodies, where there is a public benefit. That will help an additional 700,000 fuel-poor households. It means that the public sector will be more considerate when pursuing debts from the vulnerable. There will be fewer burdensome surveys for businesses to complete. No more unwarranted post will be sent to the families of the deceased. We have ensured the provision of both transparency and robust safeguards. Those measures will benefit the whole country.
The Government added a number of important new measures in Committee. There is now further support for the financial technology sector, enabling payment firms that are not banks to access payment systems currently accessible only to banks. That will improve competition in financial services and benefit consumers. We are offering free digital skills training for adults in England who lack relevant qualifications, and the Bill gives Ofcom more power to keep harmful content from being broadcast both on radio and on television. I hope that the successful way that the Bill has been discussed and improved as it passes through this House will reassure and encourage those in the other place as they consider the Bill.
Digital technology offers tremendous opportunities. Many of them are currently hard to predict and some are unfathomable, yet we know that we must be ready now if we are to enjoy innovations in future. I want the UK to be in a position to lead the world in the development of digital technology. I want us to lead the world in digital connectivity and skills for everyone, not just the professionals and not just a privileged few.
The Bill will make our country wealthier, more efficient, more skilful, more connected and safer. I commend it to the House.
Kevin Brennan
I thank my hon. Friends who served on the Public Bill Committee and the many individuals and organisations who submitted evidence to aid the scrutiny of the Bill, as well as the Clerks for their patience and advice. I also thank the Secretary of State and the Ministers for their hard work.
The Minister for Digital and Culture has been most assiduous, as we in the Opposition have tried to be also. On Report earlier, he even tried to speak some Welsh. It reminded me a little bit—as he often does—of Winston Churchill, who when he attempted to speak French said as a warning, “Prenez garde, je vais parler français”, or “Take guard, I am going to speak French.” The Minister did not quite give us that warning when he spoke Welsh. He did say he thought what he said meant that he backed the Welsh language; in fact he said that he backed Channel 4 Wales. I think that is what he said, anyway, in Welsh. I congratulate him on his commendable effort in speaking the language of heaven.
The Opposition will not be opposing this Bill on Third Reading as it contains a number of uncontroversial measures which we welcome and support and have no wish to block. However, that is not the same as saying that we think it is a good Bill. Its weaknesses lie as much in what it omits as what it contains. President Lyndon Johnson once said of a Bill that it was like grandma’s nightshirt; it covers everything. This Bill attempts to cover everything, but I am afraid there are quite a few holes in it, because a digital economy Bill would look much better if it properly recognised the importance of the digital economy to the whole country, if it took account of the pace of change in the development and use of new technology, and if it saw its central role in the way that work itself is changing for millions of people in the UK.
Let us imagine what the Bill would be like if it was much more ambitious about delivering ultrafast fibre broadband and mobile network coverage to everyone who needs it. Imagine a digital economy Bill that recognised the need to provide people with digital skills so that they can benefit from new technologies and the jobs of the future, or paid attention to the need for digital resilience and saw fit to mention cyber-security and preventing online abuse. A digital economy Bill that did any of those things would look very different from the Bill before us.
I want to focus on the areas where there is some agreement. On connectivity, we of course support the universal service obligation, but it is too tiny and too slow a step in the right direction. Labour called for this to be introduced back in 2010, and left fully costed plans for it to be achieved by 2012. The 10 megabits that will be guaranteed to households is less than half of what is needed to achieve superfast broadband. If anyone is wondering whether 10 megabits really is inadequate, they should not just take my word for it: the Minister for Digital and Culture said in a speech to the Broadband World Forum just last month that
“while 10 megabits may be enough for today’s needs, it won’t be enough for tomorrow’s.”
Even the Minister admits that his own legislation will be out of date by the time it is implemented.
On age verification, we all share the objective of protecting children from online pornography, and we support the provisions in the Bill that aim to do that, but we remain unclear about how they will work in practice and we hope that more details emerge as the Bill continues its scrutiny in the other place. There are legitimate concerns about privacy and the security of individuals’ personal data, which the Government must do much more to answer. The Bill still lacks any mention of the need for online sex and relationships education for young people, which is at least as important as age verification in protecting children from the risks of early exposure to inappropriate material.
There are some measures related to public service broadcasting which we support and which will help to give greater stability and certainty to the sector, but one way in which the Government could clear up an element of great uncertainty that hangs over our public service broadcasting system is by clarifying their thinking about the future of Channel 4. It is now 14 months since it became known that the Government were considering options including privatisation of Channel 4, and we are still none the wiser as to their thinking. Bringing this matter to a speedy conclusion—I hope by announcing their continued support for Channel 4’s current remit and model—would help to bring stability and certainty not just to that important public service institution, but to the wider creative industries with which its work is intimately bound up.
As this Bill moves to the other place, I hope that the Government will be able to provide reassurance on many of the concerns that have been raised by our colleagues in this House, and to think harder about more of the questions which have so far gone unanswered. It is not too late for the Bill to address questions around people’s rights over their own personal data, on which it is currently silent. It is not too late for the Government to come forward with measures to secure the rights of more than 1 million workers in the digital economy, many of whom are in precarious roles with uncertain rights, hours, contracts and even legal status. It is not too late for the Bill to recognise the needs of the 12 million people in the UK who do not have basic digital skills, which are increasingly necessary to navigate public services, to do business and to get jobs.
If the additional scrutiny to be provided in the other place can do these things and more, then when the Bill comes back to this House it will enjoy more wholehearted support from the Labour Benches than it has so far.
Mrs Miller
We are seeing the internet come of age through this Bill. I very much welcome the change in the tone of Members on both Front Benches. The digital economy in this country is hugely important, but we need rules in this area just as we need them in other aspects of our lives. The acknowledgement that we need clear rules on content is welcomed across the board. I congratulate Ministers on the amendments that have been made to strengthen enforcement, particularly around harmful content, and I hope that when the other place considers the Bill, it will be able to look at some of the other points that right hon. and hon. Members have raised today. I wish the Bill well.
Calum Kerr
I should like to add to the positive vibes coming from both Front Benchers and join them in thanking the Clerks. I particularly want to thank those in the Public Bill Office, who have been fantastic in dealing with someone who is still relatively new to all this and sometimes does not get things right first time. Officials in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and in Ofcom have also been particularly constructive and helpful to us as we have found our way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) and I entered the Bill Committee with all the optimism of newbies, thinking, “We have such massive logic behind our case that the Government’s going to bite our hands off to get at our new clauses and amendments.” Of course, we learned the hard way that that never happens. Even when they completely agreed with us, there was always a wee excuse for why they had to do things in their own way. I remember that the Minister even spoke to my new clause. The Chair had called him to speak before me, and I sat there thinking, “Oh, this could be one of ours. I fundamentally agree with him.” Then I realised, and thought, “Oh, perhaps we’ll need a consultation on this.”
On Second Reading the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), compared the Bill to a Christmas tree. That was quite an interesting analogy, considering where we have ended up. I said at that time that the Digital Economy Bill’s title was something of a misnomer, in that it lacked any strategy, ambition or drive to take advantage of digital opportunities. There was certainly no guiding light or star on the top of this tree. It is also fair to say that some of the things that have been hung on it leave a little to be desired. However, we should acknowledge that many of its elements are very welcome, as my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) did in his own inimitable style. He has probably now set a precedent by speaking in an EVEL debate, which he will rejoice in.
Some of those welcome elements did not get touched on today. I think we all agree that the reform of the electronic communication code is overdue, for example, and the measures on customer compensation and switching are very welcome, as are some of the powers for Ofcom and the review of spectrum. However, other parts of the Bill leave something to be desired, as I have said. They feel more tokenistic than meaningful. I am referring in particular to the universal service obligation.
Philip Boswell (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Does my hon. Friend agree that constituents in all parts of this country want a fibre future and access to ultrafast, not just fast and superfast, broadband?
Calum Kerr
I totally agree. The Government have missed an opportunity and I am disappointed that they did not accept my new clause 27, although it might be the foundation for the sudden emergence of a strategy on vouchers. Government Members will have to explain to their constituents why 10 megabits per second is okay for rural areas while urban areas aim for a gigabit connection—100 times faster.
The Bill has good intentions in some areas but, as I articulated earlier, its execution will be flawed. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) talked about faulty goods, and I guess these bits are a bit like the parcel under the Christmas tree that looks quite nice, but is deeply flawed when it is opened and will be returned to sender. I would have liked part 5 of the Bill to be returned to sender, but I welcome the Minister’s commitment to continue to iterate and evolve the measures—I thought the amendment paper was going to get bigger than the Bill at one point such was the desire to amend it. I read a tweet from Big Brother Watch that said:
“Good to hear support for GDPR from the minister… can govt now write part 5 so it clearly adheres to it”.
I look forward to continual efforts to ensure that that happens.
In conclusion, among all the sparring and comments—they were light-hearted at times and serious at others—there has been genuine movement on this Bill. We have tried to be constructive in discussions and by setting forward our ideas, and I look forward to continuing in that vein.
Nigel Adams
I shall speak only briefly on Third Reading. I enjoyed being a member of the Public Bill Committee, which was only the second such Committee that I have served on—[Interruption.] I notice the Whips looking at me, but this is by no means an application to be involved in more any time soon.
The team in the Bill Committee was very constructive, and we have just had an encouraging debate on Report, but I want to touch on one issue that is worth pressing home: ticketing, bots and touts. People have said to me that this is free-market issue—rightly so—but a principle of any truly free market is that there is a willing buyer and a willing seller. We cannot forget the second part of that equation. While some fans might be willing to spend, perhaps through gritted teeth, many thousands of pounds on tickets—dozens of times over the face value—to see a favourite artist, not many artists are willing to sell their tickets to parasitical touts. Touts rob artists of their right to set prices that might be more accessible to their fans. If Adele, for example, wanted to charge £10,000 or £20,000 for a ticket to one of her shows, she would, but she does not. As a seller, that is absolutely her right. We should support a free market in which a seller’s right to make such choices to develop their fan bases is respected.
I was pleased that the Minister committed on Report to act against bots if necessary, following his meeting with the Secretary of State and the industry. I have no doubt that all involved would like to work together as the Bill progresses, and I stand ready to play a small part if possible. The fundamental point is that we have now achieved broad cross-party consensus. Other countries have brought in similar laws to outlaw bots, and now is the time for this House to take action. This is a technical area that is not simple to resolve. While this is not the only measure that will tackle ticketing problems, it has cross-party support, as well as support outside the House, including from ticketing companies, which want action and bots to be outlawed. I look forward to the Minister’s response to the Waterson report and hope that any action that the Government take in the other place will give consumers the confidence that this Government are on everyone’s side, not just the side of a privileged few.
Drew Hendry
I will be brief. Overall, the work of the Bill Committee was positive, and there were several things that we can take forward and look to see the benefits of in the future. I would add that in the future there needs to be much more of a focus on the consumer, and the rights of the consumer and of the end user. There will be further opportunities to make sure that the right solutions are delivered in the right places, particularly for rural areas. When we consider speeds, we should think about going “outside in” and think of those people who normally get the technology latest having the opportunity to get it first. Consumers should also be protected when they buy things—if they make a contract, that contract should protect them as much as it does the company, so there is a balance to be achieved. I welcome a lot of the measures in the Bill and I look forward to seeing progress in the future.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
SPEAKER'S COMMITTEE FOR THE INDEPENDENT PARLIAMENTARY STANDARDS AUTHORITY
Ordered,
That the Motion in the name of Mr David Lidington relating to the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority shall be treated as if it related to an instrument subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118 (Delegated Legislation Committees) in respect of which notice has been given that the instrument be approved.—(Michael Ellis.)
Business of the House (29 November)
(7 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
We rarely have the opportunity to debate this particular type of motion whereby we are changing the position under Standing Orders, which are here to protect Parliament from the Executive. The Standing Orders clearly say that opposed private business on a Tuesday should start at 4 o’clock and, in effect, run for three hours. The reason is so that the promotors of the Bill, and the people who support it and are interested in it, can know when they should be here. As MPs, we are here all the time. We should not inconvenience the promoters of private Bills, but that is routinely done. Standing Order No. 20 is not being suspended because there is a particular worry about what is going to happen tomorrow; that is happening because the Government routinely do it. If we get into a habit of letting the Government routinely suspend Standing Orders, which are here to protect Parliament, it is a dangerous course to tread.
Will the Deputy Leader of the House tell us why the motion is needed in this case? I have looked at tomorrow’s business, so I know that we could quite happily start with Government business. When we reach 4 o’clock, we could do the opposed private business, after which we could then return to the Government business. What happened time and again under previous Governments was that opposed private business was taken very late at night, which was not fair on the promoters of the Bills in question and was absolutely not the way to proceed. We should not be promoting Government business over the right of Parliament, so I would like the Deputy Leader of the House to tell us why we specifically need to do this in this case.
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Michael Ellis)
My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) has, not for the first time, made an interesting point. It is not the case that this is a routine matter, and I take on board what he has said. I undertake to review the situation, and we will write to him with a full and detailed explanation of the matter.
Question put and agreed to.
Committees
(7 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With the leave of the House, we will take motions 5 to 12 together.
Ordered,
Administration
That Mr Robin Walker be discharged from the Administration Committee and Mr Robert Syms be added.
Environmental Audit
That Dr Alan Whitehead be discharged from the Environmental Audit Committee and Mr Gavin Shuker be added.
European Scrutiny
That Peter Grant and Calum Kerr be discharged from the European Scrutiny Committee and Alan Brown and Dr Paul Monaghan be added.
Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy
That Damian Green and Keith Vaz be discharged from the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy and Yvette Cooper and Mrs Theresa Villiers be added.
Northern Ireland Affairs
That Mr Nigel Evans be discharged from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and Mark Pritchard be added.
Petitions
That Mr Nick Hurd be discharged from the Petitions Committee and Luke Hall be added.
Public Accounts
That Anne Marie Morris be a member of the Committee of Public Accounts.
Scottish Affairs
That Maggie Throup be discharged from the Scottish Affairs Committee and Anna Soubry be added.—(Bill Wiggin, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
The boundaries of the Wellingborough Parliamentary Constituency
(7 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Finedon. I attended a public meeting about the boundary proposals for Wellingborough. Unbelievably, the borough of Wellingborough will be represented by four MPs if the boundary proposals go through. I went to a public meeting in Finedon, attended by hundreds of people on a horrible night in November. They were very animated about the issue. The three lead signatories are Ray Ogle, Councillor Malcolm Ward and Councillor Barbara Bailey. The petition is addressed to the honourable Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
The petition states:
The Humble Petition of residents of Finedon, Northamptonshire and the surrounding areas,
Sheweth,
That the Petitioners believe that the boundaries of the Wellingborough Parliamentary Constituency should continue to include the village of Finedon due to the geographical, local government and historical ties that exist in the area.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House urges the Cabinet Office to encourage the Boundary Commission for England to retain Finedon as part of the Wellingborough Constituency in its upcoming review.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.
[P001983]
Children’s Funeral Costs
(7 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
On 5 June 1989, my little world blacked over and nothing was to be the same again. My eight-year-old son, Martin—a bright, beautiful and wonderful little boy—stepped out onto the road and was tragically knocked down. Much of what happened over the following weeks was and still is a blur.
The pain is so acute and the sensation incomprehensible. The tragedy seems almost surreal. At times I felt I was floating above the room where all this grief was dwelling and that I was not really a part of what was going on. It was a dream—I wished.
Mostly, I felt my life was a bank holiday when shops shut and mail was not delivered and the milkman did not come, so seeing people outside my little world going about their normal everyday business just did not seem right. I asked myself, did they not know that the world had come to an end? I always felt that my brain and my senses were full of cotton wool or clouds and nothing I saw, or I sensed, or I heard or I experienced resonated. It did not hit a hard surface—nothing registered; it just floated around in my head.
I have a vague recollection of chatting with my vicar and the undertaker about the kind of service I wanted. I may well have been given prices at that time, but considering I needed to be told to wash and eat and sleep, it certainly did not register in my brain. I understand retrospectively that a cremation would have been cheaper than a burial, but I had to bury my son.
At the time I was making a decision on the funeral, I was actually deciding whether to join my son on the other side or not; or to stay for Stuart, my then three-year-old who really needed his mam. I calculated—and I use that word deliberately—as I actually sat in the bath and assessed which of my two children needed me the most. I eventually reasoned that Stuart, who was only three, could not lose his mam and brother all in one go. My much loved grandparents were buried together in Morriston cemetery, now in my constituency, and I felt that putting Martin in the grave with them meant that my nana, who loved him dearly, was there to look after him until I could be with him again.
I had to bury my little boy. At least that gave me some peace of mind. Later in life I went on to have another child, Tomas, who is now 15. Stuart, my three-year-old, is now 31, and he and his wife have given me a wonderful grandson, Liam, so I made the right decision in not joining Martin and staying with Stuart, but mothers will understand the position I was in. We all live for our children: when you lose one, you have to decide who needs you the most.
We all want to give our children the skills to help them build good lives. We want to give our children the latest toy, the latest gadget. We want to give them the best of everything. As young parents, we save for Christmas and birthdays to allow us to do that, but when you lose a child, the only thing you can give them is a funeral and a grave. I am told that my son had a wonderful funeral. I cannot remember much about it because my world was black and nothing had resonated in my mind. I could not function, as I have said. I could not do simple chores like washing my hair or cooking a meal.
When the undertaker was explaining to me what the plans for my little boy’s funeral were, I just wanted to hold my little boy, not bury him. I remember the day the bill arrived and that fear in my stomach as to how I would pay it. My husband David and I come from a community who reacted to loss in the only way they knew how—they had a whip-round, a collection. Out of the blue two of David’s mates—I can see them now standing at my front door, not knowing whether to come in or run away—turned up with an envelope of money. Thank God for my community and thank God for my friends, because that collection was enough to cover three quarters of the funeral cost. The following day my husband went to his bank and asked for the other £750 and the bank said yes, so I had the money for the funeral.
I have chosen to share my story at this time because I am in a position to be the voice of bereaved parents. Approximately 5,000 babies and children pass away each year in this country, and it is not something any parent can or could be prepared for. No one expects to bury their children; it is completely in the wrong order. So when that tragedy happens, parents will be totally unprepared, both emotionally and financially. Since I first spoke out on this issue, I have received support from colleagues across the House. I have received emails, calls and letters from other parents who are in a similar position to me.
A member of the House staff stopped me to say that he and his wife lost an 18-month-old baby and his local authority charged him for an adult funeral. He had to battle that local authority to get the cost reduced. Another gentleman wrote that he had lost two children, a one-year-old and a 17-year-old. This man told me that he was ashamed to ask for help to cover the funeral costs as he had wanted to give that to his children. Today I learned of a couple who had a very premature baby who passed away after four weeks in special care. When the parents weighed up the cost of a funeral, they just could not afford it so they had to leave the baby for the NHS to deal with. That is not uncommon.
A teacher told me that when her school lost a pupil, it held a non-school uniform day to help parents pay for the funeral. Just tonight CLIC Sargent, the cancer charity, contacted me about a survey that it has undertaken in connection with issues that most concern the parents of children with cancer, and many say that paying for the funeral is a very big worry. I was told of one family whose little boy’s football club undertook fund-raising to help them cover the cost of a funeral.
Across local authorities, fees for children’s funerals vary greatly. On a more compassionate note, I have heard from a mum who lost very, very premature twin babies, and Rhondda Cynon Taf, an authority in Wales, not only covered the local authority fees but absorbed the total cost of the funeral. To Rhondda Cynon Taf, authorities that currently do not charge and those that are planning to scrap fees, I say from the bottom of my heart thank you.
It is a very small amount of money that I am asking the Government to put in. For £10 million, the fees for children’s funerals could be covered right across the country. This is an easy and a small ask, but it would impact greatly on the cost of a funeral and in no small way give comfort to bereaved parents. At Prime Minister’s questions recently the Prime Minister suggested that the social fund could be used to help, but I say to the Prime Minister that at the darkest moment of a parent’s life, I could not even fill a kettle, let alone fill in a 35-page application form. I have subsequently written to the Prime Minster asking that she consider my request, but I have not yet received a reply.
I conclude by saying to the Minister please do this. Make this happen. It is the right thing to do, it is the respectful thing to do, and it is the compassionate thing to do.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)
I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) for her work in bringing this sensitive and important issue to national attention. It is always difficult to know how others feel in such circumstances—
Mr Jones
Just to reiterate, it is always difficult to know how others feel in such circumstances, although it is always easy to say we do when we have not been in those circumstances ourselves. I am a father of two children, and I am very lucky, but losing a child must be the worst thing that can happen to a parent.
It is important that the arrangements that the state can put in place in such circumstances are as helpful in giving support to grieving parents as they can be. This is clearly, therefore, a matter of great sensitivity and importance, and it is incumbent on all public sector organisations with a role to play to ensure that they are understanding and helpful.
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for setting out this issue so powerfully. It certainly cannot have been easy for her to come to the House tonight to make a speech on this subject. She has shown great strength and courage in bringing this issue to the House tonight. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]
Let me start by setting out the context in which my Department and local government operate. As democratically elected organisations, local councils are independent of central Government and are responsible for managing their budgets in line with local priorities. I understand that a number of local authorities already choose to waive fees for children’s funerals. I hope all local authorities would carefully consider their policy in this area, and whether it is right to go further in the light of the concerns the hon. Lady has raised today. I note that very recently Telford and Wrekin Council and Clipstone Parish Council have decided to do just that, as the hon. Lady requested.
There is also a role that central Government can play. The Government recognise that the period following a death will have emotional, social and financial impacts for the bereaved, and people may need to draw on a wide range of support at that difficult time. It is for that reason that the Department for Work and Pensions operates the social fund funeral expenses payments scheme, which makes a significant contribution towards a funeral for families in receipt of a qualifying income benefit. The scheme meets the full necessary costs of a cremation or burial, including the purchase of a grave with exclusive burial rights. Other costs, such as the coffin, and church and funeral directors’ fees, are limited to a maximum scheme payment of £700. However, there is no restriction on the type of funeral expenses that can be claimed under this category, and applying the limit allows the bereaved a choice of how best to spend the payment.
I certainly hear what the hon. Lady has said about the social fund, and I absolutely understand her concerns about the way in which it works. It is good that we have on the Treasury Bench today my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Welfare Delivery, from the Department for Work and Pensions, which operates the scheme, and she will have heard what the hon. Lady had to say about the scheme.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
I hope that the Minister has listened to and heard what has been said. As we have heard, parents in a fog of bereavement cannot even think of filling in DWP forms, and a grant of £700 goes nowhere towards the cost of a funeral in many parts of the country—it costs thousands. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) has put an incredibly courageous case for having that cost covered by the Government. It cannot be right to make a local council choose between doing this or providing social care, and that might be the choice that it has. Will the Minister think again and not give my hon. Friend, or any of us, pat answers but really take this away and think about it?
Mr Jones
I fully understand the points that the hon. Lady makes and the sentiment behind them. With regard to the social fund, the maximum payments for certain costs are limited to £700, but there are other funds that can be realised. I appreciate what she says in relation to how the fund is accessed. In many cases, the funding from the social fund funeral expenses payments and social fund budgeting loans offers an adequate level of support. The amount spent by the Government in 2015-16 was £40 million.
I realise that this evening I am unable to give the hon. Member for Swansea East the assurances that she has come to the House to seek and will not be able to go as far as she would like, but I recognise the very significant pain that she has articulated to the House, and the very significant pain that families find themselves in when they are in the same situation.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) for the very compassionate way in which she put her case. No one in this House would not have had a tear in their eye along with her. We commiserate with her very much.
The hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) have indicated that those on benefits receive help through the funeral social fund while those who are in work do not, but those on lower incomes should be helped. The Minister will be aware that various charities such as the Child Funeral Charity can help as well. I want to put it on record that I support the hon. Lady, and all right hon. and hon. Members who are here, in asking the Government to consider this very seriously, and ask the Minister to grasp the understanding and compassion that we want him to have on behalf of the hon. Lady and all the other people out there who need help.
Mr Jones
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and certainly understand the sentiment behind it. I am aware that there are charities that support families in this sense, but I also understand what he is asking of Government, as I do in relation to what the hon. Member for Swansea East is looking for.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Welfare Delivery is restarting a roundtable group with the funeral industry and bereavement charities, because it is important that the Government have a better understanding of how the funeral industry works in this regard and what more can be done to help.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) on the incredible courage that she has shown this evening and in recent days—in fact, years.
Does the Minister recognise that for people of different faiths, this can add additional complexity and cost, particularly if a rapid burial is required? Having in mind particular cases of my constituents who have experienced funeral poverty where faith has been a dimension, may I urge him and his colleagues to make sure that faith organisations, particularly Muslim and Jewish organisations but those of other faiths as well, are represented in the discussions in the roundtable group?
Mr Jones
I fully understand what the hon. Gentleman says. I represent many Muslim constituents and I know that when they have a bereavement in the community, they seek to deal with the burial as soon as possible, quite often within 24 hours. He makes a very good point, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has just nodded to me to confirm that she would be more than happy to include the groups that the hon. Gentleman mentions.
As I have said several times, I know that the assurances that I have been able to give tonight will not go as far as the hon. Member for Swansea East would like. I recognise the difficulty and the trouble that she has gone to in bringing the matter to the House tonight. I hope that bringing this matter to the wider attention of the House and of the public will mean that local authorities will consider their approach to charging and take their local residents’ views into account. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Simon Kirby), who is here on the Treasury Bench, has heard what the hon. Lady said. I am sure that as a result of tonight’s debate, we will all reflect on what she has suggested the Government do.
Question put and agreed to.
Petition
Student season tickets on the Lakes Line
Westminster Hall
(7 years, 5 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
Child Cancer
(7 years, 5 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
Ben Howlett (Bath) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 162934 relating to child cancer.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Davies. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members present for attending.
The debate arises from an online petition on child cancer started by a couple whose child, Poppy-Mai, sadly passed away after a battle with a very rare cancer. She contracted a progressive and aggressive malignant rhabdoid tumour, which progressed into a metastatic brain tumour. The petition is entitled:
“Force child cancer to the forefront of the NHS and government funding schemes”,
and it calls for “more funding” to be made
“available in the fight against child cancer.”
It also calls for more to be done
“to spread awareness…more genetic testing and research. Child cancer needs to be at the forefront of our minds.”
At this point, it is important that I clarify to the petitioners that, as a member of the Petitions Committee, my job today is to lead the debate and not to take a position on behalf of the Committee. I promise to take as many interventions from as many Members as possible, to involve them in the debate.
One of the charities that got in touch with me before this debate was Christopher’s Smile, whose motto—“coz kids get cancer too”—shows the sad reality of childhood cancer. There is something even sadder when cancer—in fact, any disease—attacks children: they have the rest of their life ahead of them and cannot be said to have caused or encouraged cancer themselves by their lifestyle choices. However, there is a smaller national profile for childhood cancer, with less attention focused on the important signs to look out for and the ways to avoid it, than for cancers that usually affect adults, even though childhood cancer is the biggest killer by disease of children in the western world.
Child cancer recently hit the headlines when the singer Michael Bublé announced that he was taking a break from performing while his three-year-old son undergoes treatment for liver cancer. I am sure that all Members here today will join me in sending our best wishes to Michael, Noah and their family at this very upsetting time. What they are going through at the moment is unthinkable and there are many families across the UK in exactly the same position, with parents feeling helpless while wanting to do everything possible to protect their children from this dreadful and cruel disease.
Unfortunately, that sad story shows that cancer can strike anyone at any time. More needs to be done to educate all of us on what signs to look out for, so that cancer can be caught early and there is a higher chance of survival. I thank the Government for their response to the petition. I am sure that Members from all parties in the House support the Government’s ambition to lead the world in fighting cancer. More attention needs to be given to the ways that we can become the world leader, so that we can see the number of cancer diagnoses fall and the number of cancer survivors increase.
The cancer taskforce’s five-year plan to achieve world-class cancer outcomes includes many recommendations on cancer in children, including
“a possible review of CTYA services”—
that is, services for children, teenagers and young adults—
“to provide improved integrated care”,
and to seek
“consent from children and young people for their data and tissue collection for use in future research studies and development of services and…ways in which access to clinical trials for teenagers and young adults with cancer could be significantly increased.”
All these things are crucial to beating childhood cancer and improving the care received by those who contract the disease.
On multiple occasions, charities have raised with me and the Petitions Committee the importance of getting real data to help with future developments in a range of different diseases. I chair the all-party group on rare, genetic and undiagnosed conditions, so I know that this problem does not only affect childhood cancers; it also affects other areas of the health debate. It is potentially even more important when it comes to child cancer, because thankfully child cancer is rare, relative to the population. I urge the Government to look carefully at ways in which researchers can gain access to those important, albeit anonymised data as a priority.
I was pleased to read in the Government’s response to the petition their understanding that
“a cancer diagnosis can have devastating consequences for the lives of young people and their families”,
and that the Department of Health recognises that the most important thing is that
“Care should be built around what matters to the young person and their family”.
The Department is
“working closely with cancer charities to ensure patients get the support they need during and after their treatment.”
However, more can still be done to ensure that when a cancer diagnosis is received—especially if, sadly, it is a terminal diagnosis—the child is made as comfortable as possible and is able to spend time with people who love them.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
As a parent who went through this when my son was nine, I know that the news is devastating for parents. What happens to the family around the child and the level of support that is provided are also important. I was an MP at the time, with a good salary, but a lot of people do not have that level of income, or perhaps they do not have other family members to come round. We really need to put in extra support, and not months afterwards but straight away, when parents actually get that news.
Ben Howlett
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. There is a multitude of different organisations out there to help at the point when a diagnosis is received, but of course that should not distract from the fact that the Government also need to look at early intervention to support the family of a child when the child receives a diagnosis. I hope that the Minister will mention that when responding to the debate.
I am the MP for Bath, which is in the south-west, and I pay personal tribute to the great work done by the Children’s Hospice South West, which serves my constituency and others across the entire region. The hospice’s dedication and the service it provides in the final days of a child’s life is tremendous. I thank the hospice on behalf of my constituents for all the work that it does.
Research and funding are obviously critical. Evidence has been submitted throughout the course of the discussions around this issue. I am sure that all colleagues in this House will welcome the fact that the number of children dying from cancer each year in the UK has fallen in the last 20 years, but one child dying is obviously far too many. Research has been at the heart of the progress made, helping more children to survive cancer than ever before, but as I said, childhood cancer remains the biggest killer by disease of children in the western world.
Seema Kennedy (South Ribble) (Con)
My hon. Friend rightly mentions research and progress. I intervene briefly to speak about my constituent, Paula Adair, whose daughter, Katy Holmes, died in 2012 of a diffuse pontine glioma. Paula made the point to me that Katy received the same treatment that Neil Armstrong’s daughter had received nearly 40 years before, showing that there had not been adequate progress on these terrible diseases.
Ben Howlett
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, and I pay tribute to her and to other colleagues for championing cases such as that one in their work as constituency MPs. She makes an incredibly important point. Months ago, I took part in another Petitions Committee debate in relation to brain tumours and it is quite clear to me that the rarer a cancer is, the less attention is paid to the funding of research to find the underlying causes. There has been a change during the last few months and years, with more attention focused on some of the rarer cancers, but there is still a long way to go. I hope that some of the major progress made on the more common cancers, such as prostate cancer and breast cancer, and the evidence gathered can be applied to some of the rarer cancers as medical technology improves.
Approximately 3,800 children and young people in the UK are diagnosed with cancer each year, and approximately 260 children in the UK die each year from cancer before their 15th birthday. For those who survive, there are often lifelong treatment-related health problems to be dealt with. In addition, as the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) made clear, there are also the ongoing costs in relation to the treatment and support for the families as well throughout the entire process. To be frank, we must do an awful lot more.
Mark Tami
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is not only the physical side of the illness that we must address, but what happens to children if they get through their illness—hopefully they do—including all the questions they will have, such as “Why has this happened to me?” and “Why do I look different?”, their reintegration into school and their anger? We might put a lot of money into addressing the illness itself, but we put very little into looking after the child afterwards. It is no accident that children who have had cancer have a higher suicide rate than those who have not.
Ben Howlett
I pay tribute to the work the hon. Gentleman has been doing in this area and I completely agree with him. The health benefit analysis that is at the heart of the Department of Health in a number of areas is under review—it is constantly under review—but it needs a much more holistic understanding of the costs, not just in economic terms but in terms of societal issues, including mental health and ongoing support for a child’s family for, hopefully, the rest of their life.
I welcome the Government’s focus on improving earlier diagnosis, as it makes it more likely that patients, including children with cancer, will receive effective treatment. Additionally, it is good news that the Government have committed to implementing all the recommendations of the cancer taskforce, including that by 2020 everyone referred with suspected cancer will receive either a definitive diagnosis or the all-clear within four weeks.
Michael Dugher (Barnsley East) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for setting out the arguments so well. Will he join me in paying tribute to the many good organisations and charities in the field, in particular Be Child Cancer Aware, which does fantastic work on the need for early diagnosis, gives wonderful support to families and runs campaigns, including in memory of my nephew, Oliver Shaw, who died of leukaemia in 2011?
Ben Howlett
I will come on to awareness later. I join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating that charity and the others around the country that do huge amounts of work, often with limited resources in these difficult times.
Returning to early diagnosis, I wish to ask the Minister about the four-week all-clear or definitive diagnosis period and whether it is being performance managed and adhered to. I am sure it is. I welcome the good news that NHS England has the funding necessary to improve cancer services over the next five years, including up to £300 million by 2020 to support earlier diagnosis of cancer, and £10 billion of real-terms increases in NHS funding by 2020-21. I also welcome the recommendations in the taskforce report that give direction on where the funds should be targeted. When it comes to NHS England, performance management is crucial, just as it is in the rare diseases space. We need to know that funding will be spent on the ground on the people who really need support, particularly children who are suffering on an almost daily basis. Campaigners rightly point out that significant progress is still to be made on childhood cancer. Will the Minister confirm that the work undertaken by NHS England will routinely be performance managed on the basis of what has been said by many organisations in the sector?
Childhood cancer is, thankfully, not common, with children accounting for only 1% of cancer patients. Unfortunately, that constitutes a tiny market for pharmaceutical companies, so there are often far too few incentives for child drug development. The pharmaceutical industry generally targets the largest markets for its research and development and it wants its latest drugs to go into front-line use as quickly as possible, to gain maximum benefit from the patent protection. Although many of the genetic abnormalities in childhood cancers also occur in adults and both adults and children can be treated with the same drugs, paediatric drug development trials and availability always lag many years behind. I urge the Government to do more to encourage pharmaceutical companies to invest in research and development for life-saving paediatric drug development. Will the Minister highlight what she will do to encourage NHS Improvement to focus on that market?
Access to cross-border trials is particularly important for rare diseases such as childhood cancers, as there are often not enough cases in a single country to make a trial viable. The European Union’s new clinical trials regulation will come into force in October 2018, and will hopefully make it much easier to carry out cross-border trials, by requiring that a single application be submitted to a central point rather than one in every country. I seriously ask the Government to consider how we can remain party to that system as we exit the European Union.
The overall survival rate for children with cancer is 82% in England and Wales, but the rate varies considerably according to the different types of cancer, and by age and gender. One thing we all know about the chances of survival is that the earlier cancer is caught the more likely it is to be beaten, and the same applies to cancer in children, so I will now talk about the importance of awareness campaigns.
Awareness campaigns can be aimed at and useful to a wide variety of people. It is not just parents and family members who can benefit from improved campaigns. One of the most important things the health system can do is give a child a diagnosis as early as possible, with swift treatment where necessary. However, CLIC Sargent, the childhood cancer charity, states that parents often explain that their journey to diagnosis was far from straightforward. For example, children are disproportionately diagnosed through emergency medical care, with 53% of children aged nought to 14 diagnosed through A&E or emergency referral compared with 20% of adults. There must be something causing that large disparity. I think two issues need to be addressed.
First, there are some excellent national awareness campaigns for many of the more common adult cancers. This month is dedicated to prostate and testicular cancer for example, not just to raise funds but to highlight what men should be looking out for. There are also multiple campaigns encouraging women to regularly check their breasts and to encourage their friends and family to do so. Those campaigns must be applauded and they should be learned from and replicated for other cancers, including childhood ones. If parents are aware of and sensitive to the various early warning signs, we might see a decrease in the number of emergency diagnoses and an increase in diagnosis by GPs, who often know a child’s history far better.
Secondly, GPs need to be educated about some of the less well known symptoms, so that they can be alert when examining children. CLIC Sargent is working with the Teenage Cancer Trust and the Royal College of General Practitioners to produce an e-learning module on children and young people’s cancers for GPs across the country. I thank those bodies for their work and I encourage other organisations to collaborate similarly, to get the crucial awareness messages out there. I am sure that the Minister agrees that continuing professional development is vital for GPs and all medical professionals. If GPs are more aware and more ready to carry out further tests, we might see an improvement in childhood cancer survival.
Last year, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence addressed non-site-specific symptoms of concern for children and young people, recommending that GPs take into account the insight and knowledge of parents and carers when considering making a referral for a suspected cancer. NICE noted that more lives could be saved each year in England if GPs followed the new guidelines, which encourage GPs to think of cancer sooner and lower the referral threshold. I ask the Government to support some of the excellent childhood cancer campaigns and charities in their aim to achieve national coverage for awareness campaigns and to reach parents and doctors through a variety of means.
Every year in the UK about 3,800 children and young people are diagnosed with cancer, 1,600 of whom are aged nought to 14. For young people, when the doctor says “cancer” normal life stops. It is a devastating experience for the whole family. The petition highlights the huge impact that cancer has on families across the country and the need for more investment, research and awareness. I urge the Government to consider how we can increase engagement with charities to encourage awareness campaigns that garner national attention, develop greater incentives to increase research and development into lifesaving paediatric drugs, and improve early diagnosis for child cancer patients.
I thank colleagues for their attendance today and in particular I thank the petitioners for highlighting this incredibly important issue. I look forward to hearing the comments of other Members and the Minister.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Bath (Ben Howlett) on introducing the debate and on the thoughtful way in which he presented the arguments. I am pleased to make a short contribution. I have come at the urging of my constituent Debbie Moran, whose young daughter Abigail is just five and was diagnosed with a childhood cancer at the age of three. I understand Abigail is in remission, and we wish her and the rest of the family all the best for the future.
The figures I have seen suggest that each year more than 6,000 young people across Europe die of cancer, but by 2020 there will be nearly half a million childhood cancer survivors. I hope we will bear that progress in mind today. I welcome the work of the European Network for Cancer Research in Children and Adolescents, SIOPE—the European Society for Paediatric Oncology—and the European paediatric haematology and oncology community. I particularly welcome SIOPE’s seven-point plan to increase over the next 10 years the cure rate and the quality of survivorship for children and young people with cancer.
Like the hon. Gentleman, I hope that whatever decisions this country makes over Brexit, we will remain an active part of the important European cancer research and treatment community. As the hon. Member for South Ribble (Seema Kennedy) said, we need more innovative treatments introduced into child cancer care. We need the development of precision cancer medicine to help guide decisions on which therapies to use. We need to increase our knowledge of tumour biology and speed up the translation from basic research to clinical care. As my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) said, we also need to improve the quality of survivorship and address the consequences of cancer treatment, such as the long-term side effects in all their various forms. Basically, we need to understand more about the causes of childhood cancers.
Although there has been significant progress over the past 50 years—the hon. Member for Bath described some of that—it has largely been achieved by using intensive chemotherapy regimens combined with surgery and/or radiotherapy. There is some evidence to suggest that patient survival has plateaued over the past five years, which hastens the demand for more innovative treatments.
The petition focuses on the problems we need to address, such as the lack of sustained and sufficient funding. As has been suggested, there is also poor access right across Europe to new paediatric drugs. Too many countries do not recognise paediatric haematology and oncology as a sub-speciality. For the sake of Abigail and thousands of children like her, and in memory of Poppy-Mai, whose parents are the originators of the petition, we need to dedicate ourselves to saying that we recognise the seriousness of the issue and that we are going to do more.
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
I had not intended to take part in this debate, but having heard what I have heard, I am moved to make a brief contribution. One of the most harrowing of the many harrowing things that a Member of Parliament has to deal with, particularly any MP who is a parent, is to be confronted by desperate parents with a desperately sick infant or young adult who are begging for help and are coming to their Member of Parliament as the last resort. In the course of a parliamentary career, I suspect that most colleagues will face that circumstance. If they have not already, they will in time.
Most of us will have been faced with the need or desire to fundraise to send that child to another country, often but not exclusively to the United States, for treatment that is not available here and that may or may not be efficacious. In my case, I experienced that at second hand rather than at first hand, unlike some colleagues present, but those of us who have experienced it know only too well that people will clutch at any straw. I would do the same, and I am sure you would too, Mr Davies. If the chance of success is 10%, they will take it, because 10% is better than 0%.
What grieves me is that so much effort goes into trying to react and therefore relatively little effort goes into trying to pre-empt. There are wonderful children’s hospices around the country, and I pay tribute to them. Demelza House in Kent is fantastic—there are many others—but the object of the exercise is to try to ensure that treatment is available so that children do not need to go into hospices at all.
One case that hit the headlines not so long ago was a child who was effectively abducted from hospital care and taken first to Spain and then elsewhere for treatment, because something was not available here and was available somewhere else. That straw was clutched at, and I would have done the same. Looking at what happens overseas and thinking of those hard cases, a couple of things come out from what has been said already today. Thankfully, the scale is relatively small. Equally thankfully, the scale of individual cancers is smaller still, but that in itself creates a problem. The point has been made that drug companies are reluctant to invest in the research and generation of drugs that might not be viable because there is no real market for them.
My hon. Friend the Minister has a background in science, and she will understand the possibilities that flow from co-operation probably better than anyone in the room. Having looked at the matter over a number of years and having seen the work that the Teenage Cancer Trust has done, it seems to me that we need to pull together all the expertise and concentrate on one or two centres of excellence, so that the scale and the ability for young medics to learn are viable. It is very difficult for someone to become expert in something if they do not have a patient to study. I urge the Minister to give an indication that the Government will make a Herculean effort, in a way that there has not been before, to pull together all the strands. We also need to maximise the possibilities of international co-operation, because work is being done in other countries.
Mark Tami
Sorry for talking about my experience again, but my son was very fortunate to find a donor. He had a stem cell transplant in the end. As a parent, that was great for us, but we were with other parents who were not so fortunate and who saw their children pass away because they could not find a donor. The awful thing is that there are people out there who would be a match, but they do not know it. I want to put on the record my support for Anthony Nolan and other charities that have saved so many lives. We really do need to do more. Stem cell transplants offer a great opportunity for not only treating cancer, but other things as well in the longer term. I simply want to put on the record how important it is that that very important work carries on and that we do not have the situation in which some are fortunate and some are not.
Sir Roger Gale
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. He was also right to pay tribute, as I and others should have done, to the Anthony Nolan trust.
I do not often argue for centralisation, but, in this case, given the scale and the limited resources that are available, it seems that a concentration of effort might deliver more results than a dissipation of that effort.
Finally, I want to endorse what the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) said earlier. There is a crying need for support for families from day one from the moment the diagnosis is made and the family is informed. There is a huge need for support. Some are fortunate in having large and supportive families. Others much less fortunate face terrifying circumstances and isolation.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman and others who have spoken so bravely. He is making a very moving speech. On support for families, I want to bring to the Chamber’s attention my constituent, Allison Barr, who lost her son Jak Trueman last year very tragically to cancer. She has worked to fulfil his dream of having a den for siblings, because the siblings of children who are lost are often forgotten. She has done a huge amount of work in the West Lothian community to bring Jak’s dream to fruition. We must remember that many different parties are involved when people lose a child to cancer.
Sir Roger Gale
That point is very well made indeed.
I conclude by saying that co-ordination and co-operation are necessary. International co-operation is necessary, and support for families is vital. In small rural communities and in close families, support may be built in, but in cities such as London, New York, Washington and Berlin, as in any big city in the world, there are lonely people facing difficult circumstances. I cannot think of any more difficult or more harrowing circumstance than the sudden knowledge that your child is faced with a life-threatening disease. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to do everything she can to promote the co-operation necessary to solve these problems.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate as we continue the fight against childhood cancer. I am aware that the petition, which is the subject of today’s debate, is primarily written with reference to the NHS in England. As a Scottish MP, Members will forgive me for using the debate as a chance to highlight some of the local champions in my constituency who have done so much to help raise awareness of childhood cancer. Whether we are in Scotland or England, and regardless of our party affiliation, I hope all Members can come together to provide constructive suggestions for the UK Government. I hope too that the Minister is receptive to those suggestions in the spirit in which they are given.
We know that childhood cancer is relatively rare, yet in Scotland around 150 children are diagnosed every year.
Stuart Blair Donaldson (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (SNP)
My constituent Sam Dorrance was five years old when he lost his battle with cancer earlier this year. Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating Sam’s brother, Ethan, who has raised £10,000 for CLIC Sargent, and also Sam’s family and friends who have raised more than £65,000 for Super Sam’s fund for research into high-grade brain tumours?
Ronnie Cowan
Absolutely. I had the privilege of meeting the family when they were here for the British Red Cross event a couple of weeks ago. They are an inspiration and an example to us all.
The 150 individual cases that I mentioned mean 150 new families having to deal with the devastating consequences of illness every year. It is not only the health aspect of cancer that families must overcome, but the immense emotional and financial turmoil that the diagnosis can bring. Many parents will face extreme pressure on their relationship, in some instances leading to a breakdown of the family unit. Others will be forced to give up work. Combined with the additional costs of caring for a seriously ill child, it may mean that the family is pushed into poverty.
At this point, I want to address the Minister. In the Government’s response to the e-petition, they say that children and teenagers with serious or critical illness such as cancer are also expected to apply for disability living allowance or the personal independent payment. Is there some way we could have a simple process whereby a diagnosis becomes a tick in a box so that people do not have to apply for PIP or DLA? It should be a given that they need financial support. We know that and we should take one of those burdens off them.
Along with the child and the parents, siblings too will experience disruption in their own lives, including educational difficulties. Although we are able to quantify that there are 150 new cases in Scotland every year, we can never quantify the wide-ranging implications. It is encouraging that survival rates are improving, but I am sure we can all agree that we can always do more.
I am pleased that the Scottish Government are absolutely committed to providing the best possible care for children and young people with life-threatening illnesses in Scotland. I trust that different NHS bodies north and south of the border have a mechanism whereby they can share best practice on childhood cancer. Perhaps the Minister will outline whether that is indeed the case. Let us not stop at sharing best practice north and south of the border: we need pan-European, and in fact global, co-operation. It would be appalling to think that good substantial research anywhere in the world was not shared so that everybody could benefit from it.
In my constituency of Inverclyde, we have a champion who is helping to raise awareness of childhood cancer. Nathan Mowat was diagnosed with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia shortly before his fourth birthday. Since then he has endured hours of chemotherapy treatment and will need at least a further year of maintenance treatment. Chemotherapy can have a harsh effect on the human body. In Nathan’s case, it means that even a minor illness can now have serious ramifications for his health.
Nathan, with the support of his mum Gillian, his dad Paul and his sister Annabel, has managed to rally a huge amount of support within Inverclyde. In September, the Greenock Telegraph, Greenock Morton football club and a range of prominent local businesses and organisations pledged to glow gold and help Nathan raise awareness of childhood cancer. Glow gold was a great success, not only because it rallied community support, but because it made more people aware of the practical issues that people face as a result of childhood cancer. Whether in respect of bereavement, research, diagnosis or resources, we need an open discussion on how we can continue to improve our approach.
Finally, I thank Nathan for all his great work in Inverclyde. I look forward to seeing him fully overcome his illness. He will continue to inspire many people, and I am sure my parliamentary colleagues will join me in wishing him and his family the best for the future.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I thank the hon. Member for Bath (Ben Howlett) for opening the debate so well, and I thank other hon. and right hon. Members who have spoken. We are here this afternoon because of Andrew Barnard, who lost his daughter Poppy-Mai to a brain tumour. We owe a particular debt of gratitude to him for the effort that he put into campaigning on behalf of so many other children whose lives will sadly be blighted, and even tragically ended, as a result of childhood cancer. The theme of families and the courage and bravery that they show in campaigning, not only for their own children but on behalf of so many others, is a theme I will return to.
I want to raise three issues during this afternoon’s debate: first, the extraordinary courage and resilience of families and the need to support them; secondly, the importance of awareness and early diagnosis and intervention; and thirdly and most importantly, the need for research so that we can reduce and even eradicate the number of children dying needlessly from cancers that will be found to be curable.
I am here this afternoon because of my six-year-old constituent, Kaleigh Lau, and her remarkable family, Scott, Yang and Carson. Like most girls her age, Kaleigh is active and fun. She enjoys dancing, singing, swimming and playing with her friends. In April, things changed for her. She complained of double vision, and her family noticed that there was a problem with her eyes. Fortunately, they took immediate action and took her to Moorfields eye hospital. After some initial checks, there was found to be no problem with her vision, so on the same day she was referred to the Royal London hospital for a CT scan and an MRI scan.
When a lump on Kaleigh’s brain was identified, she was immediately referred to Great Ormond Street hospital, where two days later she was diagnosed with a rare form of childhood brain tumour called a diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma. It is a brain stem tumour that mostly, although not exclusively, affects children. It is estimated that fewer than 40 children a year develop them in the UK and that they account for just 10% to 15% of all brain tumours. They are high-grade brain tumours that are fast-growing and can spread throughout the brain stem. As a result, they are difficult to treat and have a poor prognosis. The main treatment offered is radiotherapy. The tumours are not suitable for surgery because of their location in the brain stem, and chemotherapy has been shown to have little effect, but research in that area is ongoing.
Seema Kennedy
The hon. Gentleman’s constituent has exactly the same brain tumour as my constituent, Katy. Although only 40 children a year develop such tumours, they are primary school children with a whole lifetime ahead of them. Research in that area would pay dividends, because although 40 is a small number, those children could go on to be productive members of our society. The important point is that they have a lifetime ahead of them.
Wes Streeting
I wholeheartedly agree, and I will come on to talk about the personal impact that such a diagnosis can have on families.
As the hon. Lady knows, the prognosis is poor. Only 30% of children with DIPG are likely to survive for more than a year after diagnosis, and 90% do not survive for two years. According to the Minister’s response on 13 September to a written question that I submitted, there has been only one UK trial relating to DIPG. Although there are some great initiatives—particularly the INSTINCT project, which brings together experts from Newcastle University, the Institute of Cancer Research, and the University College London Great Ormond Street Institute for Child Health in London—we have yet to find a cure.
Dr Darren Hargrave at Great Ormond Street is leading a new clinical trial to test three new drugs in 150 children affected by DIPG. Professor Chris Jones and his team at the Institute of Cancer Research have found links between the genetic faults in the DNA of children with DIPG and people with stone man syndrome. Lots of work is being done on the links between DIPG and other diseases, but it has yet to lead to a cure. There is some hope that the work being undertaken by Professor Steven Gill, who is leading a team based at the Harley Street Clinic to develop a treatment known as convection-enhanced delivery, may produce a treatment that leads to an extension of life, as some of the initial experiments have shown. It is hoped that CED might lead to a cure, but the overall outlook for those children is not positive.
As the hon. Lady said, the number of children affected in the UK is relatively small, but the impact on them and their families is simply unimaginable. Without being from a family that has been directly affected by a childhood brain tumour or another form of childhood cancer, it is impossible to know what those families go through. I have been given some insight through the work I have done with my constituent’s family—particularly her father, Scott.
We need early diagnosis. The swift response of Kaleigh’s family and the hospitals that she visited enabled an early diagnosis. I pay tribute to the clinicians and staff of Moorfields eye hospital, the Royal London hospital and Great Ormond Street hospital, and, in particular, to Kaleigh’s family. When families are affected in that way, it has an impact on the whole of family life. So many anxieties, issues and day-to-day challenges are thrown up. Is the cough or cold that the child is experiencing simply a winter condition, or is it something more serious? Most parents would not be worried when their child comes home after a fall or a scrape at school—they dust them off and it is fine—but so many of these parents have to worry about what caused the fall. Was it an innocent childhood accident or something more worrying?
There are some fantastic charities that provide support to the families that are affected. In my constituency, Hopes & Dreams provides dreams to children with life-limiting or terminal illnesses. It enabled Kaleigh and her family and friends to go to Center Parcs, which gave the family welcome respite and gave Kaleigh the opportunity to enjoy herself with her family and friends in the way she normally does.
I have also had to see Kaleigh’s family battle for information—in particular, about accessing some of the experimental treatments that are available. They have had to battle on numerous fronts. They have battled against bureaucracy and tried to navigate their way through the system, and getting partners and agencies to work together to ensure their child is at the centre of health managers’ and clinicians’ thinking has been a particular challenge.
There is also the issue of money. Kaleigh’s family raised considerable amounts of money through both the generous support of family friends and members of the public, and their own finances. I am struck by the concern that her father raised about the families who are not in the same position, do not have access to a network of support and have not been able to find funding. It is simply not right that some families lose out because they do not have the money or are not able to raise the funds needed to access treatments that could lead to an extension of life or a cure. I hope the Minister will address the issue of what we can do to ensure that access to treatment—experimental treatment and clinical trials—is not limited by families’ wealth.
I also want to raise the issue of funding for research. I pay particular tribute to Kaleigh and her family. I am in awe of the fact that, amid all the day-to-day challenges that her condition presents and the battle to ensure that she gets access to treatment that could alleviate her symptoms and extend her life, Kaleigh’s family and Kaleigh herself have engaged so energetically in a campaign for more funding for research into DIPG and other forms of childhood brain tumours. In the past few months, they have engaged a range of celebrities. JK Rowling supported their petition, and for the past two weekends Kaleigh has been touring “The X Factor” studio, signing up a range of the finalists to tweet the petition. She has got members of the cast of “The Only Way is Essex” on board—they are an Essex family, and I am an Essex MP. The cast are supporting our local family, which is fantastic.
I have been overwhelmed by the number of right hon. and hon. Members who have wanted to support Kaleigh’s campaign by having a picture taken with the Kaleigh bear, which has been on tour around Parliament, and by tweeting links to the petition for more Government funding. We have also had great support from our local newspapers—the Ilford Recorder, the Wanstead and Woodford Recorder, the Wanstead and Woodford Guardian and the London Evening Standard. I thank them for their support in raising awareness of Kaleigh’s campaign in search of more funding for a cure.
It is very welcome that the Government have a working group, which we hope will report in 2017, to look at how to increase the impact and quantity of brain tumour research, but however much effort they are putting in, the sad truth is that in the 12 months or so before the report is published and the Government take action, so many children across our country will be diagnosed with DIPG and other brain tumours. The urgency of this task cannot be overstated. A significant amount of money already goes in through the National Institute for Health Research and the Medical Research Council, but much more clearly needs to be done. There are competing demands and pressures on Government budgets, but for so many families in our country today and in the coming days, weeks, months and years, that funding could save a child’s life. I hope that the Minister will make a commitment to see what more she can do within the constraints of the health budget to invest in a crucial area that matters so much to so many families throughout the country.
I urge all right hon. and hon. Members present in the Chamber and throughout the House, as well as members of the public who might be watching this debate, to support Kaleigh’s Trust, to tweet links to the petition and to share it with family and friends, and to continue applying pressure to get more people to understand the impacts of terrible conditions such as DIPG and the urgency to fund and find a cure.
In closing, I again pay tribute to the extraordinary courage and resilience of Kaleigh and her family, and to so many other such families, who in spite of troubling and traumatic times continue to battle on, not only for their children but for others. That should inspire us all to do more individually and collectively.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Bath (Ben Howlett) for his introduction and other hon. Members for their personal and heartfelt speeches and interventions. In particular, I thank the parents of Poppy-Mai, who started the petition and so brought this matter to the attention of the House.
My five asks are clear. First, more units such as the specialist one in Bristol for teenagers and young adults with cancer are needed. The units need to be carefully commissioned so that the maximum amount of specialist clinical knowledge is available to the maximum number of young people.
Secondly, a clear commissioning structure for services for children, teenagers and young adults with cancer is needed, so that everyone knows where the buck stops and who is responsible. Thirdly, the benefit system needs to be adjusted, as other hon. Members have said, so that the families of children and young people are not put into awful financial difficulties such as we have heard about just at the time when they most need to concentrate on their child and nothing else.
Fourthly, Government leadership is needed—I urge the Minister to respond to matters raised by me and other Members—with commissioning guidance, clear priorities and funding for specialist services. Fifthly, the Government need to take responsibility and say how we will go about researching childhood cancers in collaboration with European Union partners after we leave it.
Earlier this year, I visited the specialist teenage and young adults unit in Bristol, accompanied by Christine from the Teenage Cancer Trust, which contributed to the cost of the unit. The unit creates and maintains an environment that provides care for the whole person, helping that young person to cope with the emotional side of their illness, as well as giving them time and space to do school work, to be with friends and family, and to just be a young person not defined by their cancer.
The decor definitely does not make the unit feel like a cancer ward. Yes, per patient, that is more expensive than adult cancer wards. Thankfully, cancer is rare in childhood and youth, but young people have very different specific needs to be met.
Mark Tami
As my hon. Friend is making clear, we have to have specialist centres, but we must not think that we can have them on our doorstep everywhere. That will just not happen, and it would not make sense for it to happen. If we have specialist centres, however, people will have to travel, and families need support and somewhere to stay. I put on record my support for the Ronald McDonald House Charities, which do incredible work providing parents with somewhere to stay. The actual cost burden on parents alone for what can be long treatment periods is astronomical, and a lot of people simply do not have the money.
Thangam Debbonaire
I, too, will be mentioning similar services later in my speech. Absolutely, the last thing parents facing such awful situations need to be worrying about is where they will stay, how they will afford it and how they will afford even to put petrol in the tank.
My nephew was diagnosed at age 12 with osteosarcoma, a very rare childhood cancer. We were all so focused on getting him and his mum, and his sisters and brothers, though that illness that the longer-term impacts felt very much secondary. Specialist units such as the one in Bristol help the family as well as the young person with cancer to see the whole of life as important, to think about the longer-term implications and to prepare for them. I pay very personal tribute to the teenage and young adults cancer unit in Bristol for its work and to the Teenage Cancer Trust for its support of the unit.
As my hon. Friend said, getting the number of units right is difficult. Given the thankfully low numbers of childhood cancer victims, if the units are to be truly specialist, it will not be an easy matrix. To ensure an appropriate number of specialist units, the Government need to be clear with appropriate commissioning guidance and take responsibility for following it through.
In October when I asked the Department of Health in question 50795 what proportion of specialist units were funded by charitable trusts, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat), replied:
“This information is not held centrally.”
For me, that is simply not good enough. Yes, commissioning is done locally, and increasingly commissioning groups and trusts are collaborating, but Government leadership is necessary to work out how many units are needed and how to fund them. Will the Minister commit to gathering that information centrally in order to estimate properly the funding needed to commission appropriately throughout the country? Will she further commit to consulting on and publishing clear commissioning guidance so that the responsibility for commissioning and funding specialist treatment centres for children, young people and young adults is clearly identified, and so that a structure for commissioning across health regions is clear?
On the future of research into childhood cancers, there is clear potential for harm when the UK leaves the EU—I say “potential”, because any such harm can be mitigated, but the Government need to act urgently to address it. Earlier this month in answer to my question 50081 about research, the Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation gave welcome assurances about funding. I welcome those assurances, but he did not mention research cohorts. Thankfully, childhood cancer is rare, so it is vital for UK researchers to be able to collaborate fully with their EU counterparts so that they can carry out clinically adequate research with a sufficiently large enough group of children and young people to provide clinically useful and secure results. Yes, funding is vital and I am grateful to him for those assurances, but it is not enough. My next question to the Minister present is this: will she commit to discussing that with her colleagues in the Department for Exiting the European Union, along with research about other rare childhood cancers?
As my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) mentioned, children and young people with cancer and their parents often need to travel long distances for specialist treatment. That might always be unavoidable and, in any case, there are other huge financial costs for parents. In September, I was proud to chair the parliamentary launch of a report by CLIC Sargent, which does so much wonderful work to support children and families affected by childhood cancer. The report shows that the costs of cancer are not only emotional, educational and physical, but financial.
One young person at the launch spoke about how he had to prove repeatedly to the benefits agency that he had cancer and that his treatment was still not over nor his recovery complete. Another young person found that her student loan was stopped because she was deemed to be a student no longer, but her halls of residence still charged her rent. A lone parent spoke of her struggles to manage her finances while faced with losing her income from employment and the increased costs of driving her son a long distance many times each month for treatment, as well as the added costs of heating a home all day for a very sick child, which is often overlooked, and the costs of keeping clothes, bedding and house scrupulously clean, which is so important because the risk of infection is extremely high for those undergoing gruesome treatments such as chemotherapy, as other hon. Members have mentioned.
CLIC Sargent and other charities I know help with all those things and more. I have had the privilege of being shown round the CLIC Sargent house in Bristol, located a few minutes’ walk from the Bristol Royal infirmary. That house, run by a wonderful woman who knows all too well what childhood cancer means, provides a haven just when it is needed.
Wes Streeting
May I, too, pay tribute to Haven House children’s hospice, which is just outside my constituency and serves many of my constituents? Hospices are often associated with end-of-life care, but as in the case of Haven House, they also provide great support to families whose children may not be near the end of their lives and help them on that journey. They are such a powerful and important source of support, and of course they are all voluntary and rely on the public’s generosity.
Thangam Debbonaire
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are many charities across the country that do everything they can to try to help the families of children and young people with cancer. I pay tribute to them all, even though I cannot possibly know their names.
The CLIC Sargent social worker is on hand in the Bristol royal infirmary when a family receives a devastating diagnosis and is told that their child needs to start treatment right away. Such families are often many miles from home. They can arrive that night at CLIC Sargent house with nothing and be given somewhere to stay for as long as they need it, clothes and bedding if they have come without them and, when necessary, space for the whole family so brothers and sisters can be with their family and their sibling who is being treated. I am proud to declare an interest in CLIC Sargent: my beloved sister-in-law works for it. She gives her time and expertise to an organisation that has done so much for our family and many others.
Will the Minister commit to discussing with her colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions the financial impact of childhood cancer on families, and will she use the CLIC Sargent report as a reference point? Will she further consider supporting the provision of such homes for the families of children with cancer? If those homes are essential for allowing children to be treated, we must surely consider prioritising them along with other specialist support for statutory funding, at least in part. I do not believe it is right that such homes, which are so essential, must rely entirely on the generosity of volunteers and charitable giving, although I pay tribute to people who raise money. The Government must consider providing that funding.
As other hon. Members have said, until someone has known childhood cancer in their own family, it can be difficult for them to comprehend its full impact. Yes, there are excellent briefings available from specialist cancer charities—CLIC Sargent, Teenage Cancer Trust, Cancer Research UK and other charities provided briefings for this debate. My family was fortunate. Despite an initially very difficult prognosis, that 12-year-old child is now a happy, well adjusted young man in his 20s with a responsible job and a secure relationship with his partner, but I grieve for those who are not so fortunate. I want to ensure that, whatever the prognosis, no family has to worry about money at that most difficult time. I want us to do everything we can—the Government must lead—to improve awareness, early diagnosis, treatment and support, so that one day deaths from childhood cancer end and we alleviate and reduce, if not completely eliminate, the terrible suffering that it brings. I also hope against hope that one day, no parent will ever have to hear the word “cancer”. I long for that day, as I am sure we all do.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I thank the hon. Member for Bath (Ben Howlett) for opening this interesting and emotive debate, which was scheduled by the Petitions Committee. I am grateful to him for clearly explaining the issue and highlighting that unfortunately, the rarer the cancer, the greater the resource challenges it faces, and that development of paediatric drugs lags behind the development of drugs for adults.
It is a pleasure to follow such informative and powerful contributions by the hon. Gentleman and other participants from both sides of the House. I am particularly grateful for a couple of the points that have been made. I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) for putting this into the European context. Although we deal with small numbers in our country, childhood cancer is a much larger problem across that wider area. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) for illustrating the scale and challenge of the financial difficulties that people face. Unfortunately, the burden of relieving those all too often falls to charitable organisations rather than the state.
I offer my condolences to Mr Barnard and his wife on the sad loss of their daughter Poppy-Mai. I thank them for raising awareness of this important issue with the petition that brings us here. It must be very traumatic for them to relive each moment of that tragedy as they hear this debate. Unfortunately, theirs is not a unique case—such cases occur all too often across our countries. We must therefore recognise our shared responsibility to tackle child cancer.
The Scottish National party Government are working hard to improve cancer outcomes for children as well as the entire population of Scotland. As my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) illustrated, cancer is relatively rare in children. Childhood cancer accounts for less than 1% of all cancers in Scotland, with approximately 150 new cases every year. There are approximately another 180 new cases in young adults aged between 16 and 25. An updated cancer plan for children in Scotland was launched earlier this year, which will complement the ongoing “Getting it right for every child” programme to ensure that Scotland’s children have access to the best possible services.
In recent years, the system in Scotland for supporting children suffering from cancer and their families has been reorganised. All cancer treatment centres now work together as one single managed service network for children and young people with cancer—the MSNCYPC, which may be the longest acronym I have ever used. As a result, young patients have access to appropriate specialist services that are as local as possible and both safe and sustainable. The network ensures that the care pathway is as equitable as possible, regardless of where in Scotland people live.
The SNP Government are focused on improving health outcomes for children, which is at the forefront of the SNP’s health priorities. We are serious about improving cancer care and treatment, which is a key reason why the Scottish Government will invest £100 million over the next five years through their new cancer strategy. As well as providing funding to health boards, we invest in a range of areas to support healthier lives for children and families, such as children’s palliative care, the cost of which is rising—delivering lifeline care and support to seriously ill children cost nearly 10% more in 2015-16 than the previous year.
That support for children’s palliative care charity funding is in stark contrast with what is happening in England. Barbara Gelb OBE, the chief executive of Together for Short Lives, says:
“We believe that ministers should follow the example of the Scottish Government, which has recently committed £30 million funding to Children’s Hospice Association Scotland (CHAS) over the next five years. We’re calling on the UK government to re-examine funding arrangements as a matter of urgency and carry out a national inquiry into the state of children’s palliative care funding in England.”
I hope the Minister will address that comment.
I commend the work of the many charitable organisations that are active in this field. For example, as others have highlighted, CLIC Sargent does tremendous work to support young people and their families as they come to terms with cancer diagnoses and journey through their treatment. In Scotland, leukaemia is the most common cancer in children—leukaemia, brain tumours and lymphomas account for more than two thirds of child cancers. The Brain Tumour Charity conducts various research projects and focuses on understanding the causes of childhood brain tumours. I take this opportunity to commend its investment of more than £18 million in its many research projects. Its commitment and work means that a brain tumour diagnosis no longer means a death sentence. Although that is welcome, it is sadly not the case for everyone, as has been evidenced.
Whole communities in my constituency were devastated by the tragic loss of five-year-old Tilly from Linlithgow, whose case echoes the points made by the hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale). Tilly lost her brave fight against her brain tumour just a few weeks ago, leaving her family heartbroken and touching the hearts of entire communities. A family member spoke to the Journal and Gazette, the local newspaper, about the support the family had received from the local community, which included fundraising to send Tilly to the United States, which is all too often the case. They said:
“We really could not begin to thank people enough for the support they have shown Tilly and the family during all of this. It has been overwhelming and we will be forever grateful. To raise such a massive amount of money shows how much people care and how communities come together when people need them. The money that is left over will be given to raise awareness of the type of brain tumour Tilly had and to help families who find themselves in a similar situation so they can get treatment for their loved ones.”
That action shows the strength of community feeling, which is echoed by the sheer number of people who signed the e-petition. It also shows how a child cancer diagnosis, with all its consequent personal and emotional devastation, affects more than just the child and their immediate family; it affects entire communities.
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in today’s consensual and informed debate, which I hope and trust has helped to raise awareness among the wider public.
Julie Cooper (Burnley) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. This debate has arisen in response to a petition signed by more than 115,000 people, including 922 from my constituency, following the sad passing of Poppy-Mai, the little daughter of Mr and Mrs Barnard. First and foremost, my thoughts are with that Lancashire family and all the other families who have endured a similar devastating loss of their children. There can be nothing worse than the loss of a child, so this debate is especially important.
It is important that we increase awareness of the scale of the problem facing children and young people who have cancer and their families, and look for ways to tackle the problems. How can we improve diagnosis? How can we improve research? How can we ensure better access to treatments? Ultimately, how can we improve survival rates? The debate, outlined so well by the hon. Member for Bath (Ben Howlett), has given us the chance to search for answers to those important questions.
In the UK every year about 4,000 children and young people under the age of 25 are diagnosed with cancer. Worryingly, research by CLIC Sargent published last year found that 44% of young people and 42% of parents felt that their local GP did not take them seriously when they presented with symptoms, and 53% of young people felt that their diagnosis had been delayed. Clearly that is not an acceptable state of affairs. Inevitably, delayed diagnoses mean delayed treatment, with implications for survival rates.
In an attempt to improve awareness among GPs, CLIC Sargent embarked on a joint project to develop an e-learning module specifically focused on cancers in children and young people. That welcome work will go some way in helping to improve diagnosis and primary care support for children and young people with cancer, but far more needs to be done. It is a fact that children in the UK with a brain tumour can take up to three times longer to be diagnosed than children in other countries, most notably the United States. Reducing the time to achieve an accurate diagnosis improves survival rates and can reduce long-term disability, which many children and young people diagnosed with a brain tumour currently experience. I hope the Minister can give us some understanding of what the Government intend to do to improve diagnosis times.
Recent figures published by Cancer Research UK demonstrate that in the past 20 years we have seen a 32% reduction in the child cancer death rate. We have also seen five-year survival rates increase from 40% in the early 1970s to 82% today. It is widely believed that those improvements have arisen as a result of more research and better treatments. While they are extremely welcome, they go nowhere near far enough, because the fact remains that cancer is still the leading cause of death among children. Five children and young people die of cancer in Britain every week, and those who survive often go on to suffer long-term side effects from their treatment that can continue into adulthood.
A considerable amount of research is carried out each year in the UK by a multitude of organisations including Cancer Research UK, the Brain Tumour Charity, the Institute of Cancer Research, the Institute for Child Health, Great Ormond Street Hospital and the Teenage Cancer Trust. Last year, Cancer Research UK committed to doubling research spending on children’s cancers. That will go some way in helping to discover new treatments. We all thank it and welcome that commitment, because currently only 3% of UK funding into cancer goes to child cancers.
It is important to remind the Government that many of those organisations are charities, which have relied on high levels of funding from the European Research Council. The Brain Tumour Charity stated that the result of the referendum on EU membership has created great uncertainty for charities conducting research into childhood cancers. Post-Brexit, the Government must ensure that the UK medical research community continues to have access to EU funding programmes once Horizon 2020 has ended. Similarly, I seek reassurance from the Minister that any shortfall in research funding as a result of our exit from the EU will be met by the UK Government. If we are to improve outcomes for children with cancer, it is paramount that we have research conducted to understand further these awful diseases.
Following improvements to diagnosis processes and research, we must ensure efficient access to treatment. Children and young people with cancer face a range of barriers in accessing new and better treatments, including drugs not being tested in their age group or in the cancers they are likely to get, even when a drug may be effective in treating their cancer. Simply challenging the age restrictions set on new trials is already increasing participation rates. That should be done in tandem with the provision of age-appropriate information about trials delivered by skilled, specialist staff.
Currently, the cancer patient experience survey does not collect data on cancer patients under the age of 16, and we have seen a 40% decline in response rates from teenagers over the age of 16 and young adults in the past five years. It is unacceptable that little or no progress has been made on this issue. Understanding patient experiences is important to improve future services. The cancer strategy includes plans to deliver a methodology to collect under-16s’ experiences, and NHS England is doing that alongside CLIC Sargent. Will the Minister helpfully update us on that work and tell us when we can hope to see the data being collected?
Achieving viable numbers for clinical trials on child cancers is understandably problematic given the relatively small numbers and rarity of some child cancers. However, we cannot allow that to be used as an excuse for not improving treatments for children and young people with cancer; instead, it should push us to innovate. Cancer Research UK has led the way in challenging the age restrictions on clinical trials, calling for more flexibility when it comes to age and ensuring that researchers justify age restrictions so that they rethink approaches to include children and young people.
Wes Streeting
Particularly for rare forms of cancer or brain tumours such as DIPG, it is important that clinical trials take place at scale. Does my hon. Friend agree that, after the UK leaves the European Union, the Government should seek to ensure that there is as much alignment as possible in the regulatory framework between here and the rest of the European Union so that clinical trials on the European level can continue to take place?
Julie Cooper
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that important point. It is essential that the UK’s exit from the EU does not negatively impact on further research. We must benefit collectively from work done in other countries. To pick up on the point other Members made, we must pool good practice and ensure that our good practice and successful research are shared throughout the world and that we benefit similarly from experience elsewhere.
In the cancer strategy, there were specific recommendations relating to children, teenagers and young adults’ services and how they can be improved. I was concerned, though, that in September the Government made an announcement on wider measures in the strategy but failed to mention anything about the important issue of seeking consent from children and young people for their data and tissue collection to be used in future research studies and the development of services, nor did they include a requirement significantly to increase access to clinical trials for teenagers and young adults with cancer.
Currently 30% of teenagers and 14% of young people aged 20 to 24 enter trials for common cancer types in children and young people. In 30 years there has been no progress in that area. The cancer strategy set a target for NHS England to recruit at least 50% of children and young people in cancer centres or designated units treating teenagers or young adults. That is welcome, but will the Minister give us a progress report and tell us how long it will be before the target is likely to be met?
I pay tribute to the Barnards, to the other families mentioned today and to the children and families across the UK affected by cancer for their courage in the face of this most awful of illnesses. I ask the Government to understand those families’ need for support. We have heard some moving stories today. They need support in a wide sense—from specialist units and through better access to information. Importantly, they also need financial support. Several hon. Members have powerfully made the point today that the costs of cancer are physical and emotional but also financial. We must do more and better.
I want to hear what specific plans the Government have to improve the speed of diagnosis; I want a guarantee that the Minister will protect research funding post-Brexit; and I want to know what plans she has to increase the number of clinical trials, to ensure that access to life-saving treatments is the best possible. Children and young people deserve no less.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Nicola Blackwood)
It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies.
I begin by acknowledging and thanking the many thousands of people who have supported the petition in memory of Poppy-Mai Barnard. I extend my deepest sympathies to Poppy-Mai’s family and friends. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Ben Howlett) for the thoughtful way in which he presented the petition. The debate has been moving. I shall do my best to respond to as many comments as possible; if I fail, I shall write in response.
I acknowledge the success of Poppy-Mai’s family in raising more than £100,000 in her name, with the aim of building a sanctuary for children with terminal illnesses and their families to make memories. I know that they would, in the spirit of the petition, want action to ensure that fewer and fewer children have to suffer from cancers, and that they would want to know that the Government are investing in key research and innovation to that end. I hope that there is some comfort to be derived from hearing of the work of the NHS and its partners to benefit children and their families in the future. I thank colleagues on both sides of the House for their moving and highly informed contributions and all who have bravely shared personal stories. They remind us forcefully of why we must fight harder in the battle against childhood cancer. The importance of that cannot be overstated.
At this point, I want particularly to respond to the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), who made some extremely important and pertinent points, in particular about ensuring that there is the right support for families. They must battle on many fronts, not only at the point of diagnosis but in the longer term. As the Minister responsible for mental health I share the hon. Gentleman’s view that we must do better in taking into account the mental health implications of long-term and critical illness. I shall certainly take up his challenge to consider the issue of higher suicide rates among childhood cancer survivors. At the moment we are in the process of refreshing the suicide strategy, targeting vulnerable groups. I shall consider the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised.
We can take heart from the fact that we are making progress in a number of areas. National statistics reveal a general trend of increasing five-year survival for children aged up to 14 diagnosed with cancer in England. In 1990 only 67% of children diagnosed with cancer survived five years; in 2009 that had increased to 80.9% of children. The figure was about 40% in the 1970s, which enables us to understand how far we have come. However, some types of children’s cancers, as we have heard, remain hard to treat, with longer-term physical and psychological consequences. In the past few decades we have improved our understanding of the consequences and have been able to manage them better; but we must and can do better. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) said, we need to speed up the translation of basic research into patient care, and to improve the quality of survivorship.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bath said, the five-year cancer strategy for England is at the forefront of our efforts. That was produced on behalf of the whole cancer community by the independent cancer taskforce. It is our aim through that strategy to save an extra 30,000 lives of all ages by 2020. The taskforce, as hon. Members would expect, brings together all the major players supporting people with or at risk of cancer. It includes patient groups and voluntary sector organisations, which we know are crucial to the support of cancer patients. I join colleagues in paying tribute to Oliver, the nephew of the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher), and to Be Child Cancer Aware, Anthony Nolan, Cancer Research UK and many other charities that do so much in this area. Without the outstanding work of many medical charities, our work would be less robust and innovative and there would be less hope of bringing about the step change that we need.
The strategy was published in July 2015 and was followed by an implementation plan to take it forward in May 2016. The first annual report was published last month. The Government accepted all 96 recommendations of the strategy, some of which are directly related to children, including a review of children’s and young people’s cancer services to inform actions. The aim is to deliver improvements across the cancer pathway and to improve the quality of care and survival rates—to make exactly the Herculean effort, and with the same co-ordination, called for by my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale).
I am relieved that the taskforce found that cancer services for children and adults, and the outcomes in those services, have improved in recent years. The strategy is specifically designed to build on that momentum. Many of the recommendations relate to all cancers and cancer services; but of course some are relevant to, and greatly benefit, children and their families in their experience of care, and improve outcomes.
NHS England is leading the health and care system in delivering the strategy and investment is being targeted to support that. Key elements include: investing up to £300 million a year by 2020 to increase diagnostic capacity to meet a new faster diagnostic target—many people have spoken of the importance of early diagnosis —so that all cancer patients will be given a diagnosis or the all-clear within 28 days of GP referral; investing £130 million to modernise radiotherapy across England, ensuring that over the next two years older Linac radiotherapy equipment being used in hospitals will be upgraded or replaced, so that patients get access to the latest leading-edge technology regardless of where they live; establishing cancer alliances throughout the country to drive clinical leadership; and supporting the national cancer vanguard to test new models of care.
A theme of the strategy is the improvement of information on services and outcomes, including, from 2017-18, exploring approaches to collecting data on the experience of care of children who are cancer patients.
Thangam Debbonaire
On the point about upgrading Linac machines for radiotherapy, one of the key problems that Cancer Research UK raised with me was radiographer and radiologist staffing shortages. Can the Minister add anything to reassure us that when the Linac machines are upgraded there will be sufficient staff?
Nicola Blackwood
There is also work being done on making sure the workforce are in place; and there is an overall strategy with Health Education England to do that. I am happy to write to the hon. Lady to give her details. I am slightly concerned that I have a lot to get through and I am going to bore everyone.
The taskforce has also recommended a new drive to deliver chemotherapy e-prescribing, which makes a significant difference to the experience of families who are supporting children being treated for cancer. Providers are working to implement plans for children by September 2017. Under the strategy, proposals will have been developed by March 2017 to improve the transition of young patients with cancer between children’s and adult services. As the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) has said, transitions continue to pose a problem in some areas, with paediatric services stopping at 16 in some hospitals, but adult services not starting until 18. In addition, pathways between specialist centres and shared care units currently cause great difficulty for patients. The strategy says that there is a need to address that, and I hope that the hon. Lady will be reassured that work is being done on it.
An important recommendation of the strategy is that NHS England, the National Institute for Health Research and cancer research charities should work together to consider how to achieve a significant increase in access to clinical trials for teenagers and young adults with cancer—the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Burnley (Julie Cooper) spoke about that. A far smaller proportion of teenaged and young adult patients than of younger children take part in clinical trials. There is obviously an opportunity that we need to grasp. The strategy recommends that we explore ways in which clinical trials for children and young adults with cancer could be significantly increased. As the shadow Minister said, NHS England should set an expectation that all centres should aim to recruit at least 50% of their patients for those trials by 2025. That is the target that we are reaching for.
Outside London, only four centres treat more than 100 children with cancer a year, across all types of cancer. The strategy recommends that NHS England, working through the children, teenagers and young adults clinical reference group, should consider whether outcomes could be improved through further reconfiguration of services, as the shadow Minister said. Any review should again be based on patient outcomes, including patient experience, as few centres offer comprehensive specialist services for children at the moment.
Many hon. Members have rightly called for research to be prioritised in that context. It is good that, since 2010-11, we have increased annual investment in cancer research through the National Institute for Health Research, including research into childhood cancers, from £101 million to £142 million. However, we know that a lot more needs to be done if we are to deliver the changes that we want to see. That is why the Government announced the largest ever investment in health research in September— £816 million over five years from April 2017. Some 20 NHS and university partnerships across England have each been awarded funding through the NIHR, and we expect to see significant research activity in childhood cancers within that programme of investment.
The NIHR is also collaborating with three charities—Teenage Cancer Trust, Children with Cancer UK and CLIC Sargent—to identify gaps and unanswered questions in research into young peoples’ cancer and to then prioritise those gaps that patients and clinicians agree are the most important. The initial survey opened just last month, so we expect to see progress on that soon.
A new working group has brought together clinicians, charities and officials to discuss how we can increase the level and impact of research into brain tumours, including those in children. The group first met in October and the Government anticipate that it will complete its tasks by September. I will be co-chairing the next meeting in January with the Department of Health’s chief scientific adviser, Professor Chris Whitty, to make sure that we make the progress needed.
Julie Cooper
Does the Minister agree with the important comments made by brain tumour charities that EU funding is fundamental, and will she commit to ensuring that, should we not have access to EU research funding post-Brexit, the UK Government will make sure that that gap is filled?
Nicola Blackwood
The shadow Minister has made some important points about the EU, as have a number of colleagues, and I will come on to them before I finish. First, let me complete my remarks on the amount of funding that we have put into research, because it is important that it is seen as a package. Less than two weeks ago, the Government announced a further £112 million of funding to support the skilled personnel and cutting-edge facilities needed to help at the forefront of clinical research—experimental clinical research in particular, including research into child cancers. I visited one of those facilities myself, and they are an important aspect of the research we are supporting. The Chancellor announced £2 billion additional funding per year for research and development by 2020-21 in the autumn statement, including for scientific research at universities and businesses. That is another part of the picture.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak, who is not in his place, spoke of the importance of precision cancer medicines. The Government agree, which is why we have funded the 100,000 genomes project, to diagnose, treat and prevent rare disease and cancer, including childhood cancers. The Government have invested hundreds of millions of pounds in that project to date and it is already making a difference—the first children with rare diseases have received diagnoses through the project at Great Ormond Street Hospital. The project promises to offer a genuine step-change in diagnosis and precision treatment, which is encouraging.
Ben Howlett
The Minister is being very generous with her time. I am pleased about the rare diseases aspect of what she has just mentioned. However, when engagement exercises are being undertaken with charities, it is often the case that the larger cohorts are focused on. Will she give assurances that in those engagement exercises with charities, some of the rarer cancers will also be a focus?
Nicola Blackwood
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is important to make sure that all different groups and diseases get the attention that they deserve. That takes me on to the issue of patient cohorts and the importance of collaboration across Europe.
For particularly rare diseases or cancers, it is sometimes necessary to look across borders to make sure that research includes the right numbers of patients. That has been a particular focus of the Department, and I am confident, owing to the work that we have been doing, that international—particularly European—networks and data sharing for research purposes will continue. We need to make sure that initiatives that have facilitated research, such as the paediatric medicines regulations, continue. My noble Friend Lord Prior is leading on that area of policy. I know that he is closely involved in all of those issues, and I am going to ensure that the specific concerns that have been raised today are passed on to him and are not dropped.
I assure the shadow Minister that the Chancellor has guaranteed that the UK will continue to have all of the rights, obligations and benefits that EU membership brings, including EU funding—up until the point that we leave, obviously. The Treasury has also committed to underwrite the payment of awards to UK organisations that make competitive bids to the European Commission —for example, for universities bidding for Horizon 2020. In addition to all of the funding I have spoken of, those moneys are protected.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bath made a couple of points about reviewing the work undertaken by NHS England to ensure that more children receive the treatment that they deserve. We will be working closely with NHS England and all partners to make sure that the strategy we have put in place becomes a reality and that the right performance metrics are in place, although that is a challenging process. Our best measure of success will be the cancer survival statistics. Those are currently provisional, but the Office for National Statistics will hopefully be assessed by the UK Statistics Authority in the future.
We have heard from many hon. Members of some deeply moving cases of young people battling cancer. We have heard of their courage and resilience, and of the fortitude of their parents and siblings.
Wes Streeting
I am grateful to the Minister for giving such a thorough and thoughtful response to the debate. As I mentioned, Kaleigh’s family are campaigning on DIPG. It would mean a lot to them if the Minister or one of her Departmental colleagues met them to talk about their experience and their hopes for how research funding in this area might improve the search for a cure going forward. Is the Minister able to make that commitment?
Nicola Blackwood
I am sure that either I or a Departmental colleague will be delighted to meet the hon. Gentleman and his constituents. It was moving to hear of their campaign.
Holding the Government and the NHS to account in this way could not be more important. I hope that my response has made completely clear not only my personal commitment but the Government’s wholehearted commitment to funding life-changing innovation and research into cancer, to delivering the cancer strategy in a way that transforms cancer care for current and future generations and to improving the long-term quality of life of childhood cancer survivors. That is surely the greatest memorial that we can offer to each and every one of those brave children who, like Poppy-Mai, have lost their battle with cancer. That is our task, and as I look around the Chamber, it is clear to me that each and every Member here will work as hard as they possibly can to make sure that they hold us to it.
Ben Howlett
I thank hon. Members from across the House for their contributions today, including my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) and the hon. Members for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan), for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) and for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire)—I do not think I have missed anyone out. I also thank hon. Members for their interventions and the Front Benchers from the three main parties. The thoughtful words from the Minister set out what an inspiring campaign many colleagues have seen from their work as constituency MPs and from the 115,000 petitioners, in particular Poppy-Mai Barnard’s family.
Members of the Petitions Committee get an opportunity to speak in this Chamber on a regular basis about some of the really important issues that matter deeply to our constituents. Having a systematic way for constituents to engage with this place in relation to child cancer, brain tumours, meningitis B and a range of other issues has made a big difference. Their continued involvement is incredibly appreciated and has given Members of Parliament an opportunity to shout about some of the great work that local charities, national charities and our constituents are doing to improve awareness and tackle a disgraceful disease. We have heard an awful lot about research in diagnosis, and about awareness, support for families and palliative care.
While I have never had the misfortune of anyone in my family suffering from a childhood cancer, my thoughts and prayers are with those who have. Ultimately, with 260 children dying from cancer every year, I am sure all of us would love a reduction of that number to zero. One death is far too many. I thank all those who contributed to the debate, and give huge thanks to those who led and submitted the petition.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 162934 relating to child cancer.
Written Statements
(7 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
First World War Centenary Cathedral Repairs Fund
(7 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Karen Bradley)
I am today publishing the list of successful bidders to the First World War Centenary Cathedral Repairs Fund. Cathedral Denomination Project Award Arundel RC RC West front glazing and masonry £20,000 Blackburn CofE West tower roofs repairs and transept repointing £200,000 Bradford CofE Repairs to bell tower £25,000 Chelmsford CofE Song School roof repairs £300,000 Chichester CofE Quire roof repairs £250,000 Ely CofE South nave aisle roof and high-level repairs £500,000 Exeter CofE Asbestos removal £70,000 Gloucester CofE Drainage repairs £50,000 Lincoln CofE Lead pinnacles repairs £38,000 Liverpool CofE Concrete roof repairs £200,000 Liverpool Met RC Lantern repair research and access £200,000 Manchester CofE Tower emergency repairs £500,000 Nottingham RC Safety upgrade to lighting £75,000 Peterborough CofE High level fire safety glazing to tower and access work to clerestory and roof voids £400,000 Plymouth RC Heating system £100,000 Salford RC North porch access, masonry repairs and rainwater drainage system £180,000 Shrewsbury RC East porch and stained glass repairs and associated work £250,000 Southwark CofE Quire roof and high-level masonry £500,000 Southwell CofE North quire aisle and NE transept roof £295,000 St. Edmundsbury CofE Nave clerestory and cloister and library roof repairs £350,000 St. Pauls CofE Roof repairs and rainwater goods £80,000 Truro CofE South aisle and baptistery roof £500,000 Wells CofE Nave roof repairs £300,000 Worcester CofE St. George’s Chapel damp investigation and remediation £40,000 TOTAL £5,423,000
Cathedrals are powerful symbols of Britain’s shared history and are important not only for their architecture, history and religious learning but also as a place for local communities to come together. This fund is helping to ensure that they are in a good state of repair and preserved for future generations.
Decisions on funding allocations are taken by an expert panel, which considers the grant applications against the published criteria for the scheme and decides which cathedrals should receive funding. The panel is chaired by Sir Paul Ruddock and includes senior figures from English Heritage, the Heritage Lottery Fund, the Church of England and the Catholic Church, as well as church architects, architectural historians and grant giving experts.
I am pleased to confirm that the panel has decided to allocate funding of almost £5.5 million to 24 cathedrals. These are as follows:
[HCWS285]
Roads Funding
(7 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling)
Following the autumn statement on 23 November, I am today setting out further details of road investment.
This new funding of £1.3 billion over this Parliament will help support infrastructure projects on roads, with £1.1 billion for the local road network and £220 million to relieve congestion on the strategic road network.
For the majority of the £1.1 billion there are three goals, and those seeking funding for improvements must fulfil at least one of those goals:
To ease congestion and provide upgrades on important national, regional or local routes;
To unlock economic and job creation opportunities; or
To enable the delivery of vital new housing developments to meet the needs of a generation of would-be home owners.
This is an essential part of ensuring we have a country which works for everyone.
To ensure that work can start quickly to help continue improvements to the country’s roads, £70 million of funding from the Pothole Action Fund will be allocated by formula to local highway authorities in 2017-18. This funding is on top of the £6 billion the Government are already allocating to councils in England up to 2021 to help improve the condition of the local road network.
I am also announcing funding for further development of business cases for six schemes from the large local major projects fund in addition to the six announced in the autumn statement, as well as approval to start construction of the Lincoln Eastern bypass.
The six schemes included in the autumn statement were:
Suffolk Energy Gateway new road;
A1079/A164 Jocks Lodge Junction;
Shrewsbury North West Relief Road;
Tees Valley East-West connections;
Sheffield Mass Transit Scheme;
Warrington Waterfront Western link.
A further six schemes will receive funding to develop business cases:
Sheffield City Region Innovation Corridor;
Manchester Metrolink airport extension to Terminal 2;
Melton Mowbray Eastern Distributor Road;
New Tees Crossing;
A500 Dualling (Cheshire);
South Coventry Link Road.
This means that development and feasibility work can proceed to the next stage. It does not mean every scheme is certain to go ahead and it remains a competitive process. However, many of these will be among the next set of projects that we build in this country.
Following the confirmation of the National Roads Fund, we are publishing reports on five strategic studies into major improvements on our national road network. On the back of these, the Government are committing to taking forward major improvements at three points on the national network:
Upgrading the A66 to dual carriageway, creating the first new all-dual trans-Pennine link since 1971;
Improving the M60 around Manchester—the second busiest road in the country;
Building a new Oxford-Cambridge expressway, to link up three of England’s fastest growing cities.
Two further studies, into further upgrading of the A1 in the east of England and building a trans-Pennine tunnel, are also reporting. Further economic analysis is to follow, with particular reference to emerging housing plans, before taking decisions on next steps. A sixth study, on the M25 South West Quadrant, will report in 2017.
In addition to bringing forward major projects, we have also announced a £220 million package of smaller improvements, which will be quick to deliver and will tackle congestion in the here-and-now. This includes improvements to the A69, further enhancing trans-Pennine connectivity.
I am also announcing approval for the £95 million Lincoln Eastern bypass with a contribution from the Department for Transport of £50 million. This scheme will reduce congestion in the city centre and encourage planned housing growth in the area. Construction will start in the New Year.
In order to ensure that our road network is safer for all road users, £175 million of the additional funding for local roads will be used to upgrade some of England’s most dangerous roads, where the risk of fatal and serious collisions is highest. The Road Safety Foundation’s analysis of the safety performance of the country’s major road network highlights where investment should be targeted. Therefore, my Department will be inviting proposals from local authorities responsible for the 50 highest risk roads.
This demonstrates that the Government are serious about investing in the infrastructure the country needs to drive economic growth both locally and nationally and to ensure that all road users have a well maintained and safe network which is fit for the future.
Further information will be placed in the House Library setting out more detail and the breakdown of funding that the Department for Transport is allocating to local highway authorities for 2017-18.
It can also be viewed online at: www.parliament.uk.
[HCWS286]
Social Security Benefit and Pension Up-rating 2017-18
(7 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Welfare Delivery (Caroline Nokes)
Today I am announcing the proposed social security benefit and pension rates for 2017-18.1 have attached the table of rates to this statement and I will place a copy of the proposed benefit and pension rates 2017-18 in the House Library. The annual up-rating of benefits will take place for state pensions and most other benefits in the first full week of the tax year. In 2017, this will be the week beginning 10 April. A corresponding provision will be made in Northern Ireland.
The annual up-rating process takes into account a variety of measures:
The basic and new state pension will be increased by the Government’s ‘triple lock’ manifesto commitment, meaning that they will be up-rated in line with the highest of prices, earnings or 2.5%.
The pension credit standard minimum guarantee will be up-rated in line with the annual rise in earnings, as reflected in average weekly earnings (AWE).
Benefits linked to the additional costs of disability, and for carers, are increased by the annual rise in prices, as reflected in the consumer price index (CPI). A number of other elements—including non-dependant deductions (NDDs)—will also be up-rated in line with prices. The majority of working-age benefits have been frozen at their 2015-16 levels for four years under the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016.
The list of proposed benefit and pension rates also includes a change to the carer’s allowance earnings rule, which will be increased for 2017-18 from £110 to £116 a week.
[HCWS287]
House of Lords
Death of a Member: Lord Taylor of Blackburn
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of Lord Taylor of Blackburn on 25 November. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to the noble Lord’s family and friends.
Multilateral Disarmament
(7 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to oppose the proposed United Nations resolution on taking forward multilateral nuclear disarmament; and, if so, what alternative measures they consider could lead to progress being made on multilateral disarmament negotiations.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, the UK voted against this resolution on 27 October as we do not believe that the negotiations it mandates will lead to progress on global nuclear disarmament. We are committed to a world without nuclear weapons, in line with our obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, but the best way to achieve this goal is through gradual multilateral disarmament, negotiated using a step-by-step approach and within existing international frameworks.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister reiterating this country’s commitment to multilateral disarmament, but does he share the frustration of the UN Secretary-General, who said that:
“The UN disarmament machinery is locked in chronic stalemate”?
Although, as the Minister says, Article VI of the NPT is supposed to ensure progress, in fact some nuclear weapons states such as India, Israel and Pakistan have not even signed the treaty while others, including the UK, US, Russia and France, oppose the current resolution the Minister is talking about—and all this is happening at a time when the world as a whole is going to spend $1 trillion on the modernisation of nuclear weapons. How will it be possible to open the dialogue that would lead to what the Minister asserts we hope will happen?
Earl Howe
The noble Baroness points to a number of obstacles which I do not for a moment wish to dispute. But in the end the only way to achieve global nuclear disarmament is by creating the conditions whereby nuclear weapons are no longer necessary, and the precursor to that has to be achieving consensus among and between nuclear states. We remain determined to continue to work with partners across the international community to make progress on multilateral disarmament, and that in turn depends on building trust and confidence between nuclear and non-nuclear weapons states. The United Kingdom has been at the forefront of a number of initiatives to achieve that.
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that the Government will agree to nothing in this field which is not both balanced and verifiable?
Earl Howe
My noble friend makes two very important points. The UK is currently working with Norway on the verifiability of disarmament to achieve what my noble friend wishes to see in the long term. But a balanced treaty, if we arrive at that point, is obviously a necessary condition.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that this resolution is not very helpful at all? As he says, there are other areas that we need to focus on such as: reactivating some of the existing agreements; trying to take weapons off immediate readiness for release, which our nation does not do but some countries still do; getting rid of short-range missiles; holding a debate about ballistic missile defence; and finding methods of talking immediately with the Russians and others about de-escalation where necessary.
Earl Howe
The noble Lord makes some very good points. Among the actions that the UK has recently been taking is work with Norway on disarmament verification, as my noble friend Lord Trefgarne referred to. We initiated the P5 process in 2009 to bring together nuclear weapons states to build the trust and confidence that I referred to. We proposed a programme of work at the conference on disarmament held in Geneva in February this year with the aim of reinvigorating the conference’s work—in fact, that was eventually blocked but we made a good attempt at it—and we continue to press for the entry into force of a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. So there is work that we are trying to push along.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, are the Government giving any thought to globalising and generalising some of the constraints in the agreement between Iran and the P5+1, thus building a basis on which that agreement could extend far longer than the 15 years it will currently last?
Earl Howe
I completely take the noble Lord’s point. It is early days to be thinking in those terms, although he is right to do so. It is encouraging that the November IAEA report to the board of governors confirmed that Iran remains compliant with the nuclear-related measures set out in the joint comprehensive plan of action. We welcome the findings of the DG’s report. We praised the IAEA for its progress and continued work on that very challenging task, but no doubt lessons and messages will emerge from that strand of work.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Earl has talked about the need to move towards multilateral disarmament, but there are stocks of fissile material in various parts of the globe. How confident is he that those stocks, which could be turned into nuclear weapons, are sufficiently secure to avoid them falling into the hands of aspirant nuclear powers or, worse still, non-state actors that might wish to possess such materials?
Earl Howe
My Lords, that is clearly a constant concern and the noble Lord is right to raise it. Against that background, the UK continues to push for the early start of negotiations, without preconditions, on a fissile material cut-off treaty in the Conference on Disarmament. We supported a Canadian-backed resolution at the United Nations first committee on that topic, in October. In this country we have a voluntary moratorium on the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other explosive devices. We have not produced fissile material for nuclear weapons since 1995.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, in 1968 the UK signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and, as the noble Earl said, a lot of progress has been made since then. President Reagan met with President Gorbachev in Helsinki in 1986, and that resulted in the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. What encouragement will the Government give to President-elect Trump to talk to his friend President Putin to kick-start multilateral talks on further reduction, in time for the 50th anniversary of the NPT in 2018?
Earl Howe
I hope the noble Baroness will be glad to know that at the appropriate time we will convey to President-elect Trump the importance of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. We should not underestimate the role it has played for almost five decades in helping to limit proliferation and provide a framework for disarmament and the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Nearly all United Nations member states are signed up to it—that is a tremendously important point in its favour. That treaty should form the basis on which we make progress in this area.
Aid and Trade
(7 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the recent statement in Kenya by the Secretary of State for International Development that she envisaged using the aid budget to promote the United Kingdom’s bilateral trade agreements following its departure from the European Union is consistent with the International Development Act 2002.
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, the Department for International Development will continue to ensure that the assistance we provide complies with the requirements of the International Development Act 2002. An important focus of our work is developing countries’ economic development and prosperity, and their trade capacity. That is the clearest route out of poverty and it is in our national interest so to do. There is no doubt that the UK’s generosity strengthens our global standing as we wish to establish new trading relationships.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply, which I interpret as meaning that it is not inconsistent with the 2002 Act to speak about the things that the Secretary of State spoke about in Kenya, but it would be to do them. Will the Minister say whether he and his ministerial colleagues understand the dismay that that statement in Kenya caused to those of us who have been supporting the Government through thick and thin on their commitment to 0.7%? Does he recognise that, if it became our policy to provide aid for countries that gave us good trade agreements, we would be laying ourselves open to blackmail straightaway?
Lord Bates
Let me say to the noble Lord that that last thing was not, in fact, what the Secretary of State said. The noble Lord will know, as a distinguished former ambassador to the UN and to the EU, how important this 0.7% is for the UK on the world stage. It is also true to say that the UK’s ambition is not to keep countries in a position of aid dependency for ever. We want them to grow their economies and strengthen economic development. That is what the Secretary of State was saying and it is the general thrust of what the Department for International Development does, through the 0.7% commitment.
Lord Popat (Con)
My Lords, as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Uganda and Rwanda, I recently had the privilege of meeting the leaders of those two countries, President Kagame of Rwanda and President Museveni of Uganda. During my discussions with them, what transpired is that they are keener on trade than aid; it is trade and investment that can create jobs and wealth and get people out of poverty. Does my noble friend agree that many east African countries are very eager for Britain to shift from aid to trade and that the Secretary of State’s remarks reflect this?
Lord Bates
I can confirm that, and I pay tribute to my noble friend for his work as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Rwanda and Uganda, as I do to all our trade envoys who carry out that important task around the world. If you compare 1990 to 2010, the number of people in extreme poverty has reduced by 50%. That has not been achieved through aid flows; it has been achieved through aid flows directed at improving economic development, which then lifts people out of poverty. That remains our aim, and trade is an important element of that.
Lord Kinnock (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister confirm reports that the Government are to quadruple, to £6 billion, funding for CDC, formerly the Commonwealth Development Corporation? If so, will this not completely contradict existing stated government policies on combating poverty, increasing accountability and fighting tax evasion and tax avoidance, given CDC’s proven record of investing through tax havens?
Lord Bates
I can certainly say to the noble Lord that that is not the case in terms of tax havens. CDC is very clear that it does not use tax havens for investment, or to hide investments, but is a transparent international finance organisation that does tremendous work around the world. It invests in 1,200 companies, and safeguards and creates about 1 million new jobs. The CDC Bill, which has its Second Reading in the other place tomorrow, is simply to give the facility for that increased investment to take place, from £1.5 billion to £6 billion, because the former figure was put in place 17 years ago and we think it is time to look at it again. However, in order for that money to be drawn down, CDC will have to comply with the same rigorous business case requirements, on transparency of investments, that any other organisations would. I hope that that helps to reassure the noble Lord on that point.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, it beggars belief that, at the same that the Government were in Marrakech signing the COP 21 agreement, they were also announcing a huge oil and gas project in east Africa, using £25 million of the UK aid budget. Will the Minister point out to his colleagues that east Africa is facing famine due to desertification brought on by fossil fuel-induced climate change and that some policy coherence on the part of the Government would be welcome?
Lord Bates
It is certainly true to say that we were a leading force in securing that agreement in Paris and building on it at the recent G20 summit in Hangzhou. We are very committed to that. We are addressing all the humanitarian issues that were talked about. The UK is one of the largest economies—in fact, it is the only major economy—to achieve its 0.7% commitment. We do that in humanitarian aid but, under the rules of the OECD and the DAC, we also allow certain amounts to be introduced and used to build capacity and to build business and economic development within those countries, and that is an example of one of those.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
The Minister talked about economic development as the route out of poverty for people in the developing world, which is absolutely right, but will he accept that it is not only through trade that economic development happens? The investment that DfID has made over the years in health and education is absolutely a prerequisite to that economic development.
Lord Bates
The noble Baroness, with her great experience, has put her finger on the point here—that it is placed in context. That is why it is very important that, in order for economic development to happen, we need to stop the conflict, we need to start getting people into school, we need to eliminate discrimination and we need to improve economic development. It is across the range, and that is what DfID’s policy tries to address.
Lord Lexden (Con)
Do the Government believe that more needs to be done to ensure that our aid actually reaches the people for whom it is intended?
Lord Bates
Yes, and that is why we have initiated the multilateral and bilateral reviews and announced the review of engagement with civil society organisations. Notwithstanding the fact that we have reached 0.7%, it is important to ensure that every penny that is spent on that actually goes towards the aim for which it was given by the British taxpayer—namely, to eradicate extreme poverty in this world.
House of Lords: Appointments Commission
(7 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to amend the terms of reference of the House of Lords Appointments Commission to ensure that recommendations by the leaders of political parties are treated in the same way as appointments to the Crossbenches and assessed for suitability as well as propriety.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
The independent House of Lords Appointments Commission does an effective job in recommending candidates for non-party peerages and vetting for propriety all life Peer nominations, including those nominated by the UK political parties. It is right that the leaders of those political parties remain accountable for their nominations.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for that Answer but it does not answer my Question. Non-party nominations to this House are subject to a rigorous interview process by the Appointments Commission, which looks at whether or not they have the time and the necessary skills, and looks at the overall pattern of appointments to the House in order to ensure diversity and a range of skills. Why on earth should that not happen to party-political nominations? I can think of no other appointments in this country which do not have some kind of interview to assess suitability.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
As I said to my noble friend, we believe that it is for political parties to be accountable for the Members appointed to their Benches, and that they should be responsible for ensuring that the people they nominate make an effective contribution. We believe that the current remit of the commission does an effective job in striking the balance between recommending independent candidates, ensuring the propriety of all nominees and maintaining the accountability of political parties for their nominations.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has raised these issues before. I do not entirely agree with him but he is on to something here. The Appointments Commission has a specific purpose, including the clear, transparent understanding of the criteria for appointment to this House, and we do not have that for any political appointments. Last time we had the bizarre spectacle of a leaked name publicly withdrawing from a process that had not even been publicly acknowledged. Is there not a role for either HOLAC or a similar body not to make political judgments but to examine the contribution an individual could make, their expertise, interests and skills, and their willingness to contribute as a working Peer, as well as their suitability?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
The noble Baroness makes an important point about the rigour with which the commission looks at propriety, by the very case that she raises. It has an extremely important role in considering the past conduct of nominees and looking at whether anything they have done in the past may bring the House into disrepute. It has a key role in that area.
Baroness Boothroyd (CB)
My Lords, on 7 September last year the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, who was then the Lord Privy Seal, said:
“There is a convention that if a new Peer is a special adviser, they will be able to participate in the Division Lobbies but not contribute to debates”.—[Official Report, 7/9/15; col. 1213.]
Quite frankly, that convention seems to me to have been invented in the last few years. Would it not be more appropriate if this issue were referred to the Appointments Commission for thorough examination?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
The noble Baroness is absolutely right. Although the noble Lord, Lord Hart of Chilton, entered the House in 2004 he did not make his maiden speech until 2007, after ceasing to be a special adviser. This approach, based on advice from the then Clerk of the Parliaments, has been accepted as practice ever since and the House authorities have confirmed that they consider that it remains appropriate.
Lord Newby (LD)
Does the noble Baroness the Leader of the House agree that in a democracy, the best people to decide on the suitability of those who make the laws are the people themselves in a ballot?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I am afraid that the noble Lord will expect my answer not to be yes. What is most important is that this House does an incredibly important job, and we can see by looking across the House, and across all Benches, the wealth of expertise and experience that we have. This is important and we should celebrate and talk positively about the role of the House, rather than perhaps continuing to add to some of the public perception that we do not do the job which we actually do.
Lord Low of Dalston (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the House of Lords Appointments Commission. The commission has not discussed this issue but, speaking for myself, an amendment of the kind suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, would be not unhelpful because it is often quite difficult to radically distinguish questions of suitability and propriety.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I thank the noble Lord for his insight, particularly in view of his role, but as I said, we have no plans to amend the commission’s remit.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I will try not to emulate the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and lead with my chin but will my noble friend amplify her earlier remarks? She said that those who make the political nominations are accountable, but accountable to whom and how?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
It is beholden on political parties to ensure that they make effective nominations to contribute to the role of this House; it is beholden on us within this House to work with the best of our ability here. It is also important that we reflect the wide range of expertise and experience of people around this country, so that we can do an effective job on their behalf.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
Does the Leader of the House agree that whatever the strengths and weaknesses of the Appointments Commission, it is a far better system for getting people into this House than the system of by-elections for the replacement of hereditary Peers, including a recent by-election where there were nine candidates and an electorate of three? Will the Minister acknowledge that a splendid Bill to eradicate this procedure is scheduled for a week on Friday—modesty prevents me mentioning its sponsor—and agree that the Government should give it their support?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I congratulate the noble Lord on his excellent outline of his own Bill; I think we all know that it is he who is taking this forward. I am afraid that on this occasion I cannot offer him those kinds of assurances. However, it is imperative that all people in this House play their part, and we have a range of skills and expertise that help us to do so.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, will the noble Baroness the Leader of the House have discussions with her colleagues about the need for an amendment to a suitable forthcoming Bill to introduce a statutory ceiling on the numbers of Peers entitled to sit in your Lordships’ House, and an associated amendment to provide for a procedure to reduce the numbers of Peers to achieve a ceiling by 2020?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. As I am sure she is aware, we will be having an extensive debate on this next Monday, which I am looking forward to. I am sure there will be lots of interesting opinions and views and I urge all noble Lords who have not already signed up—a lot of noble Lords have—to do so in order that we can hear the whole range of views across the House.
European Union: Trade
Lord Haskel
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have given undertakings to different sectors of industry regarding trade with the European Union; and, if so, whether these will be incorporated in their industrial strategy.
Lord Henley (Con)
My Lords, as the Prime Minister has said, the Government want British companies in different sectors to have the maximum freedom to trade with and operate in the single market and to let European businesses do the same here. The industrial strategy will make clear that building a productive, open and competitive business environment is vital in delivering an economy that works for all.
Lord Haskel (Lab)
My Lords, this Question was originally put down when assurances were given to Nissan regarding Brexit and the EU. It remains topical because everybody else is still waiting for a reply. Will the Government confront this uncertainty? Will they show some leadership and give the sense of direction that is needed to enable and encourage the investment and the organisation so that everybody else can get on with the job of raising the productivity that we so desperately need?
Lord Henley
My Lords, the noble Lord received an answer from my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe when she responded to the Statement on 31 October. A response was also given by the Secretary of State in another place on the same occasion. As we made clear, we will publish an industrial strategy later this year. There are not many days to go before the year ends, and the noble Lord can wait for that occasion.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)
My Lords, do the Government agree that any special Brexit deal for Nissan, as intimated by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, or any other of our car makers, is not even necessary, because EU car makers sell us 2.4 cars for every car that we sell them, and they enjoy 64% of our domestic car market? And are there not 2.5 million more jobs in the EU selling things to us than we have selling things to them? Is it not in the EU’s interest to continue in free trade with us in the car sector and, indeed, in other sectors?
Lord Henley
My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, no special deal was made for Nissan. A certain number of assurances were given, which were set out by my noble friend in repeating the Statement here on 31 October. We look forward to Nissan producing as many cars as it does. We are grateful for the fact that it has put such faith in the north-east and in this country. Seven thousand jobs, and a great many others in the supply stream, are dependent on that. We also look forward to continuing to trade freely with Europe.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that some 200 American companies and 50 companies from Japan have located in Wales in order to sell into the European market and that any system of financial aid to industry has to be open, equally accessible and transparent so that companies such as Ford, Toyota, Airbus and Siemens are not disadvantaged in regard to their competitors?
Lord Henley
My Lords, as my right honourable friend made clear in another place, there has been no compensation package for Nissan. Nissan will continue to produce its vehicles in the north-east, and we hope that all those firms in Wales and other parts of the United Kingdom will continue to produce whatever they are good at in those countries and will continue to trade freely with the rest of the European Union.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I refer to my interests as set out in the register. The Government are pinning an awful lot of hope on their industrial strategy. I think the Minister said that a Green Paper will be published at the end of the year, but when will we have the full-blown, finished, finalised industrial strategy that will help guide us through the Brexit negotiations and on the investments that the Government seem to be planning?
Lord Henley
My Lords, the noble Lord is right to point out that the industrial strategy will be a Green Paper. As it is a Green Paper, it will involve a great deal of consultation and further discussion. In due course, further papers will follow from it. I am not going to give a timescale as to when that might be.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord back to the Front Bench and look forward to debating with him again in future. In October, the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, said that the forthcoming Green Paper—I am glad to hear it confirmed that there will be one—will continue to give support to the original proposal by the Prime Minister that employees and stakeholders will get a stronger voice in company boardrooms. Since then, business organisations have unanimously come out against this. Does it remain a commitment of the Government?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I am not going to comment on what will be coming before the noble Lord and others sometime later this year. The noble Lord does not have to wait long—he does not even have to wait as long as Christmas before this wonderful Green Paper comes out. He can then peruse it and make his comments in due course.
Lord Kinnock (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister not see the contradiction in his statement a few moments ago that “assurances”—I am quoting him—have been given to Nissan but that there is no “special deal”? Given that the need for assurances arises wholly and solely out of this country’s impending departure from the European Union and the single market, why do the Government feel so inhibited about publicising the assurances given so that they can be examined to see whether there is in fact a special deal which could be imparted to all the other companies that will be affected?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I made clear that there was no compensation package to Nissan. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State made that clear and my noble friend made it clear when she repeated that Statement on 31 October and gave four assurances. There is not time for me to go through those four assurances, but I refer the noble Lord back to the debate that was held on 31 October, where he can read through them.
Prison Suicides
Lord Beecham
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what urgent action they are taking to tackle prison suicides in the light of the latest figures showing a suicide within the prison system on average every three days this year.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, I add my welcome to the noble Lord on his return to the Front Bench, and beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice.
Lord Henley (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that very kind remark. This is a serious issue. Prison safety is our main priority, and we are determined to tackle the problem. Our £500 million Prison Safety and Reform White Paper will help recruit an extra 2,500 officers, helping to reduce self-harm and violence and allowing greater individual supervision of offenders. We provide vital support to prisoners at risk of suicide every day, including on reception to prison and through our hard-working prison staff, health partners and the prisoner Listener programme.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, it is blindingly obviously that our overcrowded and understaffed prisons are in crisis. The number of suicides this year has already surpassed the highest number previously recorded, in 1978. Self-harm and mental health problems continue to increase. All of this places intolerable pressure on staff, who will, even after the additional 2,500 are eventually appointed, still be 4,600 short of where they were four years ago. In their prisons White Paper, the Government devote all of four paragraphs to health issues and promise a review. Given the role of NHS England and Public Health England, they promise a joint approach to the commissioning of prison health services, with responsibility for budgetary and clinical decisions and for quality remaining with commissioners and providers, and with governors taking joint responsibility. But, crucially, there is no mention of any additional funding in the context of the NHS, which is also in the throes of a growing crisis, and for which no extra funding was promised in the Autumn Statement. Has the Ministry of Justice made any estimate of the cost of tackling the health crisis in our prisons? Will the Department of Health foot the bill, thereby increasing the pressure on the NHS? Is it not high time for the Government to recognise that extra funding needs to be found for the prison health service, but not at the expense of the mainstream NHS budget?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I accept that we are in a very serious situation. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has publicly acknowledged that the level of violence in our prisons is too high. She has also said that we are addressing it—and that is what the White Paper set out to do, with a comprehensive reform of our prison system. That is why she made it quite clear that there would be an extra 2,500 officers by 2018. I accept that 2018 is some way off, which is why she made it clear that, starting with the most challenging prisons, there would be an extra 400 officers by March next year.
In the White Paper—the noble Lord will probably be more familiar with the White Paper than I am, as I am very new to the issue this afternoon—we set out a number of matters to ensure that prisons are safer and more secure, that standards are raised, that we will see a further empowering of prisoners and we can introduce greater accountability and scrutiny.
On his questions about extra funding from prisons to the health service and from the health service to prisons or vice versa, I will certainly take those on board and make sure that my right honourable friend is made aware of them.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, there is a new report from the Howard League and Centre for Mental Health. That report and the statistics mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, strikingly demonstrate the shocking crisis in our prisons. The White Paper that the Minister mentioned, Prison Safety and Reform, contains much that is valuable on renewing the prison estate, tackling the flow of drugs and bringing more education to prisons, but these are long-term measures. The crisis requires urgent action: many more staff in weeks and very few months, not years; an end to prisoners having to spend 23 hours in their cells; an end to mental health prisoners being placed in segregation when we need more secure hospital places; a serious attack on overcrowding, starting immediately with an end to IPP prisoners and their release; and guidance given on an end to short sentences. When will the Government start taking the measures that are needed to solve this very urgent crisis, which is far worse than simply a “serious situation”?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I was aware of the new report by the Howard League because I heard news of it on the radio this morning. At that stage I did not realise I would be at the Dispatch Box responding to the noble Lord about the matter some hours later. I am very grateful to him for drawing it to the attention of the House.
He makes clear, as did I, that a number of long-term measures are set out in the White Paper, and I hope the House is grateful for that. But I also acknowledge that short-term measures are necessary. That is why I wanted to highlight the fact that we are doing something in the 10 most challenging prisons to get 400 extra officers by March next year. The noble Lord will accept that that is something for the short term and something that we can do quickly.
At this stage, all I can say is that I note what the noble Lord said and that it will be taken on board. We are not complacent on this matter. As I said in my second response, we accept that this is a very serious situation, which is why we are trying to respond in both the long and short term.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB)
My Lords, I wish Ministers would stop talking about “extra staff”. They are not extra; they are replacing staff who were wilfully cut, as the noble Lord, Lord Marks, said. I also wish Ministers would stop taking a long-term view of what has been exposed as being a crisis by successive chief inspectors of prisons over many years but has been ignored. Most recently it was raised by the Prison Governors Association, which called for a public inquiry into the state of our prisons. That organisation should know because it is on the receiving end of what is happening in prisons.
The disgraceful figure of suicides owes much to the situation that, frankly, the Government have created. So when will they show a sense of urgency in getting out of the situation rather than talking all the time about the long term?
Lord Henley
My Lords, the noble Lord implies that we are being complacent and that we are not doing enough. I think I have stressed that my right honourable friend accepts that there is a very serious situation. I also stress that she accepts and values the work done by the Prison Officers’ Association. As the noble Lord well knows, my right honourable friend recently met the association and has a great deal of respect for what it does; I think that the meeting was constructive. With meetings of that sort and what my right honourable friend has proposed, I hope that we can take these matters forward and that the noble Lord, who I know has more expertise in this than anyone else, will accept that we are doing all we can in this matter.
Lord Elton (Con)
My Lords, declaring an interest as a former Minister for the Prison Service and, before that, in the Department of Health and Social Security, will my noble friend recognise that, in the long term, the effective, humane and cost-effective solution to this does not lie inside prison or how you treat prisoners at all; it depends on how you treat young people so that they do not become criminals? The path to criminality is easily detected as it begins—frequently, simply by being excluded from school and driven on to the streets without supervision. Small resources there would have big results.
Lord Henley
My Lords, I well remember my noble friend when he stood at the Dispatch Box answering for Her Majesty’s Government on these matters. He offered us a great many thoughts that ought to be taken on board and he is right to stress the important fact that it would be better if people never went to prison in the first place.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister will have gathered that the majority view in your Lordships’ House is that the Government’s response to a desperate situation will be too little, too late. I asked his noble and learned friend Lord Keen to write to me when he justified the reduction of more than 4,000 officers by saying that prisons had closed. I asked him which benchmarks were being used to assess the number of prison officers needed. It is clear that many in your Lordships’ House think that the Government are not justifying the meagre increase mitigating the effects of their massive cuts. Will suicides, overcrowding and the reduction in staffing and lack of access to training be part of the Government’s new benchmarks? I await the answer from the Minister’s noble and learned friend as to what is used to calculate staffing levels, and which are the miraculous new benchmarks that seem to be leading to chaos in our prisons for the foreseeable future.
Lord Henley
My Lords, I have not had the pleasure of seeing the noble Baroness’s letter to my noble and learned friend. I will certainly make sure that it is answered as soon as possible and will make a point of having a look at it myself—but I hope that she will accept that, having not seen it myself, I cannot yet respond to it in detail.
Policing and Crime Bill
(7 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 6, Schedule 1, Clauses 7 to 9, Schedule 2, Clauses 10 and 11, Schedule 3, Clauses 12 and 13, Schedule 4, Clauses 14 and 15, Schedule 5, Clauses 16 to 27, Schedule 6, Clause 28, Schedule 7 Clause 29, Schedule 8, Clauses 30 to 32, Schedule 9, Clauses 33 to 37, Schedules 10 and 11, Clauses 38 to 44, Schedule 12, Clause 45, Schedule 13, Clauses 46 to 50, Schedule 14, Clauses 51 to 105, Schedules 15 and 16, Clauses 106 and 107, Schedule 17, Clauses 108 to 127, Schedule 18, Clauses 128 to 142, Schedule 19, Clauses 143 to 161, Title.
Pension Schemes Bill [HL]
Monday 28th November 2016
(7 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Pension Schemes Act 2017 View all Pension Schemes Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 65-II Second marshalled list for Committee (PDF, 97KB) - (24 Nov 2016)
Baroness Drake
Baroness Drake (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 45 and to the other amendments in this group. My noble friend Lord McKenzie will speak to Amendment 47A.
Clause 31, taken with Schedule 1, provides a power for the regulator to pause certain master trust activities once a triggering event such as a wind-up has occurred. That power can be exercised if there is an immediate threat to the assets of the scheme or it is in the interests of the generality of the scheme members. A pause order prevents new members coming in, payments being made, further contributions being received or benefits being paid. That is a sensible provision. The administrative and accounting records of the master trust or of other companies used by the trust to hold investments or provide services may be in a mess. It may not be clear who is entitled to what. Evidence of fraud may emerge during a triggering event. The early years experience of the Pension Protection Fund when accessing schemes that have the mix of DB and DC benefits revealed just how poor the records could be and the problems that that throws up.
The amendments in this group in my name and that of my noble friend Lord McKenzie are directed at how the pause will work in practice. Clause 31(4) restricts the use of a pause order to circumstances in which there is,
“an immediate risk to the interests of members … or the assets … and … it is necessary”,
to act. Amendment 45 adds the words “or prudent” after the word “necessary” to protect members’ interests, as a condition to be met if a pause order is to be made. The intention behind inserting that phrase is to give the regulator greater discretion and an ability to act more cautiously and earlier than is suggested by the word “necessary”—and, indeed, before a risk has crystallised—to allow the regulator to mitigate emerging risks to members and take action when in their informed view it would be prudent to do so. The power to issue a pause order comes into effect only when there is a triggering event, when a failure of some kind has already occurred, which means that the likelihood of a risk to the assets or members crystallising is greater, so allowing a prudent approach in those circumstances seems sensible.
If a pause order is in place, Clause 31 provides that no subsequent pension contributions due to be paid into the scheme by or on behalf of the member or employer can be paid, and any pension contributions deductions from a member’s earnings will be repaid to them. Under the Bill as drafted, the total period during which a pause order can be in place is six months, but the Government have tabled Amendment 52, which will allow the regulator to extend the pause order on one or more occasions, unconstrained by the six-month limit. So, the pause order could stay in place for quite a long time. During the period when the pause order is in place, the member loses the ability to save for a pension through the workplace scheme, loses the tax relief and loses the employer’s contribution due under auto-enrolment. It is harsh on the individual to lose pension savings and interrupt the harnessing of inertia in auto-enrolment, when through no fault of theirs a master trust fails.
Amendment 46 would address that loss to the member by requiring that pension contributions that would otherwise have been due to a member should be held in an escrow account or otherwise under arrangements to be specified by the regulator. Those contributions could be held somewhere safe until the pause order is lifted and then paid into members’ individual pension pots. It would not be necessary for the money held to be invested so as to gain value that reflects what the member would have received if the original scheme had not been wound up. Holding it in a cash fund could be sufficient.
Does the Minister agree that it is harsh and unfair for workers to lose savings in their pension pots under auto-enrolment as a consequence of a master trust’s failure? Will he consider a provision allowing the pension contributions otherwise due by and held on behalf of the scheme member to continue to be paid into an appropriate holding vehicle during the period of the pause order? Clause 31 allows a pause order to prevent the making of payments and the paying out of benefits while it is in place. Depending on how such an order is applied, and for how long, that could pose real problems for some members of the scheme. Amendment 50 would allow payments to be paid for someone in ill health. For example, an older person with debilitating chronic ill health or a terminal illness could be in real difficulty if they were denied access to pension savings that they needed to live on. How is it intended that the pause order regulations will address the needs of people in ill health?
Master trusts will receive pension contributions into members’ pots, but they will also pay out money to members accessing their savings. Where a scheme member has been relying on such payments to live, and may have standing orders in place for their bills, if payments are suddenly ceased they could be in some difficulty. How will the pause order regulations address the needs of those people, particularly pensioners, who are dependent on payments received from the master trust? As I said in opening, the provision for a pause order seems sensible: it is the manner in which that order is operated that could cause unfairness or difficulties.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I support these amendments, and I would like to probe the Minister on what the pause order is really meant to achieve. As the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, has just asked, how does he envisage it will work in practice? If a pause order is introduced by the Pensions Regulator, it is likely that an employer will be in breach of its auto-enrolment duties and potentially in breach of contract with its employees. In those circumstances, we could need some of the bulk DC transfer regulations, which we have discussed and I hope we may come to later, to enable a scheme to ensure that such transfers can be made relatively swiftly and without too much expense—perhaps before a triggering event, although the proposal is currently only if there is a triggering event. That would require some of the existing regulations that are made with DB schemes in mind to be undone.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for the debate last Monday when a number of amendments were considered. Today should bring an equally interesting discussion on a slightly broader range of topics. This group relates to the new pause power introduced in Clause 31, and includes some amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, and some tabled by me. I thank the Committee for its forbearance in considering government amendments at this stage.
Baroness Altmann
If there is no such provision as that in Amendment 46, what exactly protects members and employers by ensuring that they can continue with their legal duties to contribute to pension schemes for their members under auto-enrolment? Currently, it is not clear to me how it is intended that this pause order will fit with the legal obligations or contracts between the employer and the employee in relation to ongoing pension contributions.
Lord Freud
I think I am right in saying that the pause order would effectively trump those obligations while it is operating. However, I will come back on the detail of that. I think that is accurate. That is why it is in the legislation—so that there is legal clarity about the obligations people have when they pay into a scheme that is formally paused by the regulator.
Under Amendment 50, the pause order would not be able to prevent payments with regard to ill health benefits. The current provisions mirror those in the Pensions Act 2004 with regard to the Pensions Regulator’s freezing order. I am not convinced that there is sufficient argument on why this should differ to those provisions. In particular, the pause order direction can specify payments, so—in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Drake—the regulator will be able to consider whether to use the power to stop such payments.
The provisions in Schedule 1 to which the noble Baroness has added her amendments make it clear that there is no impact on orders made on divorce which modify members’ rights in the scheme. They do not provide for generalised exemptions to the power to prevent transfers under the pause order. The amendment would mean that, regardless of the situation, ill health payments could not be affected by a pause order. Government Amendment 47 would enable the regulator to tailor the pause order to the circumstances with regard to stopping benefit payments. I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that that solution is better than the one in Amendment 50. That would include being able to apply the pause to specified benefits and specified members, and in a way that would take account of the specific case and situation. I therefore trust that this gives some comfort that the regulator could consider certain types of membership.
To come back to the question raised by my noble friend Lady Altmann, on the legal duty for employers, paragraph 13 of Schedule 3 ensures that a pause order will not cause employers to fall foul of their legal duties. I am glad to be able to confirm that.
Baroness Altmann
Does that also apply to a contract between the employer and the employee for pension contributions rather than just under auto-enrolment, if it is a term of the employment contract?
Lord Freud
I think that the situation is the same—the fact that you have primary legislation will allow that to happen. I will clarify that, but I think that is the point of primary legislation.
I make the point to the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, that the Pensions Regulator will make a pause order only under carefully considered circumstances. The pause order may last for the duration of a triggering event period but is not likely to continue for a significant length of time, and the regulator must weigh up the potential impacts on members when considering whether to issue such an order.
I shall now turn to the government amendments on the pause power.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, perhaps I might speak to my amendment in this group, which he has answered in part. That might make it a tidier process.
The purpose of Amendment 47A is to look at the issue of tax relief, as the Minister has identified. Under the pause provisions, an order can direct that no new members are to be admitted to the scheme and no further contributions and payments are to be paid towards the scheme by, or on behalf of, any employer or members. This does not apply, under Clause 31(6), to,
“contributions due to be paid before the order takes effect … and … references to payments … include payments in respect of pension credits”.
Our amendment seeks to make it clear that amounts recoverable by the provider from HMRC in respect of tax relief attributable to the permitted contributions—that is, those paid before the order—will still be available to the master trust. For the purposes of Clause 31(6)(a), it is presumed that the tax component is a contribution or payment. If so, do the mechanics of how relief at source operates mean that the HMRC payment is due to be paid before the order if the related contribution is—there is a timing issue here—or is it proposed that there will be some form of carve-out for the tax relief under Clause 31(5)(b)?
The intention behind the amendment was to probe that narrow issue rather than to achieve a wider objective, but of course it raises the wider issue of the amounts of the two forms of tax relief, touched upon in particular at Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Flight, and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. They set down very clearly the problem for schemes operating net pay arrangements for individuals who do not pay income tax, in contrast to those who use the relief at source method and can get tax relief at 20% on the first £2,880 paid into a pension—equivalent to a gross of £3,600. Those who are not subject to income tax and are within the net pay method are clearly missing out. The extent to which they miss out in aggregate may not be dramatic at present and will be influenced by auto-enrolment thresholds or current required contribution levels and the income tax threshold—the personal allowance. However, this will increase as more and more auto-enrolment takes place, the required contribution increases to 3% and there is still a gap—possibly a widening gap—between the threshold and the income tax personal allowance.
Can the Minister tell us how many non-taxpayers are currently contributing to a pension under net pay arrangements and could benefit from relief at source, and what is the aggregate tax benefit forgone? Going back to my earlier point, the amendment is intended specifically to focus on the technical issue of how that tax is garnered and paid before the cut-off point of the pause order.
Lord Freud
My Lords, on that narrow point, I hope that I can again reassure the noble Lord that, when those rebates are due, before the pause order is in place, we have a way of making sure that they are paid—through Clause 31(6)(a). It may be easier for me to write to the noble Lord and describe that process, but I think that it achieves what he is looking for. I will have to provide the figures on the net pay separately but will write to him on those, too.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I would be grateful if the noble Lord could write on that specific point because I am struggling to see how a contribution—particularly one which comes in fairly late in relation to the date of the pause order—could immediately be converted into a receipt from HMRC, which is what I think the Bill requires.
Lord Freud
This is really a specific point, but I will write to the noble Lord both on the numbers and on how the process will work. I hope that that will be satisfactory and that we can then dispose of the matter for the purposes of later stages of the Bill.
I turn to government Amendments 47, 48, 49 and 52. These are intended to provide further clarity and some tidying up of the provision. They are based on further consideration of the comparisons with the Pension Regulator’s freezing-order power in the Pensions Act 2004, and are intended to ensure that they work sufficiently in a triggering event period. Amendment 47 makes clear that the pause power can be used to prevent benefits being paid out. Following the introduction of the Bill to the House, we have received some inquiries as to whether this is achieved through the provisions in the Bill. That was our intent, and as the freezing-order power makes separate provision to cover this aspect, we have, through Amendment 47, made an equivalent and explicit provision in respect of the pause order. Amendment 48 inserts a missing definition of “pension credit”, which was an oversight, and mirrors the freezing-order power. Amendment 49 is consequential to Amendment 47, and ensures that members retain their entitlement to any benefit payments affected by the pause order.
Baroness Drake
I thank the Minister for his detailed response to the particular issues I raised in the amendments that I spoke to. However, I do not find the arguments very convincing. The noble Lord said that a pause order would be exceptional—I very much hope it would be, because it would mean that the preceding authorisation and supervision regime had not been very successful. But looking forward, even in an exceptional circumstance, the numbers affected in a failing master trust could be quite significant. It is clear how large the footprint of those trusts will become. What will remain is that it is unfair to the individual during a pause order because the employee loses a contractual and statutory right to contributions, and the employer fails to honour a statutory and contractual obligation to make contributions. Unless the Minister wishes to direct me to a provision in the Bill, I can find nothing that protects the individual or the employer from breaches in those statutory provisions.
Unfortunately, I do not have with me the letter that the Pensions Minister wrote to my noble friend Lord McKenzie and me in response to a meeting of Peers on 8 November, where the Minister conceded that the Government had not fully considered a provision that would allow those contributions to be held in some alternative vehicle while the pause order was in place. As the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, has said, there is a breach of a statutory obligation potentially arising from a term within this Bill.
The Pensions Regulator need not hold the funds. The Pensions Regulator would clear the arrangements, consistent with any regulations that were set, but the holder of the funds could be an alternative operator or provider, which regulation or the Pensions Regulator could choose to identify. The records that come in from the employer should still be possible because, immediately before the pause order, the employer would have to provide records of contributions collected and paid. No failure is being posed in terms of the employer, so records should be available for reconciliation quite quickly if those contributions are held in some kind of cash account or cash fund.
I note the Minister’s comment that the Pensions Regulator has a discretion as to what payments it does or does not prevent being paid out during a pause order, but it is concerning that we do not have clarity on the policy thinking around how those with serious ill health or real income dependency on their savings would be dealt with in a pause order situation, should they be embraced or potentially embraced by the terms of the order. I fully understand the need for an exceptional power, if evidence of fraud emerges in the records, for the regulator to have some control over payments made or contributions received, but at the moment the way in which it is proposed that this pause order would operate seems unfair on the individuals, puts the employer in breach of a statutory obligation and leaves unclear what protections would be afforded to the most vulnerable who may be impacted by that pause order.
Lord Freud
Let me just respond. The difference is that we are trying to get control of an obviously difficult situation. The pause is to allow the regulator to go in and make sure that the situation is sorted. We are not talking about keeping the flow of things going in a normal way; we are talking about a very difficult situation. We are worrying about losing the money that is already there, not about the smooth flow. We are typically talking about a very short period. Setting up large paraphernalia, which the noble Baroness is beginning to drift towards, would not be the point. The real point is to get the funds transferred as quickly as possible.
The noble Baroness asked where the legislation is. I can direct her to Clause 31(5)(c), which states that any contributions not paid over to the scheme are returned to the member, and paragraph 13 of Schedule 3, which ensures that the pause order will not cause employers to fall foul of their legal duties. I hope that that helps the noble Baroness in her consideration of what we are doing.
Baroness Altmann
I have a couple more probing questions for my noble friend. The pause order is obviously intended to be used only in exceptional circumstances and in extreme concern about the solvency or probity of the master trust itself. I can certainly understand that, in that situation, one would not want to take any new employers, so it would pause adding any new employers. But it still seems that there is no protection for the ongoing accrual of members’ pension benefits, which is what we are trying to do with auto-enrolment. If the procedures suggested in the amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, and the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, are not considered appropriate—in other words, for the regulator itself to collect in the contributions—would it not be prudent at this stage and before the legislation is passed to have a proper plan for how ongoing contributions can be made and collected, perhaps through some form of bulk defined contribution transfer, even on a temporary basis, for members without consent to another master trust? At this stage we should produce such a plan rather than wait and hope that it will be okay.
Lord Freud
I am grateful to my noble friend. There are different processes going on and the intention of the pause order is not to be the paraphernalia for sorting out a scheme that is in difficulty. What we are looking at is a process we can go to where we can discuss option 1 and option 2 in order to transfer the funds to a better functioning scheme. While we are doing that, we are pausing it to allow the process to happen. It is important to view the two things on more of a sequential basis than trying to make a big performance of the pause order. It is there for a different reason: it allows us to get on with sorting out the scheme and making the transfers that my noble friend is looking for.
Baroness Drake
I thank the Minister. He has said that the pause order will be short, but the problem is that the noble Lord contradicts himself because the Government have just tabled their Amendment 52 which removes the six-month limit on a pause order. That implies that situations are anticipated where the pause order would need not to be short and certainly in excess of six months.
I am certainly not looking for complicated paraphernalia here, although I would suggest that working through whether individuals are due a refund of contributions and sorting out the tax implications of such a refund could indeed be very complicated. My noble friend and I have suggested something simpler. The employer will still have the statutory obligation so it will have its records and collect the contributions. It was a question of having something simple for holding those contributions during the period of the pause order so that they can subsequently be reconciled against the individual members; it certainly does not need to be overly complicated.
I accept the noble Lord’s point that the driving force for a pause order is to deal with a threat to the assets or the scheme members’ interests in general, but in resolving that bigger problem it appears that the detail of the route being taken is unnecessarily unfair in terms of its impact on the statutory and contractual rights of individuals to continue having access to pension savings. I think that we have gone into the detail of this issue at some considerable length in this exchange, but I do feel that the Government have not explained satisfactorily why the contributions cannot be held during the pause order without believing that this needs to be terribly complex. They have not addressed the issue that this will put individuals in a position where they are denied their statutory and contractual rights for a period, and an employer in breach of its statutory duties, and there remains a lack of clarity in thinking about the impact on vulnerable people in the manner in which the pause order is introduced. However, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Freud
“(ca) a direction that no benefits (or no specified benefits) are to be paid to or in respect of any members (or any specified members) under the scheme rules;”
Lord Freud
““pension credit” means a credit under section 29(1)(b) of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 or under corresponding Northern Ireland legislation;”
Lord Freud
(ii) a direction under section 31(5)(ca) does not prevent the payment becoming due.”
Lord Freud
“(6A) Regulations under sub-paragraph (6) override any provision of the Master Trust scheme, to the extent that there is a conflict.”
Lord Freud
Lord Freud
I thank noble Lords for allowing me to speak to these amendments. Once again, please accept my sincere apologies for proposing these amendments now rather than including them in the draft Bill as introduced. Most of my proposed amendments modify the procedures the Pensions Regulator must follow when exercising some of the new functions introduced by the Bill.
Amendments 58 to 65 and Amendments 73 and 76 change the procedure that the regulator must follow when making a decision on an application for authorisation from an existing master trust scheme. The majority of the Pensions Regulator’s statutory functions are exercised through internal procedure known as “standard procedure”, with “special procedure” applying to certain functions where there is an immediate risk to members or assets. These procedures are set out in the Pensions Act 2004. The Bill as introduced provides for standard and special procedure to apply to the power to grant or refuse authorisation to an existing master trust scheme. However, on further consideration, we do not believe that some of the steps involved in these procedures would be appropriate.
The standard procedure provides for the issuing of a “warning notice” to such persons who, in the view of the regulator, would be directly affected by the regulatory action under consideration. They would then have the opportunity to make representations before a decision could be made about whether to exercise the regulatory function. This means that the Pensions Regulator would be obliged to send the trustees of an existing scheme such a notice after the trustees submit an application for authorisation.
In this instance, the regulatory action the notice would refer to would be the power to grant or refuse authorisation. It would not be necessary to warn the trustees that the regulator intends to take this regulatory action and make this decision, nor would it be appropriate to invite further representations at this point as the trustees would have submitted all necessary representations in their application. Special procedure, which dispenses with the warning notice and representations steps in the first instance, could be used only when the regulator considers there is an immediate risk to the interests of the members or assets of the scheme.
Amendments 58 to 65 and Amendments 73 and 76 would align the process of deciding whether to grant authorisation to an existing master trust with the process the Bill specifies for making this decision for new schemes. However, the amendments retain the requirement that the decision to grant or refuse authorisations must be made by the determinations panel of the Pensions Regulator. This is appropriate because in both situations a scheme operating in the market will be required to transfer members out to an authorised master trust scheme and to wind up. The impact of this is significant, and under these circumstances it is appropriate for the determinations panel to make the decision. The amendments I propose would maintain rights of appeal to the First-tier or Upper Tribunal should the decision be to refuse authorisation. The amendments would simply remove unnecessary steps and delay.
Amendment 55 has a slightly different purpose. It would ensure that if an existing master trust scheme—that is, a master trust in operation before the commencement date—submits an application for authorisation and the Pensions Regulator decides to refuse authorisation, it would not have to commence the process of transferring members out and winding up until any appeals are disposed of.
The final amendments I seek to move within this group are Amendments 72 and 77, which also deal with changes in procedure, but in relation to different regulatory powers within the Bill. The regulator has a power to direct the trustees of an authorised master trust to comply with the requirements of Clause 26 in relation to the implementation strategy. Where there is no strong reason to specify a different procedure, it is right that the regulator’s functions should be subject to the standard procedure, and for this reason Amendment 72 makes this power to direct subject to that procedure. In addition, where the trustees of a master trust should be following an approved implementation strategy but are failing to do so, under Clause 28(4) the regulator has the power to direct the trustees to pursue the continuity option identified in the strategy and to take such steps as are identified in the strategy to carry it out.
Amendment 77 makes this a power which can only be exercised by the determinations panel under standard procedure. The Government consider this appropriate, as it is a power which may have a significant impact on the scheme and its members. I hope I have given a thorough explanation of my proposed amendments. I thank noble Lords again for bearing with me in bringing these amendments at this stage of the Bill process, and I beg to move.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his full explanation of these provisions. I am bound to say that we would like to study them a bit further and bring something forward on Report, if necessary, but I thank the Minister and the Bill team for supplying us with a Keeling schedule, which made these provisions somewhat less impenetrable than they might otherwise have been. As far as the panel is concerned, we discussed the issue of resources available to the regulator before. Will the determinations panel have the necessary resources available to it, and how speedily can it act and pick up these matters?
I have two brief questions on Amendments 73 and 76, which delete particular provisions in the Bill. Amendment 76, for example, deletes:
“The power to grant or refuse authorisation of a Master Trust scheme in operation on the commencement date under section 5”.
I presume that power is being deleted because it flows to the determinations panel, but will the Minister just clarify that for us?
Lord Freud
I am pleased to do that. My understanding is that the second assumption is correct: Amendment 76 moves it over to the determinations panel and I spelled out last Monday the process by which we will get the financial resources required by the Pensions Regulator. Clearly, one of the issues in that process will be the funds required to operate the determinations panel.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, this small, probing amendment would reduce the application period from six months to three. It was conceived by seeking to deal with the question: for how long can an authorised master trust remain in operation unauthorised under these provisions? That is what sparked the thoughts. I acknowledge that the consequential amendment to paragraph 8(7), which should have followed, has not been made, so in effect we have just part of the amendment here.
The purpose of this probe is to test the rationale for the length of the period during which an existing master trust can continue to operate without authorisation. As it stands, a master trust must apply for authorisation by the end of the application period. The application period in the Bill is six months—three in our amendment—beginning with the commencement date. The commencement date is the date on which Clause 3—“Prohibition on operating a scheme unless authorised”—comes into force, which is to be fixed by the Secretary of State but is expected to be some two years away. The Pensions Regulator must make a decision on the application within six months and, if it is refused, can be referred by the trustees or others to the tribunal.
From today, absent an appeal, an existing master trust could remain in operation for two years before the commencement date; then there are six months before it applies, with a six-week extension, and six months during which the Pensions Regulator must give it consideration, assuming that there is no appeal. This is potentially a long time. It is accepted that the transitional provisions will be in place from the date the Act is passed, or 20 October, concerning triggering events, the prohibition on increasing charges and the scheme funder’s liability for the costs of winding up the scheme. Of course, all this is happening nearly two years after the commencement of auto-enrolment, which has been the spur to the growth of master trusts.
My plea is: should we not be making faster progress? Given the commitment to consult on regulations, the shape of the detail required for an application will surely be evolving long before the commencement date. Is there not a way we can make faster progress in this very important area, where billions of pounds of people’s investments are at risk? I beg to move.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, as we have just heard, the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, would reduce the time period an existing master trust scheme will have in which to apply for authorisation from the commencement of the relevant provisions of the Bill from six to three months. While I have some sympathy with the amendment, for the reasons set out by the noble Lord, the Government’s view, which is informed in part by the Pensions Regulator, is that there is a compelling case for allowing a maximum of six months.
My expectation is that some schemes will have relatively little to do in order to align their businesses with the new requirements and, as a result, will be in a position to apply for authorisation early in the six-month application window. Others may face more of a challenge and may need time to consider the final legislation in full—including, of course, the regulations, which will come out next year—before they determine whether to apply for authorisation or withdraw from the market. We do not want to risk losing good schemes from the market because they have not had sufficient time to make the necessary changes to meet these new requirements. Having consulted the regulator, our view is that six months will give schemes the time they are likely to need.
I appreciate the noble Lord’s concern that members should be protected as quickly as possible but we must get the balance right between achieving that and placing demands on existing businesses. As I think the noble Lord recognised in his remarks, an additional key protection for members is set out in the Bill, which will apply from the beginning of the application window. This is in addition to the retrospective provisions in the Bill, which mean that a scheme that experiences a triggering event from 20 October this year will be unable to increase charges on members to pay for scheme wind-up. The additional protection is that if a scheme experiences a triggering event during this period, and the regulator has reason to believe that there is an immediate risk to the interests of scheme members, the regulator will have the ability to issue a pause order under Clause 31, which we have just been discussing, regardless of whether or not the scheme has submitted an application for authorisation.
Finally, on the overall length of time it will take, as the Bill stands, from the date on which regulations fully commence master trust schemes will have six months to submit an application for authorisation. The Pensions Regulator will then have six months from the point of receiving an application to decide whether to grant or refuse authorisation. This means that the vast majority of existing schemes will be either authorised or not authorised within one year of full commencement. Where trustees are unsuccessful, they can appeal to the First-tier Tribunal or the Upper Tribunal. The master trust will be able to continue operating pending the outcome of that appeal.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply—which was not unanticipated. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Young of Cookham
“3A Existing Master Trust schemes: pause orders(1) This section applies where the trustees of an existing Master Trust scheme have applied for authorisation of the scheme under section 4 and the decision on the application has not yet become final (see section 35).(2) The Pensions Regulator may make a pause order in relation to the scheme if it is satisfied that—(a) there is, or is likely to be if a pause order is not made, an immediate risk to the interests of members under the scheme or the assets of the scheme, and(b) it is necessary to make a pause order to protect the interests of the generality of members of the scheme.(3) A pause order under this section is to be treated as if it is made under section 31.(4) But in its application to a pause order under this section, paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 is to be read as if sub-paragraph (3) were omitted.””
Lord Young of Cookham
My Lords, government Amendment 57 would allow the Pensions Regulator to issue a pause order to an existing master trust at any point between the scheme submitting an application for authorisation and the decision on the application becoming final, regardless of whether or not a triggering event has occurred in relation to that scheme. Once an existing scheme has submitted an application for authorisation, the Pensions Regulator will have access to a significant amount of new information about the scheme. That information may alert the regulator to members’ interests or assets being at risk in the scheme. Clearly, the regulator will not grant authorisation in such circumstances but it needs to be able to take immediate steps to protect the members.
A decision to refuse authorisation is one which must be taken by the determinations panel. It is right that this is so, but it means that there could be a period of time between the regulator recommending to the determinations panel that the scheme should not be authorised and the panel reaching its decision. During this time, the interests of scheme members need to be protected. The Government’s proposed amendment therefore provides that the Pensions Regulator may make a pause order in relation to a master trust scheme which has submitted an application for authorisation,
“if it is satisfied that—
(a) there is, or is likely to be if a pause order is not made, an immediate risk to the interests of members under the scheme or the assets of the scheme, and
(b) it is necessary to make a pause order to protect the interests of the generality of members of the scheme”.
These conditions mirror those we have just been discussing for making a pause order following a triggering event.
The proposed amendment would introduce an important protection for the members of existing master trust schemes during the period when such schemes are applying for authorisation. In the light of what my noble friend Lord Freud has just said, I too apologise for not making this provision in the Bill as introduced, and I beg to move.
Baroness Drake
My Lords, I intervene at least for the record. It is absolutely understandable why the Government seek to extend the pause-order powers to a master trust which has not yet received authorisation if the members’ interests are at risk. I will not repeat the arguments that I made when speaking to Amendments 46 and 50, but they remain valid here. During the period of the pause order which is applied in this circumstance, the issues of what happens to the contributions to which members would otherwise be entitled and how those vulnerable to loss of payments during a pause order are treated remain equally valid under this provision as under the previous one. However, I understand why one would want to extend the pause-order power to an unauthorised scheme.
Lord Freud
“(7) In the case of a notification under subsection (5) relating to an existing Master Trust scheme, the notification must also include an explanation that the decision is a triggering event for the purposes of sections 20 to 33A, and of the trustees’ duties under those sections.(8) In relation to an application received under section 4 from the trustees of an existing Master Trust scheme, the functions of the Regulator under this section are to be exercised by the Determinations Panel on behalf of the Regulator.(9) In subsection (8), “the Determinations Panel” means the committee established under section 9 of the Pensions Act 2004.””
“(a) in subsection (2)—(i) after “2” there were inserted “, 2A”;(ii) after “withdraw” there were inserted “or refuse”;(b) in subsection (5)(c)—(i) after “2” there were inserted “or 2A”;(ii) after “withdraw” there were inserted “or refuse”;(iii) after “withdrawn” there were inserted “or refused”;(c) in the table in subsection (6), after the row for item 2 there were inserted—
“2A. | The Pensions Regulator notifies the trustees of an existing Master Trust scheme of the Regulator’s decision to refuse to grant the scheme authorisation. | The date on which the notification is given.”; |
(a) in subsection (2)(a)—(i) after “2” there were inserted “or 2A”;(ii) after “withdraw” there were inserted “or refuse”;(b) in subsection (3)(a), after “2” there were inserted “, 2A”.”
(a) in subsection (2)—(i) after “2” there were inserted “or 2A”;(ii) after “withdraw” there were inserted “or refuse”;(b) in subsection (3), after “2” there were inserted “, 2A”.”
“13A_ Section 28 (duty to pursue continuity option) has effect as if, in subsection (3)(a), after “2” there were inserted “, 2A”.”
“(a) in subsection (1)—(i) after “2” there were inserted “or 2A”;(ii) after “withdrawn” there were inserted “or refused”;(b) in the table in subsection (3), in the first column (triggering event) for “Item 1 or 2” (in both places) there were substituted “Item 1 or 2 or 2A (decision to refuse to authorise existing Master Trust scheme);(ba) in that table, in the first row for item 1 or 2 or 2A, in the second column (circumstances),—(i) in point 1, after “determination” there were inserted “or decision”;(ii) in point 2, after “withdrawn” there were inserted “or refused”;(bb) in that table, in the second row for item 1 or 2 or 2A, in the second column (circumstances), in point 2, after “withdrawn” there were inserted “or refused”;(bc) in subsection (4), at the end there were inserted—“(c) section 6(2), in a case where that section applies.”;”
“(a) in subsection (1)—(i) after “2” there were inserted “or 2A”;(ii) after “withdraw” there were inserted “or refuse”;(b) after subsection (1) there were inserted—“(1A) This section also applies for the purposes of determining the date on which the decision on an application for authorisation of an existing Master Trust scheme becomes final for the purposes of section 3(1)(b).”;(ba) in the table in subsection (3), after the row for item 2 there were inserted—
“Item 2A (notification of decision to refuse to grant authorisation to existing Master Trust scheme) | 1. The Pensions Regulator decides to refuse to grant authorisation to an existing Master Trust scheme, and 2. there is no referral of the Regulator’s decision to the Tribunal within the time period allowed for doing so. | The date of the Regulator’s decision.” |
Lord Freud
“9A_ In section 93(2) (“regulatory functions” of the Regulator subject to procedure), omit the “and” at the end of paragraph (p) and after that paragraph insert— “(pa) the power to give a direction under section 26(7) of the Pension Schemes Act 2017 (direction to submit implementation strategy), and”.”
“44BA_ The power to give a direction under section 28(4) (direction to pursue continuity option).”
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, on the face of it, Clause 40 on the power to override contract terms appears sensible to most people. While there may be very good reasons why the Secretary of State may wish to override provisions contained in some pension schemes, I believe that the House would want to be reassured that it was absolutely necessary.
People I have talked to about my concerns over this power all say the same thing: the Government are always overriding contracts. In other words, get used to it. However, I find this quite difficult to come to terms with. As noble Lords know, I come from a local government background, where every contract has to go out to tender, even if it is too small to hit the OJEU rules. It is expected that at least three quotes will be obtained. Once initial quotes are obtained, haggling often begins on the bigger contracts, and a lot of lawyers are involved before the contract is finalised, signed and executed. The contract start date is agreed and eventually the service contracted for is begun.
Quite small parish councils also adhere to the rule that quotes must be obtained before a service contract or purchase can properly be made. It is, after all, council tax payers’ money that is being spent by parish, district, county and other local authorities. Due process has to be followed. If a contract that has been correctly drawn up, tendered for, signed and legally agreed were overridden by the local authority in question, there would be very serious consequences—and even, perhaps, central government intervention.
But here we see that the Government are proposing that contracts that have been legally executed, agreed and signed can be overridden summarily by the Secretary of State. Of course we want to be reassured that the interests of pensioners and their pension pots are protected, and we all want to ensure that all steps are taken to make that happen—but do we really need such a draconian step to facilitate this?
I originally felt that this clause set a very dangerous precedent. But I now understand that Secretaries of State do this all the time, so it quite clearly does not set a precedent as the practice already exists. I will therefore confine my comments to the Minister to asking: does he not feel that this is setting double standards for those who hold elected office and are in positions of authority? One rule exists for governance at local authority level and a completely different set of rules exists for central government. Does the Minister feel that this is likely to generate trust and confidence in central government—or, as I feel, that it will do quite the reverse?
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I will comment briefly. I find it difficult to support this proposition. The noble Baroness drew attention to contracting in local authorities, and we understand that—a number of us have been there. But is not the key issue here that the market does not produce the right result? There is weakness on the buyer side, and given the complexity of the product, you need some specific provision to deal with that. We are dealing here of course with a ban on member-borne commission and a cap on early exit charges. The latter in particular is seen to be an inhibitor to people accessing their pensions—indeed, the evidence is clear that it is an inhibitor. If those issues have to be addressed, then we have to use the mechanisms which are at hand. I agree that causing an override of these contract provisions is not the most comfortable mechanism, but it already exists in relation to scheme details, I understand, between the FCA and contract-based schemes, and this extends it to deal with other contractual arrangements relating to schemes.
I am afraid that this proposition does not have our support. We think it is important that we go ahead and get the ban on member-borne commission and the cap on early exit charges in place as soon as possible. On that latter point, I am bound to say we are somewhat disappointed. We are pleased to see the press release from the Minister announcing a cap of, I think, 1%, or 0% for new provisions. But it is will be October next year before that is in place, which again seems a little bit tardy, because the FCA is moving to get the restrictions in place by the end of March.
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (LD)
My Lords, I will add my voice to commend the merits of my noble friend’s position. I understand what the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, says, and I understand too the grave situation and the need for protection, but as I have said before—the Minister was sensitive enough to pick it up the last time we discussed this—the provision of an override completely freezes the responsibilities and duties of the trustees. There is a master trust here, which presumably—I cannot see any way round this—has a trust deed which sets out the rules and responsibilities. The provisions in this clause do not just override the contracts but run a coach and horses through the trust deed and the responsibilities of the trustees. It is effectively a vote of no confidence in the trustees, as far as I can interpret how this is to be used, and that is an extremely serious situation.
In the past, trust law has served pension provision well in this country. In addition, there are extremely onerous fit-and-proper-person tests in the earlier clauses of this Bill. The assumption should be that people of good faith and knowledge and experience will not get into these positions at all. We have always been able to rely, in the main, on trustees doing their duty well, but this clause gives them no chance to do that. It sets them aside and is a vote of no confidence in what they do. If I was in that position, I would resign as a trustee—and if the trustees of the master trust resign, then the pause period might be not just three months or six months but a lot longer. My position in supporting careful consideration of this clause before we vote it into law is not just about the important points my noble friend made but about how this will impact on the assumption and service of trustees. If I was invited to become a master trustee in these circumstances, I would look twice at the provisions in this clause before agreeing to do any such thing.
Lord Young of Cookham
My Lords, it is quite right that we debate whether this clause should stand part of the Bill, because it is an important one. I hope to persuade noble Lords who have spoken that the powers we are taking are proportionate and indeed necessary in order to deliver the commitments that the Government have made to beneficiaries of pension schemes. As the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, said, we are seeking here to bring occupational pensions into line with the regime that already exists for other pensions.
In a nutshell, the clause amends existing legislation in Schedule 18 to the Pensions Act 2014 to allow regulations to be made that enable a term of a relevant contract to be overridden to the extent that it conflicts with a provision in those regulations. I emphasise that the power would allow a contract to be overridden only where there is a conflict with a provision in regulations. This ensures that relevant contracts are consistent with the regulations, and provides certainty to the parties involved. It may be helpful if I clarify that Clause 40 is distinct from the previous clauses in this Bill that referred to charges; those clauses all relate to the proposed master trust authorisation regime.
We intend to use Clause 40, alongside existing powers in the Pensions Act 2014, to make regulations to cap or ban early exit charges. Early exit charges are any administration charges that are paid by a member for leaving their pension scheme early when they are eligible to access the pension freedoms, which they would not face at their normal retirement date. The Financial Conduct Authority intends to make rules by April 2017 to cap or ban early exit charges in personal and workplace personal pension schemes. Parliament has already approved amendments to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, which broadly allows contracts to be overridden.
Together with the existing powers in relation to charges, Clause 40 will enable us to make regulations that introduce similar protection to members of occupational pension schemes. It will also be used to override contractual terms that conflict with the ban on member-borne commission arising under existing contracts in certain occupational pension schemes. By “commission contracts” we mean the contracts between trustees or managers and a person who provides administrative services to the scheme, which permits the person to impose the member-borne commission charge. Existing contracts are those that were entered into before 6 April 2016. This will complete the ban that already exists for commission arrangements entered into on or after 6 April 2016.
The consultations that we undertook on early exit charges and on member-borne commission showed us that these charges generally arise in contracts between trustees or managers of certain occupational pension schemes and those who provide administration services to the scheme. Our existing powers in Schedule 18 to the Pensions Act 2014 enable us to make regulations that override any provision of a relevant scheme where it conflicts with a provision in those regulations. For example, we have used that power in relation to the appointment of service providers in the scheme administration regulations. The reason why we are taking this power is that this does not extend to the contracts under which the charges arise. Clause 40 therefore extends the existing power in Schedule 18 to allow the overriding of a term of a relevant contract that conflicts with a provision of the regulations. The relevant contract is defined as those between a trustee or a manager of a pension scheme and someone providing services to the scheme. The regulations that we intend to make will apply to charges imposed from the date when the regulations come into force, even where they are charged under existing contracts. We expect them to come into force in October 2017.
As noble Lords may be aware, the pensions market is continually evolving and modernising, and this extends to charging practices. It may be necessary to alter the charges requirements to reflect any changes in the pensions market that may disadvantage members. We intend to consult on the draft regulations early next year. In addition, any potential further regulations made under the power in Clause 40 will be subject to public consultation. The requirement to do this is set out in paragraph 8 of Schedule 18 to the Pensions Act 2014.
Such regulations would also be subject to parliamentary scrutiny through the negative resolution procedure. I note that this House’s Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee was content with this approach. This allows legislation to be amended reasonably quickly to provide the member protection that may be needed. Together with the consultation, we believe there is effective scrutiny and scope for challenge over the Government’s intended use of these powers.
I would be disappointed if any trustees felt that they had to resign over this. I regard these measures as benefiting scheme members, for whom trustees are acting to defend their interests. In response to the charge that we are interfering with contracts signed in good faith, we consulted on this. We made it clear that it is generally undesirable to interfere with existing contractual rights; it can be justified only in circumstances such as this, where it is necessary to achieve important public policy goals—we have given a commitment to do this—and where the action is proportionate in the public interest. We expect trustees and service providers to work together when renegotiating for amending contracts to reflect implementation of the charge cap, and our consultation and engagement with the pensions industry and other stakeholders on capping or banning early exit charges and spanning existing member-borne commission showed that, by and large, the Government’s intentions were widely welcomed. We continue to engage with industry and stakeholders on those two areas.
I hope that I have convinced the House that the clause should stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate, especially my noble friend Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope. I am reassured by the Minister saying that it is undesirable generally to interfere with contractual rights, completely concur that we must have member protection and welcome the public consultation that will take place in the near future. I am also reassured by much else that the Minister said and am content for the clause to stand part of the Bill.
“Offence of unsolicited communications to members of pension schemes
(1) It is an offence for a person to make an unsolicited telephone call, or to send unsolicited electronic mail or other communications via an electronic communications network, for the purpose of inducing a member of a pension scheme to use their pension savings in a particular way, or otherwise to make changes to their existing pension scheme arrangements.(2) It is an offence for a person to instigate the making of an unsolicited telephone call, or the sending of unsolicited electronic mail or other communications via an electronic communications network, for the purpose set out in subsection (1).(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine (or both).(4) In this section, “call”, “electronic mail”, “communications” and “electronic communications network” have the meanings given in regulation 2 of the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003.”
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville
My Lords, I am pleased that the Government have responded to the online petition calling for cold calling by phone or email for investment or pensions to be made illegal. This is definitely a step in the right direction. This positive change of heart was trailed over the weekend of 19 to 20 November and reiterated in the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement in the other place on Wednesday 23 November. This was welcome, but did not give the level of detail we had been hoping for.
As we are all aware, cold calling on investments and pensions to members of the public often leads to unregulated investments and scams. Banning cold calling would dramatically reduce the number of people falling prey to fraudsters and losing their savings and pensions. There is already sufficient unease among those anxious about their savings and future pensions for this added anxiety to be sufficient to push some vulnerable people over the edge. The scams tend to be presented as unique investment opportunities, such as putting your pension pot into a new hotel in an exotic location or supposedly ethical projects that promise huge returns. It is all too easy for people to be sucked into schemes which will not deliver on the promises made by slick salesmen. They are, after all, looking for absolutely the best deal for their future savings which will ensure them the happy, carefree retirement they have been looking forward to for years.
A recent survey points to the threat of fraud as those near retirement age refuse to seek expert guidance, revealing that almost nine in 10 people miss common warning signs of pension scams. Under the changes announced by the Chancellor, it is assumed that all calls relating to pension investments where a business has no existing relationship with the individual will be forbidden. Similar rules already cover cold calls relating to mortgages. Can the Minister confirm that the pensions issue will be treated in the same way?
It has also been trailed that companies flouting the ban could face fines of up to £500,000 from the Information Commissioner, although the watchdog does not have powers to tackle firms operating outside the UK. Can the Government confirm that they are considering custodial sentences as well as fines for perpetrators of fraudulent cold calling scams? Pensions firms will be given more powers to block suspicious transfers, preventing people’s life savings being transferred without any checks. The rules will also stop small, self-administered schemes being set up using a dormant company such as a sponsoring employer. Research has suggested that scammers could be behind as many as one in 10 pension transfer requests. Do the Government have up-to-date figures for the levels involved?
The Government appear to be acting after the recent petition calling for action was signed by thousands of people, including former Pensions Ministers, the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and Steve Webb. Martin Lewis of the website Money Saving Expert, and a number of independent financial advisers, have also requested that pension cold calling be made illegal. The Government’s response is to be welcomed, but a little more detail would have been helpful. Can the Minister say when the consultation trailed in the Autumn Statement will begin? How long will the consultation run for? How quickly after the consultation ends will the results be made public? Will all cold calling targeting pensioners be banned, or only certain schemes?
To ensure that pensioners and the general public retain confidence that the Government are serious about tackling this very serious problem, as much information as possible needs to be in the public domain, not least exactly when the ban on cold calling will commence. It is assumed that this will be once the consultation has finished, but it will be important that transparency exists on how quickly a decision will be made and when the implementation date is due. I look forward to the Minister’s response and beg to move.
Baroness Drake
My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, and I welcome the announcement in the Budget that the Government will consult on options to address this issue of scams and unsolicited contact, including a ban on cold calling, greater powers for firms and schemes to block suspicious transfers and making it harder for scammers to abuse small self-administered schemes. The compelling findings of Citizens Advice align with those of other organisations. For example, the City of London police report that the amount lost to fraud after the freedom reforms were introduced in April 2015 was £13.3 million and rising. That figure does not even include the money moved out of a pension scheme into another investment vehicle, which means the total amount lost since the reforms is likely to be much higher.
The Pensions Advisory Service has handled many calls seeking guidance from members of the public who have been subject to unsolicited approaches, have been scammed and have lost, or are at real risk of losing their savings. There is the self-employed man who transferred all his savings from a reputable insurance company to a property-based pension scheme, and now all his money has disappeared; the public sector worker who transferred £64,000 of savings to another scheme and has not heard anything since; or the ex-employee of a well-known car manufacturer, who transferred 20 years’ worth of DB pension rights—£20,000 was taken in charges, and now he cannot access the rest of his savings. These cases are just the tip of the iceberg. There are many more desperate cases, involving even bigger amounts.
Cold callers, suspicious transfers and the abuse of small, self-administered schemes all require attention. TPAS experience confirms that scams cover a wide spectrum, from mis-selling, to incompetence, to outright theft and fraud: such as selling a high-risk, unregulated investment to someone who does not understand the implications; encouraging someone to cash in their pot and invest in a high-risk investment within a pensions wrapper; transferring the whole of someone’s pension savings to a small self-administered scheme which is not a regulated financial product, to facilitate unregulated investments; and the use of SIPPs, which are a regulated product, by scammers for unregulated investments. There are many more such examples, and of fraud, through which 70% or more of the pension fund is stolen.
Baroness Altmann
My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, and welcome the Government’s announcement that they will consult on banning cold calling and look at tightening up the procedures for transfers. Both of those are very important—but so is acting swiftly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, mentioned. The longer we delay, the more people are caught. Banning cold calling will not necessarily stop people’s pensions being transferred, but it will send a clear signal to anyone who gets that sort of unsolicited approach that the person approaching them is doing something illegal. That is important, because at the moment people do not know this and we cannot give that message. If we wait until there has been a scam, the money is already lost and we are too late.
The Government must do everything they can to avoid this kind of scamming, which is going on as we speak. I am constantly getting letters and emails from people explaining the way in which they have been scammed. It has come to my attention that an individual who was involved in mortgage scams as long ago as 2002 has set up a new system for scamming pensions. Some parliamentarians seem to have been taken in by this system, which takes people’s pension money and invests the proceeds of a defined benefit scheme, which are completely guaranteed, into one unregulated investment promising exceptional returns. I have seen the materials: it is extremely plausible, as is the person responsible. This was the subject of a BBC exposé but seems to have morphed, with the same people, into a new type of scam. As I say, Members of this House and the other place have apparently been caught up in this and look as if they have been endorsing it.
It is important that we do all we can. I completely support the amendments that the noble Baroness has tabled. At some point we might also consider introducing a ban on selling lists of people’s details. The Bill should say clearly to the public, “Nobody who approaches you out of the blue about your pension, offering you either a free review or some kind of exciting investment opportunity, is bona fide”. We need to be able to give the public that very important message. Currently, we cannot do that. The amendment, if it is agreed, would allow us to do so.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, the establishment of an intelligence unit to smell out the operators of scams, track them down and prosecute them before they have a go at robbing people is perhaps almost more important than merely changing the law, which is welcome in itself but does not necessarily solve the problem. The issue is where such an intelligence unit should be located. Should it be part of the Pensions Regulator, the police or the FCA? Too often regulators are seen as doing nothing until the media or “Panorama” have exposed something, and then they address it, whereas the public expect them to spot the bad eggs and deal with them before they have too much opportunity to rob the public.
Baroness Altmann
My Lords, I will comment briefly on my noble friend’s absolutely valid observations. The concerns expressed across the House on this issue are particularly acute as there has been an interdepartmental, cross-government approach to try to clamp down on these issues. Police initiatives such as Action Fraud and Operation Scorpion have all supposedly joined together to fight this issue. The FCA is involved as well. However, in response to Written Questions that I have tabled, my noble friend has said that so far this year, for example, nobody has even been charged and, over the last few years, nobody has been convicted. So this initiative, while very worthy, is not necessarily catching the public’s attention. If you ask those who have been scammed where people should go if they are not quite sure about something or have had a problem, they simply do not know. So we either spend a lot more money advertising the existing initiatives or, preferably, ban cold calling and introduce further measures—as the Chancellor has already indicated is the intention—to prevent or make more difficult the transfer of pension money to one of these unregulated vehicles. If we do that, the public will be better protected.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I will be brief as I do not want to echo the fantastic contributions made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, my noble friend Lady Drake, the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and the noble Lord, Lord Flight. I can see that if an intelligence unit were part of a wider cross-government approach, it could well pay dividends. However, I fear that we would simply replicate arrangements whereby HMRC constantly chases tax avoiders, alights on some and then there is a change, and then somebody draws a line somewhere else and it is a never-ending process. Nevertheless, it may be worth while pursuing that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, should be congratulated on bringing forward this amendment, the thrust of which we clearly support—although I disagreed with her on her last amendment. As others have said, events have to a certain extent overtaken it because we heard from the Chancellor last Wednesday the welcome news that the Government will shortly publish a consultation on options to tackle pension scams, including cold calling. It proposes giving firms greater powers to block suspicious transfers and making it harder for scammers to abuse “small self-administered schemes”. So this approach appears to take us a little further than the strict terms of the amendment, but if we are to forgo the opportunity to legislate now, at least on cold calling, we need some reassurance from the Minister on how short is “shortly” and what legislative vehicles will give effect to these conclusions.
I do not seek to repeat a number of the awful situations that noble Lords have identified, of people being deprived of their life savings. We have argued before that insufficient groundwork was undertaken by the coalition Government when they introduced these reforms; my noble friend Lady Drake made that point. One omission was clearly to anticipate the opportunities for fraud which these changes attracted. So if the Government are not able to convince us how quickly they can introduce measures to tackle these problems, we will be minded to support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, at least as an interim measure.
Lord Freud
This amendment seeks to make it a criminal offence to make a cold call or send other unsolicited electronic mail or communications for the purpose of scamming a pension scheme member of their pension savings or to make changes to their existing arrangements; for example, inducing them to participate in high-risk investments. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, focuses on a substantial issue. The figures are enormous. According to the ONS—the Office for National Statistics—eight scam calls happen every second in the UK, or over 250 million a year. Almost 11 million pensioners are targeted annually by cold callers, and savers have reported losses of nearly £19 million to pensions scams between April 2015 and March 2016. The amendment also stipulates that a person convicted of such an offence is liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months, or a fine, or both, so it aims to deter scammers from such activity.
I state firmly that this is a priority for the Government, and we are determined to tackle the scourge of fraudulent nuisance calls. We want to send a strong message to consumers that they should not respond to such approaches. However, as my noble friends Lady Altmann and Lord Flight and the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, pointed out, that is not enough—banning cold calling alone will not stem the flow of transfers in scam vehicles or the establishment of those vehicles in the first place. Scammers who make cold calls are criminals and will continue to cold call and incite people to part with their savings. It probably does not make a huge amount of difference to the savers whether the criminals are based in this country or elsewhere in the world where we find it difficult to get hold of them.
The Government have explored this issue in detail, which is why in the Autumn Statement last week we announced that we will consult on how best to ban pensions cold calling. That needs to be supported by a wider package of proposed measures intended to tackle pension scams themselves. With regard to timing, on which I have been pushed by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, the plan is to publish a consultation on these measures before Christmas and to have the next steps ready for the 2017 Budget—I think it is still called a Budget—which will be in the spring. Comments can then be made on proposals to: ban cold calling in relation to pensions investments, and tackling inducements to do that; placing restrictions on certain types of transfer, which seeks to limit the flow of funds into scams; and making it harder for scammers to set up and run fraudulent small self-administered schemes, which tackles the potential vehicles for scams. We intend to provide more detail on these proposals in the consultation document.
To tackle the scams effectively, it is clearly vital to get this right and to do so in a way that does not impact on legitimate businesses. The consultation will seek to understand what impact these proposals would have on legitimate firms and member transfer activity, and what, if any, legislative solutions might be available and proportionate to disrupt the scams. In answer to the noble Baroness’s question, we will also be consulting on appropriate custodial sentences, although imposing them on people in different parts of the world is harder to achieve.
As I said, we need to ensure that we get this right, and the consultation, alongside existing engagement with experts from the pensions industry and consumer groups, will help inform our thinking. With that in mind, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment, with which we are entirely in sympathy.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville
I thank the noble Lord for his very positive comments and I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I welcome the fact that the Government feel that this is an enormous problem that must have top priority. I also welcome the fact that the consultation will start before Christmas. However, I am slightly nervous about that because it is a well-known ploy to start consultations just before Christmas, when people have their minds on things other than consultations, and to finish them in the first or second week of January. Therefore, I would be grateful if the noble Lord could say that there will be a reasonable period over which the consultation will run.
I look forward to hearing in the 2017 Budget the steps that will be taken, and I hope that implementation will follow soon after, because I agree completely with previous speakers that the quicker this matter is sorted, the better. I also welcome that the Government are considering custodial sentences. I agree with and welcome everything that the Minister has said, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Flight
“Automatic transfer of pension benefits, etc
(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations requiring the trustees or managers of a work-based pension scheme (“the transferring scheme”) to transfer accrued rights to benefits under the scheme in respect of a relevant member to another work-based pension scheme (“the receiving scheme”) in circumstances and subject to conditions which may be prescribed.(2) Prescribed circumstances for the purposes of subsection (1) may include that—(a) the relevant member has been an active member of the transferring scheme and has accrued rights to benefits under that scheme;(b) the relevant member has ceased to be an active member of the transferring scheme; (c) immediately before the relevant member ceased to be an active member of the transferring scheme the member was a worker of an employer (A) who paid contributions in respect of the member to the transferring scheme;(d) the whole of the sums or assets representing accrued rights of the relevant member under the transferring scheme are invested in that scheme’s default fund;(e) the relevant member is an active member of the receiving scheme and is a worker of A;(f) A pays contributions to the receiving scheme in respect of the relevant member;(g) the whole of the sums or assets representing accrued rights of the relevant member under the receiving scheme are invested in that scheme’s default fund;(h) the relevant member has no accrued rights to benefits under the transferring scheme or the receiving scheme which are not money purchase benefits.(3) Prescribed conditions for the purposes of subsection (1) may include that the trustees or managers of the receiving scheme have given the trustees or managers of the transferring scheme a transfer notice which meets prescribed requirements.(4) Regulations may set out further requirements in relation to a transfer under this section, including provisions—(a) requiring the trustees or managers of the transferring scheme to take such steps as are necessary to comply with the obligation to transfer accrued benefits in respect of a relevant member;(b) discharging the trustees or managers of the transferring scheme following the transfer pursuant to this section from any obligation to provide benefits to or in respect of the relevant member;(c) requiring that the relevant member has either consented in accordance with prescribed requirements or has been given the opportunity to opt out of the transfer and has not done so within a prescribed period;(d) requiring specified information about the transfer to be given to the relevant member;(e) setting out how the cash equivalent of default fund benefits in respect of a relevant member is to be calculated and verified;(f) requiring the trustees or managers of the receiving scheme to use the cash equivalent transferred pursuant to this section to provide rights under the scheme for or in respect of the relevant member;(g) concerning the disclosure of information;(h) concerning ensuring compliance with any requirements of this section or the regulations;(i) requiring records of prescribed information in relation to the transfer to be kept and, on request, disclosed to the Pensions Regulator;(j) imposing or conferring further duties or discretions on the trustees or managers of a transferring scheme or a receiving scheme, on employer A or on any other prescribed person in relation to a transfer pursuant to this section;(k) overriding provisions of a transferring scheme or a receiving scheme to the extent necessary to comply with any obligation under this section.(5) In this section—“active member” has the same meaning as in the Pensions Act 1995 (see section 124(1) of that Act);“default arrangement” has the same meaning as in the Occupational Pension Schemes (Charges and Governance) Regulations 2015 (see regulation 3 of those Regulations); “money purchase benefits” has the same meaning as in the Pension Schemes Act 1993 (see section 181(1) of that Act);“relevant member” means a person whose accrued rights to benefits under a work-based pension scheme may be transferred pursuant to this section;“work-based pension scheme” has the same meaning as in the Pensions Act 2014 (see paragraph 15 of Schedule 17 to that Act);“worker” has the same meaning as in the Pensions Act 2008 (see section 88 of that Act).(6) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”
Lord Flight
My Lords, Amendment 80 proposes a new clause that would enable the trustees of master trusts, or the sponsors or sometimes the managers of group personal pension schemes, to require the transfer of accumulated assets from default funds when moving from one investment manager to another.
The issue here is that at present the agreement of the individual members of the scheme is required, but often deferred members, although advised of the new arrangements, do not have the time to be bothered with them. As a result, small bits of money are left in historic default funds where no one really keeps a watchful eye on them.
It is in the interests of members in default funds to move to the default fund of the new manager when there is a change of manager, so that their funds are kept under surveillance. In addition, quite often the reason for moving to a new investment manager is that the performance of the previous investment manager has been unsatisfactory, so there is at least the possibility that shifting to a new scheme default fund will provide an improvement in performance.
I raised this issue at Second Reading and am interested to know what the Government’s attitude towards it is. I am aware of the debates of the past on this subject but, from some direct observation, I suggest that the point is particularly relevant for investments in default funds. Where individuals have chosen their own sub-funds—for example, in a group personal pension scheme or where they are offered under a master trust—they are naturally going to be interested in looking after their own investments. Therefore, in a sense, it is not necessary. But where people have chosen a default fund, I think it makes more sense, both administratively and in terms of the potential returns achieved, if the default funds follow the pension pot.
Baroness Altmann
Might I suggest that my noble friend’s amendment is particularly relevant where the master trust has had a triggering event? At the moment, the rules for a bulk transfer of defined contribution benefits do not allow trustees easily to transfer the members’ rights across to another scheme. In many cases it may require member consent or complex calculations that are based on defined benefit schemes and not defined contribution schemes. Therefore, I certainly echo the sentiments expressed by my noble friend about the importance of being able easily to transfer accrued rights across from one scheme to another without member consent. As he rightly said, very often members become a little disengaged from their pension pots and may not themselves want to engage in the idea of transferring across. Somebody else being able to do it on their behalf would make sense.
It may also be prudent to consider the notion of bulk transfers, which I did raise on the first day of Committee, even in the circumstances that there has not been a triggering event. That might more easily facilitate the orderly transfer across of members’ accrued benefits under a scheme in which it is considered likely or inevitable that a triggering event will occur. The Pensions Regulator may then be able to be proactive rather than reactive in being able to protect members’ rights and transfer them across without consent in certain circumstances. I would be grateful to hear my noble friend the Minister’s thoughts on that issue.
Baroness Drake
My Lords, as others have referred to, central to the resolution regime for a failing master trust is the transfer of the members and their benefits to another approved master trust. However, for this to be achieved efficiently and promptly, and indeed legally, it would be necessary to undertake a bulk transfer of members and their assets. But as the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, has detailed, the current rules on bulk transfers would not be fit for purpose for a failing master trust, with its range of different employers and the potential to provide a wide range of benefits and investments to members, who could be either accumulating or accessing their savings. The amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Flight, is an attempt to address that problem and provides a welcome opportunity to address the issues, because they are concerns that are clearly shared by various Members of this House.
The provisions in the Bill and the regulations will need to enable those bulk transfers to take place efficiently and legally. The regulations will need to set out a clear set of rules. Amendment 80 gives the Secretary of State considerable overarching and overriding powers to require the trustees of a failing master trust to transfer accrued benefits. They are extensive powers, but I suspect of an order probably needed to make the transfer regime work in the event of a master trust’s failure.
These powers will give the Secretary of State and the regulator the ability to direct where, potentially, many millions of pounds of members’ money is transferred to. Had we had draft regulations before us, we might have had many questions. I refer in particular to the House having discussed at length the problems that can occur if the administrative records of the master trust are incomplete or in disarray. Even something simple like the lack of a current address for a member can cause delay if a notification is required, I promise. I have been there and bought the T-shirt. It is a nightmare.
Is it the Government’s intention that bulk transfers will be able to take place during a triggering event before all past records are clarified? Post-transfer to the receiving scheme, who will bear responsibility for any administrative errors that existed at the point of transfer? Will there be circumstances where the regulations under this Bill will override other pension regulations in order to effect that bulk transfer? I have one small example. Under auto-enrolment, when members are in self-select funds and are transferred without their written consent, they are from then on treated as having been put into a default fund and the charge cap of 0.75% is applied. I do not want to go into too much detail, but that is to illustrate the question of whether there will be circumstances where the regulations under the Bill will override other pension-related regulations. I commend the amendment because it seeks to address an issue that all of us are aware of if the resolution regime will be based on directing the trustees of failing schemes to transfer their members’ benefits to other master trusts.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I hope that I do not have the wrong end of the stick with this. As I see it, my noble friend’s amendment is effectively about individuals being able to move and consolidate their pots, whereas the regime that we have for master trusts is for bulk transfers.
Lord Flight
To clarify, my amendment is about bulk transfer where the trustees deem it desirable to move from, say, one fund manager to another.
Lord Flight
Essentially, fund manager, but they may, in the case of a master trust, be the same.
Lord Freud
We have spent a lot of time talking about the continuity options 1 and 2 for trustees in a scheme in difficulty transferring in bulk, and I am sure we will return to those areas on Report. When I read the amendment, I took it to refer to a transfer where a member wants to consolidate his pension fund, which is something that we looked at in the 2014 Bill. I am at something of a loss as to how much I can add to what we discussed earlier, given my misreading of the amendment, which was talking about members wanting to consolidate their pots.
In certain circumstances a scheme may undertake a bulk transfer of members’ accrued pension rights without their consent. This could be, for example, because an employer has two or more pension schemes and wants to consolidate them. The provisions in the Bill provide the opportunity to require master trusts to transfer those members. The existing provisions in the Bill will permit a transfer on a trigger event, as my noble friend was asking.
Baroness Altmann
Perhaps I may follow up that comment. Yes, indeed, there will be transfers on a triggering event, but I seek some reassurance that proper provision will be made for bulk transfers that do not depend on defined benefit rules which make those bulk transfers much more costly and time-consuming and do not automatically ensure that they can occur in a timely way. Does the Minister also consider that there could be circumstances where a bulk transfer could happen without a triggering event? We are trying to consolidate schemes, but we know that there are schemes already in existence that will need to consolidate and either will not or will not wish to meet the authorisation criteria. If there were the possibility of doing so, that would be helpful. Finally, going back to a point that I raised on our previous day in Committee, it is true that the Bill will place what is potentially a legal duty on trustees to effect a transfer, so there will be an obligation for that transfer to happen. But I am not clear that we are any the wiser as to who would be able to fund the transfer if the records of the scheme are in disarray and there are no funds to pay for advice or administration services to enable the transfer to be made. What provisions can we rely on to ensure that the transfer takes place, and of course I am referring again to some kind of potential back-stop insurance as required in case the costs cannot be met anywhere else.
Lord Freud
We are currently considering whether there may be some scope to simplify the current arrangements which will make life easier for defined contribution schemes when making bulk transfers, but we must do that at a time when we do not compromise member protection. As my noble friend will be well aware, there are certain protections in place such as the requirement for an actuary to certify that the members’ rights in the receiving scheme are broadly no less favourable than those which are being transferred. When a transfer is made under the mechanisms of this Bill, after a triggering event when the regulator is looking at it, one of the main points is to make sure that there is adequate capital to fund such an event. I will have to come back to my noble friend on how that will work when a bulk transfer is made and the regulator is not involved in the process. What one would normally expect to see is a negotiation with the receiving scheme manager to ensure that it is able to fund the transfer because of the benefits of scale through putting together two systems. I imagine that when the regulator is not involved in the process, that is where the money will come from. I will double-check that and come back to my noble friends, but that is how I foresee it happening.
Lord Flight
I thank the Minister. I will paint a particular picture. Some 95% of group personal pension schemes will typically be in default funds. Where the sponsor and, if it is a master trust, the trustees observe that the fund management performance has been poor, they will often conclude that they want to change. They have an ability to write to all members to advise of this and to advise them to move, but they have no power to require a bulk transfer. In these situations, particularly if there are any deferred members, little bits of money get left behind. The individual almost forgets they have them. They get little or no reporting and they do not get the best out of their pension savings. I observe from within the industry that, particularly for default funds, there is a powerful argument for requiring the new fund manager to require and activate a bulk transfer.
Lord Freud
Now we are moving more closely into what I thought the amendment was about, which is the pot following the member. As my noble friend will know, that mirrors the spirit of Schedule 17 to the Pensions Act 2014. We have not commenced that schedule.
We are looking at another approach, which is the launch of a pensions dashboard. We want to see whether that will work. This would allow people to see their retirement savings from across the industry in one place, which they could consolidate where they felt it was in their interests. The Government will support industry in designing and delivering a pensions dashboard by 2019, with a prototype being developed by March 2017. Clearly, when we know how it works, it will set the context for looking at how best to worry about the problems of being left either in funds that an individual thought were not performing, or wanting to consolidate. It is not necessarily the case that it is always advantageous to consolidate all the different pots, given the way legislation works—in other words, where the member has valuable benefits or lower scheme charges in one or other of those pots.
There is a lot of development here and a lot of change going on. The pensions industry is absorbing a large number of reforms. The Government’s approach is to see how the industry’s plan to have the dashboard will allow much greater flexibility for individuals.
Baroness Drake
On rereading the amendment, its first subsection, which states:
“The Secretary of State may make regulations requiring the trustees … to transfer”,
is quite open-ended, so people would choose how to interpret it. The point I want to leave with the Minister is that in the particular instance of failing master trusts—I accept that in other circumstances there is a problem with the bulk transfer terms—the resolution regime is to transfer members and their benefits to another master trust. Existing bulk transfer regulations and legal requirements are not fit for purpose. As they stand, they will not permit the Government to achieve the objective of their resolution regime under the Bill. Although I wish the Government well in having an efficient resolution regime, it is important to understand their policy and thinking on how they will amend the bulk transfer regulations and processes to allow these bulk transfers in a failing trust situation to be undertaken both efficiently and legally. Both aspects need clarification. Certainly, if I may presume, the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and I are particularly concerned about the Government’s proposals for reviewing the bulk transfer arrangements in a failed master trust situation.
Lord Freud
I shall try to wind this up. I accept the implied—or not so implied—concern of noble Lords that making bulk transfers is more difficult than it should be when there is no regulator process. We are now looking at whether we can simplify those arrangements. I am not in a position to say that there is going to be a consultation, or any major process, but we are looking at that. It is not straightforward, as all noble Peers will accept.
I think I have the answer: master trust bulk transfer provisions will trump existing provisions on voluntary transfers. I hope that is a useful clarification for the noble Baroness, Lady Drake. With that explanation, I urge my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Flight
My Lords, my objective was to raise the issue of bulk transfers and to understand what government policy is both for master trusts and for other forms of retail pensions. I am particularly pleased to hear that for master trusts, bulk transfers trump voluntary requirements. It is a wider territory than just master trusts, but I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Flight
“Calculation of pension scheme liabilities
(1) The Companies Act 2006 is amended as follows.(2) After section 393 (accounts to give a true and fair view) insert—“393A Calculation of pension scheme liabilities(1) Regulations may provide that directors, when preparing accounts as required by this Part or deciding for the purposes of this Part whether they are satisfied that accounts give a true and fair view of the assets, liabilities, financial position and profit and loss, may have regard to an alternative method of valuing defined benefit pension liabilities and (except where contrary to international accounting requirements) may disregard any method of valuing such liabilities required by accounting standards.(2) The Secretary of State must make regulations which set out one or more alternative methods of valuing defined benefit pension liabilities for the purposes of this section.(3) Regulations made under this section may—(a) provide for the value of defined benefit pension liabilities to be calculated using a discount rate determined otherwise than by reference to the market yield on government or corporate bonds;(b) provide for the calculation of the value of defined benefit pension liabilities to be certified out by an actuary appointed by the directors;(c) make similar provision in relation to limited liability partnerships and any other undertakings subject to the requirements of this Part;(d) override any provisions which would otherwise require defined benefit pension liabilities to be calculated in accordance with accounting standards;(e) provide for an audit required pursuant to this Act to be carried out with regard to the provisions of this section.(4) In this section—“defined benefit pension liabilities” means liabilities under an occupational pension scheme in relation to future payment of benefits which are not money purchase benefits;“international accounting requirements” has the meaning prescribed;“accounting standards” means international accounting standards and any accounting standards issued by the Financial Reporting Council of the United Kingdom or its predecessors or successors;“money purchase benefits” has the same meaning as in the Pension Schemes Act 1993 (see section 181 of that Act);“occupational pension scheme” has the same meaning as in the Pension Schemes Act 1993 (see section 1(1) of that Act).(5) Regulations under this section must be made before the end of the period of one year from the date on which this section comes into force and must be reviewed from time to time.(6) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.””
Lord Flight
My Lords, the proposed new clause that Amendment 81 would insert raises the other issue I raised at Second Reading, which relates to defined benefit schemes. I raise it because it is of growing economic importance for us to know the extent of real pension fund deficits in this country. Calculated under FRS 17, which now seems to be known as FRS 102, or even IAS 19, this is reputed to be as much as £500 billion. Particularly for large companies, the amount of contributions—top-ups—they are having to make is delaying or postponing investment decisions and, indeed, sometimes affecting their creditworthiness.
When FRS 17 was introduced is was a justified, relatively cautious approach to calculating pension fund deficits. That was before QE, which reduced gilt yields so dramatically, but we have now moved into an age in which it is an inappropriate way to base pension fund deficits. Noble Lords will be aware that the pension fund has its current pot of assets; it is looking at the pension fund liabilities moving forward and discounting those to a present value at the FRS 17 rate.
In my experience, the formula nowadays frequently delivers a rate of interest which is about half the return that the pension schemes have been earning over the past 10 years. That is a more sensible way of getting at an appropriate rate at which to discount the liabilities. In essence, it is intended to suggest that pension fund actuaries should be given the job of determining the appropriate rate at which to discount pension liabilities, having regard both to historic returns and the nature of the investment portfolio.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Flight, seeks a way of tackling the concern about the calculation of DB pension liabilities and deficits, particularly their volatility and the impact a large deficit can have on a company’s balance sheet.
By way of illustration, the LCP annual survey of FTSE 100 company schemes estimated deficits at 31 July 2016 of £46 billion, compared with £25 billion a year earlier and an estimated surplus in February 2016—big swings, clearly. Of course, a significant factor in these calculations is bond yields, which reduced sharply following the EU referendum, pushing up liabilities, although it is suggested that some of this reduction has been negated by interest-rate hedging and that foreign currency-denominated assets have benefited from some decline in sterling.
The reality is that a number of factors feature in how DB schemes should be accounted for: life expectancy, inflation and discount rates, as well as contribution levels and benefits. In seeking to understand the sensitivity of this, for FTSE 100 companies, as reflected on the basis of International Accounting Standard 19, the aggregate pension deficit of £46 billion in July 2016 comprised liabilities of £628 billion and assets of some £582 billion. These are very large aggregates.
The noble Lord’s amendment concentrates on the calculation of defined benefit pension liabilities and would enable directors to use an alternative method if,
“they are satisfied that accounts give a true and fair view”.
It provides that the Secretary of State must,
“set out one or more alternative methods”,
for these purposes—I understand that this is based on actuarial advice—and that an alternative method of valuing DB liabilities must not be,
“contrary to international accounting requirements”.
I am grateful to the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales for the information it provided in helping me to frame this contribution. At present, listed companies have to adopt international accounting standards. In other cases, companies can choose to use IFRS or FRS 102, which replaced FRS 17. However, it is understood that so far as pension scheme liabilities are concerned, the two standards are broadly consistent. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Flight, would not appear to apply to listed companies which are bound by international accounting standards—but for how long? He raised that interesting question. FRS 102 sets out how defined benefit plan liabilities are to be measured and recognised. It requires a defined benefit obligation to be calculated on a discounted present-value basis, using a rate of discount by reference to market yields at the reporting date on high-quality corporate bonds. This has to be recognised in full on the balance sheets.
We have sympathy with the amendment to the extent that it seeks to dampen the volatility of the measurement of liabilities for accounting purposes, but not if it is seen as a route to lessen employer contributions to DB schemes. We recognise that the current accounting treatment which generates this volatility is not ideal, although it is not helped by government policies such as quantitative easing. However, we have concerns about this approach. The Financial Reporting Council is responsible for setting UK accounting standards, not the Secretary of State.
A process in which generally applied standards are overridden on particular issues would set a precedent that could lead to a confusing regime and not help transparency and confidence in financial reporting. It begs the question of what alternative method of valuing DB liabilities would enable directors to be satisfied that the accounts give a true and fair view. What would this mean for trustee scheme valuations? The era of very low interest rates has brought the matter into sharp focus. In winding up our Second Reading, I think the Minister said that the Government had this issue in their sights and would explore it in the upcoming winter Green Paper. We look forward to that but, in the interim, we seek an update on where the thinking is going.
Lord Freud
I thank my noble friend Lord Flight for this amendment, which opens up a fascinating area. Amendment 81 would require the Secretary of State to make regulations which would have the effect of allowing companies to disregard any method of valuing defined benefit pension liabilities required by accounting standards. I recognise and understand the concerns that have been expressed in this debate and during Second Reading about the measurement of the liabilities under accounting standards, particularly when we are in what one would hope is an unusual period of interest rates being low not for reasons of the economy but because of quantitative easing.
Following its recent public consultation on its future agenda, the International Accounting Standards Board concluded that,
“there was no evidence of problems that were sufficiently widespread and significant to require a comprehensive review of IAS 19”.
However, I assure my noble friend that this is not the end of the matter. The UK’s Financial Reporting Council is in the early stages of considering the impacts of the current approach and will be examining the case for an alternative approach. I believe that this is the most appropriate way forward compared with the approach proposed by this amendment. The independence of the standard-setting approach is widely regarded as one of its strengths. I do not think it would be right for government to intervene directly—here I echo the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. It should not effectively set aside the accounting standards framework that has been developed to deal with these complex matters. If the Financial Reporting Council finds objective evidence or broad stakeholder demand for change, any proposals would need to take fully into account the risks they may pose to members’ benefits and would need to be tested through public consultation.
My noble friend talked about the experience in the US. When he did so at Second Reading, he got me to do some work—I always resent that—to look at that. In the US, schemes may move to calculate their funding based on yields from high-quality bonds averaged over the past 25 years. That approach would effectively discount rates by 1% and lead to employers paying significantly less into their pension schemes. What we must not allow to happen—again I echo the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and it is not often that that happens—is a change that releases pressure on employers, only to find that that leads to their pension scheme being less well funded and members losing out.
I do not think there is a quick and easy solution here. Nobody who looks into this issue can be in any doubt that this is an extremely complex and technical area. To come up with an alternative accounting methodology would require a number of substantial steps. Those would include: undertaking a detailed analysis of the current commercial, financial and broader economic impacts of the current methodology to determine whether there is a need for that change; developing alternative approaches, which would also have to model transition impacts between the two regimes; seeking views from the market through public consultation on identifying the costs and benefits and any adverse impacts; and, finally, developing the detailed standard itself, which again would require a further round of public consultation.
We are planning to publish a Green Paper over the winter, and I can reassure noble Lords that it will explore the issue of how liabilities are measured and reported in the round. We want to ensure that measures of liabilities and deficits are properly understood and are being used and interpreted appropriately. We will explore and seek views on whether the measures used could, in some cases, be driving investment behaviour that is not in the best interests of members or employers, and we will look at what the alternatives might be. I hope I have reassured my noble friend that his concerns are being addressed and that he will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Flight
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. I think that if the Government talked to everyone in the pension fund industry and to many of the large companies in this country, they would all tell a similar story: that the present discounting rate hugely exaggerates the reported scale of deficits. It is an important issue and I wish the Green Paper good luck because, clearly, it is most sensibly dealt with by agreement with the accounting profession. It is not so much about reducing company contributions—there is certainly no scope for that—but it is quite economically damaging if, as now, contributions are required which are way beyond those which are necessary. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Secondary Annuity Market for pensions savings
The Treasury must, within six months of the day on which this Act comes into force, take steps to—(a) change the tax treatment in relation to holders of pension scheme annuities wishing to realise the value of their annuities, including by removing the unauthorised payment tax charge; and(b) put in place arrangements to enable individuals to assign their pension scheme annuity to a third party in return for a lump sum to be taken directly, or transferred to an alternative retirement income product; and(c) work with the Financial Conduct Authority to ensure appropriate consumer protection is in place for pension scheme annuity holders as they consider their pensions savings options.”
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville
My Lords, I am conscious that people are waiting for the Urgent Question on Aleppo. However, I feel that this is a really important issue. I am concerned, as are others, that the Government appear to be backtracking on their manifesto promises on the secondary annuity market. As part of the pensions freedoms, the Government planned a secondary annuities market, where original purchasers who had a poor or inferior-quality product would be able to sell it and buy a better one with the cash. This move and this promise were welcome. The Conservative Party manifesto of 2015, on pages 65 and 67, promised:
“We will … give you the freedom to invest and spend your pension however you like … we will allow pensioners to access their pension savings and decide whether or not to take out an annuity, so they can make their own decisions about their money”.
The message was clear going into the election: the Conservatives would help those who had poor annuities and allow them to get a better deal for their money.
However, as has been widely publicised, not least in the Daily Mail on 16 November, there has been heavy lobbying against this move by the pensions industry, which has claimed it would be hard to set up a secondary market and difficult in terms of consumer protection. This lobbying seems to have come to a head at Gleneagles, when Government Ministers came under heavy fire from insurance company chief executives and gave way under the pressure. The resultant government change of mind has left many people with poor annuities that they now cannot get rid of.
It is all very well for the Government to succumb to the pressures of the insurance industry; I would prefer them to succumb to the pressures of the pensioners who are suffering as a result. The Daily Mail highlighted the cases of various pensioners. One 70 year-old veteran who would love to own a second-hand car said:
“Waiting at the bus stop for the hourly service to Nottingham city centre can be a miserable affair—particularly as the winter days draw in”.
He,
“must make the lengthy journey from his sheltered housing in the outskirts of the city every time he needs to go to the supermarket or visit friends”.
For him,
“and millions of pensioners like him, the Government’s promise to let him sell his paltry retirement income for a lump sum offered a vital lifeline. The Army veteran was preparing to exchange his £11-a-week … annuity for a few thousand pounds—enough to buy a small runaround to get to town and back”.
But the Government’s “dramatic U-turn” scrapped his plans. It means he will have to carry on taking the bus. He said:
“‘I was so disappointed when I heard the news … These insurance companies are making so much money from us and their bosses are earning millions. The money from my pension would be a small amount to them, but it would make all the difference to me’. Until the rules were changed in 2014, more than 400,000 savers a year bought annuities when they retired”.
Consumer protection can be problematic but it is not rocket science. We are extremely disappointed the Government have reneged on their promise and left people in the lurch. This should be rectified in this pensions Bill and is a big omission.
The original proposal turned pensions savings into income: for example, each £10,000 might give you £500 a year. Plans for a so-called secondary annuities market would have enabled savers to sell these deals. The idea was that insurers would compete to offer lump sums if a pensioner gave up the guaranteed monthly payouts. I have received case studies and lobbying on this issue, some couched in such strong words that I am unable to repeat them in this Chamber, but the Government must be under no illusion that feelings are running extremely high on this issue.
The decision to kill off the secondary annuity market even caught pensions companies off guard. Legal & General, for instance, had invested a considerable amount of resources in a new website, auctionmyannuity.com, so that it could act as a broker when the market launched in April. Obviously it thought the idea was viable and believed there were companies interested in doing it that would have been ready by April.
Legal & General’s website would have offered identity checks, risk warnings and advice on how to avoid falling victim to fraud. The former Pensions Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, said:
“The Government was being furiously lobbied by the industry in the weeks before they cancelled the market. Protections were in place. Most of the work was already done. Legislation had been laid. If the Government felt that consumers were still not protected enough, it could have delayed the launch, not abandoned it altogether”.
However, despite all the groundwork that had taken place, the Government decided to cave in to the lobbying.
I will leave noble Lords with the following case. A pensioner, aged 68,
“receives a £160-a-month annuity from a £52,000 pension pot with Prudential. It took the former roadside equipment installer from High Wycombe, Bucks, 30 years to save the money. He would have never taken the deal three years ago had he realised the Government was preparing to allow savers to take their pensions as cash”.
He now fears that his wife, who is 67,
“a local authority worker, will not get a penny, should he pass away suddenly. The small print of the annuity contract states that payments are only guaranteed for ten years after the date”,
in 2014 when he signed up.
“Should he die after this date, the remaining cash will go straight into his insurer’s pockets”.
He says:
“I think it’s diabolical that the Government has gone back on its word … I wouldn’t blow that money, but I could do something with it, perhaps keep it invested, instead of an insurer taking the lot”.
This is a serious issue and I hope the Minister is minded to give at least some comfort to all those affected in their old age. The Government must do something about secondary annuities for all those suffering under the current system. I beg to move.
Baroness Altmann
My Lords, I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, on her amendment. I was proud that the Government finally recognised the need to allow people to undo unwanted or unsuitable annuities when that decision was announced and indeed put in the manifesto, which the noble Baroness quoted.
Government rules effectively forced people to buy these products even though they did not want or need them. They had no protection when they were buying but the plans were in place to ensure that they would have protection if they considered reselling them. There was to be mandatory Pension Wise guidance and advice depending on the value of the annuity, and indeed legislation had already been passed to make that happen. As the noble Baroness mentioned, companies have already spent quite significant sums in preparation for this market, which consumers want and in some cases need, as the case studies showed.
In the annuity market it is normal for there to be only a small number of providers, which has never stopped that market operating in the past. For defined benefit pension schemes and bulk annuities, for example, for many years there were only ever two companies that would offer quotes. That should not be a reason to stop people being able to sell their annuity. Indeed, many people with secure defined benefit pensions, and the additional voluntary contributions that they were saving on top of that, were often forced to buy an annuity that they clearly did not need. Very often, because the regulatory system drove people to shop around for the best rate, they did not know that that would not actually necessarily be the right product. If you shopped around for the best rate and bought the single-life annuity, there was no protection for your spouse. In some cases, individuals have bought a product that they do not need and is not suitable for their family circumstances. This measure would have given them an opportunity to undo that. The law currently allows people who have less than £10,000 a year in an annuity to undo it, but if we do not proceed with the plans that were previously in place, they will potentially be doing so without any consumer protection. The plans had been to ensure that there was consumer protection before this happened.
It is not up to the Government or the pensions industry to decide what is best for somebody’s money; they are the ones who know that. If they have bought something that is not suitable, it is right that the Government give them an opportunity to undo that deal. If you buy a brand-new car and it is the wrong car for you, you have the opportunity to sell it in the second-hand market—yes, you have to take a discount; yes, it may be a significant discount; but that is your choice. When the Government have enshrined freedom and choice in the pension system, it is appropriate for us to continue to enable people to access their savings, which they need and to which they were promised access. If it requires a delay to get the consumer protection in place, so be it. That is a shame, but it is at least a rationale for asking people to wait longer. To take away the opportunity altogether seems unfair, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, said. She is receiving representations; I am hearing from large numbers of ordinary people across the country how much it would mean to them to have the opportunity to undo an annuity that they no longer want, or perhaps never even wanted or needed.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, we were a little surprised—perhaps we should not have been—to see this amendment seeking the establishment of a secondary annuity market, given the Statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, just a month ago. I say first to the noble Baronesses, Lady Altmann and Lady Bakewell, that the fact that people may have ended up with an annuity which is not the greatest in the world does not mean that they should compound that problem by doing a bad deal in the secondary annuity market. That is the nub of this issue. You simply cannot equate a transaction on a second-hand car with the sale of an annuity. It is fairly clear what is the market price for a second-hand car; there is a vibrant market out there, as I understand. It is quite different with annuities. That is at the heart of this issue.
An amendment seeking to establish a secondary annuity market was rejected by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and we supported him in that. In that Statement, he explained that the Government had consulted extensively with the industry and consumer groups to explore whether conditions for a secondary market in annuities could be established. The conclusion was that, without compromising consumer protection, there were likely to be insufficient purchasers to create a competitive market and that pensioners were likely to incur high costs in seeking to sell. They concluded that the policy would not be taken forward, despite the loss of front-end-loaded tax revenue to the Exchequer. As I said, we supported the Government in that, and we oppose this amendment.
We were sceptical from the outset that this was a sensible policy, and my noble friend Lady Drake and I raised a number of concerns when it first surfaced as part of the Bank of England and Financial Services Act. Indeed, we went on a delegation to see the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, in her former role. There is of course no pre-existing secondary annuities market to help form a judgment on these matters, but what was proposed was potentially very complicated, with the players including individual annuity holders, potential beneficiaries and dependants, purchasers of rights of an annuity under a specific regulated activity, a further regulated activity for providers buying back annuities, regulated intermediaries, IFAs providing mandatory regulated advice, and authorised entities to check that holders of relevant annuities had received appropriate advice.
No wonder that even the then Pensions Minister, Steve Webb, opined that, for the vast majority of consumers, selling an annuity would not be the best decision. There would be significant costs arising from the necessary regulatory systems. There were further unresolved issues of means-tested benefits and social care and how the income deprivation and capital disregard rules would work in this context. There have been many problems—and, at the end of the day, concerns that there would be insufficient purchasers to make the market work for pensioners. I have not heard any new points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, that dislodge this conclusion. Surely there is more for the pensions sector to concentrate on at this time than complicated arrangements that will likely serve only a very few.
Lord Young of Cookham
My Lords, as we reach the last amendment in Committee, I point out that the Bill has been in the hands of two distinguished psychoanalysts—Freud and his disciple “Jung”. Between us, we have tried to look at the disorders in the Bill and prescribe appropriate remedies.
I thank the noble Baroness for raising this important issue. I understand the strong feelings that she expressed when she moved her amendment. In 2015, the Government introduced pension flexibilities, which gave people the freedom to choose how they use their pension savings. Over 300,000 people have chosen to flexibly access over £6 billion since they were introduced, and the Government are committed to keeping these freedoms in place.
In March 2015, the coalition Government announced proposals to remove the current restrictions on assigning existing annuities and to create the conditions for a secondary market to develop. The proposed reforms were in two main areas—removing the unauthorised payment tax that deters people from assigning their annuity, and working with the Financial Conduct Authority to establish a comprehensive consumer protection package. The Government engaged extensively with industry and consumer groups on how they could establish the conditions for an effective market to develop. It would not have been right to introduce measures before understanding the impact that they might have on consumers and ensuring that the necessary conditions for a successful market were in place. In the course of this engagement, it became increasingly clear that creating the conditions to allow a vibrant and competitive market to emerge, with multiple buyers and sellers of annuities, could not be balanced with sufficient consumer protection. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, for setting out so clearly the problems that would have ensued had we proceeded.
On 19 October, Simon Kirby, Economic Secretary to the Treasury, made a Statement in the other place about the Government’s decision not to take this policy forward, which I repeated for your Lordships on the same day. Our investigations showed that many annuity providers were willing to allow consumers to assign their annuities. Of course, the market for annuities is itself undergoing change following the introduction of the pension freedoms. What became apparent is that, at this time, there would be insufficient purchasers to create a competitive market. Without a competitive market, consumers were likely to get poor value for their annuities and incur high costs for selling.
The Government are committed to the principle of giving people the freedom to make decisions about what to do with their money, which is why we have explored in detail how we could allow this market to emerge and protect consumers at the same time. But what has become clear is that the steps the Government would need to take to create demand in the market would undermine protections and increase the risk for consumers. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, cited Steve Webb, the Pensions Minister at the time, who said in the context of this decision:
“There did need to be a lot of potential buyers for this market to work”,
and that while the decision is,
“disappointing it is understandable”.
Rather than being to the benefit of British pensioners, this market would instead be to their detriment. It would clearly not be in consumers’ interests to continue with this policy. Only this afternoon, we have had a number of debates about the importance of protecting consumers, and this would be a step in the opposite direction.
I accept that some people will be disappointed, as the noble Baroness explained, although our analysis indicated that only 5% of annuitants would be interested in taking this option forward. While we accept the disappointment, I hope that noble Lords will agree that it would not be right at this time to allow a market to develop when it is likely to lead to poor consumer outcomes. With this in mind, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response, which I obviously find extremely disappointing. This is a very serious issue. I understand that there were difficulties in producing a competitive market and that the Government support freedom of choice. However, pensioners will not have freedom of choice while they cannot access the secondary annuity market. I thank the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and the Minister for mentioning my colleague Steve Webb. His view is that the policy was abandoned because the Government did not put enough weight behind moving it forward. Had they done so, there might have been a different outcome.
At this time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment but reserve the right to return to it on Report.
Aleppo
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat as a Statement the response to an Urgent Question given in the other place by my right honourable friend Tobias Ellwood, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The Statement is as follows:
“We are appalled by the entirely preventable humanitarian catastrophe now taking place in eastern Aleppo and across other besieged areas in Syria. The United Nations Under-Secretary General, Stephen O’Brien, has described what is happening in Aleppo as an ‘annihilation’. Over the weekend, Syrian regime forces captured several opposition-held districts of Aleppo, potentially bisecting the besieged eastern part of the city, and there are reports of further advances today.
The regime’s two-week assault on Aleppo has been backed predominantly by Iranian and Shia militias. There have been unconfirmed reports of Russian airstrikes, but our understanding is that since airstrikes resumed a fortnight ago, the vast majority have been by the regime. During that time, hundreds have been killed and thousands more have been forced to flee. The last functioning hospital was put out of action on 19 November. Humanitarian access has been deliberately blocked by the regime and its allies for over four months now, leading to the 275,000 civilians in eastern Aleppo facing imminent starvation. Across the rest of Syria, there has been almost no progress in delivering the United Nations humanitarian plan for November. The latest UN plan to deliver humanitarian aid was agreed by the armed opposition groups last week, but the regime is still blocking it. This is just the latest of many failed efforts.
I make it clear to Russia that using food as a weapon of war is a war crime. So, too, is attacking civilian infrastructure, such as hospitals and schools—another favoured tool of the regime and its backers. We call on those with influence on the regime, especially Russia and Iran, to use that influence to end the devastating assault on eastern Aleppo and ensure the United Nations humanitarian plan can be implemented in full. As my right honourable friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, the Foreign Secretary, said this morning, that requires an immediate ceasefire and access for impartial humanitarian actors to ensure the protection of vulnerable civilians fleeing the fighting. All involved in the siege and assault on Aleppo have a responsibility to change course to protect civilians.
Addressing the dire situation in eastern Aleppo and the wider Syria conflict is a priority for this Government. I spoke to Britain’s ambassador to the United Nations this morning to discuss what more we can do in the Security Council to bring diplomatic pressure to bear on the conflict. There can be no military solution to the conflict. What is needed is for the regime and its backers to return to diplomacy and negotiations on a political settlement, based on transition away from Assad.
The Government stand ready to engage fully in discussions and offer whatever support we can in the quest for a political settlement, working in partnership with the international community, including Russia. We need to maintain international pressure to that end. That is why we were strong supporters of recent EU efforts to extend 28 new sanctions designations against the regime in October and November. In the meantime, we will continue to work with our key partners to look at every option to alleviate the suffering of millions of Syrians, especially those in Aleppo.
For as long as the regime and its backers deny humanitarian access, whether by land or by air, such options are, I am afraid to say, difficult to come by. But by the same token, the real solution is as straightforward as can be: the Syrian regime must simply agree to allow United Nations aid agencies to access those in need. All that is needed is a decision in Damascus, nothing more”.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Minister for repeating the Statement. The conditions in eastern Aleppo are simply horrific. Of the 275,000 people trapped there, 100,000 are children, hiding underground in absolutely appalling conditions and facing imminent starvation. There is no doubt that Russia is permitting war crimes. I welcome the unequivocal Statement from Mr Ellwood in the other place that the United Kingdom will do everything possible to ensure that the individuals responsible for these crimes will be held to account in the months and years ahead. Can the noble Baroness outline the steps we are taking to secure the evidence that will ensure a successful prosecution?
However, in terms of the humanitarian crisis that we face, we do not have weeks and months. The situation is absolutely desperate. In June, the then Foreign Secretary, Philip Hammond, said:
“While air drops are complex, costly and risky, they are now the last resort to relieve human suffering across … besieged areas”.
Today, Mr Ellwood said that he would not rule out air drops as a last resort. Surely, from what we have heard described in recent days, we are at that point. The conditions are such that we must be at that point.
The Minister in the other place said that the UK will redouble efforts through all diplomatic means within and outside the United Nations to deliver humanitarian support. What is the noble Baroness’s assessment of our ability to build and maintain sufficient support across all our allies to put pressure on Russia and the Assad regime to allow humanitarian aid and access?
In view of the urgency that we face, will she confirm that the Government will bring back to Parliament a formal Statement as a matter of urgency on all the options being considered and on what progress has been made?
Baroness Goldie
I thank the noble Lord opposite for his questions and, indeed, for his sentiments, which I think strike a chord with everyone in the Chamber. I shall deal first with the issue of war crimes, which he raised. Where it is clear that the Assad regime has committed terrible atrocities in Syria, and where there are allegations of war crimes, we are very clear that they should be investigated. We continue to make the case for the situation in Syria to be referred to the International Criminal Court.
On the second issue that the noble Lord raised, regarding the potential option of air drops, we have always been very clear that our priority is the protection of civilians in Syria, who are already facing an appalling humanitarian situation. The noble Lord opposite will understand that air drops are an imperfect humanitarian option by their very nature, and that they can be more dangerous and harder to implement successfully than ground access. So there are major challenges with any military option, including air drops, and we would need to consider these carefully in close consultation with our existing partners, with whom we are working closely. The noble Lord will be aware that the United Kingdom is one of 10 partners, all working together to try to improve the situation in Syria.
On the noble Lord’s final point, I am sure that my colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will have noted his request. I can only reassure him that I will make sure that that request is reaffirmed to the department.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches recognise that what is now happening in Aleppo is only part of a much longer-term humanitarian disaster. Much of urban Syria has been destroyed. I have seen pictures of parts of Damascus I visited some years ago which are now completely uninhabitable. Meanwhile, the battle for Mosul and the battle for Raqqa are beginning, and it is quite possible that during the course of the latter we shall find Turkish forces fighting Kurdish forces over who takes control. How far are the Government working with other international partners to get a long-term approach to the reconstruction of a country which has in a great many ways been destroyed? I gather that today a number of Syrian Christians were here and talked about the extent to which relations between the different communities in Syria have been extremely badly damaged by the fighting, and the Shia militias do not make it easier than it was.
I congratulate the Government on their continued co-operation with the EU on foreign policy matters, and I hope that that will continue for at least another six months or so. I commend the proposals that we should drop aid to affected areas of Aleppo as much as we can. Can the Minister say something about the longer-term issue of the millions of displaced people across Syria and in the surrounding areas who will require active support for a great length of time to come, and what we and others, including other states in the region, are doing to cope with that humanitarian disaster?
Baroness Goldie
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, for raising two important points. The first is of course that a solution to this problem has to be found within Syria. The United Kingdom Government, in conjunction with the partners to whom I referred, are using every means availableto them to urge both the regime and those who have influence over it, not least Russia, to acknowledge that. The noble Lord will be aware that the High Negotiations Committee has proposed a vision for Syria which the United Kingdom supports, and we very much urge everyone who cares about the country and who wants a future for it to have serious regard to what that committee has outlined.
I remind the noble Lord that the key partners with whom the United Kingdom operates are the United States, France, Germany, Italy, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, and that is separate from the global coalition against Daesh, which is another alliance. So a cohort of concerned and influential partners is doing everything it can to try to improve the situation in Syria. However, at the end of the day the solution will have to be found within the country itself.
The noble Lord raises the important issue of the status and situation of refugees—those who have been forced to flee. Of course one can look at the neighbouring countries, not least Jordan, which has been one of the major recipients of refugees and has been providing help on the border. He will also be aware that the United Kingdom is the second biggest bilateral donor of humanitarian aid, and we are desperately trying to do our bit to support these people. However, the future beyond the immediate situation largely depends on finding a solution to Syria.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I urge my noble friend to seek an early meeting with the patriarch of the Syrian Orthodox Church, whom a number of us had the pleasure of meeting this afternoon. He would paint a rather different picture. There is a blot on our foreign policy here, and I urge my noble friend to seek that meeting and to listen very carefully.
Baroness Goldie
I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Cormack for his contribution. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend that meeting. I am sure that such a meeting would be of interest, and I would very much hope that the Church would feel able to share with the Government any thoughts that it has. We will all be aware that we are doing what we can to try to assist but, as I said earlier to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, short of intervening, there is a limit to what we can do in supporting, advising and trying to influence. We are working as part of a partnership.
Baroness Cox (CB)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Islamist military is occupying eastern Aleppo, having inflicted sustained military offences against the civilians of western Aleppo, including using cluster bombs and gas warfare? Is she also aware that the Syrian army is helping 1,500 civilians to flee the fighting in eastern Aleppo, although the Islamist terrorists in control there are trying to stop them leaving, using them as human shields? Everyone whom we met in Aleppo is deeply worried by the West’s commitment to regime change, which would give power to such Islamists, creating a situation similar to that in Iraq and Libya. Is there any chance that Her Majesty’s Government would listen to the people of Syria and reconsider their policy of inflicted regime change?
Baroness Goldie
I thank the noble Baroness for her contribution. She will understand that the United Kingdom Government, in conjunction with other powers, are doing what they can in a very difficult situation created by others, who bear a primary and singular responsibility for the appalling situation to which she refers and the appalling suffering that is taking place in Aleppo. We are very clear that the only thing that will change this and offer any hope of improvement is a recognition by the regime that humanitarian help must be allowed into Syria and Aleppo. We are also very clear that the future depends on regime change.
Health: Parity of Esteem
(7 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Alderdice
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to ensure parity of esteem between mental and physical health.
Lord Alderdice (LD)
My Lords, first, I thank all noble Lords who have indicated their wish to speak in this debate. They are all Members of your Lordships’ House who have a considerable interest in this area. Perhaps I may mention in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, who, as a colleague in the Royal College of Psychiatrists, was probably more responsible than anyone for including the notion of parity of esteem in the Health and Social Care Act 2012. That is one reason that we are debating this Question this evening.
I also wish to mention the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, who was of course Health Secretary. He recently put his name to a letter, along with every other Health Secretary in this country over the last 20 years and a number of other senior concerned people, to talk about how the failure to provide appropriately and fully for mental health is a stain on our nation. I look forward to the debate because I think that it provides another opportunity for us to keep this important matter to the fore—not just mental health but the question of how we address these issues.
I should start by declaring two interests. First, I am a fellow of the Royal College of Psychiatrists and a clinical professor at the University of Maryland in the United States. Secondly, I was one of the people who negotiated the Belfast agreement. The first of those may seem fairly obvious and the second a little more opaque, but the reason for mentioning it is that the notion of parity of esteem was central to the Belfast agreement, long before it was discussed in terms of mental and physical health.
It is important because there were two approaches to the notion of parity of esteem there. The first was that parity of esteem really meant equality of treatment between Protestants and Catholics—between unionists and nationalists. The other, to which I adhere, was that parity of esteem was about an approach to all the people in the community. It was not about a dividing up into one side and the other and a balancing up, but about parity of esteem for all elements of the community—those who came originally from Ireland, those who came in later and those who have come more recently. Parity was not a question of one side and the other.
That is relevant to this debate because it seems to me that there is a danger that we see addressing these issues as a balancing-up of the funding, structures and championing of mental health against those of physical health. There is no doubt that there is certainly a case for that, and I have no doubt that other noble Lords will speak to the facts and figures and explain that mental health has always—certainly in living memory—been the Cinderella of health and social care, and how despite commitments in law and political policy, there is not much evidence that the situation is dramatically improving. That being the case, of course it is appropriate for us to press for things to improve, and to try to ensure that funding and structures do not disadvantage the care of the mentally ill. However, at the same time, we need to ask ourselves some questions. I would argue that instead of repeatedly returning to the issue of changing structures—and the Health and Social Care Act became much more famous for changing structures than it did for the inclusion of the notion of parity of esteem—engineering the cultural change emblemised by the notion of parity of esteem could fundamentally be much more important. That is what I wish to address, and other noble Lords will pick up on the other issues.
When Thomas Jefferson penned the American constitution, he described the inalienable rights as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If any politician nowadays was to propose the pursuit of happiness or a ministry of happiness, they would probably be made fun of. That is partly because words change their significance and meaning, and the words of the 18th century do not necessarily fit with the language of today. Rather than “the pursuit of happiness”, the language that we might use is “the development of mental, physical and social well-being for our people”.
The notion that the pursuit of happiness, or of mental, physical and social well-being, might be a new ambition for health was picked up by the former Minister of State Paul Burstow, my friend and colleague, in a CentreForum panel and publication, which the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, also participated in. It said that the future perhaps is not in creating structures in which mental health gets a fair crack of the whip or slice of the cake, even though that is extremely important, but rather that we try to look at addressing the well-being of individuals and communities in our country. In truth, no matter how much we deal with physical health problems, if people do not feel a sense of well-being, no amount of physical health will make life worth while.
I remember as a very young psychiatrist in Northern Ireland trying to get across on the radio and television issues about depression and bereavement and so on. I was joined by a very senior emeritus professor of surgery, Professor Rogers. I thought, “Oh my goodness, this is extremely intimidating; what is he going to say?”. I made my little presentation and he said, “I want people to listen to this because in a lifetime of working in surgery, with all the horrible diseases and disorders that people have, I have seen very few of them who actually wanted to take their own life. It is a measure of the deeper distress of many people when they are mentally ill that they sometimes feel a need to put an end to their life and their misery”. I have never forgotten that. We all try to promote our own causes, and yet here he was saying, “Yes, I did all sorts of work; but fundamentally, if people get to the point where life is not worth living and they take their own life, it is an incredible marker”.
In 2010, I did a report for the Royal College of Psychiatrists on self-harm and suicide. We marked out a number of things that needed to be done to address the increasing level of suicide. It is not getting better. Arguments might be made about facts and figures, percentages of money, numbers of people being seen, numbers of out-patient appointments and access to services. All of those are relevant and necessary for those who are trying to commission and provide services. But if we all know in our hearts that people who contemplate taking their lives have obviously reached a point that nobody should find themselves reaching—there has certainly been inadequate help and support—that marker tells us that something important has failed in addressing the well-being of our people.
This is also not really a party-political thing, because it has always been a matter of concern on all sides of the House. The noble Lord, Lord Prior, wrote me a note to apologise for not being able to be here for the debate, but he knew that he would be well represented. He said that this was a matter of great importance. Let us not treat it as a question of party politics. Let us try to understand what we need to do to make a real change. In the CentreForum document and the recent report by the King’s Fund and others, there has increasingly been an appreciation that we need not just to build on the pillars of individual kinds of illness and care but to find a way of bringing them together.
At home in Northern Ireland, we ended up with an integrated health and social care system. That was the one that I worked in all my life. The political problems meant that social care and health care—mental and physical—were all taken together and were able to be dealt with without arguing about budgets, where services were or any of those kinds of things. It helped. There is no doubt that it helped. However, it is not just about an integration of structures. It is also about a cultural change that helps us understand that mental health is not about one bit of us, physical health about another bit of us and social well-being and our relationships about yet another bit of us. We cannot be divided up in that way in any helpful fashion. It is about dealing with each other as human beings—all of us, the whole package of being a human being.
One of the tragic and disastrous consequences of what is happening in politics now globally is that people are not treating others as human beings. We can do all sorts of horrible things to people when we do not treat them as human beings. We need to think about things in terms of mental and physical health care. Of course we need to have specialists to focus on this particular aspect of the problem or that particular disorder, but there is no part of our physical care that does not have a mental and emotional component to it. There is no part of our mental life that is not related to our body. There is no part of our existence that is not about relationships with other people.
My question for the Minister is not just about what is being done to promote parity of esteem in terms of funding and making sure that it is fair funding. I am not arguing about the equality, but is it fair or is it not? Is it becoming less fair and if so can we do something about it? Yes, of course there are issues about structures and questions of commissioning, but are there things that we can do to change the culture and approach that ensures that we are dealing with the well-being of the people who live in our communities and of the communities themselves? That kind of cultural change is necessary if we are to achieve what we want to achieve in terms of parity of esteem for these different components of ourselves and our fellow human beings. I am keen to know what the Government feel able to do to promote that.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, on securing this short debate and on the way he introduced it. He set a very helpful frame for it. It is fundamentally not just about funding and structures, but about culture and attitudes. That is what we are aiming for, although I confess that, not for the first time, I will need to talk about funding and structures as well. Perhaps they are entirely complementary.
The noble Lord was kind enough to refer to back to 2011 and the inclusion in the Health and Social Care Act of language intended to demonstrate the commitment to providing health care services to tackle both physical and mental illness. Of course, it was not the first time that public policy had set that objective. It was simply intended to reinforce the February 2011 strategy document, No Health Without Mental Health, published by myself and Paul Burstow, who, as the noble Lord Alderdice, has just said, has been his colleague and was mine at the time. I pay tribute to his work on the document and indeed on the Care Act 2014 which was passed subsequently.
The point about No Health Without Mental Health is precisely the point made by the noble Lord in his introduction to this debate: we completely mislead ourselves if we see physical health and mental health as occupying in any sense different places for us as individuals and us as a society. We cannot have one without the other. In truth, I suspect that if we want to make the greatest possible progress in improving the health of the nation overall, it is in improving mental health that we can secure the best potential return. For young people suffering from serious mental health problems, the impact on their lifetime health and life chances is dramatic. The premature mortality of those with severe mental illnesses is clear, and this is probably the group in society on whom we could make the greatest impact if we could reach out and treat them successfully at an earlier stage. People are not dying because of their mental illnesses; they are dying because of the range of physical illnesses and lack of physical health which are the concomitants of their severe mental illness.
That is why No Health Without Mental Health was the title chosen for the document. Because of that thought, the strategy set itself the objective of trying, as we put it, to “mainstream” mental health into the NHS. It is a fact of NHS life since its establishment in the 1940s that mental health has always been regarded as something separate and different, but frankly it is not. It is a single part of the picture of how we deliver NHS services. Our objective, as part of the structural process, was to try to engineer mental health services into the mainstream provision of NHS services. However, we are still a long way from that. Mental health is not treated in the same way as other services. But we put that into public policy in February 2011, when we said:
“We are clear that we expect parity of esteem between mental and physical health services”.
It was a cross-cutting strategy that was intended to deliver that parity.
As the noble Lord pointed out, why do I and all other former Secretaries of State going back 20 years feel a sense of distress and sometimes despair about our ability to produce precisely that result? I think the answer is that the structures, funding and culture have not yet accepted that mental services should be brought into the mainstream, with all the benefits that that would bring. In my experience as a Secretary of State, mental health trusts were often extremely well run organisations, even by comparison with other community healthcare services. That is why I was so disappointed that the Uniting Care Partnership contract for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, which faced severe problems from the outset and then collapsed, did not bring acute community and mental health services into one organisation, which would have been really useful.
We all support and want integration of services, but it is not happening in many places, and even where people put the services under a single umbrella, they often do not achieve integration of the professions. Least of all do they provide the integration that should be at the heart of the patient experience, so that people feel that health services are being provided by an organisation that works around them, not to its own structures and definitions. We have a long way to go to make that happen. Another real concern is that we have failed to achieve integration, notwithstanding successive requirements in recent years from government and NHS England for commissioners to increase funding for mental health services at least as fast as for the service overall.
I have to say that, although there were some announcements in September by NHS England and NHS Improvement, the structure of funding to the National Health Service from commissioners plays a part. Most of the time, most of the NHS is funded on the basis of tariff. To that extent, in so far as somebody receives a service from a provider, the provider has recourse—sometimes not enough, they think—to the commissioners to provide for that activity. Mental health trusts are pretty much still all under block contracts. As I said, an effort has been made since September to extend tariffs into mental health services. It should be done on the basis not of episodes of care, but of bundled care and care pathways. When that happens, it will enable mental health trusts to escape from this situation: because commissioners know they have to pay for the tariffs, such trusts are often provided with the residual sum, which means they do not get the funding they could for the activity they undertake.
My colleagues and I could see some of the problems: the number of suicides among young men aged under 45; people having to travel great distances to access care; and rising levels of mental health problems among young women. These and other issues are presenting us with problems. We know we can change the culture. Time to Change, for example, was a very successful programme that continues to be extremely useful, and we now have access standards for mental health services. However, I ask the Minister to take back these questions. How much progress has been made so far in 2016-17 in securing those access standards? How much further do we have to travel? When will we be told what the objectives will be in 2017-18 and 2018-19 for measuring progress towards the 2020 objectives in the mandate for securing access to mental health services?
There is more we can do. We can extend the access standards. We need more quality standards applicable to mental health—the forward programme has only one, although the number published by NICE is valuable. It feels to me and my colleagues that we have much further to go and we need to inject a sense of urgency. That is why I welcome the debate.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Alderdice for initiating the debate. It is obvious that no one on the Government Benches or on this side of the House will argue that there should not be parity between physical and mental health. As my noble friend said, that commitment was put in legislation by this House in 2012. It is enshrined in the NHS mandate and on the lips of politicians of almost every political hue. But it is one thing to will the ends and quite another to will the means. Despite so much debate and so much agreement, we are still a very long way from providing the means to achieve the end we all purport to support.
Of course, it is naive to think that parity of esteem between mental and physical health can be achieved overnight. I am the first to recognise, as my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, made clear, that money alone is not in itself an answer. There are complex issues related to culture, staffing, training, and effective data and reporting systems. Change is needed not just in our health services but in our education services and in the services provided by a wide range of authorities. It is true that money alone will not change things, but it is also true that without the requisite funds, none of the other things that need to happen can or will happen—and all the time they do not, thousands of lives will continue to be lost and millions more will remain hobbled by mental ill health.
It may be that we cannot achieve parity of esteem overnight, but that is no excuse for complacency. Let us never kid ourselves that we have the luxury of time, because every month we delay, every service we fail to provide and every person we fail to treat adequately has an impact that can last a lifetime. So whatever the response from the Minister this evening, I hope it will recognise the desperate, life-threatening urgency of what we are discussing today.
The Mental Health Taskforce’s five-year forward view reported that suicide deaths are rising after many years of decline: 4,882 deaths by suicide were reported in 2014. That is nearly 2,000 more people than were killed in the horrific attacks on America on 9/11—and it is not a one-off event. It is a death toll happening year after year, a tragic waste of the lives of so many precious people and a terrible toll of grief on so many families and friends. Such is the scale of this tragedy that suicide is now the leading cause of death for men aged 15 to 49. The five-year forward view reports that in recent years the rise in suicides among middle-aged men has been particularly acute.
Those who listened to Radio 5 Live’s “Five Live Investigates” programme on eating disorders yesterday morning will also have heard of the terrible inadequacy of treatment in many areas of the country for those suffering from such disorders. They will have heard of the parents in Oxfordshire forced to make an 800-mile round trip to visit their daughter who could be provided with the care she needed only in Glasgow. That is the level of inadequacy we are dealing with. Those of us—and there are many, I know—who have people dear to them who have suffered from such disorders will know the absolute desperation of parents, family and friends when you cannot get the access to services that are so desperately needed. Those listening to that Radio 5 Live programme will also have heard the research carried out by the programme that indicated that there had been a 65% increase in deaths from eating disorders since 2014.
Of course, it is not just the young and middle aged who are suffering from mental ill health. Older people are, too, particularly those in care homes, 40% of whom are affected by depression. We all know how very far we are from achieving parity of esteem and we need to be very clear with ourselves about the very real and often irreversible impacts on people’s lives that our failure represents. Of course, we should not ignore the very important steps forward in recent years in tackling the stigma of mental ill health and in putting parity of esteem firmly on the agenda. I pay tribute to the many people, of all parties and none, who have made such efforts in that regard, not least the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, who mentioned Paul Burstow and Norman Lamb and other Ministers, including Ministers of other parties, who have shown great commitment to this issue.
Like my noble friend, I wonder how much progress we are actually making. The introduction of waiting time standards and the injection of new resources has been welcome, but there are very worrying signs that the extra money is not getting to the front line. The briefing we have received from the King’s Fund shows that 40% of mental health trusts continue to experience year-on-year cuts to their budgets as the demand for their services increases. With 80% of mental health care provided through the trusts, it is hard to see how we will reach parity of esteem with this approach. It is equally hard to understand how we will deliver the quality and choice of provision that are needed.
The British Association for Counselling & Psychotherapy report, Psychological Therapies and Parity of Esteem, cited NICE research that, of all those receiving treatment in the NHS for common mental health disorders, only one in seven receives psychological therapy; the majority are prescribed medication, despite the fact that most patients say they would prefer talking therapy; and there is no requirement on commissioners or providers to deliver the full range of NICE-recommended therapies. Only one in five service users who responded to the BACP survey had been offered a choice of therapy. As Paul Burstow said when Minister for Care Services in 2010:
“At the moment, IAPT is a little too much like Henry Ford’s business philosophy … you can have any therapy as long as it’s CBT”.
Both my noble friend Lord Alderdice and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, have been clear that we need to look beyond funding and structures to cultural and societal issues. I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, that mental and physical health should not be seen as separate things. Nevertheless, we cannot ignore the resourcing issues, so perhaps the Minister might address a couple of questions. First, what are the Government doing to ensure that funding actually gets to the front line? Secondly, what measures are they taking to ensure that we have effective data on what is actually happening in the NHS with regard to mental health? Thirdly, what are the Government doing to ensure that the range of IAPT therapies are available across the country?
Dr Michael Shooter said in his introduction to the BACP report:
“You will not meet your commitment to parity of esteem for mental health without a significant increase in the quantity and quality of the provision of psychological therapies. If you are serious, this is what you must do”.
I hope that we are serious and that the Minister will tell us that that is what the Government will do.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, for introducing the concept of parity in such an interesting way. I admit to being delighted that my amendment to the Health and Social Care Act has contributed to moving mental health issues up the political agenda, with a commitment to parity of esteem. I declare an interest as a former president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, a former consultant psychiatrist and emeritus professor of psychiatry at St George’s, University of London. I also steered the development of the British Medical Association report published in 2014, Recognising the Importance of Physical Health in Mental Health and Intellectual Disability: Achieving Parity of Outcomes, and I will return to that in a moment.
Parity also means that if a diagnosis of a mental health problem has been made, investigations and treatment should be provided on an equal basis, as they would for a physical health problem. But we know that this is not happening yet, and one reason for this is because evidence-based tests and treatments for mental disorders lag behind those for conditions seen as purely physical. There has been an unacceptable underresourcing of research into the understanding and treatment of mental illness, and this is really important.
Another aspect is the physical health of people with severe mental illness, who face earlier death than people without. As with people with learning disabilities who experience earlier mortality, discriminatory attitudes are probably partly responsible. In July this year, the United Nations Human Rights Council adopted a resolution on mental health and human rights, which highlighted that,
“persons with mental health conditions or psychosocial disabilities, in particular persons using mental health services, may be subject to … widespread discrimination, stigma, prejudice, violence, social exclusion and segregation, unlawful or arbitrary institutionalization, over-medicalization and treatment practices that fail to respect their autonomy, will and preferences”.
I think this is relevant to tonight’s debate.
I have long been an advocate of liaison psychiatry teams in acute hospitals. The announcement by Simon Stevens of a new standard for mental health care is to be welcomed. It says that,
“anyone who walks through the front door of A&E or is on a hospital ward in a mental health crisis should be seen by a specialist mental health professional within an hour of being referred”.
This includes mothers in maternity wards. We should not underestimate how hard this will be to achieve, because it will require not only a change of attitude among health professionals and a change in the culture of hospitals but a completely different way of commissioning and providing mental health services. The standard demands that patients should,
“within four hours … have been properly assessed in a skilled and compassionate way, with the correct next steps for their care planned in partnership with them”—
and, I hope, with their family or partner when relevant.
For me, two very important words in this announcement bear careful thinking about. One of these is “compassionate”. We have spoken about compassion many times in this House in connection with the report of the Francis inquiry but not in connection with parity of esteem. In the department of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, the idea of Schwartz rounds developed—and these are now being used in some hospitals in the United Kingdom—to provide an opportunity for staff from all disciplines to reflect on the emotional aspects of their work. I suggest that this type of approach is fundamental to breaking down the barriers to the acceptance and understanding of mental distress in our hospitals. In part, their success is because they are looking after the very staff who are working in an environment where mental distress is perhaps not understood, whether it relates to the patient or to the staff themselves. Another initiative that the department at Harvard is researching is whether empathy can be taught to clinicians, with a particular focus on non-verbal aspects of communication.
The second key word in the announcement is “biopsychosocial”, and all three parts of that word must be addressed. A key point about parity, which has already been mentioned in this debate, is that we cannot and must not think about mental and physical illness separately any longer. My main concern about our failure to achieve parity is that we are still separating the mental and physical parts of ourselves in such an unhelpful and inaccurate way. It is almost as if our hearts and our minds are in different bodies, and that the social context in which we live our lives is of no importance.
In current discourse, physical illnesses are seen as biological in nature and in need of biomedical tests and interventions, while mental illnesses draw on neuroscience explanations as well as social and psychological ones. In reality, both mental and physical disorders need to draw on biopsychosocial formulations and responses. The problem arises when medical practitioners fail to make the connections. In many ways, this is not surprising given the current separation of services between different provider organisations and the too-early separation of clinical training into physical or mental. Yet we know that people with mental ill-health are three times more likely to end up in A&E than the general population, and five times more likely to be admitted to general hospital wards in an emergency. Is any more evidence needed for the provision of skilled mental health practitioners to be present in the acute hospital, on an equal footing with other specialists?
The NHS has published an aide-memoire on what every sustainability and transformation plan needs to consider in relation to mental health and dementia. The Royal College of Psychiatrists believes this aide-memoire to be a very important guide. Can the Minister say what the Department of Health has done to promote this document and to ensure that local areas take the advice,
“to think more holistically across mental and physical health, rather than just”,
in terms of a separate “mental health ‘section’”?
Does the Minister also agree that the Government have a duty to address the urgency of the fact that 46% of people with serious mental illness have a long-term physical health condition and are at risk of losing, on average, 10 to 20 years of their lifespan due to physical ill-health? Will the Minister explain how in practice the Government’s policy is expected to have an impact on reducing premature mortality? Will the Minister also tell the House what measures are being taken to increase the essential research funding which will underpin any chance of success in this policy initiative?
Will the Government commit not to sign off any sustainability and transformation plan that does not have a clear plan for improving services for children’s mental health? I have not spoken specifically about children or about people with learning disabilities or autism, who have a much higher prevalence of mental illness.
My final comment relates to the urgent need for more attention and money to be given to creating safe and supportive environments and providing skilled support at home for all people with mental health problems and to take seriously the psychosocial part of the word “biopsychosocial”.
Baroness Redfern (Con)
My Lords, I, too, welcome the opportunity to take part tonight. I refer noble Lords to my interest as leader of North Lincolnshire Council, which is set out in the register. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, for tabling this Question. We all want to highlight the importance of the very real issue of parity between mental and physical health. Unfortunately, in the past mental illness has been classed as a Cinderella service which has been underfunded and not meaningfully discussed for decades, so I welcome the Government’s intervention with an additional £1 billion per year in real terms by 2021. I fervently hope to see a more collaborative approach to parity of mental and physical health.
I was personally involved as a guardian to a young person who suffered from schizophrenia. I tried to support him to live independently in his community. Sadly, he died prematurely. A concern was how people related to him. It was at many times challenging for him, and for others. People’s fixed views were not always encouraging. Access to services could be difficult at times. Barriers are beginning to be dismantled, particularly the general public’s attitude. Overcoming stigma and discrimination is supporting this approach. Celebrities, politicians, sports stars and a whole army of campaigners and activists are now speaking openly and calling for better treatment, culminating in a desire massively to improve this service.
We have one life, so when we read statistics showing that people who suffer severe mental illness die on average 15 to 20 years earlier than the general population because of poor physical health, quite rightly there should be a call to do something—a call to action. We need a first-class delivery vehicle equipping, upskilling and increasing our mental health workforce. It is critical that we get it right in terms of numbers, skill mix and appropriate training to see service improvement and to support those professions. It is also important to have written care plans assessed annually with input from carers and supporting organisations. Care plans should include priorities of public health and concerns such as tobacco, alcohol and obesity. We know that poor mental health is associated with higher rates of smoking and, in particular, with substance misuse problems.
I particularly highlight prisoners in our criminal justice system. After they have entered prison, large numbers of men and women are diagnosed with a diagnosable mental health problem. From the viewpoint of those facing long sentences, their life has fallen apart. When those men and women leave the criminal justice system a direct referral to the NHS would help and should be offered. Not everyone leaving prison will choose that option, because of their distrust of professionals; nevertheless, the opportunity should be available. Bridging the gap at that point would allow other organisations, including local government, to take part as part of a prevention agenda, in particular helping with housing and signposting other services. As we know, good-quality housing is important to give not just comfort but stability and focus for people suffering from mental health issues.
I mentioned stability, and a place. We all need a place—a home to connect to a community—to belong to a community, which can contribute to a person’s well-being. There is also a need for a really good work programme, which will forge and enhance esteem. Mental health problems are one of the most significant barriers preventing people on benefits from taking up employment, so there is a need to look at how the benefits system supports them and to focus more on improving mental health—a new, integrated approach between work and health. As we all know, it is okay getting that job, but this is about keeping it, because we know it benefits people’s health and mental health. Building relationships and making new friends offers an opportunity to address loneliness and could help bring down those high rates of suicide, which remains the biggest killer of men under 45. All this comes into the equation for a better life chance for people suffering from some form of mental illness.
In the time allocated, I have focused on a particular age group and section of our population, but with mental health issues affecting all ages, from our younger generation to our older generation, we need to make a real difference and really push this. I hope that with the Government’s budget increase we will see a difference. I see a change happening and, building on that premise, we can pledge our support for more prevention. With this timely debate tonight, we are responding to and highlighting the very real and personal issues affecting mental illness and offering support for parity of esteem for mental and physical health for all. I very much welcome this debate tonight.
Lord Cotter (LD)
My Lords, this subject has been raised before, and I thank my noble friend Lord Alderdice for raising it once again. It is a crucial matter that has to be examined frequently—or, shall I say, continuously. We are living through a period when, time and again, there is concern about the funding of the NHS as a whole. Is it adequate or not? We need to be very concerned about parity between mental and physical health.
Mental health issues are not always taken seriously because, unlike physical conditions, they cannot always be seen, and it is only in recent years that the extent of the problem has become a national issue. One in 10 of five to 16 year-olds has a diagnosable mental health problem. It is also the greatest reason for death in young men, as has been mentioned. A mental health problem can start early and be a lifetime issue.
I will address one specific area of mental health, CAMHS, which stands for child and adolescent mental health services. I understand that every town or area in the country has a CAMHS team, and the concern is whether funding intended specifically for the CAMHS team is always being kept for that team. Can the Minister look into this? There is concern that CAMHS funding specifically intended for that role has been used to plug problems in local areas with local hospitals and suchlike. Is CAMHS funding, which is so important to address this issue, always being ring-fenced?
I want to repeat concerns that were raised earlier this year when The Five-Year Forward View for Mental Health was published by the Mental Health Taskforce. I draw this independent report again to the Minister’s attention. Its foreword says:
“For far too long, people of all ages with mental health problems have been stigmatised and marginalised, all too often experiencing an NHS that treats their minds and bodies separately. Mental health services have been underfunded for decades, and too many people have received no help at all, leading to hundreds of thousands of … tragic and unnecessary deaths”.
I urge the Government to look at that report again and be aware of the need to address the whole issue of mental health.
Previously in debate, a government Minister said that he agreed that the Government and Ministers needed to be held to account once or twice a year. I am glad to have taken part in this very necessary debate to hold the Government frequently to account. On that note, and with my concern about local funding for the help that is needed for children and young people, I urge the Minister, as we all do, to look into these problems.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Alderdice on securing tonight’s debate, which provides a timely opportunity to consider one of the most fundamental issues in healthcare today. Efforts to achieve equal value of physical and mental health span many decades. The Royal Commission of 1957, the year of my birth, noted, not quite in today’s language, that:
“Most people are coming to regard mental illness and disability in much the same way as physical illness and disability”.
That was almost 60 years ago.
In recent times there has been a welcome shift in public attitudes towards mental health and a growing commitment among communities, workplaces and schools, and within government, to change the way we think about this issue. As we know, there have been a raft of commissions and taskforces as well as Future in Mind, looking at young people’s mental health, and of course the recent Five-Year Forward View for Mental Health. They have provided many important recommendations on how we can achieve genuine parity of esteem. They have all stressed, as has been stressed tonight, the inextricable link between mental and physical health. What does that actually mean? To help define this, I looked back at the All-Party Parliamentary Group’s very good report last year on parity of esteem. It said:
“What this would mean in practice is that taking a holistic view of an individual’s health (seeing the interdependencies between both their physical and mental health needs) would be the norm”.
Having listened carefully to my noble friend Lord Alderdice, I would add “health and well-being”.
The fundamental question for us is why it has been so difficult to achieve real and sustained progress. I did a quick survey of the scene, and many aspects I did not find very reassuring. As Michael Marmot so powerfully reminded us in his recent book The Health Gap: The Challenge of an Unequal World, people with mental ill health have a life expectancy between 10 and 20 years shorter than people with no mental illness. I am sure we all find that shocking.
Only a quarter of those with mental illness such as depression are receiving treatment, a figure that contrasts with 78% of those with heart disease and 91% of those with high blood pressure. A recent CQC report noted that, when facing a crisis, a shocking 32% of people do not know who to contact out of hours. Indeed, 24% of those who did know said they did not receive the care they needed.
It is not all doom and gloom—there has been some progress. Thanks to the persistence particularly of Liberal Democrats in the coalition Government, the first ever mental health waiting time standards were introduced. This was a real achievement and helped to bring mental health services into line with other NHS services, such as cancer and A&E waiting times. It was a tangible step on the journey towards parity of esteem. However, as the Mental Health Taskforce report earlier this year noted, for first appointments and for the right follow-on support, waiting times are still “unacceptably long”. Only a couple weeks ago, the Education Policy Institute’s report Time to Deliver found that only 18% of areas were meeting the four-week waiting times for routine cases and only 14% were meeting one-week waiting times for urgent cases. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, drew attention to this lack of progress, and I very much look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
A number of factors underpin that lack of progress, and I want to focus first on the problems of funding, both disparity and historical underfunding. To their credit, the Government committed £1.25 billion to children and young people’s mental health over the next five years, which is £250 million a year. Despite that commendable promise, only £143 million was released in the first year and of that, only £75 million was actually distributed to clinical commissioning groups. Even less got to the front line.
As we have already heard, last year, across the board, 40% of NHS mental health providers had their funding reduced, despite NHS England instructing commissioners to increase it. This raises serious questions as to whether funding is reaching the areas where it is most needed, and it highlights the damaging impact of the Government’s refusal to ring-fence mental health funding. I know Jeremy Hunt said that he does not have the power to do that, but frankly, Governments, if they are so minded, can do something about it if they do not have the powers.
It is the same story with the £1 billion announced last year for mental health, much of which does not come on stream until the end of this Parliament. One could be forgiven for assuming that in last week’s Autumn Statement, the Chancellor would have offered a lifeline to mental health services, as well as other areas of health and social care. Instead, the Government found £240 million for the expansion of grammar schools, but not a penny for the NHS.
On a more positive note, the introduction of the five-year forward view included dashboards, an initiative welcomed by the Royal College of Psychiatrists. I, too, welcome them as representing a viable solution to ensuring better accountability and transparency from clinical commissioning groups. Obliging CCGs to publish facts and figures on their spend on mental health and the services they deliver will go some way to addressing the funding disparity, and stop money intended for mental health being siphoned off elsewhere. What is being done to publicise and promote the CCG dashboards, and how will people be able to compare the performance of their local CCG with others in other parts of the country?
Funding impacts on other factors which are also preventing parity of esteem. The mental health sector, in particular, is suffering from recruitment and staff morale problems. As noted in the report of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, on acute adult psychiatric care, Old Problems, New Solutions, these problems are in part due to disproportionate financial cuts. The same report found an 8% decrease in the number of mental health nurses between 2010 and 2014, while there was a 1% increase in physical healthcare nurses over that period. Given that NHS England estimates that implementing access and waiting time standards will require a 7% increase in the number of mental health nurses by 2020, how do the Government expect to achieve that standard without staffing levels rising?
It is not for lack of ideas, recommendations or reports that progress on parity has been unsatisfactory—nor is it, as many other noble Lords have said, solely about money. There are other, non-financial issues, including cultural issues, and that provides the starting point for the Values-Based Child and Adolescent Mental Health System Commission, which I had the privilege of chairing. Its report, published on 7 November, explores how different values drive deep-seated culture, attitudes, decision-making, practice and behaviour—the invisible drivers, if you like—which can either inhibit or promote a truly system-wide approach to redesigning and transforming services. The report’s 10 recommendations were all about how a more explicitly values-based approach with a shared language could really improve the mental health and well-being of children by focusing single-mindedly on what really matters to them. That report, and the recent report Time to Deliver, by the Education Policy Institute, chaired by my right honourable friend Norman Lamb, had a number of important recommendations. In particular, it proposed that the Prime Minister should announce a national challenge on children’s mental health. Can the Minister indicate how the Prime Minister intends to respond to that recommendation?
In conclusion, we should aim to achieve a healthcare system in which parity of esteem means that mental healthcare is not only as good as physical healthcare but is delivered, as the recent King’s Fund report recommends, as part of an integrated approach to health and well-being, as my noble friend Lord Alderdice so powerfully reminded us this evening.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to wind up for the Opposition tonight and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, on what can be described only as a powerful tour de force. It was a fascinating insight into parity of esteem, as he saw it, in Northern Ireland more generally, which set the context for our debate. Almost all noble Lords have agreed with his proposition that, despite any number of pronouncements, policies and changes in the law, mental health continues to be a Cinderella service. Certainly, my impression of mental health services is that, although they came as part of the health service in 1948, although in the original structures they had their own hospital management committees, which were brought into area health authorities and then district health authorities—and then there was the development of NHS trusts and foundation trusts—and although they were in some cases integrated with those organisations and in some cases were not, they remained invisible throughout. It is a service that continues to be invisible when it comes to the key policy decisions that the Government, NHS England and the regulators make on the health service.
From a managerial point of view it is my impression that, once you become a manager in a mental health service, you stay a manager there—you do not move over. You are not perceived to have the qualities needed to become a leader in a more acute trust. If you look at the NHS people seconded into the department, NHS England or the regulators, you can see how few of them are experienced in mental health services. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, suggested that this was rather underpinned by the financial system of mental health services whereby, because there is no tariff-based system, clinical commissioning groups tend to negotiate around the tariff and then what is left goes under block contracts to mental and community health services. This puts them at a disadvantage.
Although structures are not important, there is an issue in relation to both the culture and some of the structural issues which seems to account for the lack of focus on and priority for mental health services. Yet my experience when I chaired an acute NHS foundation trust was that many of the challenges we faced were because of the lack of proper support for patients with mental health problems. In any emergency department there will be a huge number of people with these issues. Unless there are properly based mental health services, working side by side with the acute trust, you end up with people inappropriately cared for in inappropriate places, with their outcomes often getting worse and worse.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, asked the Minister a very good question about the sustainability and transformation plans. She thought that the department should not sign off STPs unless it was satisfied that the principles of parity of esteem were fully embraced within them. That is a very good suggestion which I hope the noble Baroness will agree to consider. I have looked at the names of the leaders of the 44 sustainability and transformation plans. They are clearly eminent people, many of whom I know, so there is no doubt that NHS England has appointed people of high calibre. However, they are mainly chief executives of acute trusts, clinical commissioning groups and, in one or two cases, local authorities—particularly Birmingham and Manchester. Why is this? Why have we not turned to mental health chief executives to lead some of these STPs? In my experience, mental health services often know a lot about the system because their clients impact on so many aspects of the service. If we want to make a real, visible indication that mental health services are important, we should look for leaders from mental health services to lead the sustainability and transformation plans. Even if that does not happen, I hope that both NHS England and the Department of Health will ensure that legal requirements for parity of esteem are applied before they are signed off. More than that I hope it is recognised that, unless you put mental health right at the heart of these plans, the ambitions in them are very unlikely to be realised.
I will briefly come to the question of finance. We know that the Government have ordered the NHS to put more money into mental health services. We have heard from noble Lords about the commitment for £1 billion more for mental health by 2020-21. We also heard from the noble Lord, Lord Prior, only last week, that the spend on mental health in 2015-16 is up by 8.4% on the previous year. He said that,
“there is clear evidence that the money that we have been talking about is getting through”.—[Official Report, 16/11/16; col. 1417.]
Yet most noble Lords who have spoken would say that they disagree that the money is getting through to the front line. I do not know whether the Minister has seen the recent work by the Royal College of Psychiatrists on mental health services for children and adolescents. It points out that 52 CCGs in England are allocating less than 5% of their total mental health budgets to services for children and young people. We know of the horrendous problem of young people having to be sent to places hundreds of miles away from their homes because of a lack of facilities. We have also heard, from other noble Lords, that the money simply does not seem to be getting through to other mental health services. Is the noble Baroness assured of the accuracy of the returns made by the NHS to her department on the sharing out of the mental health budget, because there is a suspicion that there has been a rebadging of existing programmes to massage the figures to make it look as though mental health spending is up when the clear experience on the front line is that services are being squeezed and squeezed?
I do not doubt Ministers’ good intents in regard to mental health and ensuring that parity of esteem is achieved. However, the reality is that on the front line mental health services continue to be discriminated against and services are under great threat. There is great concern that in the major changes we are going to see in the health service in the next two or three years as a result of the sustainability and transformation plans, mental health, far from being at the core of the changes, will once again be treated as the neglected hidden Cinderella service. I hope that the noble Baroness can prove us wrong.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
My Lords, this has been an absolutely fascinating debate. As always, many experts have spoken on the subject. I will do my best to answer many of the questions—but I am certainly not the noble Lord, Lord Prior, who is the expert on this issue. If I fail to answer all the questions asked by noble Lords, I will make sure that we get back to them in writing.
I congratulate the noble Lord on securing this debate on parity of esteem between physical and mental health. I know that he has a keen personal and professional interest in this subject. I thank everyone who has contributed to this debate. I will answer their questions at the end of my speech.
The publication of the independent Mental Health Taskforce’s Five Year Forward View for Mental Health in February this year has stimulated discussion and debate across both Houses. As we know, mental ill health is something that can affect any one of us: one in four of us, according to the latest figures. Yet despite the prevalence of mental health problems, the stigma associated with mental health persists, so creating a barrier to people talking about mental health problems and seeking help. We know this only too well. Whenever I go out for a meal with friends, within five minutes everybody is talking about their arthritis—as we are all getting so old in this House—or their recent operations. But how often do people ever say, “Actually, I had a breakdown two years ago”, or, “I have been seeing a counsellor because I am worried about my child who has autism”? Very rarely are these issues brought up. We have a lot to do to try to make those conversations as normal as ones in which people talk about their physical health.
We are committed to tackling this stigma and this year announced a further £12.5 million of support to the national Time to Change anti-stigma programme up to 2020-21, which seeks to change attitudes to mental health. Indeed, since the programme began, about 3.5 million people have reported improved attitudes to mental health.
Mental ill health is still the single largest cause of disability, costing the UK economy around £105 billion per year, and represents 23% of the overall UK health burden. The coalition Government enshrined parity of esteem in the Health and Social Care Act 2012, as the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, said. They also introduced the first mental health waiting times standards for access to psychological therapies in 2015 and early intervention in psychosis from 2016. These are being met by the majority of the NHS.
Following on from that, we are on the cusp of an ambitious transformation programme in mental health. But, as my noble friend Lord Lansley said, we have to recognise the scale of the challenge. As all noble Lords are only too aware, we are starting from a very low base due to chronic historical underfunding of the service. As the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, mentioned, mental health has been the Cinderella of healthcare. We are now investing unprecedented amounts in mental health and require CCGs to continue to increase their spending on mental health each year. We have set out additional investment to transform children and young people’s mental health of £250 million each year up to 2020-21 and have set out additional investment to improve services for eating disorders, bringing the total investment to £1.4 billion by 2020-21.
Alongside this, as the noble Lord, Lord Oates, mentioned, we are working across government to deliver a robust five-year mental health data plan to substantially improve data and information about mental health services and young people. But this is not just about data collection and funding; proper investment in the workforce is absolutely essential. So we are working with Health Education England as it develops a workforce strategy, expanding both the skills of existing staff and the workforce itself. Work between the department and NHS England is ongoing to make the best use of mental health beds to ensure that people who need them can get them close to home. We have funded an extra 56 mental health beds for children and young people.
We know that the role of front-line services, including primary and community care, is paramount, particularly for those in crisis. NHS England has invested in crisis resolution and home treatment teams to provide effective intensive home treatment as an alternative to hospital admission. As several noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Oates and Lord Alderdice, mentioned, primary care has a vital role to play in helping people before they even reach a crisis. The taskforce report recommended that by 2020 all GPs should have mental health training, which of course we support. Leading on from this, we have also invested heavily in liaison psychiatry services in emergency departments for patients in crisis. This will save an average hospital £5 million per year by reducing the number and length of admissions to beds. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, mentioned, even more important is the potential for those in crisis to be seen and treated at an early stage. The department has funded nine pilots for street triage, managed by police forces working with NHS front-line partners. Nearly all the street triage pilot schemes resulted in a reduction in the use of Section 136 detentions. All these areas continued the service after the pilots finished. Today, 39 out of 40 police forces in England have access to a street triage service.
Public Health England is developing a mental health prevention concordat focusing on suicide prevention which will be published next year. We will strengthen the cross-government suicide prevention strategy, including addressing self-harm. NHS England will develop an evidence-based treatment pathway for self-harm during 2017-18 and 2018-19. We also plan to roll out liaison and diversion services nationally by 2020-21, ensuring that people who come into contact with the criminal justice system have their needs assessed, thus helping magistrates and judges divert vulnerable offenders to the most appropriate place of treatment. This work is already beginning to have some success—and I can endorse that. I work closely with an addiction charity in Gloucester, called the Nelson Trust, and it accepts exactly these kind of vulnerable people into the charity’s care for treatment, having been referred from the CJS.
The department and NHS England will continue accountability and ensure equal priority for mental and physical health through a number of mechanisms, such as the CCG improvement and assessment framework and the five-year forward view for mental health dashboard. These will monitor progress on commitments to transform mental health services, and the public availability of data will improve accountability for patients and the public.
I want to cover some of the points that have been raised. My noble friend Lord Lansley asked how much progress has been made for 2016-17 in securing access standards and when people will be made aware of the objectives for 2017-18. We have standards on IAPT access and on EIP and CYP eating disorders, and further plans for developing pathways are set out in the NHS England task force’s implementation plan. Independent experts at the Royal College of Psychiatrists are reviewing and supporting implementation and will report next year.
The noble Lord, Lord Oates, talked at length about suicide, and the noble Lord, Lord Cotter, also referred to this. It is a very important point. As noble Lords will know, the Five Year Forward View for Mental Health set out the ambition that the number of people taking their own lives will be reduced by 10% nationally compared with the 2016-17 level. To support this, by 2017 all CCGs will contribute fully to the development of the plans.
We are absolutely committed to improving access to mental health services. We introduced the first waiting times for mental health talking therapies—mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Oates—as well as early intervention in psychosis. By 2020-21 we will implement a comprehensive range of community-based mental health pathways of care and standards. We are also expanding access to the successful talking therapies programme so that by 2020-21 a further 600,000 people will be able to receive the care they need.
The noble Lords, Lord Oates and Lord Cotter, also mentioned children and young people. By 2020-21 there will be a significant expansion of access to high-quality mental health care for children and young people. At least 70,000 additional children and young people each year will receive evidence-based treatment, representing an increase in access to NHS-funded community services to meet the needs of at least 35% of those with diagnosable mental health conditions. To support this objective, by 31 October 2016 all local areas should have expanded, refreshed and republished their local transformation plans for children and young people’s mental health. Refreshed plans should detail how local areas will use the extra funds committed to support their ambitions across the whole local system.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, mentioned tariffs and funding. We recognise that block contracts are an issue and make it less transparent. We are working to address this. NHS England has proposed new payment approaches for adults and older people. These outcome-based payment requirements focus on improvements of care by linking payment to quality outcomes.
I think I have covered most of the questions asked. If not, I will of course write to noble Lords. What has really come out tonight is that it is not as simple as legislating for or discussing these issues. We must work with the NHS professionals and beyond to truly establish equal priority for mental and physical health. As the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, said, this needs to be a cross-party, multifaceted approach. We need to challenge the stigma surrounding this issue and look at the role of primary care, which is paramount in this. I thank noble Lords again for all the points raised in the debate.